Richard Dawkins extended interview with John Mackay

OK, ready to pull your hair out in frustration? Here’s Richard Dawkins’ extended interview with John Mackay, who seems to believe knowledge is possible only through the realm of experience. Everything else is “faith based”. John is obviously an intelligent and thoughtful person who believes in something extremely stupid, which makes the whole conversation very difficult to listen to. Still, it’s worth looking at to see the Herculean effort in trying to reconcile his presuposition that the Bible is literally true with all the evidence to the contrary. If any of you are losing your hair from pulling huge chucks out in frustration from watching these types of interviews, skip this one, or you’ll go bald.

More after the jump

Comments (5)

  • avatar


    After watching the Wendy Wright interview I need a few days before I can watch any of this.

  • avatar


    Ugh, he’s spouting so much crap, by the time you could correct him on 1 fallacy he’s already rattled off another 1000…

    One thing that continues to infuriate me about this whole debate though is that creationists claim that they only want children to be ‘open to the facts and learn to question things’. Look at this guys website all he’s teaching is ‘God dit it’, these people aren’t asking for open minds they’re telling people that scientific evidence should be disregarded at all costs if they believe it challenges their personal God.

    And he continues to say ‘well you’re just making assumptions, so you’re obviously wrong!’ (well that’s the basic undertone). While he prattles on about the bible as if it’s undeniable, historical fact…

  • avatar


    Dawkins has another really great interview with Randolph Nesse about evolutionary biology. Nesse is an actual evolutionary biologist so rather than bicker with each other they are actually able to converse and inform each other; probably the best interview that I’ve seen Dawkins do.

  • avatar


    You guys love this old boy. He’s solid, annoying on the times when he brings politics into it though

  • avatar

    Zombie Jesus

    I understand his argument that if time is linear, then we have to take a sort of “faith” to believe that everything we have recorded prior actually did happen. He is therefore suggesting things like Darwin may not have actually written his book: you weren’t there, how do you know it was actually him and not some huge conspiracy? He also rejects the rules that scientists have created for carbondating because he says they were man-made and subject to bias and fallacy.

    A problem with this argument is that he ends up quoting John, a book of the Bible supposedly written 2000 years ago. Of course, according to his logic, the Bible could have been written 150 years ago by a guy in a shack named Jed. He would have to concede this possibility because he rejects the accuracy of history and archaeology, and therefore just as he was not there to witness the Bible being written 2000 years ago, he was also not around 150 years ago to confirm that it was not written then.

Leave a Comment

Scroll to top