Dawkins and PZ Myers in discussion – trip to London
I’ve been really lucky recently in that talks and debates by authors and scientists I admire have fallen on either my holidays or days I just haven’t had to work in those days 
Sarah had spotted this one, and for £4 I couldn’t pass it up. I also hadn’t really been down to London much since Sarah moved to Leeds, and I do miss it in many ways.
I spent the afternoon at the British Museum (I desperately wanted to go to the Natural History Museum again but number of times I have been there outnumbers the visits I have made to the British Museum by 20 to 1, so I had to restrain myself) and whilst the Rosetta Stone was predictably awash in flash photography, I did find the Islamic gallery and a few other more secluded areas of interest.
I also hired an audio guide, but for the sole purpose of setting the language to Arabic to do some listening practise. Now, however smart and clever I may make that sound, it actually backfired on me because I was listening so hard to translate I didn’t really take in the galleries as well as I should have.
After getting kicked out the museum at closing time I made my way over to the Institute of Education and met up with Sufian Ahmed who I’ve tweeted with back and forth at these events before but not actually hooked up in person with until now. Meeting fellow tweeps in the real world is always fun.
We got pretty good seats, but as the second half of the audience started to file in, a group of protesters forced there way into the auditorium and took to the stage chanting about spending cuts, job losses and protested against Richard agreeing to lecture at A.C Graylings new £18’000 per year private college. It was all a little surreal really, and it took rather longer than I expected for the police to escort them out so the evening could begin. I’m not exactly sure how I feel about what they did, and this is not the post to ponder it over in either. But regardless of my position of their ethical and social stance, they aggressively forced (one member of staff was physically overpowered by thea sob) their way into a room that they had no right to be in. Peaceful protest, this was not.
Camera phones were obviously everywhere and amusingly Sarah messaged me to say she had seen me on YouTube before the discussion was even finished!
So after the rather poor warm up act Dawkins and PZ took to the armchairs and basically chewed the biological and religious fat for 30 minutes before opening up to questions.
It was nice as ever to hear Dawkins, and he was certainly wittier than I have ever heard him before, but the real treat was PZ. The guy is extremely likeable and despite being fairly quietly spoken, articulates himself unapologetically and with good humour.
The discussion began speculating about life on other planets and on the necessity of a DNA like replicating molecule and enzymes molecules that can build proteins. They also discussed the predictable probability of what sort of features life might evolve based on how many times things like eyes, echolocation etc have independently evolved on earth. This is rather fascinating as it gives somewhat of a hypothesis on what real alien life could be like, as opposed to what science fiction so often postulates.
PZ said that he personally thinks intelligent life would be extremely unlikely to have evolved elsewhere, again due to the fact that self awareness has developed only once so far on earth.
The conversation eventually moved on to the perception people have of them as angry, strident, fundamentalist, needless to say their thoughts on this were more than a little amusing, especially PZ, as he is more at the cranky end of the spectrum than Dawkins.
PZ May looks like Darwin’s Big Furry Teddy Bear, but when it comes to tackling creationist nonsense and religious encroachment, he is more like a roaring Grizzly. Of course it should go without saying that this is metaphoric in that he unapologetically challenges religion with strong words. Not that he goes around ripping people’s faces off and scavenging food out of Forrest park bin bags.
As ever with these things the questions were hit an miss, but they both did a good job of making the most of them. I had a good time and it took my mind off of work for a day, which is simultaneously a good and bad thing!
Now I really need to win some money so we can go to Australia next April for the Four Horsemen all on the same bill.
dD
Sam Harris Part III @ Cambridge WordFest – Post talk thoughts
Quick thoughts on Cambridge, I will wrap up the weeks events more conclusively tomorrow evening when we get back to Leeds for the last time!
Today after wandering around the rather beautiful city of Cambridge we met with Sarah’s family for tea before the final Sam Harris talk.
As I had figured, the format was to be the same as before; overview of the book, quizzing by a third party then Q&A with the audience. Ian McEwan did a good job teasing issues not in the opening talk, and he also led discussion on how the early reviews are misrepresenting both the book and Sam’s views in general.
Ultimately though, with all the quizzing and probing it was coming from people who largely agree with Sam. So I began thinking this afternoon, after skimming the headline of a Guardian article clashing Robert Winston with Sam on the compatibility of science and religion, whether someone like Winston would have been better on stage to ask really hard questions. After reading said article however, I see why that would be a complete waste of time. A) I suppose the idea of someone ripping into the work sitting next to you is not conducive to pimping your book! And B) a lot of the criticism TML is receiving is either undeserved or simply nonsensical.
Please don’t mistake the above paragraph for a unanimous approval of TML. Quite the opposite, it has it’s flaws as a book. What can’t be said of it however, is that it doesn’t pre-empt and quash the multitude of objections that currently being raised in the literary press. Sam bends over backwards, conceding where he may be misconstrued and of the points that may be intuitively troubling. But he does deal with them. In light of this, many reviewers appear to have either picked the book and put it down mid way through chapter one, or have not read it at all, writing reviews based solely on what others have written.
This isn’t the place to go any further with this, as I’m going to be reviewing the book (and it’s positive and negative reception) in depth over the course of the next week, so I will get back on to the talk itself!
The talk this evening was even shorter than Bristol, there must have been severe time constraints with getting the next speaker/audience into the chamber. This was worsened by two rather lengthy introductions (considering the allotted time for the whole event was 1 hour) and a few wrap up comments by the organisers. The latter came at the expense of audience questions, which whilst I suppose I’m never a big fan of the Q&A thing, it was stingy for the people that wanted to ask questions as they only got through 3 of them!
