Lol...I have to say the thought has crossed my mind...it's not a normal voice...but sometimes less audible than other voices, lol, if the sound isn't terribly loud...a bit like the physicist Etienne Klein...also often hard to hear what he's saying...
I'm a fervent Muslim, and i say this with absolute honesty: Rowan Williams is amongst the most wonderful people that exist on earth. I think the respect he shows, his demeanour and patience serves to make this planet a better place. Kudos to you Mr. Williams, you have my respect.
Christian acceptance of evolution is not relativism...Dawkins didn't succeed in showing there was a contradiction when he questioned Rowan about this so he went on to talk about his belief in miracles, and then cut off the interview at a point where it sounded like Rowan had dodged the question. Just pointing out the obvious people.
Dawkins is a constant test of my faith. Not because I find his arguments compelling, but because he is a true difficulty for me in trying to love my enemies.
I can really respect both of these men, despite their conflicting beliefs. I watched their debate on the nature of humanity and its origin and they were both outstanding. Very intelligent, articulate people.
Only Dawkins would have the archbishop of Canterbury over a hot fire and relentlessly chisel away at the man’s ability to give a scientific answer. I admire both these men massively
I love intellectual confrontation. Two people with opposing viewpoints who debate calmly on the matter. That is what this world is missing. People can disagree but how they accept that disagreement makes all the difference.
Notice the format. Richard leads you in, he uses editing to cut Rowan off, giving himself the last word, interjecting his own commentary after he's thought about it for a while.
I like Rowan Williams' poetic view on miracles. Even though I don't personally feel as though it is a sufficient explanation, it's still somehow an idea that appeals to me. It is a rather beautiful way of looking at it, and possibly the first almost sensible explanation to miracles that I've heard. However, if you have to practice mental contortionism at that level in order to explain something, the thing that you're trying to prove most likely isn't true. No matter how poetic it might sound.
Much as I love Dawkins, his statement at the beginning that "Gravity's not a version of the truth, it IS the truth" makes so comprehensible sense to me. Does he mean, "gravity exists"? wherein I'd agree. Let's not get carried away thinking that because it's Dawkins, everything he says is equivalent to Divine Fiat.
It’s absurd to think that science does anything more that unveil some of God’s work. The ‘discovery’ of gravity does nothing more than exonerate the perfection of this world. Newton dedicated his Principia to our Creator.
@@BismarkUtah This is just a dumb comment. Dawkins operates with the metaphysics of a 1980's Sunday school teacher. Sure, he's a respectable scientist, but he's incriminatingly bad when it comes to matters of philosophy.
I think it was informative to see the leader of the Church of England express his beliefs, then to have him practically admit he was just using poetry to get out of a difficult question. There are plenty of great discussions on these topics - watch the four horsemen discussions... some excellent points made by each and every one of them.
A good old Brittish dialogue. Lovely. Americans would never reach that level of mutual respect uttered so eloquently, and with a lightly sarcastic sense of humour blended in it. I'm not Brittish, btw. I find Williams really charismatic and has a charming awareness of his own flaws. Gotta love Dawkins, though
No it's not. Dawkins is listening and being fair. Rowan seems like a great guy, and I even think Dawkins was going to say something like that before this video cut off. Dawkins is also a great guy, but here is a conflict between religion and science, and it involves the well-being of society. Society doesn't belong to anyone, but is what comprises everyone. Because of this, Dawkins has the right to be condescending towards any religious follower. He has a duty as he is the atheist leader.
I thought your post was really refreshing. Nice to hear someone expressing their opinion in a reasonable and civil way without becoming overly emotional or being dogmatic in the pursuit of forcing people to change their minds.
Good to see that these two men of differing opinions can have a civilised conversation on the matters at hand. Too often what starts out as personal questions descends into a slagging match between idiots on both sides, views become entrenced, minds close and it turns into us versus them. Fundies on both sides of this debate need to take example put their egos down and leave it to respectful reasonsed debate.
Acknowledging the facts of evolution and science as Rowan Williams does is one good thing but then believing in miracles and the virgin birth as he says seem to me to be at great odds with each other. I think in his head and heart he recognizes this contradiction. These biblical stories are legends and myths meant to convey a spiritual message.
