Glad you caught the show. Let me know what you think in the comments and I’ll reply as soon as I can. If you’re a regular listener and would like to show your support and gain access to exclusive talks with some incredible minds, check out the Coleman Unfiltered membership here: bit.ly/3B1GAlS
RD believes we got the universe by "literally nothing." Do you think that? The 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. It is clear creation had to be done supernaturally at some point yet it is still denied because people are just too proud to accept that, among other things.
So you really like dolt Dawkins. Richard Dawkins teaches the universe came from "literally nothing." Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. We can't get anything from "literally nothing." We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God. God is the reason for us and all we have. ua-cam.com/video/JiMqzN_YSXU/v-deo.html “However improbable the origin of life might be, we know it happened on Earth because we are here.” -Richard Dawkins. We only get life from life...the law of biogenesis. We can't get anything without God. The odds are NOT there. ua-cam.com/video/W1_KEVaCyaA/v-deo.html ua-cam.com/video/yW9gawzZLsk/v-deo.html ua-cam.com/video/ddaqSutt5aw/v-deo.html No, the eye did not evolve into various eyes. Your mere chance mutations are absurd. ua-cam.com/video/X7h2HWcTwa4/v-deo.html Even Dawkins admits we can't know what is true because of natural selection... The God Delusion, “Since we are creatures of natural selection, we cannot totally trust our senses. Evolution only passes on traits that help a species survive, and not with preserving traits that tell a species what is actually true about life.” Oh, but Dawkins knows what's true about life...killing those who don't meet his expectations for living. dailycaller.com/2021/05/19/richard-dawkins-down-syndrome-roe-v-wade/
Richard Dawkins is the Greatest Exponent of Critical thinking and reasoning in the scientific search for Truth and understanding of the Beauty and Grandeur of our Universe..Thank you Both for this Great Discourse ❤❤❤
Thank you for this. Two ultra smart, decent guys - one very much an established intellectual hero and you, right on that path yourself, Coleman. Kudos! Without smart people like this we'd be ---- f... in trouble. :-) D.A., J.D., NYC
It is fulfilling to watch such an articulated interview, with such a huge character. Richard Dawkins has added to this species, more than we can imagine.
The talk about our not being designed to understand consciousness reflects the attitude that consciousness is something mechanical that we will one day be able to measure via scientific principles. What if it's not physical? What if it is at the opposite end of the energy spectrum - the highest frequency? What if consciousness is simply the experience of the present moment, and we know it by the feeling of peace this produces - homeostasis.
If you don't study something how do you know what effects you may miss? There may be some things that are sensitive and may be taken wrongly but that reflects on the people, not the study. I feel there should be nothing off limits as who decides?
I think it's important to distinguish between race and ethnicity. Just because they share the same skin color doesn't mean that someone from Ethiopia is very genetically similar to someone from Namibia. They would be more similar to each other than they would be to someone from China, but different in important ways genetically that could possibly effect medical treatment. Treatment based on the US conception of race (White, Black, Asian and Hispanic) don't really make sense, but treatment based off of ethnicity does.
I think consciousness is born from a network effect of different motivations where one or a few of the sonsory/information thresholds must be put to the forefront of a to-do agenda called "waking consciousness". What makes human consciousness so useful is that we have developed language complex enough to communicate and pontificate percieved reality and come to consensus points which then feeds back to a make a more intelligent pathway of organizing conscious motivations. I think there will always be processes we cannot get in touch with, like an atrophied muscle, and parts of our consciousness runs on grooved loops like a needle on a record, and this also gives ideas and instincts this sort of, bubbling up from the void effect while other things like the desire to eat may be a more obvious conscious state.
"I think consciousness is born from a network effect of different motivations where one or a few of the sonsory/information thresholds must be put to the forefront of a to-do agenda called "waking consciousness"." How can we get information without intelligence that first gave it? Try thinking. Richard Dawkins teaches the universe came from "literally nothing." Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. We can't get anything from "literally nothing." We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God. God is the reason for us and all we have. ua-cam.com/video/JiMqzN_YSXU/v-deo.html “However improbable the origin of life might be, we know it happened on Earth because we are here.” -Richard Dawkins. We only get life from life...the law of biogenesis. We can't get anything without God. The odds are NOT there. ua-cam.com/video/W1_KEVaCyaA/v-deo.html ua-cam.com/video/yW9gawzZLsk/v-deo.html ua-cam.com/video/ddaqSutt5aw/v-deo.html No, the eye did not evolve into various eyes. Your mere chance mutations are absurd. ua-cam.com/video/X7h2HWcTwa4/v-deo.html Even Dawkins admits we can't know what is true because of natural selection... The God Delusion, “Since we are creatures of natural selection, we cannot totally trust our senses. Evolution only passes on traits that help a species survive, and not with preserving traits that tell a species what is actually true about life.” Oh, but Dawkins knows what's true about life...killing those who don't meet his expectations for living. dailycaller.com/2021/05/19/richard-dawkins-down-syndrome-roe-v-wade/
@@2fast2block Listen to Jordan Peterson's lecture series on the Bible, I'm sure you'd find that interesting as he combines religious scripture with evolutionary psychology in a non-frustrating way for a religious person to hear.
@@nashton9964 "as he combines religious scripture with evolutionary psychology in a non-frustrating way for a religious person to hear." If, again if, Peterson thinks we got here by evolution, that does not frustrate me, that just gives me another person to laugh at. The 2nd law of thermodynamics (2LT): The universe is an isolated system that does not exchange energy or mass. A closed system exchanges energy but not mass. An open system exchanges energy and mass. The first law says basically the energy remains the same, it can change forms but it can't be created or destroyed. How we got all this to begin with points to a supernatural creation. If you think it was done by natural means, go ahead and explain how in regard to the 1LT. You can't even get chemicals for life without breaking the 1LT. The earth is basically a closed system depending upon what exactly is being talked about. Keep in mind that the 2LT works in all systems, there will always be an end result of more entropy, but in an open system you can get order, nonetheless yet the total will always be in favor of more entropy overall. Consider too that there is NO truly isolated system in the universe. That says that the 2LT which is so well-tested, works in all systems. As mentioned, you have to get around the 1LT by explaining creation in light of it. Next, once you have creation, it is an isolated system that cannot get order, so you'll have to explain how things formed to get order to even have open systems inside of it. I know, you can't do that either by known science. The 2LT does not prevent the first replicating cell from happening and evolving. Part of entropy though is the tendency to go to disorder. We obviously have order on the earth such as snowflakes, salt crystals (which are very simple), also plants, animals, (which are complex), etc. Even still, those eventually break down over time. I'll give you a simple example of the 2LT. If there was a glass of room temp water and I put several drops of green dye in the water, would the 2LT prevent it from forming the word "cell" all in connecting cursive letters? Absolutely not. Nothing stops the dye from doing that. Now, will it do it? No because the dye will go where there is no order. What if though I had inside the glass a clear plastic mold also filled with water that forced the dye to form the word "cell". Then it would do it because there was something (a "machine") to direct the dye and make order to it. Look at how a snowflake and salt crystals form, their environments led them to do what they had no choice in doing due to a "machine" to make it do that. They are simple systems, not complex like a plant or animal. With that in mind, if there was an open system, you'd have to have a "machine" that directs the molecules (that you can't explain how they got there to begin with by natural means) to form the first living self-replicating cell. Does the 2LT prevent that from happening? No, not at all, but will it happen? No, not at all because the odds of such a machine to give such order is impossible. You never even reached natural selection because that takes life. Natural selection picks from what is there already. You are believing in something that has odds against the complexity of life ever happening. Again, odds that make it impossible. Simply saying that the sun in an open system is the answer to order, is wrong. Undirected and unharnessed energy into an open system won't cause an increase in order, it would do the opposite, like the proverbial bull in a china shop. In other words, it is atheists' science because they have to remain blind to reality. The science against them crushes them. It's a wonder how such science fiction is deliberately chosen. Explained here: ua-cam.com/video/9dAA06Zfi4M/v-deo.html Life only comes from life. Law of biogenesis. God is the reason for us and all we have. ua-cam.com/video/JiMqzN_YSXU/v-deo.html The odds are NOT there. ua-cam.com/video/W1_KEVaCyaA/v-deo.html ua-cam.com/video/yW9gawzZLsk/v-deo.html ua-cam.com/video/ddaqSutt5aw/v-deo.html
One more comment: I would encourage you to have conversations with Joe Dispenza, Eckhart Tolle, Rupert Spira, Dr. Rangan Chatterjee, Russell Brand or many of the other thinkers on consciousness who tell us that consciousness is that IN which all experience takes place, WITH which all experience is known, and OUT of which all experience is made. It is not and never will be found in matter.
