The one-hour “Beautiful Minds” (BBC4) episode on Richard Dawkins has just appeared on YouTube, and I proffer it below for your delectation. I definitely think it worth watching, even if you’re well acquainted with Richard’s oeuvre.
It’s refreshing that the show is largely about his scientific work (especially the composition and reception of The Selfish Gene), and doesn’t deal with the atheism business until the last ten minutes.
There’s a good bit on Richard’s youth (including an interview with the public school teacher, stil alive, who influenced Richard’s love of science), and an analysis of the roots of The Selfish Gene, including his teaching Bill Hamilton’s work in 1966 and the influence of John Maynard Smith’s papers. Richard does admit that the title of the book, however, might have been a mistake.
Don’t miss the youthful Dawkins at 36:53.
Some of the talking heads include Helena Cronin, John Krebs, Armand Leroi, John Maynard Smith, Alan Grafen, Steven Rose (cast as the devil’s advocate, who asserts that the gene isn’t unit of selection). The annoying Madeleine Bunting appears at 53:30 as a believer in belief.
The show, and Richard’s career, is well summed up by a statement he makes near the end:
“The true scientific understanding of the nature of existence is so utterly fascinating; how could you not want people to share it? Carl Sagan, I think, said ‘when you’re in love, you want to tell the world.’ And who, on understanding a scientific view of reality, would not, as it were, fall in love and want to tell the world.”
sub
> Don’t miss the youthful Dawkins at 36:53.
you mean 3:53?
I can see that I am not going to get anything done for the next hour at work. But, it will be time well spent.
Those shorts!
I meant to put that below ThyroidPlanet… sorry.
Mad Bunting is a believer herself, isn’t she?
She’s a Catholic – although she seemed to distance herself from that Church somewhat, over its response to the child abuse scandal.
Her debate with Dawkins about metaphorical rather than literal meaning of Catholic teachings is a classic example of religious obfuscation (and I’m not even sure that is the most apt term for the act of hopping from one story to another within the same conversation as she gets cornered by Dawkins into answering whether she believes Jesus had a father “but what does “believe” even mean?)
I was worried Mad Midgely would appear. Thankfully not.
Well worth the time indeed – inspiring.
In the same way, Christians are in love with Jesus, and just want to tell the world.
Science is real, though.
I think the point being…the faithful aren’t going anywhere…and the battle lines are drawn (some accommodationist, some not.)
Christians are enamoured with the idea that they are going to be saved and everyone else perish. They might deny that but it thrills them to bits. Nature is boring and irrelevant to alot of them, and gets in the way of bible-study time.
More like adolescent infatuation.
/@
Armand Leroi has a delicious voice. He did a very good programme about Aristotle – Aristotle’s Lagoon – search his name & that on YouTube…
Just finished watching. This was an hour well spent. I first encountered Dawkins through his book The Blind Watchmaker. After that I made it a point to follow his writings closely. What I have admired most about Dawkins is the poetic way he has of explaining science and the natural world. I have found all of his works inspirational. I am particularly fond of Unweaving the Rainbow. I found in it an inspiring expression of the majesty, wonder and awe that the study of nature can and does instill. He continued that tradition in The Magic of Reality. He has been and continues to be a poetic spokesperson for reason, rationality and the naturalistic view.
Unweaving the Rainbow is great isn’t it?!
What I like about this interview with Dawkins and others is that there is emphasis put on how it can take a while to get your head around natural selection. So to get an understand of evolution requires keeping ones mind open for longer than a few minutes. Possibly even longer than a few hours. Quite a stretch for many people.
I have formed my own theory that the more comfy a person is with the idea that they will be saved and others won’t, the less likely they will be to want to take in anything that might knock that view. That is why right-wing capitalist types tend to be religious rather than atheist. “Never mind about all those bastards, long as I’m ok” is the mind-set.
Thank you..