Honestly, I am strongly against the idea of God, but here is a priest I can actually respect. He recognizes science; recognizes nature and physics; and is actually making a LOGICAL claim: (since we do not understand everything about physics, nature, and science) a designer may actually exist in a meta-dimension of nature/the universe. This designer can manipulate hierarchical levels of existence, eg. the levels we as humans recognize. To at least think through one's own ideals- I respect that.
i also like his voice. maybe for some Lord of the Rings voicework or such, just don't actually _believe_ what he's saying. remember that his occupation consists entirely of promoting superstition as fact.
You should look up the definition of "theory" in a scientific sense. A theory is a *hypothesis* (what you're thinking of, in layman's terms, as a "theory") that stands up to repeated testing, and has lots of evidence supporting it. The theory of gravity and the theory of evolution are both extremely well-supported theories, that are basically "facts" in the layman's sense.
I think this video is just the result of really one-sided editing. Dawkins has voice overs while Rowan Williams is talking, and then cuts scenes before he's given a chance to respond at the end. And the sorts of questions he's asking can't be answered in the time he's giving Williams to respond, so of course it's going to make it look as though he can't answer. GAH. Dawkins drives me crazy! I can't stand the man - and this is coming from someone who doesn't even identify as religious.
You might be right. It annoyed me when you couldn't hear William's response, but you also have to remember this program was made by Channel 4 which isn't exactly known for it's great academic programming...plus it clearly wasn't edited by Dawkins himself...if you're going to say he looks like a secular fundamentalist, you can't really say it's because of anything he's done him can you?
Too much courtesy? I'm an atheist and I think that Rowan Williams is almost definitely wrong, however it's his courtesy which makes me warm to him and consider his arguments so much more willingly. After seeing someone like William Lane Craig elsewhere who is nowhere near as intelligent as either Williams or Dawkins but who basically slags off his debating partner's arguments and refutations while coming across quite objectionably, I can say it's quite refreshing to see a little courtesy.
If there is a hidden premise it is not intentional, but I have been using 'meaning' and 'purpose' ineterchangeably. If you prefer, I can agree that life can have internal, transient meaning, but I would say that this does not constitute an overall purpose.
"Nature itself opening up into its own depths" is poetic language, but not only intended to be poetic. It is the resultant declaration of a metaphysics which posits God as the grounds of existence and nature as a creation out of Love. This metaphysics is not merely poetry with only linguistic relations between words, but is an abstraction for the particularities which we experience through our senses of the real world which we participate in. The whole idea is that it is a unionizing and synthesis of nature and supernature by analogy.
Relativism is applicable for some cases where the premise is not something that is bound in logic, facts or in cases where it lacks definition. Human life is itself based upon relativism in the sense that you are shaped by your own life experiences which defines your reality which in turn is different for all of us.
It's not saying that God wasn't able to set things up that way, but his purpose in miracles isn't to simply make an event happen (ie. provide some more wine at a wedding), but to show his authority and power OVER the natural order. So he sets it up one way (which we can't defy) so that he can come along and defy it to show us who he is. Think about it. If water could naturally turn into wine, that may have solved one problem, but he would have had to do something else to show his power.
I love Professor Dawkins we need people to challenge us, creation or God is in charge or Darwin's theory of Evolution, I'm a Christian and I love the fact that God is described as one who calls things into existence that didn't exist Romans Chapter 4 verse 17 as though they do exist, that's a pretty good view for me,I can certainly say with confidence that God can take Professor Dawkins questions and theories, God loves us to search it's how he has wired us, Free Will
True. Williams appears to be an advocate of religious pluralism as opposed to fundamentalist thought. I see nothing wrong with this. Dawkins should focus on hitting the extremists, not these moderates.
What's so odd in saying God set up a system that works but when he choses to show something to be particularly important or cosmically important, he changes the system (through a miracle like the virgin birth) to make that point? That seems quite consistent and logical to me.
why do we hear dawkins asking a question, and then a dawkins voice-over over williams' answer? theyre 2 thoughtful men, why cant we hear a fair exchange?
I love how much of a prick he is within the first 15 seconds. Gotta love this guy for not pulling any punches. This video needs to be a Troll's standard weapon.
williams gets owned at 4.20 this guy said in an interview,his idea of hell is to find out after death he is on his own.Sounds like he's terribly insecure about himself which is probably why he became a priest.
Evolution is real and I admire Richard Dawkins a lot. His writing are great and very lucid. But I very much hate his confrontationalism with religious people. What good can come out of this? There are more and more people joining the ranks of believers in evolution every day, because it's the reality, the future, the only rational explanation for the multitude of creatures on our planet. No one needs his confrontationalism to help change hearts and minds. Religion itself is a proof of evolution.