He doesn’t live in the US. Neither do I. I’m impressed by what science has achieved during the pandemic. It’s amazing to me the US right were persuaded to be anti vax given their beloved former president has been vaxxed and boosted as have all their favourite pundits at Fox News and likely all the Republican politicians both federal and state. So many unnecessary deaths and damage 😥
@@roxee57 You don't live in the US but you sound like you do lol, the fact that "the science" has become politicized is a trap and almost everybody, even the super-intelligent, has become entangled. The only way out is through actual transparency from our authorities, but that won't happen until they get replaced. Both sides are equally contemptible though, so I dunno where we're gonna find actual decent human beings to do the big jobs
When it was suggested that Science only deals with what is and not with what aught to be and leaves us in an amoral world Richard’s reply should’ve simply been that mankind was here 10’s of 100’s of thousands of years before any of the Religions so it’s clear we developed our morals on our own long before the Bible, Quran, etc etc.. Amazing how some think ever started 2,000 years ago with the Bible when humans have been on this planet for 100’s of thousands of years🤦♂️.
Coma is what Dawkins and his followers are in. Richard Dawkins teaches the universe came from "literally nothing." Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. We can't get anything from "literally nothing." We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God. God is the reason for us and all we have. ua-cam.com/video/JiMqzN_YSXU/v-deo.html “However improbable the origin of life might be, we know it happened on Earth because we are here.” -Richard Dawkins. We only get life from life...the law of biogenesis. We can't get anything without God. The odds are NOT there. ua-cam.com/video/W1_KEVaCyaA/v-deo.html ua-cam.com/video/yW9gawzZLsk/v-deo.html ua-cam.com/video/ddaqSutt5aw/v-deo.html No, the eye did not evolve into various eyes. Your mere chance mutations are absurd. ua-cam.com/video/X7h2HWcTwa4/v-deo.html Even Dawkins admits we can't know what is true because of natural selection... The God Delusion, “Since we are creatures of natural selection, we cannot totally trust our senses. Evolution only passes on traits that help a species survive, and not with preserving traits that tell a species what is actually true about life.” Oh, but Dawkins knows what's true about life...killing those who don't meet his expectations for living. dailycaller.com/2021/05/19/richard-dawkins-down-syndrome-roe-v-wade/
The "religion-shaped-hole" might not need to be replaced by something "equally as silly" as Dawkins puts it. I see no reason we could not salvage the best parts of the old wisdom of religion and discard the nonsense. Why not have a more enlightened vision of religion, unconstrained by sectarianism and dogma? Because I do think this lack of meaning amongst a growing atheistic population is telling, and it seems they turn to politics, or worse, identity politics, to fill that religion-shaped-hole. It makes sense that Dawkins, as much as I respect him, has trouble answering this question convincingly, because the movement he helpef give rise to over a decade ago seems to have a great deal of overlap with this crisis of meaning, which evidently many people can't get from science and reason alone, as wonderful as those things are.
In what way does delusion aid in this protest against humanity's honest sigh? aside from the obvious and perhaps consoling preemptory dogmatism of religious identity.
Dr.K has an interesting video on this (ua-cam.com/video/sc3ycMvyuoo/v-deo.html) where he lists out the benefits of a religion, their impact on mental health and how to achieve these benefits "atheistically." Hint: A lot of self discipline is required to make yourself adhere to something like an atheistic religion. It's like the difference between having to cook for yourself or going out to eat.
@@virtualalias It’s interesting that you bring this up, because when the USAF did a study on suicide back in either 2008 or 2010, they discovered that 85% of all suicide attempts were by people who claimed “no religious affiliation.” This lead the military to invest more into their chaplain corp, to encourage spirituality, and include that as part of the Whole Airmen Concept. They did this in a blanket way, in order to not promote any specific religions and even include atheism as a belief system. This doesn’t prove anything one way or another about religion, but does bring up the idea that spirituality does make things easier for people going through difficult moments in their lives.
@@leftykiller8344 And while most religions no longer teach that suicide is the ultimate (and unforgivable) sin the way they used to, more and more religious people commit suicide than in the past. I've known quite a few people who said they most definitely would have committed suicide if they hadn't been afraid of going to hell. You can laugh at the notion all you want, but that irrational fear caused them not to take the most irrational of all acts.
@Greg Evenden - Actually, the most religious people are the ones who stuck on “identity politics”, not the atheists. Examples: evangelical Christians, southern Baptists, & others.
39; I’d love to see Richard Dawkins discuss this very topic with Douglas Murray, whether we need religion in order to be moral. I’m inclined to agree with Dawkins - we don’t !
ua-cam.com/video/7Y4znlARl08/v-deo.html. I ll respect you if you are honest about all this. Richard Dawkins is not. Shame on him! The God that I believe in loves you my friend. And that s a fact.
22:09 "What is true is that the variance between humans (in general) is much less than variance within a race." Would anyone care to share studies, articles or books to support that? I'm interested in this idea that one could be more genetically similar to someone from another race than he or she is from a member of its own race. Would be very glad to know what papers the interviewer is talking about at 23:30 as well (about significant overlap of races)
Coleman you've GOT to speed up the talking rate. I know it's your signature style to be a careful and slow talker and I don't typically have any problem with it otherwise, but if you have a 'get' like Dawkins on the show, you could've asked almost double the number of questions you did in the limited time you had if you just sped things up a bit.
Coleman would do well to have Proff Wolf on. I’ve been listening to coldxman since the beginning, but covid has convinced me corpos profits and price gouging require democracy at work for the future.
@@JediNiyte I used to love Hitchens, but the longer he's been dead, the more I realize that there really isn't a Hitchens-shaped hole in my mind. There's still a God-shaped one, but Hitchens has proven less and less interesting, at least in this regard, over the years. He was an acerbic wit, but not much else.
I absolutely agree with Sam Harris, that our moral drive should be based on scientific knowledge. To be aware that sentient beings can suffer and to use science to alleviate that suffering - (as opposed to relying on the supernatural).
Science makes no value judgments, and makes no moral claims. This is why Sam Harris, despite making this assertion has never come up with a single scientific experiment that has ever been done to solve a single moral issue, and he will never be able to do so.
Im christian and I understand Mr Harris. The thing is that when you give your back to God ( we give our backs to something that s out there), science is all you are left with. I admire those guys who have both God and science, such as Francis Collins, John Lennox, Michael Behe, Phillip E Johnson. Plus, being a christian I am told not to be dishonest nor a coward. R Dawkins is both.ua-cam.com/video/7Y4znlARl08/v-deo.html
A conscience being knows the finality of death. A computing machine does not. Therefore a conscience being will do what is necessary to avoid death which provides for future generations.
The question of religious practice and happiness is fascinating one and I can see why it might be true. My perspective is that of somebody raised as a Roman Catholic but who with age and maturity have gone through various phases of questioning, doubt, etc: It is my view that religion is the only human institution that synthesises all significant human aspects of the human condition. In the case of Roman Catholicism you get: a basic moral code, rituals for celebrating key milestones (birth, death, marriage, etc), mythology, a primitive cosmology, plenty of fables and parables on which to draw life lessons. They are clearly imperfect and do not work for everyone but that they have lasted for so long makes me hesitant to write it all off as the fumblings of the pre-enlightenment ancient or medieval mind. With the view that there is 'nothing new under the sun', I've even started to wonder whether the Catholic sacrament of confession may have played the role of therapy and mental health support in centuries past. Similarly, Nicholas Taleb writes convincingly of how the fasting injunctions of Ramadan or Lent bring many health benefits. Anyway, beyond the slightly condescending notion that the religious are happier due to their belief in eternal life, perhaps the following would be more on point: - regular Mass/Church attendance fosters a sense of community - the weekly joint rest day on Sunday does the same - rituals to celebrate birth/death/marriage/coming of age are accounted for and can be jointly celebrated by the entire community - shrines to honour your dead relative (graveyards) - guidance on moral and spiritual matters (confession, sermons) - basic moral education for your children (while I agree with Dawkins' assertion that the Old Testament when read end to end contains many examples of immoral behaviour, the fact is that Catholic education based on the Old Testament essentially amounts to the Ten Commandments, the Golden Rule etc, things pretty much anyone can agree on). In practice therefore, this criticism doesn't really hold, though other criticisms might and do Imagine if this was all packaged in modern parlance: join our community for regular meet-ups, parties for key life events, 1:1 coaching with a guru, and so on. I still remember in my childhood in rural Ireland attending mass every Sunday. The thirty minute sermon felt very long at that age but I would meet my friends afterwards and my parents would chit-chat to the other parents, we would say prayers at my grandfather's grave and leave flowers. It's very hard to re-create all this from first principles in the intellectual environment of the university campus. I wouldn't know where to begin or what to invent if tomorrow I had a child and wanted to find a regular forum where I could meet other people in the community, etc. I would probably just start attending Mass again. The few humanist ceremonies I have attended were all very nice, but to me they seemed like Christianity without the references to God, a sort of final iteration on the Reformation. Anyway, for all of the above, I can see why practicing a religion could lead to greater happiness for reasons other than belief in an afterlife or similar supernatural phenomena.
