I suppose it was the news that Playboy magazine was returning nudes to its pages after a year's hiatus that sufficiently perked my curiosity to check them out again.  I hadn't looked at Playboy since perhaps 2008, when I began to recognize that I was no longer a part of the demographic they were pitching to.  Now, however, it occurred to me that maybe an online look might be worthwhile, and particularly that one element of the magazine which I had always held great respect for: The Playboy Interview.

Over the years when I did subscribe, the subjects for these intense, personal conversations had ranged all over the map, from The Beatles to Salman Rushdie.  In pulling up the website today, it occurred to me that some of the luminaries of atheism should damned well have been invited to Playboy's table at some point or other.  Viewing their Interview page, I was not surprised to see the usual welter of celebrities, including multiple occurrences of both Donald Trump and Bill Maher.  Upon pressing the site Search tool into service, though, I was disappointed to see no references to Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris or Daniel Dennett.  Upon checking for the last of the Four Horsemen, however, I was pleased to discover a complete interview with Richard Dawkins, conducted by Chip Rowe.

In reading through the interview, there were no great surprises, nor did I especially expect any.  One really good moment, though, was the following interchange:

PLAYBOY: Most objections to evolution seem to come down to complexity. People can’t understand how something like an eye could have evolved.

DAWKINS: No matter how complex the eye may be, it’s not as complicated as a god.

The complete interview may be found here.  Please enjoy.

Views: 127

Replies to This Discussion

Thanks for the link to the Dawkins article.  It may be a good introduction for the popular culture world about him.

Playboy magazine always seems to be geared toward spoiled rich Eastern college students who objectify women. Donald Trump types.

Rolling Stone magazine seems to have better coverage of popular culture with more indepth articles such as Matt Tiabbi wrote about the financial meltdown without the burden of objectifying women.

I liked that interview because there were some things Dawkins said that I've not heard before, especially about his life.

There were 3 quotes that impressed me, so I saved them.  My favorite is definitely the first one:

If science can’t provide an answer, nothing can.

No matter how complex the eye may be, it’s not as complicated as a god.

A four-cell embryo or a 64-cell embryo, or indeed one much larger than that, has no nervous system. You should have rather less compunction in killing such a creature than you would in killing an earthworm, because an earthworm has a nervous system and very likely can suffer. So objecting to the abortion of very young human embryos is utter nonsense.

The first and third quotes are good. The third is especially noteworthy.

The complexity of the eye in relation to god is better left alone without an entire book about evolution behind it.

Yes Chris, even though I liked that quote because I've not heard it before, I thought something similar to your objection.

I like your quotes, Spud. The interview is a good one, as well. 

Thanks, Loren, for the link to the interview. I read it all, copied two lines that might inspire essays, and found Dawkins less arrogant than I'd concluded after seeing several one liners by him.
I also resubscribed. But for the Playboy Philosophy in the 1960s, how much longer would saying the word 'abortion' have remained off limits?

Tom, if Drumpf and his cabinet have their way, Roe v Wade could be overturned or obviated before too very long, though if it is, the outcry from that action will be both angry and VERY vocal.  You don't screw around with stare decisis without consequences.

Stare decisis, "Stand by things decided". 

I agree will all you wrote, @Loren. 

Loren, if Roe v. Wade is overturned, existing state laws will take its place.
You're in Ohio; what are its laws?

Lately not so good.  Both a heartbeat bill and a 20-week ban have gone through our legislature.  Kasich vetoed the first and let the second go through, which needless to say, pisses me off.  Time was when Ohio was a pretty blue state, but lately, less and less so, which I am beginning to find disquieting.

If Roe v. wade (1973) is overturned, the country will see great-grandmothers, grandmothers and mothers boycotting, marching, petitioning, making loud noises and maybe even making some naughty language. We remember what it was like for women before they had control of their reproductive lives and we won't give that up. Those foolish men & women who would deny women the right to decide for themselves whether or not to protect their bodies from unwanted pregnancies will face strong objection!

Sorry to place this information  here.

Norma McCorvey, plaintiff in Roe. v. Wade abortion case, dies

Her cause live on.

RSS

line

Update Your Membership :

Membership

line

line

Nexus on Social Media:

line

© 2017   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service