Not necessarily. Even though polite, i feel that Dawkins was well prepared with his questions, and it's possible that Williams wasn't' given any real advance to answer the questions with better preparation. maybe I'm right, maybe I'm wrong. I wasn't there.
I'm surprised how many people think that Dawkins came off well in this. The opening rant against post-modernity sounds a lot like what I hear from fundamentalist Christians. Oh, and as someone else said, way to let your interviewee finish his answer.
It would have been easier to say science is science and miracles are miracles. How the two coexist is a mystery. I think Dawkins has an ambition to be omniscient whereas Dr Rowan Williams leaves the mysteries to God. There are mystics within the Christian faith who devote their lives to discovering the truths they need to grasp about God. I think Dawkins puts little trust in feelings and emotions and experiences. One day we will leave these physical bodies that we live in…
I disagree with Dawkins on many areas, but I do respect his honest search for truth and totally agree with his position against the relativism that has soaked Western culture and society today.
I just mean to point out certain things I object in this video, Dawkins has made the fallacy at 2:25 where he presents the "either - or" fallacy. He talks so much about reason, logic but somehow he slipped up this time. I also do realise my comments are not going to be popular since its an attack on one of the most revered and admired figure in modern atheism
...going back to the clock example, it is akin to arguing that the purpose of a clock is to tick. In fact, a clock does happen to tick, but this is not why it exists. It's purpose extends beyond itself.
Nice job on letting Arch Bishop Rowan finish what he was going to say Mr. Dawkins. Good form, I really admire how you don't take in any anthropological evidence before claiming that relativism is a sham.
So he's saying that somehow a virgin birth is still consistent with the laws of nature, even though we have no reason to suppose such a thing? They really are trying to "have their cake and eat it too" as it were.
@repticman123 well it doesn't, no biologist ever said that. It becomes a branch of the original and over time changes if it can pass on it's genes, just like the beaks of finches on different islands for example. I don't understand why there's so much opposition to this.
Does anybody else LOVE Rowan Williams voice? I could listen to that man read a phonebook.
Lol...I have to say the thought has crossed my mind...it's not a normal voice...but sometimes less audible than other voices, lol, if the sound isn't terribly loud...a bit like the physicist Etienne Klein...also often hard to hear what he's saying...
He’s incredible. I don’t agree with him but he’s obviously intelligent and unique.
Wow, thanks for letting us hear Dr Williams answer.
I'm a fervent Muslim, and i say this with absolute honesty: Rowan Williams is amongst the most wonderful people that exist on earth.
I think the respect he shows, his demeanour and patience serves to make this planet a better place. Kudos to you Mr. Williams, you have my respect.
It's shame Islam doesn't teach the same patience in return. Instead it teaches that apostates and unbelievers must be killed
And Dawkins is a wanker
why is that?
Rowan has an amazing voice. I love it.
And eyebrows
ASMR material
It’s soothing!
I like Williams. If all religious people were like him we would have no problem.
Christian acceptance of evolution is not relativism...Dawkins didn't succeed in showing there was a contradiction when he questioned Rowan about this so he went on to talk about his belief in miracles, and then cut off the interview at a point where it sounded like Rowan had dodged the question. Just pointing out the obvious people.
I agree. An attitude of 'epistemic humility' is a good idea most of the time. This is a case and point.
I think it comes down to this, we don't survive death. There is no afterlife. As for some higher being who knows?
I really wish there wasn't a voice-over at 2:12. I was looking forward to the Archbishop's answer.
Yes his voice was censored by Mr Dawkins!
Dawkins is a constant test of my faith. Not because I find his arguments compelling, but because he is a true difficulty for me in trying to love my enemies.
Why did Dr Williams have his answer cut off? What did he say? Did the answer displease Mr Dawkins?
You can see the fedora materializing on Dawkin’s head.
I can really respect both of these men, despite their conflicting beliefs. I watched their debate on the nature of humanity and its origin and they were both outstanding. Very intelligent, articulate people.
Only Dawkins would have the archbishop of Canterbury over a hot fire and relentlessly chisel away at the man’s ability to give a scientific answer. I admire both these men massively
Rowan Williams is a very gracious man
The entire interview use to be online without the monologue. It was really good.
Rowan is great.
I love intellectual confrontation. Two people with opposing viewpoints who debate calmly on the matter. That is what this world is missing. People can disagree but how they accept that disagreement makes all the difference.
Let him speak !!! Holy shit...