Right, but none of this makes it true. Also, I've been to many a secular marriage, funeral, coming of age (sweet 16 celebration), high school and college graduation ceremonies, etc. etc. and let me tell you; they are far better and just as compeling, and more dignified than pretending to know what no one can, namely that Grandma is somewhere 'in a better place'. No, she has simply returned to that place she was before she was born.. Religions are simply a very old version of similar traditions, and if you think in order to have community, coming of age, marriage, funeral services etc etc etc you need a book written by a bunch of illiterate, backward, iron age people who thought the earth was flat and comprised the entire universe (other than heaven and hell) - you sir, are gravely mistaken. Not only can we do all these ritualistic celebrations without having to believe anything on insufficient evidence - we can do them far better, and we are already doing it. The "nones" are the fastest growing 'religion' in the US, we have already number higher than Jews in America - a group that yields huge amounts of power. So yes, it's not gonna happen overnight, but it is happening and at an ever increasing rate.
At no point do I claim that 'in order to have community, coming of age, marriage, funeral services etc etc etc you need a book written by a bunch of illiterate, backward, iron age people who thought the earth was flat and comprised the entire universe', nor do I at any point make the claim that Roman Catholicism/Christianity is true.
@@liammelia6843 Hi Liam, I just read over your post again my sincere apology for it. It had sounded a like you were either proselytizing or saying an iron age text which edited probably between 1000 - 10,000 times starting with the figure known as Jesus of Naserith. What I thought u were saying is that, while you and I believe in death, many, many ppl deny that death exists, or at least can be avoided in their own particular case by making the right propitiations. (i.e. the total euphoria and ecstasy the jyhad' feels just before they push the button on an overcrowded bus or building, blowing up themselves and everyone in it) Anyhow, I would conclude by saying that we need to continue to push against the tyranny, rape, intrusion into women's bodies and on and on that they continue to get away with, with their billions and billions of dollars of tax free money they currently possess. It is despicable beyond imagination, that the former Bishop and Archdiocese of Boston was shipped from parish to parish to find boys to violate. He has been charged with dozens of felony rape accusations and the keep pouring in. So where is he now? Repaying his debt to society? In prison for mandatory minimums of 10-25 years... No. He is a free man, a fugitive from justice, in Vatican city, where the church, being an independent nation and having no extradition laws with the United States. Is sitting peacefully like ever happened. As if that wasn't bad enough, the Vatican choose HIM of all people, to help decide who will be the next Vicker of Christ here on earth - a criminal, a pedophile and a fugitive of justice. Ya we need ritual alright... fucking bullshit. We do need a secular replacement for some rituals and gathering, but most have already been filled, so just the remaining few that doesn't include lying to ourselves and others, nor committing the most unspeakable crimes and then covering them up. (Not to you Liam, I'm sure we're on the page, again I must misread and apologies once again).
@@issoccer20 thank you for your message. I can see why at first glance my comment might read like a general defence of Roman Catholicism. What I was really trying to distill where the reasons why religious people may be happier than the irreligious, so I was consciously cherry-picking its most positive aspects. Of course, many deplorable acts have been done in the name of all religions. I won't add my two cents to that as much has been said and it's really a separate topic. I will simply mention, a rather weak but nonetheless important point in my view, that I don't think these abuses are particular to religion, rather are liable to happen in any powerful institution where sadistic and predatory individuals can use threats and intimidation to prey upon the vulnerable. We've seen similar accounts in sporting, educational and political institutions. I say this simply to say that while I agree with you on how horrific a lot of what you mentioned is, I don't think it completely discounts the reasons I mentioned as to why religious practice might foster greater happiness. The nascent secular humanist institutions that you talk about may well carry the day and replace traditional religion, only time will tell I suppose. But if they do I would see it as an iteration on the religious tradition rather than a reinvention, but that's just opinion.
41: perhaps the main reason religious folks living in predominantly secular societies,”tend to be happier” than their non-religious neighbors, is because they are in the minority. So they tend to be more close-knit as a community - everyone knows everyone else and they look out for one another. Something we in atheist communities are often found lacking.
To me, that sense of community is definitely one of the benefits that a religious affiliation can provide. I think that there are clear benefits to religion, or we wouldn't have spent so much time and energy maintaining them. But of course there are downside as well, nothing is black-and-white.
You make an effort to ignore that Christianity has history on its side. This book , written by a german journalist in 1955 will blow your mind away. For real
Wrt. Morality from science, I don't think it has to be that complex. Dawkins basically answered it in The Selfish Gene. The golden rule basically falls out of the iterated prisoners dilemma. And from that follows a lot of what we regard as moral.
Re: sickle cell, I agree talking about what causes it and why a population is more likely to get it in race neutral terms is actually more accurate. You don't it because you're Black (just a correlation), you get it due the genetics of your ancestors (a population that historically encountered malaria). I have to say that I disagree agree w/ the characterization Coleman made about the CDC. No doubt there was some secrecy around studies and that should usually be avoided, but in this case, I sympathize with an organization that has to COMMUNICATE the science to a public that is primed to use anything as a weapon. I knew someone who was a spokesperson for the CDC about twenty years ago and it's much more complex than just communicating "the science."
Beyond the designed elements of religion, it’s also important to note (and research) the history and prevalence of psychological abnormalities which affect beliefs. Psychosis in religion is HUGE. Very hard to study from a sociological perspective, but completely relevant. Psychological states are what religion is. The rest is expert and compelling storytelling, money, community, architecture, song, customs, laws, war, battles, etc. MDMA is temporary psychosis with clarity. Psilocybin is temporary psychosis without much clarity. Bipolar psychosis can have much clarity (and memory of it.) Schizophrenia, in general, lacks much awareness or insight. Again nobody studies this much because there are bigger fish to fry and it’s hard data to get. Psychotic episodes by Religious folks remain socially acceptable because they are sheltered by the religious framework itself. Psychotic episodes outside of religion are generally condemned - though less so, now. The basic point is, it is very very easy to be out of your mind and stay that way if you stay within a religious (or cult) community.
I'm torn as a newer atheist. While I no longer believe in God, I can't help but to see the many positives that come from religion for so many people. It's true I think we could advance in society more without religion, but it seems many people are not capable of hope and purpose without some divine religion.
Well Josh, you can ask Louis Pasteur, Robert Boyle, and most fathers of modern science. You can also ask Francis Collins, John Lennox, Michael Behe, Phillip E Johnson, Hugh Ross and the list goes on and on.
How can you say that? Isn’t consciousness the one thing that can’t be an illusion? Even if we were living in the Matrix or you were a brain in a vat or everything else about reality was somehow illusory, consciousness would still be real. It is the one thing that cannot be doubted because it is the very condition in which a doubt can even appear.
@@motorhead48067 Good point, and that's why I prefer the word delusion to illusion in this context. We certainly have awareness, memories, and other mental processes, but for humans it's very difficult to separate these self evident truths from the idea of having an essential self, which is an illusion. I recommend Anil Seth's book "Being You"; he calls consciousness a "controlled hallucination", and presents a convincing case.
The importance of study of group differences is correlated to the drive for equitable outcomes between groups. They go together, as one is a investigative step to the other
Possibly. But how do you propose to monitor whether actual racism of the sort seen in the mid-20th century has returned to business, for example. Is it sufficient to rely on measuring lawsuits?
Only dolts like you think that. Richard Dawkins teaches the universe came from "literally nothing." Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. We can't get anything from "literally nothing." We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God. God is the reason for us and all we have. ua-cam.com/video/JiMqzN_YSXU/v-deo.html “However improbable the origin of life might be, we know it happened on Earth because we are here.” -Richard Dawkins. We only get life from life...the law of biogenesis. We can't get anything without God. The odds are NOT there. ua-cam.com/video/W1_KEVaCyaA/v-deo.html ua-cam.com/video/yW9gawzZLsk/v-deo.html ua-cam.com/video/ddaqSutt5aw/v-deo.html No, the eye did not evolve into various eyes. Your mere chance mutations are absurd. ua-cam.com/video/X7h2HWcTwa4/v-deo.html Even Dawkins admits we can't know what is true because of natural selection... The God Delusion, “Since we are creatures of natural selection, we cannot totally trust our senses. Evolution only passes on traits that help a species survive, and not with preserving traits that tell a species what is actually true about life.” Oh, but Dawkins knows what's true about life...killing those who don't meet his expectations for living. dailycaller.com/2021/05/19/richard-dawkins-down-syndrome-roe-v-wade/
I think therefore i exist, therefore i was created or always existed and the creator was created or always existed, therefore God exists. I challenged humanity to debate with me the existence of God.