There is such a beautiful and orderly chaos to existence that can only be seen when you let go of dogma. I find myself “evangelizing” for science and ration quite often!
An excellent show. I can’t imagine something like this playing on American TV.
That was a wonderful biographical film. The final thought from Dawkins was a bit too happy, though, considering all the terrible situations people find themselves in and unable to escape from (like religion), but I doubt he has anything to do with that being his last statement on the film.
It was also funny how the one religious critic tried to explain how religion is a narrative method different from science when the entire film up to that point had been about how Dawkins gave voice to scientific concepts in evolution better than anyone had before. The media seriously needs to stop lowering the quality of their programming by giving air time to his religious critics–they’re all completely outclassed by Dawkins and haven’t the slightest clue about anything of substance.
Can’t get a stable enough connection – it’s taken 20 minutes to get to the 4 minute mark. I’ll just have to hope that the Magic Box caught it for when I get home.
Reblogged this on emmageraln.
I thought this was an interesting video, especially the history of how The Selfish Gene came to be written. I’m not a biologist but one day years ago I decided to get out of my box and so I picked up a copy of The Selfish Gene in the local bookstore. What a book! It still ranks in my mind as one of those mind-bending books that opened a whole new way of explaining the mysteries of animal and human behavior. At the time I read it I assumed that Richard was simply explaining in popular form what people in the life sciences already knew, but the video reveals the extent to which TSG was a new gene-centered view of Darwinian ideas that had fallen in the crack over the years since Darwin’s death.
I was a young graduate student, studying Anthropology, in 1976 when I read The Selfish Gene. Fantastic book. It had the most profound affect on how I understood evolution, probably more so than any other book I read in my academic career. I will be forever indebted to Richard Dawkins for having written it.
Grab the chance to see the profile of Andre Geim in the same series. As the prog points out Geim is the only individual to win both an IgNobel and the real thing. He will make a fantastic Christmas Lecturer at the Royal Institution …
This was so refreshing to watch after a heavy dose of pity was dumped on me by a god-bothering family member this week. Dawkins words of reason are like a soothing balm.
Richard Dawkins thanks for not only being smart but especially for having balls
Thanks for linking this great video. It belongs on public TV in America too…
august43.wordpress.com
Yes! I just finished the 2nd half (watched the 1st at breakfast) and I think it would be great if it did appear on US television. Presents a clear view of Dawkins the man and that can’t help but create emotional understanding of his position.
Wonderful indeed. I just thought I’d click it on for a minute to make sure the connection was working and now here I am, an hour later, with the moldering remains of supper in a dish beside me and the cat asleep on my feet, still enchanted.
Thanks for posting this wonderful video! I love and admire Richard Dawkins and all what he stands for. What a wonderful human being!!!
from Peter Mullen – far-out man:
[quote]
Consider his [Dawkins’] proposition: “I will believe only that for which there is scientific evidence”. In order to sustain his argument, he must believe that *that* proposition is true. But its truth cannot be discovered by taking into account scientific evidence – for there is no scientific evidence for it.
source:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/petermullen/100153465/richard-dawkinss-beautiful-mind-you-must-be-kidding/
Peter Mullen is a moron, as can be observered from his other recent articles:
“We have a duty to look at disturbing pictures of aborted foetuses”
“Dr Rowan Williams: a ‘hairy Lefty’ recants”
“Aggressive secularists don’t want to know this, but the roots of charity lie in Christian doctrine”
“How mortal sins became ‘lifestyle choices'”
You can find the rest at http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/author/petermullen/ if you can stomach them.
Thanks for sharing!
Reading Dawkins and watching his Royal Institute Christmas lectures were some of the most influential experiences for me in my high school days. I owe much to that man!
I loved those Christmas Lectures with Dawkins too. I read The Selfish Gene not long after they were broadcast, from my school library after the holidays.
Excellent program. Wish I could require my students to watch it, but alas, it’s finals week. Next semester…
Does anyone know where the music at the intro is from?