Standing outside at night, I tell my blind friends, "I see stars in the HEAVENS" And they burst out laughing. "And what do they look like?" ....
i would LOVE to see the full interview. has anyone been able to find it?
by the sound of it, yes.
the word "gravity", the concept of it, only means as much as has been explained, primarily by Newton and Einstein.
Notice the format. Richard leads you in, he uses editing to cut Rowan off, giving himself the last word, interjecting his own commentary after he's thought about it for a while.
I like Rowan Williams' poetic view on miracles. Even though I don't personally feel as though it is a sufficient explanation, it's still somehow an idea that appeals to me. It is a rather beautiful way of looking at it, and possibly the first almost sensible explanation to miracles that I've heard. However, if you have to practice mental contortionism at that level in order to explain something, the thing that you're trying to prove most likely isn't true. No matter how poetic it might sound.
Much as I love Dawkins, his statement at the beginning that "Gravity's not a version of the truth, it IS the truth" makes so comprehensible sense to me. Does he mean, "gravity exists"? wherein I'd agree. Let's not get carried away thinking that because it's Dawkins, everything he says is equivalent to Divine Fiat.
It’s absurd to think that science does anything more that unveil some of God’s work. The ‘discovery’ of gravity does nothing more than exonerate the perfection of this world. Newton dedicated his Principia to our Creator.
Watching Dawkins try to do philosophy is like watching a dolphin trying to tap dance.
Uea, its painful.
Dawkins used to try doing science, before finding atheism got him a bigger audience.
He was pretty bad at that too.
@@BismarkUtah This is just a dumb comment. Dawkins operates with the metaphysics of a 1980's Sunday school teacher. Sure, he's a respectable scientist, but he's incriminatingly bad when it comes to matters of philosophy.
@@BismarkUtah In some stupid sense, that's true.
You borrowed that line from David Bentley Hart. 😉
Is it just me, or do Rowan Williams’ eyebrows resemble a pair of angel wings quite remarkably? 👼
I think it was informative to see the leader of the Church of England express his beliefs, then to have him practically admit he was just using poetry to get out of a difficult question.
There are plenty of great discussions on these topics - watch the four horsemen discussions... some excellent points made by each and every one of them.
I'd like to have a voice like the ab of c. So smooth and soothing.
A good old Brittish dialogue. Lovely. Americans would never reach that level of mutual respect uttered so eloquently, and with a lightly sarcastic sense of humour blended in it. I'm not Brittish, btw. I find Williams really charismatic and has a charming awareness of his own flaws. Gotta love Dawkins, though
What program is this a part of? How would I find it?
No it's not. Dawkins is listening and being fair. Rowan seems like a great guy, and I even think Dawkins was going to say something like that before this video cut off. Dawkins is also a great guy, but here is a conflict between religion and science, and it involves the well-being of society. Society doesn't belong to anyone, but is what comprises everyone. Because of this, Dawkins has the right to be condescending towards any religious follower. He has a duty as he is the atheist leader.
Thanks for catching my typo. I had intended to write faith and reason.
I thought your post was really refreshing. Nice to hear someone expressing their opinion in a reasonable and civil way without becoming overly emotional or being dogmatic in the pursuit of forcing people to change their minds.
a man proselytizing his convictions speaks to the archbishop
I second bluenoserob's comment, I would love to see a full-scale debate between these two.
Dawkins is too cool, probably the only man who can get away with walking like he is constipated.
I don't your point. Cool and constipated at the same time? He to me looks as if he has just bitten on a lemon most of the time.
Half way through the video i realized they were arguing with each other
amen brother
But how does science explain dreams and intuition and how Bach or Bob Dylan create such glorious music?
there is no explanation. but traditional theology also doesn't explain it. it just speculates on the answer.
Good to see that these two men of differing opinions can have a civilised conversation on the matters at hand. Too often what starts out as personal questions descends into a slagging match between idiots on both sides, views become entrenced, minds close and it turns into us versus them. Fundies on both sides of this debate need to take example put their egos down and leave it to respectful reasonsed debate.
1:36
Very nice voice, I must say. So nice to listen to.
Acknowledging the facts of evolution and science as Rowan Williams does is one good thing but then believing in miracles and the virgin birth as he says seem to me to be at great odds with each other. I think in his head and heart he recognizes this contradiction. These biblical stories are legends and myths meant to convey a spiritual message.
@tuanchijui not sure if this one is there, but dawkins usually put out all the "uncut" interviews on his channel.