I hope Dawkins will be asked what he thinks of the increasingly popular conservative claim that atheism directly leads to what is effectively Atheism+, which is to say, woke. This is particularly interesting as we now see what might be termed Judaism+, Christianity+, and even Islam+. Edit: they get close to this at about 33 minutes, but it's not exactly the same idea....
Dawkins shows no desire to face reality. Richard Dawkins teaches the universe came from "literally nothing." Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. We can't get anything from "literally nothing." We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God. God is the reason for us and all we have. ua-cam.com/video/JiMqzN_YSXU/v-deo.html “However improbable the origin of life might be, we know it happened on Earth because we are here.” -Richard Dawkins. We only get life from life...the law of biogenesis. We can't get anything without God. The odds are NOT there. ua-cam.com/video/W1_KEVaCyaA/v-deo.html ua-cam.com/video/yW9gawzZLsk/v-deo.html ua-cam.com/video/ddaqSutt5aw/v-deo.html No, the eye did not evolve into various eyes. Your mere chance mutations are absurd. ua-cam.com/video/X7h2HWcTwa4/v-deo.html Even Dawkins admits we can't know what is true because of natural selection... The God Delusion, “Since we are creatures of natural selection, we cannot totally trust our senses. Evolution only passes on traits that help a species survive, and not with preserving traits that tell a species what is actually true about life.” Oh, but Dawkins knows what's true about life...killing those who don't meet his expectations for living. dailycaller.com/2021/05/19/richard-dawkins-down-syndrome-roe-v-wade/
I disagree with Richard Dawkins’ statement at 13:20 , that Consciousness must provide an adaptive advantage. Ever heard of something called an evolutionary by-product? ua-cam.com/video/ZhmMNUL2rUg/v-deo.html
I don’t intend to be contrarian to this audience but isn’t there an issue with concept of scientific sanctity of life? Can science prove a sanctity of life? I can see how it can make a case for creating life but what’s the value in preserving life? In the statement, “the worst possible suffering for everyone is bad”, doesn’t that only hold weight if that which suffering is being applied to holds a universal acceptance of sanctity?
Does science have to prove that? Human compassion is innate in most those without are not wired properly and science can explain that. It's all just part of our evolutionary journey to survive as pack animals.
@@jameswright... ok, if we were to assume Human compassion is innate, though I don’t know if the research fully backs that up. Being innately compassionate does not mean you do not have the propensity to be uncompassionate. Rather, and more direct to this discussion; evolution seems to support both altruism and selfishness as a way to propagate. So the question is not whether compassion is innate but does evolution have a moral preference to propagate through altruistic means vs selfish means? I will also add, I disagree with your sentiment that science explains ‘being wired improperly if you lack compassion’. “Properly” seems to imply an absolute standard. Standards are socially or religiously set. In a relative statement, Dawkins himself said that when he wrote the Selfish Gene it was not prescriptive rather descriptive.
The US is the most religious of liberal democracies and those of us who live outside the US in the other liberal democracies don’t get why people in the US keep saying humans have a religious shaped hole that needs filling if organised religion fades. You’re right Coleman that if one was never raised religious this idea that there’s a religious hole that needs filling seems nonsensical. I’d be interested to see a poll done of the woke in the US where wokism arose to see if any of them have supernatural beliefs, because I suspect many of them do and if I’m right it would quash this idea that the woke have invented a new secular religion to replace an abandoned one. Of course there’s a lot of prominent US atheist groups that are woke and non-US atheists find them cringe worthy, but those groups are populated by a lot of people who were very religious in the past so I wonder if that has something to do with it. I mean these so called sceptic atheists appear to have abandoned evolutionary biology in order to prop up the idea people can change their sex and can’t admit the dimorphism of our species let alone describe how or why it happened. Anyway, I’ve gone on too long. Loved the interview. Richards next book sounds great.
33:53 - unfortunately “love of Truth” offers little consolation when dealing with the loss of a child or some other terrible tragedy in one’s life. I think it’s human nature to want to fill the “God shaped hole” with something…..
Dawkins is not scientist. A scientist makes some studies, experiments and produces results. Dawkins writes books and he lectures about evolution in the sense of suppress zexistence of God. This is not a ny science.This is ideology. He could be a philosopher if he would not express his hate to religion in such a furiuos way.
I'm not going to argue for religion one way or the other, but his response to the religion-shaped-hole question doesn't sound very scientific. Who cares whether it's pathetic or not? If it's true, it's true. Again, I'm not saying it's true, but why should this one human being's idea that we should substitute science for religion have any effect on the world around us, which shows us over and over and over again that people act justly most often when they feel compelled to do so by society, whether that's social norms or religion or laws or whatever. It's like saying "Isn't it pathetic that we can't teach a chimpanzee to write original poetry?" Obviously, a chimpanzee has the physical ability to learn how to write (or type), and we could probably teach it to copy an already written poem, but just because it's physically possible doesn't mean it's anywhere in the chimpanzee's mind to write original poetry. Maybe it's not in the human mindset to live in a world without myths of some sort or the other. the humanism-as-a-replacement-for-religion is a kind of myth as well.
I'm kind of surprised Dawkins answered the way he did about the "forbidden knowledge" question. Maybe some questions in science, whose answers are potentially most practical in making society better, should be given highest priority, but I am of the opinion that no one should be FORBIDDEN to study anything they want. As long as we maintain the axiom that policy should not be affected by the results of studying something like race, I don't think such research will destroy society. The example of genetic probability of disorders could be framed without making any reference to race, but I don't think anyone should be "in trouble" for approaching the question that way. (The attitude that discovering differences between races might ruin people's sense of equality and justice is vaguely analogous to the warning of many religions to their practitioners, to not research their beliefs lest their faith be ruined. There shouldn't be any forbidden knowledge--I like to think most people can handle the truth without disintegrating morally. And if you make a taboo about studying something like race, it inevitably fascinates everyone all the more.) Anyway, great interview. It is always good to hear from Dawkins.
whether race is a construct or not, it does not pertain to the obfuscation and total encapsulation of the black and white dichotomy concocted by colonialists, that has been promulgated for the last 500 years. So much so, that Africans believe they are separated by their "race" of skin colour difference from Europeans, even though Europeans can be closer genetically to some Africans than those Africans to other Africans. There are studies that people use that use gene studies to relate the obvious difference we see between different groups and how these suggest different races, as we see them and socially label them, but this ignores the interconnectedness and complexity of those genes studies that show the aforementioned closeness of groups that dont look the same and are from different geographical areas like Africa and Europe.
Sadly, liberty and intellectual curiosity are minority thoughts, as more prefer religion and government edicts to tell them what they should and shouldn't do and say and think and investigate.
Paraphrasing "I'm very impressed the way science has come together and produced these vaccines so fast." Ikr! Couldn't have done it better if it had been planned....
54:55 I'm sorry Dawkins, I respect you, but I can't let you get away with blaming the victim group. It is always feasible that an individual victim is to blame for their predicament. But it is impossible to justify lying to the public and making us all victims because of some individuals who you believe can't be trusted with the truth. You are better than that. I expect better of you. ☮️❤️🌈
So you respect Dawkins?! Richard Dawkins teaches the universe came from "literally nothing." Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. We can't get anything from "literally nothing." We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God. God is the reason for us and all we have. ua-cam.com/video/JiMqzN_YSXU/v-deo.html “However improbable the origin of life might be, we know it happened on Earth because we are here.” -Richard Dawkins. We only get life from life...the law of biogenesis. We can't get anything without God. The odds are NOT there. ua-cam.com/video/W1_KEVaCyaA/v-deo.html ua-cam.com/video/yW9gawzZLsk/v-deo.html ua-cam.com/video/ddaqSutt5aw/v-deo.html No, the eye did not evolve into various eyes. Your mere chance mutations are absurd. ua-cam.com/video/X7h2HWcTwa4/v-deo.html Even Dawkins admits we can't know what is true because of natural selection... The God Delusion, “Since we are creatures of natural selection, we cannot totally trust our senses. Evolution only passes on traits that help a species survive, and not with preserving traits that tell a species what is actually true about life.” Oh, but Dawkins knows what's true about life...killing those who don't meet his expectations for living. dailycaller.com/2021/05/19/richard-dawkins-down-syndrome-roe-v-wade/
It is quite unfortunate that Dawkins refuses to have an open dialogue with the ideas brought to light by analytical psychologists such as Peterson and his own inspiration, Jung. It would go so far as to help identify the connection between tens of thousands of years in story and narrative, commonality across such stories and narratives, describing the journey of the human condition to the concept of the Self (capital S) and how that transcends human limitation, like an instrument resonating with the symphony of the orchestra. None of that is ever interesting to Dawkins and wont ever be in the future because his entire career is entirely in opposition to such thought or at the very least, in denial as to how that connects to the idealistic and symbolic values behind the concept of a "God" and gods.
