Skip to main content

Bill O'Reilly interviews Richard Dawkins

Here's Dawkins talking to Fox News' right-wing Catholic Bill O'Reilly.

Interestingly, O'Reilly plays the relativist card, "Well, it's true for me that Jesus is God", as well as aiming a blunderbus-full of crap [typical Fox style] in Dawkins' direction, including atheism is just as much a faith position, and (paraphrasing) "Well, how do you explain why the universe exists, then? Until you come up with an answer, I'm sticking with Jesus!"

Not surprisingly, Dawkins struggles a bit to cope with it all. My question is, what would have been the best responses to O'Reilly?


Alex said…
Not sure if I want to laugh or cry. What was the point of that???

"Let's try and steam-roll the soft spoken British intellectual with a healthy dose of arrogance and bluster!"

That little exchange had nothing to do with an engagement of ideas and everything to do with a sensational confrontation to grab ratings. Yish.
jeremy said…
Alex I couldn't agree more.

How one could actually call it an interview baffles me, since O'Reilly (the host!) talked for approximately 75% of the time!

At one point O'Reilly seems to say that since science doesn't necessarily have a complete minute by minute understanding of "how it all got here", he's "throwin' in with Jesus" (!).

But of course one doesn't have to have the correct answer to recognise an incorrect one. (For instance, I'm not sure when I first heard of the O'Reilly interview, but I'm pretty damn sure it wasn't the year 2384 B.C.!)

As for the (rather unexpected) reference to the relativity of Jesus' divinity, it's such a bad argument that it's acutally hard to answer. You could make an argument for moral relitivity I suppose, but to suppose that the universe external to you is also relative (at least in the crude sense)... well that's nonsense. Perhaps Dawkins should have kicked O'Reilly in the shin - when O'Reilly starts shouting "Ow! You kicked me!", Dawkins could always reply, "Well, that may be true for you, but..."

P.S. I particularly liked Bill's reference to the "physiology" (sic) of the tides and sun.

Quite the scholar, Bill.
Larry Hamelin said…
I have to go with Alex and Jeremy. You go on O'Reilly to get your face on TV, not to try to exchange views. O'Reilly is well known for simply shutting anyone up if they try to stand up to him.
Steelman said…
O'REILLY: You know, I know what he did. And so I'm not positive that Jesus is God, but I'm throwing in with Jesus, rather than throwing in with you guys, because you guys can't tell me how it all got here. You guys don't know.

DAWKINS: We're working on it...

O'REILLY: When you get it, then maybe I'll listen.

He'll listen once science comes through with that final, grand unified theory of everything...maybe. I get the feeling that O'Reilly is one of those people who like to read the last few pages of a novel first. He doesn't like surprises. No loose ends in a story. No doubts, just simple, straightforward, complete, irrevocable explanations that agree with his ideology. Of course, the world doesn't quite work that way, but perhaps if we pretend really hard that it does we'll feel better inside.

As an atheist, I agree with O'Reilly about not being sure that Jesus is God. However, if Bill is throwing in with whoever has the best explanation of "how it all got here," he might want to reread Jesus' explanations of biology and cosmology vs. what Dawkins has written. Not sure JC had much to say on those subjects. As Richard Carrier said in Sense and Goodness, you'd think Jesus would have had a kick ass science education, considering that his dad created the universe.

Dawkins went on O'Reilly's show for the same reason he appeared on the silly (but amusing) Colbert Report; free publicity for his book. Sitting there while Bill rattled on was a way to include the neocon demographic in his effort to reach the "fence sitters" he's after.
Freethinker said…
My question is, what would have been the best responses to O'Reilly?

Dawkins would have done better in a formal debate.

Christians always bring up Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot etc.,

Christians like to tell us that Hitler was not a christian, but evidence would show us otherwise.

See the following website for some information.

The Founding Fathers were not christians. You can read some info here.

O'Reilly did have a point though, he is quite entitled to believe whatever he wants. He did come across as the type of person that would switch sides if the evidences pointed to the non existance of a creator god.
Jeff said…
I'd've turned it around and said, "until you can prove to me that God exists, i'm sticking with objective science."
Anonymous said…
We can make up anything and believe it. It's not even worth trying to educate someone like O'Reilly who's that much of an idiot. Perhaps he could have said that O'Reilly's mother's arse created the universe. 'Prove me wrong, children! Prove me wrong!'
stormshadowcult said…
cant believe the nut is still on TV.
Mark said…
Why is everyone so blinded by their hatred for bill O'reilly? Intellectually laziness abounds in these comments. Can we not disagree with someone without insults? Guess not.

Popular posts from this blog


(Published in Faith and Philosophy 2011. Volume 28, Issue 2, April 2011. Stephen Law. Pages 129-151) EVIDENCE, MIRACLES AND THE EXISTENCE OF JESUS Stephen Law Abstract The vast majority of Biblical historians believe there is evidence sufficient to place Jesus’ existence beyond reasonable doubt. Many believe the New Testament documents alone suffice firmly to establish Jesus as an actual, historical figure. I question these views. In particular, I argue (i) that the three most popular criteria by which various non-miraculous New Testament claims made about Jesus are supposedly corroborated are not sufficient, either singly or jointly, to place his existence beyond reasonable doubt, and (ii) that a prima facie plausible principle concerning how evidence should be assessed – a principle I call the contamination principle – entails that, given the large proportion of uncorroborated miracle claims made about Jesus in the New Testament documents, we should, in the absence of indepen

What is Humanism?

What is Humanism? “Humanism” is a word that has had and continues to have a number of meanings. The focus here is on kind of atheistic world-view espoused by those who organize and campaign under that banner in the UK and abroad. We should acknowledge that there remain other uses of term. In one of the loosest senses of the expression, a “Humanist” is someone whose world-view gives special importance to human concerns, values and dignity. If that is what a Humanist is, then of course most of us qualify as Humanists, including many religious theists. But the fact remains that, around the world, those who organize under the label “Humanism” tend to sign up to a narrower, atheistic view. What does Humanism, understood in this narrower way, involve? The boundaries of the concept remain somewhat vague and ambiguous. However, most of those who organize under the banner of Humanism would accept the following minimal seven-point characterization of their world-view.

Plantinga's Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism refuted

Here's my central criticism of Plantinga's Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism (EAAN). It's novel and was published in Analysis last year. Here's the gist. Plantinga argues that if naturalism and evolution are true, then semantic epiphenomenalism is very probably true - that's to say, the content of our beliefs does not causally impinge on our behaviour. And if semantic properties such as having such-and-such content or being true cannot causally impinge on behaviour, then they cannot be selected for by unguided evolution. Plantinga's argument requires, crucially, that there be no conceptual links between belief content and behaviour of a sort that it's actually very plausible to suppose exist (note that to suppose there are such conceptual links is not necessarily to suppose that content can be exhaustively captured in terms of behaviour or functional role, etc. in the way logical behaviourists or functionalists suppose). It turns o