Soothing voice the bishop has.
No, not really. All the major religions accept some parts of evolution as they don't always negate religion and they could go hand-in-hand.
@blarson12 were you on it and if so where did you go?
Right you are! I read all 114 suras.
Funny thing: Rowan Williams and Ted Williams share a surname and both have nice voice
Dawkins was lucky this time. Rowan Williams has through his beard, unbelievable powers and could have struck the old fool down if he felt like it.
If all people could debate and agree to disagree the way these guys do, the world would be a better place.
Which documentary is this from?
Honestly, I am strongly against the idea of God, but here is a priest I can actually respect. He recognizes science; recognizes nature and physics; and is actually making a LOGICAL claim: (since we do not understand everything about physics, nature, and science) a designer may actually exist in a meta-dimension of nature/the universe. This designer can manipulate hierarchical levels of existence, eg. the levels we as humans recognize.
To at least think through one's own ideals- I respect that.
I dont care for Rowan Williams...but never knew what a nice voice he has.
i also like his voice. maybe for some Lord of the Rings voicework or such, just don't actually _believe_ what he's saying. remember that his occupation consists entirely of promoting superstition as fact.
You should look up the definition of "theory" in a scientific sense. A theory is a *hypothesis* (what you're thinking of, in layman's terms, as a "theory") that stands up to repeated testing, and has lots of evidence supporting it. The theory of gravity and the theory of evolution are both extremely well-supported theories, that are basically "facts" in the layman's sense.
I think this video is just the result of really one-sided editing. Dawkins has voice overs while Rowan Williams is talking, and then cuts scenes before he's given a chance to respond at the end. And the sorts of questions he's asking can't be answered in the time he's giving Williams to respond, so of course it's going to make it look as though he can't answer. GAH. Dawkins drives me crazy! I can't stand the man - and this is coming from someone who doesn't even identify as religious.
favourited
the video wouldn't play. stuck at the 21 sec mark.
You might be right. It annoyed me when you couldn't hear William's response, but you also have to remember this program was made by Channel 4 which isn't exactly known for it's great academic programming...plus it clearly wasn't edited by Dawkins himself...if you're going to say he looks like a secular fundamentalist, you can't really say it's because of anything he's done him can you?
I think the DNA replication process alone should be enough to shut this discussion
Was this in The genius of Darwin or in The enemies of reason?
Too much courtesy? I'm an atheist and I think that Rowan Williams is almost definitely wrong, however it's his courtesy which makes me warm to him and consider his arguments so much more willingly. After seeing someone like William Lane Craig elsewhere who is nowhere near as intelligent as either Williams or Dawkins but who basically slags off his debating partner's arguments and refutations while coming across quite objectionably, I can say it's quite refreshing to see a little courtesy.
If there is a hidden premise it is not intentional, but I have been using 'meaning' and 'purpose' ineterchangeably. If you prefer, I can agree that life can have internal, transient meaning, but I would say that this does not constitute an overall purpose.
Love the Dawk
"Nature itself opening up into its own depths" is poetic language, but not only intended to be poetic. It is the resultant declaration of a metaphysics which posits God as the grounds of existence and nature as a creation out of Love. This metaphysics is not merely poetry with only linguistic relations between words, but is an abstraction for the particularities which we experience through our senses of the real world which we participate in. The whole idea is that it is a unionizing and synthesis of nature and supernature by analogy.
Relativism is applicable for some cases where the premise is not something that is bound in logic, facts or in cases where it lacks definition. Human life is itself based upon relativism in the sense that you are shaped by your own life experiences which defines your reality which in turn is different for all of us.
It's not saying that God wasn't able to set things up that way, but his purpose in miracles isn't to simply make an event happen (ie. provide some more wine at a wedding), but to show his authority and power OVER the natural order. So he sets it up one way (which we can't defy) so that he can come along and defy it to show us who he is. Think about it. If water could naturally turn into wine, that may have solved one problem, but he would have had to do something else to show his power.
Williams was given plenty of voice who simply avoided giving clear answers; he did not openly admit to believing in the virgin Mary or not.
A reasonable comment on UA-cam? You deserve an award.
Clash of the eyebrows
I love Professor Dawkins we need people to challenge us, creation or God is in charge or Darwin's theory of Evolution, I'm a Christian and I love the fact that God is described as one who calls things into existence that didn't exist Romans Chapter 4 verse 17 as though they do exist, that's a pretty good view for me,I can certainly say with confidence that God can take Professor Dawkins questions and theories, God loves us to search it's how he has wired us, Free Will
True. Williams appears to be an advocate of religious pluralism as opposed to fundamentalist thought. I see nothing wrong with this. Dawkins should focus on hitting the extremists, not these moderates.