Dawkins only likes to pretend he thinks. His braindead followers bring money to him. Richard Dawkins teaches the universe came from "literally nothing." Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. We can't get anything from "literally nothing." We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God. God is the reason for us and all we have. ua-cam.com/video/JiMqzN_YSXU/v-deo.html “However improbable the origin of life might be, we know it happened on Earth because we are here.” -Richard Dawkins. We only get life from life...the law of biogenesis. We can't get anything without God. The odds are NOT there. ua-cam.com/video/W1_KEVaCyaA/v-deo.html ua-cam.com/video/yW9gawzZLsk/v-deo.html ua-cam.com/video/ddaqSutt5aw/v-deo.html No, the eye did not evolve into various eyes. Your mere chance mutations are absurd. ua-cam.com/video/X7h2HWcTwa4/v-deo.html Even Dawkins admits we can't know what is true because of natural selection... The God Delusion, “Since we are creatures of natural selection, we cannot totally trust our senses. Evolution only passes on traits that help a species survive, and not with preserving traits that tell a species what is actually true about life.” Oh, but Dawkins knows what's true about life...killing those who don't meet his expectations for living. dailycaller.com/2021/05/19/richard-dawkins-down-syndrome-roe-v-wade/
Not sure what the subject matter will be, but Peterson has said a few times on his podcast that he has recorded a great conversation with Dawkins (in his estimation), and will be released soon. Can't wait!
@@gregevenden6515 I heard that too, I believe he did talk to Dawkins after his second Oxford address, and if so then I'll definitely want to listen in.
What does "suffering is bad" even mean? Isn't that a tautology? Included within suffering itself is the idea that it is bad. That's why it is suffering, and not something else.
Mother Theresa would have disagreed. She thought that suffering brought people closer to Jesus Christ, and was not enthusiastic about measures to reduce suffering in her hospices...
Pardon my ignorance, but what is the difference between an evolutionary biologist, and a biologist? aren't all real biologist adhered to the evolution theory?
Quaran and Islam teach Morality and explain the race problem that science and western world are shy to touch upon. Instead of disregarding religion, take religion to shape up your morality and furthermore Islam explain consciousness where natural selection doesn't explain it. I am Muslim and I like science. Why all this hate towards religion?
I very muched enjoyed this conversation. Though I can't help but to find people that hold strictly mechanistic views of the universe such as Dawkins annoyingly narrow minded and somewhat arrogant.
and dishonest. He doesnt accept to debate WL Craig just because " Craig believes in a God that is a genocide", but agreed to debate many other theists. Very dishonest. Wiiliam L Craig is ready, RD. ua-cam.com/video/7Y4znlARl08/v-deo.html
As opposed to a false fictitious worldview? Dawkins will always annoy the mediocre minds of the masses. Make no mistake, Richard Dawkins is a great man and a scientist, not a witch doctor. Calling him arrogant is extremely hypocritical condescension and foolish.
When talking about making brute assumptions in order to make a system of morality, how is it not a “leap of faith” to make those assumptions? Isn’t that then in some ways religious? Also, Dawkins says we should have reverence to science, how is that not religious language? Science, as I understand it is a system of finding material truth in the universe but is derived off of assumptions such as the world is not random and chaotic. How is that also not religious language and in some ways an act of faith? All that said, it feels like all that Dawkins wants is indeed a religion just not one of the major denominations. Instead his religion is science and the assumptions that come along with it. I’d be interested to hear where people think I am misguided and disagree. I am a Catholic (who’s not actually self-loathing and shame ridden like Dawkins apparently would assume so) so I am not super familiar with his way of thinking. Thank you!
Dawkins only pretends to care about science. He's promoted and popular by braindead followers and our braindead woke MSM. He's an insult to science and most anything good and honest. Richard Dawkins teaches the universe came from "literally nothing." Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. We can't get anything from "literally nothing." We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God. God is the reason for us and all we have. ua-cam.com/video/JiMqzN_YSXU/v-deo.html “However improbable the origin of life might be, we know it happened on Earth because we are here.” -Richard Dawkins. We only get life from life...the law of biogenesis. We can't get anything without God. The odds are NOT there. ua-cam.com/video/W1_KEVaCyaA/v-deo.html ua-cam.com/video/yW9gawzZLsk/v-deo.html ua-cam.com/video/ddaqSutt5aw/v-deo.html No, the eye did not evolve into various eyes. Your mere chance mutations are absurd. ua-cam.com/video/X7h2HWcTwa4/v-deo.html Even Dawkins admits we can't know what is true because of natural selection... The God Delusion, “Since we are creatures of natural selection, we cannot totally trust our senses. Evolution only passes on traits that help a species survive, and not with preserving traits that tell a species what is actually true about life.” Oh, but Dawkins knows what's true about life...killing those who don't meet his expectations for living. dailycaller.com/2021/05/19/richard-dawkins-down-syndrome-roe-v-wade/
** The Truth About Professor Dave ** Yawn: Atheist UA-camr “Professor Dave” Rants about Intelligent Design Günter Bechly May 25, 2022 This article is available online at Evolution News.
If natural section were true why is their female and male only why can’t their be a 3rd 4th 5th type of sex? Or male only? And when being conscious why is it that I can only be conscious in my body but not in nobody else’s body? And what is it exactly in the body that makes me, me? Why are we the only ones that can speak a language? What would happen if we wipe out the human race? Would the universe simply keep going or eventually make humans again on its own? Maybe we need to accept we don’t know everything and we never will cus we are not Gods! To think we came here by simply chance Is ridiculous!!! May god help y’all’s souls!!!
I admire many aspects of Richard Dawkins but have always found his arguments against the idea of the religious shaped hole in humans to be weak and contradictory. He finds answers to all things in the enlightenment - which is fine. But every human is not inclined to be a scientist. His bit on thinking in terms of academic philosophy as a source for morality is just an abstracted bait and switch for religion because it is "logical" and it makes sense to him. Yet that is what religions did and have done for people for far longer than the enlightenment has been around. He substitutes deduce for faith. I am not religious either but I think he is just missing a deeper level of thinking around these abstractions and that, to me, has always been the most disappointing aspect of him.
yes, i was underwhelmed by his response to that. i also thought of loads more questions on that topic that i was hoping coleman would raise, but he sort of moved on. never mind, it was still a great conversation
The Old Testament spoke of how to treat your slaves, and who should be put to death (like for homosexuality or blasphemy), which cities must be destroyed with all people including woman, children, old and sick, which foods are unclean (including pork and shellfish) and how women were unclean to be present in much social life while menstruating. Are these are logical morals?
It's worrisome that Dawkins when asked his opinion about religious people being happier in secular societies he doesn't know about the study, aren't you the expert on religion? Didn't you think a little bit about the consequences of destroying communities when you were telling people they were dumb because of their beliefs?
He wears blinders to reality. Richard Dawkins teaches the universe came from "literally nothing." Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. We can't get anything from "literally nothing." We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God. God is the reason for us and all we have. ua-cam.com/video/JiMqzN_YSXU/v-deo.html “However improbable the origin of life might be, we know it happened on Earth because we are here.” -Richard Dawkins. We only get life from life...the law of biogenesis. We can't get anything without God. The odds are NOT there. ua-cam.com/video/W1_KEVaCyaA/v-deo.html ua-cam.com/video/yW9gawzZLsk/v-deo.html ua-cam.com/video/ddaqSutt5aw/v-deo.html No, the eye did not evolve into various eyes. Your mere chance mutations are absurd. ua-cam.com/video/X7h2HWcTwa4/v-deo.html Even Dawkins admits we can't know what is true because of natural selection... The God Delusion, “Since we are creatures of natural selection, we cannot totally trust our senses. Evolution only passes on traits that help a species survive, and not with preserving traits that tell a species what is actually true about life.” Oh, but Dawkins knows what's true about life...killing those who don't meet his expectations for living. dailycaller.com/2021/05/19/richard-dawkins-down-syndrome-roe-v-wade/
@@2fast2block Thanks this is interesting stuff. I was also really disappointed reading the God Delusion. Will have to think about the stuff you wrote more
@@chrslb it's not like I'm a churchy person. I've stayed out of churches for many years now. There is a lot of good they do but there's a lot of BS taught there. I wanted to go where the evidence was and where I was free to think things through to the fullest extent and not have to be ashamed about it if ever somehow challenged me. Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, Greene, Susskind, Sagan,Tyson, ets, may sound good, but in reality when challenged, they have a CLEAR naturalist bias, that no matter how clear they are wrong, the excuse of 'we just don't know yet' or 'science is getting closer to solving that' and a whole host of other lame excuses, I'm not going with the braindead liars. It's my brain, my life. I'm not looking for a comfy group of nitwits, I want to think and learn. Sure, everyone can claim that, but so few actually do. Love of truth necessary. "He that would seriously set upon the search of truth ought in the first place to prepare his mind with a love of it. For he that loves it not will not take much pains to get it; nor be much concerned when he misses it. There is nobody in the commonwealth of learning who does not profess himself a lover of truth: and there is not a rational creature that would not take it amiss to be thought otherwise of. And yet, for all this, one may truly say, that there are very few lovers of truth, for truth's sake, even amongst those who persuade themselves that they are so." ---John Locke about Truth I've come to learn that the God of the bible is the true God because He has ALL the evidence to make that so. I'm not ashamed to declare that and kowtow to it, I say it boldly and am not afraid of challenges because I know I can shoot them down. It comes down to, how much is a person really looking for truth, as Locke so eloquently wrote.
