No more results on this page
Professor Richard Dawkins is a world-renowned truth-teller, evolutionary biologist, and best-selling author, celebrated globally for his honest critique of religion and tradition and his push for critical thinking. His books include "The Ancestor's Tale," "The Selfish Gene," "The Blind Watchmaker," "Climbing Mount Improbable," "Unweaving the Rainbow," "A Devil's Chaplain," "The God Delusion," "The Greatest Show on Earth," "The Magic of Reality," his two-part autobiography "An Appetite for Wonder" and "A Brief Candle in the Dark," and "Outgrowing God: A Beginner's Guide."
Richard Dawkins has gained notoriety for his unwavering commitment to science as an advocate for scientific literacy and rational thinking, particularly in the education of younger generations. His relentless pursuit of truth, and his recognition of the beauty in life on earth, has made him a revered source of wisdom and insight, in response to scientific and existential inquiries like 'What are we doing here?' and 'When did life begin?'
It was nice to hear Richard Dawkins' perspectives on several worldly and timely topics but I wish the interviewer had focused more on skepticism and debunking superstitions and religion.
It was a dream come true to see one of my favorite authors and science communicators. It was a great venue where I felt close to the stage. I would go again.
Very disappointed that Dawkins didn't get more time to speak. Steven Pinker arrogantly thought he was the main event. There were many instances where he even interrupted him! I feel like we should get half our money back for only getting (no joke) half of Richard Dawkins. Dawkins himself was great when he did speak, which makes it that much more disappointing.
The moderator (who turned out to be Pinker) was terrible and could not get his ego & dribble out of the moderator role. His "questions"were about himself, his ego or a summary of his view of Dawkins opinions. He consumed more talking time than Dawkins did. The evening was billed as Dawkins not Pinker's ego live on stage. I feel like I was ripped off with such a pathetic display.
There is something seemingly magical about having this unique human being in view, hearing his wisdom and kindness in the same room. The only drawback was that the entire interview was really just a sales promotion for his new book. Was that really worth $77 per seat? And the Q&A was preset with a handful of cards, no chance to speak with him at all. Now I have to wonder how accessible Richard would be on the trip to the South Pole? Still, the power of his presence in the theatre was tangible, even in the distant balcony. The human race is richer by far in having this special mind among us, sharing his insights and understanding with the otherwise primitive mentality of the maximum occupants of planet Earth.
I went to hear Mr. Dawkins after reading several of his books. The evening was conversation style with a professor from Harvard. Instead of asking Mr. Dawkins open ended questions on topics, the other guy asked questions to which Dawkins could only reply yes or no, often spoke over Dawkins, and used up about 30 minutes in a rambling story to which Dawkins could only nod in agreement. The most interesting part of the evening was when Dawkins answered open ended questions from the audience. The woman who came out first was ok, but ill-prepared. She also rambled on for about 20 minutes. My point is that I paid to see Mr. Dawkins, and really only heard from him for about one hour out of a two-hour time span. He wasn't disappointing, that was.
Went to hear Richard Dawkins but most of the evening was Steven Pinker, the interviewer, talking, talking, talking and then talking some more. No self awareness Steven Pinker? Couldn't you have left your ego at home and let Richard Dawkins speak? Really disappointing.
RD gives short smart and simplified answers. The questions were somewhat long and not fit for a non-expert in evolution science theories. Overall, a good experience.
This was billed as an evening with Richard Dawkins, but I estimate Stephen Pinker did at least 75% of the talking. I mean he literally spoke more than 3x as many words as Dawkins, including answering questions for him, summarizing his books for him, and just going on and on about his own thoughts, rather than turning over the mic to Dawkins. I briefly considered the possibility that this was the plan - perhaps Dawkins at 83 years old and post-stroke actually isn't capable of holding his own on stage anymore. However, the few times he was given an interesting prompt and did get to speak, he sounded like his thoughtful, brilliant self. Pinker, of course, can be brilliant too - but I didn't pay to see or hear him. Truly disappointing event.
Richard Dawkins is one of the greatest scientists in history, but at this event, he hardly spoke. Perhaps 80 percent of the speaking time was occupied by the interlocutor and by, bafflingly, a high school student who had no obvious relationship with the event. It seemed that the majority of Professor Dawkins' utterances, often prompted by unwinningly uninteresting questions, were "yes", "no", or "I don't know". I wish that the titular speaker had been permitted to, well, speak.
The host couldn't stop talking. I didn't pay to hear him talk. He barely gave Richard Dawkins a chance to speak.
Richard Dawkins was amazing. The problem is that he only had the floor for about 20-30% of the time. The interviewer, Stephen Pinker, monopolized the time and it is very clear I was not alone in this feeling. Indeed, I think most attendees felt it. We were there to hear Richard Dawkins--not to hear Stephen Pinker's extended ramblings.
Dr. Richard Dawkins has been inveighing heavily on the sides of reason and science as one of the more prominent members of the New Atheism, and though very much a theist myself, I find his innate charismatic strengths as a lecturer irresistible. Agree with him or not, Dr. Dawkins makes for an enjoyable evening for just about anyone interested in biology, the origins of speciation, and the destiny of humankind. Highly recommend!
I enjoyed this event beyond words! Richard Dawkins is a profound writer of science. It was such a privilege to be in his audience. Steven did a fantastic job as host as well! I hope Richard will tour again some day.
NJ Performing Art Center: the temperature at the venue was too warm at the beginning of the performance. Many people in my section were complaining that it was too hot. I was actually sweating. NJPAC only cranked up the AC midway through the talk -- too little, too late. Regarding the talk: the moderator, Kmele Foster, spoke way too much. I think that the moderator liked to hear himself talk. Although very intelligent, he kept going on and on about his own thoughts before he would present a long drawn out question to Mr. Dawkins. The majority of the discussion was from the moderator, unfortunately. Interesting talk, overall. Richard Dawkins signed his books afterwards for certain ticket holders.
I have listened to a dozen different interviews of Professor Dawkins, and this was by far the worst. The interviewer spoke at least 80% of the time (including anecdotes about how smart his daughter is, his great his podcast is, and what it’s like to be a person of color). But the reason I turned out for the event was to hear the eponymous talent. Very disappointing.
Most amazing show ever and getting to meet Richard and Jana (the book Illustrator) after the show was a real treat. The VIP pkg is worth every penny!!
Very disappointing. It wasn't a lecture, just a crummy q&a. Worse still, the interviewer was terrible. He loved the sound of his own voice and did not really get Dawkins talking at all. We basically paid all that money to my hear some podcaster talk at Professor Dawkins. Waste of time.
Dr. Dawkins was wonderful to listen to - that is when the interviewer let him talk. The interviewer talked about himself WAY too much and didn't ask many good questions. He droned on and on about nonsense and took up FAR too much of my valuable time - time I wanted to hear Dr. Dawkins talk. Very disappointed.
It was definitely a conversation between intelligent, skeptical people. It just wasn't handled very intelligently. It was intended to be a free form Q/A which can be lovely, but this went the way of unwieldy ruminations. I'm sure plenty of other viewers spent a substantial portion of their time in their own heads on the subjects presented while they waited for the conversation to get back on track. TLDR: I've experienced better question-driven dialogue on Yahoo answers.