@blarson12 yes but did it fly?
What's so odd in saying God set up a system that works but when he choses to show something to be particularly important or cosmically important, he changes the system (through a miracle like the virgin birth) to make that point? That seems quite consistent and logical to me.
Yes I think he understands but he is skeptical about it when people try to avoid an argument by different interpretation of a single metaphor.
I thought Dr Williams came across very well,Dawkins tried to needle him with his "conjuring tricks" remark but to no avail,well done sir !.
why do we hear dawkins asking a question, and then a dawkins voice-over over williams' answer? theyre 2 thoughtful men, why cant we hear a fair exchange?
I love how much of a prick he is within the first 15 seconds. Gotta love this guy for not pulling any punches. This video needs to be a Troll's standard weapon.
williams gets owned at 4.20
this guy said in an interview,his idea of hell is to find out after death he is on his own.Sounds like he's terribly insecure about himself which is probably why he became a priest.
Evolution is real and I admire Richard Dawkins a lot. His writing are great and very lucid. But I very much hate his confrontationalism with religious people. What good can come out of this? There are more and more people joining the ranks of believers in evolution every day, because it's the reality, the future, the only rational explanation for the multitude of creatures on our planet. No one needs his confrontationalism to help change hearts and minds. Religion itself is a proof of evolution.
I'm not sure he did, I'd say Dawkins comes off more as an antagonistic child in the one... being given respectful answers
Not necessarily. Even though polite, i feel that Dawkins was well prepared with his questions, and it's possible that Williams wasn't' given any real advance to answer the questions with better preparation. maybe I'm right, maybe I'm wrong. I wasn't there.
What theory would that be?
@iPumpIron4Fun "that's the chance of dna randomly!"
sir, you deserve a nobel prize.
I'm surprised how many people think that Dawkins came off well in this. The opening rant against post-modernity sounds a lot like what I hear from fundamentalist Christians. Oh, and as someone else said, way to let your interviewee finish his answer.
Rowan Williams has a very manly voice.
It would have been easier to say science is science and miracles are miracles. How the two coexist is a mystery. I think Dawkins has an ambition to be omniscient whereas Dr Rowan Williams leaves the mysteries to God. There are mystics within the Christian faith who devote their lives to discovering the truths they need to grasp about God. I think Dawkins puts little trust in feelings and emotions and experiences.
One day we will leave these physical bodies that we live in…
Anything that encourages critical thought is good.
I disagree with Dawkins on many areas, but I do respect his honest search for truth and totally agree with his position against the relativism that has soaked Western culture and society today.
I just mean to point out certain things I object in this video, Dawkins has made the fallacy at 2:25 where he presents the "either - or" fallacy. He talks so much about reason, logic but somehow he slipped up this time. I also do realise my comments are not going to be popular since its an attack on one of the most revered and admired figure in modern atheism
So... since when did understand gravity? I missed that memo.
Does this mean I can get my right to speak of the Holy Dawkins now?
Rowan Williams looks like he should be playing a flute and standing on one leg...............Jethro Tull
...going back to the clock example, it is akin to arguing that the purpose of a clock is to tick. In fact, a clock does happen to tick, but this is not why it exists. It's purpose extends beyond itself.
Nice job on letting Arch Bishop Rowan finish what he was going to say Mr. Dawkins. Good form, I really admire how you don't take in any anthropological evidence before claiming that relativism is a sham.
Likewise, you must accept that your beliefs will (and should) be scrutinised. Just as scientific beliefs are.
I'm an atheist, but really respect both Williams and Dawkins. It's really only the wacky creationists annoy me.
Not that I agree with him, but his voice is so awesome.
@Killjeser He is indeed, he aches to win an argument.
So he's saying that somehow a virgin birth is still consistent with the laws of nature, even though we have no reason to suppose such a thing? They really are trying to "have their cake and eat it too" as it were.
Dr. Dawkins, for your next video series, PLEASE find a better way to film both people, the switching of the cameras makes me feel nauseas.
@repticman123 well it doesn't, no biologist ever said that. It becomes a branch of the original and over time changes if it can pass on it's genes, just like the beaks of finches on different islands for example. I don't understand why there's so much opposition to this.