![Awakening The Mind with Sam Harris [S2 Ep.7]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/v8-FAarC9Ko/mqdefault.jpg)
![Awakening The Mind with Sam Harris [S2 Ep.7]](/img/tr.png)
Glad you caught the show. Let me know what you think in the comments and I’ll reply as soon as I can. If you’re a regular listener and would like to show your support and gain access to exclusive talks with some incredible minds, check out the Coleman Unfiltered membership here: bit.ly/3B1GAlS
Always loved Prof. Dawkins. Hope to meet him someday.
So glad to see RD on your podcast!!! Congrats, that's a big step!
RD believes we got the universe by "literally nothing." Do you think that?
The 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. It is clear creation had to be done supernaturally at some point yet it is still denied because people are just too proud to accept that, among other things.
I was so very excited for this! Thank you both!!!
So you really like dolt Dawkins.
Richard Dawkins teaches the universe came from "literally nothing."
Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it.
We can't get anything from "literally nothing." We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God.
God is the reason for us and all we have.
ua-cam.com/video/JiMqzN_YSXU/v-deo.html
“However improbable the origin of life might be, we know it happened on Earth because we are here.” -Richard Dawkins.
We only get life from life...the law of biogenesis. We can't get anything without God.
The odds are NOT there.
ua-cam.com/video/W1_KEVaCyaA/v-deo.html
ua-cam.com/video/yW9gawzZLsk/v-deo.html
ua-cam.com/video/ddaqSutt5aw/v-deo.html
No, the eye did not evolve into various eyes. Your mere chance mutations are absurd.
ua-cam.com/video/X7h2HWcTwa4/v-deo.html
Even Dawkins admits we can't know what is true because of natural selection...
The God Delusion, “Since we are creatures of natural selection, we cannot totally trust our senses. Evolution only passes on traits that help a species survive, and not with preserving traits that tell a species what is actually true about life.”
Oh, but Dawkins knows what's true about life...killing those who don't meet his expectations for living.
dailycaller.com/2021/05/19/richard-dawkins-down-syndrome-roe-v-wade/
Richard Dawkins is the Greatest Exponent of Critical thinking and reasoning in the scientific search for Truth and understanding of the Beauty and Grandeur of our Universe..Thank you Both for this Great Discourse ❤❤❤
I've been waiting for two of my favorite people to talk - so so excited for this :) thanks Coleman :)
Thank you for this. Two ultra smart, decent guys - one very much an established intellectual hero and you, right on that path yourself, Coleman. Kudos! Without smart people like this we'd be ---- f... in trouble. :-) D.A., J.D., NYC
It is fulfilling to watch such an articulated interview, with such a huge character. Richard Dawkins has added to this species, more than we can imagine.
Consciousness doesn't need to have a benefit, it only need not impede.
wow. this is a very enlightening conversation and it contributes well to my understandings of difficult issues. thank you
The talk about our not being designed to understand consciousness reflects the attitude that consciousness is something mechanical that we will one day be able to measure via scientific principles. What if it's not physical? What if it is at the opposite end of the energy spectrum - the highest frequency? What if consciousness is simply the experience of the present moment, and we know it by the feeling of peace this produces - homeostasis.
If you don't study something how do you know what effects you may miss? There may be some things that are sensitive and may be taken wrongly but that reflects on the people, not the study. I feel there should be nothing off limits as who decides?
PLEASE TALK with THOMAS SOWELL. He’s a national Treasure with nothing but FACTS. Something more Americans need to hear. 🙏🇺🇸
Thrilled to see two of my atheist heroes in conversation.
ua-cam.com/video/7Y4znlARl08/v-deo.html
I think it's important to distinguish between race and ethnicity. Just because they share the same skin color doesn't mean that someone from Ethiopia is very genetically similar to someone from Namibia. They would be more similar to each other than they would be to someone from China, but different in important ways genetically that could possibly effect medical treatment. Treatment based on the US conception of race (White, Black, Asian and Hispanic) don't really make sense, but treatment based off of ethnicity does.
2022 was the full and complete sequence of the human genome..
Great conversation. Thank you Gentlemen.
I'd like to see a 5-way discussion series (say 3 or 4 episodes) with Dawkins, Bret Weinstein, Sam Harris, Ben Shapiro, and Scott Adams.
You need to make your questions snappier. So much to talk about, but at times the questions are longer than the answers.
I think consciousness is born from a network effect of different motivations where one or a few of the sonsory/information thresholds must be put to the forefront of a to-do agenda called "waking consciousness". What makes human consciousness so useful is that we have developed language complex enough to communicate and pontificate percieved reality and come to consensus points which then feeds back to a make a more intelligent pathway of organizing conscious motivations. I think there will always be processes we cannot get in touch with, like an atrophied muscle, and parts of our consciousness runs on grooved loops like a needle on a record, and this also gives ideas and instincts this sort of, bubbling up from the void effect while other things like the desire to eat may be a more obvious conscious state.
You should check out Joscha Bach lectures here on YT, I believe you'll find them interesting
"I think consciousness is born from a network effect of different motivations where one or a few of the sonsory/information thresholds must be put to the forefront of a to-do agenda called "waking consciousness"."
How can we get information without intelligence that first gave it? Try thinking.
Richard Dawkins teaches the universe came from "literally nothing."
Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it.
We can't get anything from "literally nothing." We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God.
God is the reason for us and all we have.
ua-cam.com/video/JiMqzN_YSXU/v-deo.html
“However improbable the origin of life might be, we know it happened on Earth because we are here.” -Richard Dawkins.
We only get life from life...the law of biogenesis. We can't get anything without God.
The odds are NOT there.
ua-cam.com/video/W1_KEVaCyaA/v-deo.html
ua-cam.com/video/yW9gawzZLsk/v-deo.html
ua-cam.com/video/ddaqSutt5aw/v-deo.html
No, the eye did not evolve into various eyes. Your mere chance mutations are absurd.
ua-cam.com/video/X7h2HWcTwa4/v-deo.html
Even Dawkins admits we can't know what is true because of natural selection...
The God Delusion, “Since we are creatures of natural selection, we cannot totally trust our senses. Evolution only passes on traits that help a species survive, and not with preserving traits that tell a species what is actually true about life.”
Oh, but Dawkins knows what's true about life...killing those who don't meet his expectations for living.
dailycaller.com/2021/05/19/richard-dawkins-down-syndrome-roe-v-wade/
@@2fast2block Listen to Jordan Peterson's lecture series on the Bible, I'm sure you'd find that interesting as he combines religious scripture with evolutionary psychology in a non-frustrating way for a religious person to hear.
@@nashton9964 "as he combines religious scripture with evolutionary psychology in a non-frustrating way for a religious person to hear."
If, again if, Peterson thinks we got here by evolution, that does not frustrate me, that just gives me another person to laugh at.
The 2nd law of thermodynamics (2LT):
The universe is an isolated system that does not exchange energy or mass.
A closed system exchanges energy but not mass.
An open system exchanges energy and mass.
The first law says basically the energy remains the same, it can change forms but it can't be created or destroyed. How we got all this to begin with points to a supernatural creation. If you think it was done by natural means, go ahead and explain how in regard to the 1LT.
You can't even get chemicals for life without breaking the 1LT.
The earth is basically a closed system depending upon what exactly is being talked about. Keep in mind that the 2LT works in all systems, there will always be an end result of more entropy, but in an open system you can get order, nonetheless yet the total will always be in favor of more entropy overall. Consider too that there is NO truly isolated system in the universe. That says that the 2LT which is so well-tested, works in all systems.
As mentioned, you have to get around the 1LT by explaining creation in light of it. Next, once you have creation, it is an isolated system that cannot get order, so you'll have to explain how things formed to get order to even have open systems inside of it. I know, you can't do that either by known science.
The 2LT does not prevent the first replicating cell from happening and evolving. Part of entropy though is the tendency to go to disorder. We obviously have order on the earth such as snowflakes, salt crystals (which are very simple), also plants, animals, (which are complex), etc. Even still, those eventually break down over time.