It was interesting that this was the first time we didn’t have to que for signings for long, as it appeared most people were there for Ian McEwan, and needless to say, they were rather disappointed as this was Sam’s event. WordFest marketed this as an Ian McEwan talk (posters and billing didn’t even feature or mention Harris) and more than a few grumbles were overheard on the way out of the chamber. I can’t imagine what a good percentage of the audience must have been thinking, coming out to listen to a fiction author and getting an hour of the scientific underpinnings of morality!
I was most interested to get the opinions of people who were going into the talk and the premise cold, with either little or no knowledge prior to the talk. Again, I’m going to go into this later in a fuller review, but needless to say, healthy debate was had over the curry afterwards!
Great end to a fantastic strange little week. Finally got our picture with another of the 4 Horsemen!
More pics on my flickr
Sam Harris Part III @ Cambridge WordFest April 2011 – Pre talk thoughts
I’ve had a couple days charging my batteries, both metaphorical and literal and I’m all psyched and ready for the final talk of Sam’s book tour with Ian McEwan.
I assume it will be the same setup/format but again with a different probing from Ian McEwan. I have to be honest and admit I haven’t read any of his books, however I’m well aware of his position and advocacy. I should at the very least watch the film versions at some point 
I think I have my question sorted now, you watch though because I’ve taken so long to formulate it, I won’t get the chance to ask it! Serve me right!
We are about going to hit the A1 in about an hour, and spend the day in Cambridge, as it’s another place I have never been, and then meeting Sarah’s father for the talk later on.
I’m going to finish reading the Blackford Moral Landscape review on the way down in the car, and perhaps listen to another chapter from TML again.
Stay tuned, I’ll be bloggin and tweeting and posting pics through the day
David
Sam Harris Part II @ Festival of Ideas: Post talk thoughts
Opening talk
Well weather wise it couldn’t have been more different to Oxford! Bristol certainly wasn’t selling itself to us meteorologically, however the Festival of Ideas talk by Sam Harris more than made up for it.
It wasn’t a packed house at St Georges, but it was comfortably filled, (Festival of Ideas tweeted 350 were in attendance) which considering the big draw would have been for the Dawkins talk the night before, is still quite a large number for a talk on morality and neuroscience.
Sam presented the same introduction, which as he told me at the signing afterwards I should be able to give for him by now! He had however obviously revised things here and there, and in general is sounding far slicker as a condensed 20 minute presentation than it did as the original TED talk he gave.
For some reason I was expecting a different format to the previous evenings talk with Dawkins, and so was surprised to see the same set up on stage indicating that Sam was to be probed by a third party on the book. This worked well with Dicky D and despite initial disappointment that Sam wouldn’t be expounding The Moral Landscape for a full hour, it worked very well in this case too. Again, as with the Oxford talk, it was probably the most interesting segment. The questioner asked great questions of Sam and provoked more seemingly improvised gems that answered some of the objections.
The Q&A was better this evening. One guy asked if there was to be a follow up to The Moral Landscape, perhaps a map as to navigate it! This was only a little facetious (and humorous), as what it’s really asking is when can we expect any of what Sam talks about to be practically useful for civilisation.
Signing my copy of LTACN
We waited in line to get LTACN signed and to get a quick picture, but as you will see they kinda blurred. I think I’ll just ask to pose for one with him on Saturday as Sarah’s father can take a picture for us. I managed to get a quickly ask him if given enough time, does he think he could reason William Lane Craig out of belief in the resurrection. He said that more than likely not, as WLC isn’t logically reasoning in the same set of tools in the first place. This really makes me think about the utility of Sam’s position on more serious matters like scientific objective morality. Hopefully this little book signing exchange can form the basis of a decent question I hope to ask at the final talk in Cambridge.
Unfortunately there were some sound issues again like in Oxford, which persisted through most of the talk. I’m not sure if this was entirely a technical problem as perhaps the rather drafty cavernous nature of St Georges compounded the sonic problems. I didn’t struggle to hear anything however, as I was nearer the front, I wonder how things were for people in the balcony.
Excellent evening followed by a good thai curry in town. Saturday we go to Cambridge to meet Sarah’s father and his wife for the final stop on his UK visit. This gives me a few days to read through the Blackford essay on the Moral Landscape and to start re-formulating my question.
Feeling good this morning! I got a night of much needed sleep, and now we’re off to the Bristol science museum before heading north once more.
More pics on my flickr
dB
Sam Harris Part II, Bristol Ideas Fest: Pre-talk thoughts
Back on the M1 again driving down to Bristol.
I really enjoyed last nights chat between Harris & Dawkins. There wasn’t too much in the way of new material, but it was still great to see the ideas of TML being articulated to a UK audience.
Tonight should be different though, as far as I’m aware this is an hours lecture from Sam alone. This will hopefully be in the vein of the google author talk he did last year. The extra time given in this format helps get into some of the details that can preempt some of objections that occur in the Q&A.
I’ve been thinking more and more about the potential limits of reason and it’s application in the discourse of religion. Does Sam sees any practical use for reason in conversation with people who hold a faith inspired world view.
I suppose I would want to know that if given sufficient time, and baring in mind that despite protestations to the contrary people aren’t reasoned into faith, could he, Harris, reason William Lane Craig out of his belief in say, the miracles of Jesus.
Cant decide how to word it, we’ll see how it goes.
dB
