Humphrys interviews Dawkins
May. 11th, 2008 12:29 pmFriday morning found Richard Dawkins wielding a logical razor on Today like a latter-day Sweeney Todd. After slicing through some particularly feeble arguments advanced by John Humphrys on behalf of the Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster, Dawkins rather neatly turned the tables on his interlocutor, effectively getting Humphrys to condemn his own double standards. Here's the relevant section of what was a bravura performance:
Richard Dawkins: | Mr Humphrys, you have a reputation for tearing politicians apart when they say absolutely nothing so I hope you'll read this speech with the same eye as you'd read a politician's speech and treat it accordingly |
John Humphrys: | Well, except that the difference is that when you're talking about faith, proof is not available to you, is it? |
RD: | Well, precisely and that's the point. Why do you operator a double standard? When talking to a politician, you would demand evidence for what they say, but suddenly when talking to a clergyman, you will let all that fall aside and say, "Oh, you don't have to provide any hard evidence because it's faith"? |
JH: | This shouldn't really be an interview about me, but I suppose the answer to that is that if you're talking to a polician, they must prove their argument to you. They have to prove their argument to you about the effectiveness of their actions or whatever it happens to be. You can't demand the same of somebody who believes in something. |
RD: | Why not? |
JH: | because their answer is, "That is what I believe." |
RD: | Exactly. I couldn't have put it better myself. |
JH: | What's wrong with that? |
RD: | You have absolutely no reason to take seriously somebody who says, "I believe it because I believe it." In any other walk of life you would say, "You believe it? Why do you believe it? Give me the evidence." In the case of clergyman you drop that and say, "Oh, you're a clergyman? Right, in that case I respect that: you believe it simply because you believe it." I don't think that will do. |
And most impressive of all, Dawkins managed to do it all inside three minutes. Surely this must be some sort of record?