I'll give you a simple example of the 2LT. If there was a glass of room temp water and I put several drops of green dye in the water, would the 2LT prevent it from forming the word "cell" all in connecting cursive letters? Absolutely not. Nothing stops the dye from doing that. Now, will it do it? No because the dye will go where there is no order. What if though I had inside the glass a clear plastic mold also filled with water that forced the dye to form the word "cell". Then it would do it because there was something (a "machine") to direct the dye and make order to it.
Look at how a snowflake and salt crystals form, their environments led them to do what they had no choice in doing due to a "machine" to make it do that. They are simple systems, not complex like a plant or animal.
With that in mind, if there was an open system, you'd have to have a "machine" that directs the molecules (that you can't explain how they got there to begin with by natural means) to form the first living self-replicating cell. Does the 2LT prevent that from happening? No, not at all, but will it happen? No, not at all because the odds of such a machine to give such order is impossible. You never even reached natural selection because that takes life. Natural selection picks from what is there already. You are believing in something that has odds against the complexity of life ever happening. Again, odds that make it impossible.
Simply saying that the sun in an open system is the answer to order, is wrong. Undirected and unharnessed energy into an open system won't cause an increase in order, it would do the opposite, like the proverbial bull in a china shop. In other words, it is atheists' science because they have to remain blind to reality. The science against them crushes them. It's a wonder how such science fiction is deliberately chosen.
Explained here:
ua-cam.com/video/9dAA06Zfi4M/v-deo.html
Life only comes from life. Law of biogenesis.
God is the reason for us and all we have.
ua-cam.com/video/JiMqzN_YSXU/v-deo.html
The odds are NOT there.
ua-cam.com/video/W1_KEVaCyaA/v-deo.html
ua-cam.com/video/yW9gawzZLsk/v-deo.html
ua-cam.com/video/ddaqSutt5aw/v-deo.html
Great conversation 👍
One more comment: I would encourage you to have conversations with Joe Dispenza, Eckhart Tolle, Rupert Spira, Dr. Rangan Chatterjee, Russell Brand or many of the other thinkers on consciousness who tell us that consciousness is that IN which all experience takes place, WITH which all experience is known, and OUT of which all experience is made. It is not and never will be found in matter.
Loved the conversation. I must say Dawkin's argument at 33:00 seems pretty weak.
ua-cam.com/video/7Y4znlARl08/v-deo.html
Wow. Dawkins thinks that the last two years has actually BOLSTERED the credibility of scientific authority? I'm totally stunned by that
He doesn’t live in the US. Neither do I. I’m impressed by what science has achieved during the pandemic. It’s amazing to me the US right were persuaded to be anti vax given their beloved former president has been vaxxed and boosted as have all their favourite pundits at Fox News and likely all the Republican politicians both federal and state. So many unnecessary deaths and damage 😥
@@roxee57 You don't live in the US but you sound like you do lol, the fact that "the science" has become politicized is a trap and almost everybody, even the super-intelligent, has become entangled. The only way out is through actual transparency from our authorities, but that won't happen until they get replaced. Both sides are equally contemptible though, so I dunno where we're gonna find actual decent human beings to do the big jobs
You would really love Chomsky’s the poverty of the stimulus. I would love to hear Coleman’s take on that
Hey Coleman, could you dial down the volume on the intro?
When it was suggested that Science only deals with what is and not with what aught to be and leaves us in an amoral world Richard’s reply should’ve simply been that mankind was here 10’s of 100’s of thousands of years before any of the Religions so it’s clear we developed our morals on our own long before the Bible, Quran, etc etc.. Amazing how some think ever started 2,000 years ago with the Bible when humans have been on this planet for 100’s of thousands of years🤦♂️.
Josh Rasmussen, Ed Feser, and Stephen Braude (emeritus UMBC) are also worth talking to.
Conscious can be mean "awake," like the coma story mentioned. Clearly, most animals have this level of being awake vs being asleep.
Coma is what Dawkins and his followers are in.
Richard Dawkins teaches the universe came from "literally nothing."
Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it.
We can't get anything from "literally nothing." We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God.
God is the reason for us and all we have.
ua-cam.com/video/JiMqzN_YSXU/v-deo.html
“However improbable the origin of life might be, we know it happened on Earth because we are here.” -Richard Dawkins.
We only get life from life...the law of biogenesis. We can't get anything without God.
The odds are NOT there.
ua-cam.com/video/W1_KEVaCyaA/v-deo.html
ua-cam.com/video/yW9gawzZLsk/v-deo.html
ua-cam.com/video/ddaqSutt5aw/v-deo.html
No, the eye did not evolve into various eyes. Your mere chance mutations are absurd.
ua-cam.com/video/X7h2HWcTwa4/v-deo.html
Even Dawkins admits we can't know what is true because of natural selection...
The God Delusion, “Since we are creatures of natural selection, we cannot totally trust our senses. Evolution only passes on traits that help a species survive, and not with preserving traits that tell a species what is actually true about life.”
Oh, but Dawkins knows what's true about life...killing those who don't meet his expectations for living.
dailycaller.com/2021/05/19/richard-dawkins-down-syndrome-roe-v-wade/
The "religion-shaped-hole" might not need to be replaced by something "equally as silly" as Dawkins puts it. I see no reason we could not salvage the best parts of the old wisdom of religion and discard the nonsense. Why not have a more enlightened vision of religion, unconstrained by sectarianism and dogma? Because I do think this lack of meaning amongst a growing atheistic population is telling, and it seems they turn to politics, or worse, identity politics, to fill that religion-shaped-hole. It makes sense that Dawkins, as much as I respect him, has trouble answering this question convincingly, because the movement he helpef give rise to over a decade ago seems to have a great deal of overlap with this crisis of meaning, which evidently many people can't get from science and reason alone, as wonderful as those things are.
In what way does delusion aid in this protest against humanity's honest sigh? aside from the obvious and perhaps consoling preemptory dogmatism of religious identity.
Dr.K has an interesting video on this (ua-cam.com/video/sc3ycMvyuoo/v-deo.html) where he lists out the benefits of a religion, their impact on mental health and how to achieve these benefits "atheistically." Hint: A lot of self discipline is required to make yourself adhere to something like an atheistic religion. It's like the difference between having to cook for yourself or going out to eat.
@@virtualalias It’s interesting that you bring this up, because when the USAF did a study on suicide back in either 2008 or 2010, they discovered that 85% of all suicide attempts were by people who claimed “no religious affiliation.” This lead the military to invest more into their chaplain corp, to encourage spirituality, and include that as part of the Whole Airmen Concept. They did this in a blanket way, in order to not promote any specific religions and even include atheism as a belief system. This doesn’t prove anything one way or another about religion, but does bring up the idea that spirituality does make things easier for people going through difficult moments in their lives.
@@leftykiller8344 And while most religions no longer teach that suicide is the ultimate (and unforgivable) sin the way they used to, more and more religious people commit suicide than in the past. I've known quite a few people who said they most definitely would have committed suicide if they hadn't been afraid of going to hell. You can laugh at the notion all you want, but that irrational fear caused them not to take the most irrational of all acts.
@Greg Evenden
-
Actually, the most religious people are the ones who stuck on “identity politics”, not the atheists.
Examples: evangelical Christians, southern Baptists, & others.
suffering isnt bad for short period of times if you can change the circumstances to which that suffering came about
Sweet
39; I’d love to see Richard Dawkins discuss this very topic with Douglas Murray, whether we need religion in order to be moral.
I’m inclined to agree with Dawkins - we don’t !
ua-cam.com/video/7Y4znlARl08/v-deo.html. I ll respect you if you are honest about all this. Richard Dawkins is not. Shame on him! The God that I believe in loves you my friend. And that s a fact.
22:09 "What is true is that the variance between humans (in general) is much less than variance within a race." Would anyone care to share studies, articles or books to support that? I'm interested in this idea that one could be more genetically similar to someone from another race than he or she is from a member of its own race.
Would be very glad to know what papers the interviewer is talking about at 23:30 as well (about significant overlap of races)
Roman Catholicism absolutely did come together via a Machiavellian design by bishops. It was called the Council of Nicaea, and it happened in 325 C.E.
I'm interested. Is there a video about this? Or a short article?
Coleman you've GOT to speed up the talking rate. I know it's your signature style to be a careful and slow talker and I don't typically have any problem with it otherwise, but if you have a 'get' like Dawkins on the show, you could've asked almost double the number of questions you did in the limited time you had if you just sped things up a bit.
just play him on 1.25 or a higher speed
@@RH-of5cr I already play on 2x. the point is he's squandering valuable question time with guests.
@@Muonium1 lol...
Coleman would do well to have Proff Wolf on. I’ve been listening to coldxman since the beginning, but covid has convinced me corpos profits and price gouging require democracy at work for the future.
