Manning & Dawkins in conversation
I’ve always admired Aubrey Manning‘s BBC television programmes about the making of the British landscape, but, to my eternal shame, I must admit that I never before took the trouble to find out who he is!
It turns out that Manning is an extremely distinguished biologist, who wrote the book on ethology.
Drawing my brief trawl of the web to learn more about Manning, I came across a wonderful five-part YouTube video conversation between Manning and fellow ethologist Richard Dawkins. The video takes the format of a cosy chat between two scientists who clearly have great respect for each other (warning: the video contains an unscheduled appearance by a cat):
This is wonderful television. Except that you tend not to get this sort of thing on television these days, because clever people talking to each other is no longer seen as good television.
I do so much prefer it when Dawkins talks about actual science like this, rather than pursuing his relentless god-bashing. I think he’s far more effective at getting his message across when he takes this approach. I suspect, from what he says in the video, Manning might agree.
Ten out of ten!
The Red Notebook is the blog of 
But then I don’t think that the ‘God Delusion’ or knocking religion part of his repertoire is meant to be about about getting the message about science across, as such. Rather it is about raising consciousness about the problems of fundamentalism among the major religions as well as moving the Overton window. Especially with regard to the acceptance of atheism and to cease regarding the criticism of anything religious as off limits.
After all, do you really think that those who openly fight against science in the name of their religion, i.e. the creationists of various cults, would change their mind about science if only Richard talked nicely about their religious beliefs.
All I’m saying is that I wish Dawkins would spend more time doing what he does best: writing and talking about science.
Richard, but he has spent the majority of his career doing just that, for instance remember the Horizon programs, not forgetting all the pure science books he has written. Even during his God Delusion ‘phase’, so to speak, he has still done a lot of what can be described as pure science, whether on TV or in lectures. I know as I have many of them recorded or downloaded from youtube. The problem appears to be that only his ‘anti-theism’ of the last few years gets highlighted. Though if anything, that simply reflects the erroneous respect that has been afforded religious belief for so long, world wide, let alone in the UK, so that when someone with his scientific standing talks out, it apparently becomes all he has ever done. Look at how he is labelled shrill, strident and even aggressive for simply having the temerity to question the rational of believing things on faith rather than on evidence in the politest of manners.
Additionally, him and others previously ignoring the threat some religions presented to science did not prevent that threat getting worse, if anything the opposite is true. However him, and others, speaking out has moved the overton window where far more now regard it as OK to either criticise or even simply discuss the role of religion in society without religion automatically getting a free pass any longer.
After all, there are many religious fundamentalists of different religions who would love nothing better than to quash or corrupt science education altogether. We have had examples of this attempt in the UK education system, let alone in the US or some Muslim countries and our Charlie is himself their Public Enemy number 1. Speaking out against that is, in my opinion at least, just as important as speaking about the science itself.
Though I would be the first to agree that it would, in my opinion, be a much better world if Richard and others like him could be free to concentrate purely on the science and not have to worry about fundamentalist attacks on science and secular society in general. Sadly, we don’t live in that world yet and maybe we never will. But hey, I’m a glass half full kind of guy so maybe one day
Yes, but at the risk of repeating myself, all I’m saying is that I wish Dawkins would spend more time doing what he does best: writing and talking about science.
Yep, how dare he spend some of the last few years, i.e. a fraction of his overall career, defending science. No need for that at all, especially as he is being mean and criticising all those nice believers who represent no threat to science or secular society, Oh wait…
I suppose it depends on whether you think his ‘defence’ of science against religious nutters achieves anything constructive. Great fun that it undoubtedly is, I think he’s wasting his time. The best way to defend science is to show what science can achieve (which Dawkins is brilliant at), rather than arguing with those who don’t understand what constitutes a rational argument
I love this wonderful conversation between two brilliant scientists – thanks so much for posting these videos! Concerning their discussion on religion, I think it revealing re the ongoing debate here in the Comments thread about Richard Dawkins that, while Aubrey Manning says, “It would require a profound transformation of the human condition to remove this search for a greater meaning”, ie for humans – the majority – to give up religion, Richard Dawkins cannot understand that. Unlike AM, RD truly believes that it is possible to persuade humans with reason to turn away from religion, and that is why he tries. I admire RD’s energy about this but I agree with AM. I was in the audience for RD’s debate with John Lennox in Birmingham Alabama in October 2007. It was magnificent to witness but painful as well!
Concerning their discussion on the modern world’s ecological dilemma, Aubrey Manning’s opinion is tragic but completely understandable, unfortunately. Therefore, we, all of us lucky living people, need to seize the day!