Wolf X Coleman would be a sick interview
Would love to see Bernardo kastrup on the show next
32:44 That's probably what Christopher Hitchens would have said about the so-called "religion-shaped hole" too.
@@JediNiyte I used to love Hitchens, but the longer he's been dead, the more I realize that there really isn't a Hitchens-shaped hole in my mind. There's still a God-shaped one, but Hitchens has proven less and less interesting, at least in this regard, over the years. He was an acerbic wit, but not much else.
ahhh the legendary Dawkins
ua-cam.com/video/7Y4znlARl08/v-deo.html
Dawkins advice to young Dawkins: "Don't learn to code"
@46:27 correct, Dr Dawkins. All three Abrahamic religions are carbon capoes of the ancient Egyptian religious beliefs.
I absolutely agree with Sam Harris, that our moral drive should be based on scientific knowledge.
To be aware that sentient beings can suffer and to use science to alleviate that suffering - (as opposed to relying on the supernatural).
Science makes no value judgments, and makes no moral claims. This is why Sam Harris, despite making this assertion has never come up with a single scientific experiment that has ever been done to solve a single moral issue, and he will never be able to do so.
Im christian and I understand Mr Harris. The thing is that when you give your back to God ( we give our backs to something that s out there), science is all you are left with.
I admire those guys who have both God and science, such as Francis Collins, John Lennox, Michael Behe, Phillip E Johnson. Plus, being a christian I am told not to be dishonest nor a coward. R Dawkins is both.ua-cam.com/video/7Y4znlARl08/v-deo.html
@@luisrodriguezvera5935 One does not need god to have a moral compass. One can use philosophy, for example.
A conscience being knows the finality of death. A computing machine does not. Therefore a conscience being will do what is necessary to avoid death which provides for future generations.
By that logic all mammals are computing machines. Do you think that mice know the finality of death? Do you think mice are conscious? If not, why?
The question of religious practice and happiness is fascinating one and I can see why it might be true. My perspective is that of somebody raised as a Roman Catholic but who with age and maturity have gone through various phases of questioning, doubt, etc:
It is my view that religion is the only human institution that synthesises all significant human aspects of the human condition. In the case of Roman Catholicism you get: a basic moral code, rituals for celebrating key milestones (birth, death, marriage, etc), mythology, a primitive cosmology, plenty of fables and parables on which to draw life lessons.
They are clearly imperfect and do not work for everyone but that they have lasted for so long makes me hesitant to write it all off as the fumblings of the pre-enlightenment ancient or medieval mind. With the view that there is 'nothing new under the sun', I've even started to wonder whether the Catholic sacrament of confession may have played the role of therapy and mental health support in centuries past. Similarly, Nicholas Taleb writes convincingly of how the fasting injunctions of Ramadan or Lent bring many health benefits.
Anyway, beyond the slightly condescending notion that the religious are happier due to their belief in eternal life, perhaps the following would be more on point:
- regular Mass/Church attendance fosters a sense of community
- the weekly joint rest day on Sunday does the same
- rituals to celebrate birth/death/marriage/coming of age are accounted for and can be jointly celebrated by the entire community
- shrines to honour your dead relative (graveyards)
- guidance on moral and spiritual matters (confession, sermons)
- basic moral education for your children (while I agree with Dawkins' assertion that the Old Testament when read end to end contains many examples of immoral behaviour, the fact is that Catholic education based on the Old Testament essentially amounts to the Ten Commandments, the Golden Rule etc, things pretty much anyone can agree on). In practice therefore, this criticism doesn't really hold, though other criticisms might and do
Imagine if this was all packaged in modern parlance: join our community for regular meet-ups, parties for key life events, 1:1 coaching with a guru, and so on.
I still remember in my childhood in rural Ireland attending mass every Sunday. The thirty minute sermon felt very long at that age but I would meet my friends afterwards and my parents would chit-chat to the other parents, we would say prayers at my grandfather's grave and leave flowers.
It's very hard to re-create all this from first principles in the intellectual environment of the university campus. I wouldn't know where to begin or what to invent if tomorrow I had a child and wanted to find a regular forum where I could meet other people in the community, etc. I would probably just start attending Mass again. The few humanist ceremonies I have attended were all very nice, but to me they seemed like Christianity without the references to God, a sort of final iteration on the Reformation.
Anyway, for all of the above, I can see why practicing a religion could lead to greater happiness for reasons other than belief in an afterlife or similar supernatural phenomena.
Right, but none of this makes it true. Also, I've been to many a secular marriage, funeral, coming of age (sweet 16 celebration), high school and college graduation ceremonies, etc. etc. and let me tell you; they are far better and just as compeling, and more dignified than pretending to know what no one can, namely that Grandma is somewhere 'in a better place'. No, she has simply returned to that place she was before she was born.. Religions are simply a very old version of similar traditions, and if you think in order to have community, coming of age, marriage, funeral services etc etc etc you need a book written by a bunch of illiterate, backward, iron age people who thought the earth was flat and comprised the entire universe (other than heaven and hell) - you sir, are gravely mistaken. Not only can we do all these ritualistic celebrations without having to believe anything on insufficient evidence - we can do them far better, and we are already doing it. The "nones" are the fastest growing 'religion' in the US, we have already number higher than Jews in America - a group that yields huge amounts of power.
So yes, it's not gonna happen overnight, but it is happening and at an ever increasing rate.
At no point do I claim that 'in order to have community, coming of age, marriage, funeral services etc etc etc you need a book written by a bunch of illiterate, backward, iron age people who thought the earth was flat and comprised the entire universe', nor do I at any point make the claim that Roman Catholicism/Christianity is true.
@@liammelia6843 Hi Liam, I just read over your post again my sincere apology for it. It had sounded a like you were either proselytizing or saying an iron age text which edited probably between 1000 - 10,000 times starting with the figure known as Jesus of Naserith.
What I thought u were saying is that, while you and I believe in death, many, many ppl deny that death exists, or at least can be avoided in their own particular case by making the right propitiations. (i.e. the total euphoria and ecstasy the jyhad' feels just before they push the button on an overcrowded bus or building, blowing up themselves and everyone in it)
Anyhow, I would conclude by saying that we need to continue to push against the tyranny, rape, intrusion into women's bodies and on and on that they continue to get away with, with their billions and billions of dollars of tax free money they currently possess. It is despicable beyond imagination, that the former Bishop and Archdiocese of Boston was shipped from parish to parish to find boys to violate. He has been charged with dozens of felony rape accusations and the keep pouring in. So where is he now? Repaying his debt to society? In prison for mandatory minimums of 10-25 years... No. He is a free man, a fugitive from justice, in Vatican city, where the church, being an independent nation and having no extradition laws with the United States. Is sitting peacefully like ever happened.
As if that wasn't bad enough, the Vatican choose HIM of all people, to help decide who will be the next Vicker of Christ here on earth - a criminal, a pedophile and a fugitive of justice. Ya we need ritual alright... fucking bullshit. We do need a secular replacement for some rituals and gathering, but most have already been filled, so just the remaining few that doesn't include lying to ourselves and others, nor committing the most unspeakable crimes and then covering them up. (Not to you Liam, I'm sure we're on the page, again I must misread and apologies once again).
@@issoccer20 thank you for your message. I can see why at first glance my comment might read like a general defence of Roman Catholicism. What I was really trying to distill where the reasons why religious people may be happier than the irreligious, so I was consciously cherry-picking its most positive aspects.
Of course, many deplorable acts have been done in the name of all religions. I won't add my two cents to that as much has been said and it's really a separate topic. I will simply mention, a rather weak but nonetheless important point in my view, that I don't think these abuses are particular to religion, rather are liable to happen in any powerful institution where sadistic and predatory individuals can use threats and intimidation to prey upon the vulnerable. We've seen similar accounts in sporting, educational and political institutions.
I say this simply to say that while I agree with you on how horrific a lot of what you mentioned is, I don't think it completely discounts the reasons I mentioned as to why religious practice might foster greater happiness.
The nascent secular humanist institutions that you talk about may well carry the day and replace traditional religion, only time will tell I suppose. But if they do I would see it as an iteration on the religious tradition rather than a reinvention, but that's just opinion.
41: perhaps the main reason religious folks living in predominantly secular societies,”tend to be happier” than their non-religious neighbors, is because they are in the minority.
So they tend to be more close-knit as a community - everyone knows everyone else and they look out for one another.
Something we in atheist communities are often found lacking.
To me, that sense of community is definitely one of the benefits that a religious affiliation can provide. I think that there are clear benefits to religion, or we wouldn't have spent so much time and energy maintaining them. But of course there are downside as well, nothing is black-and-white.
You make an effort to ignore that Christianity has history on its side. This book , written by a german journalist in 1955 will blow your mind away. For real
where's the timestamps tho bruv
Wrt. Morality from science, I don't think it has to be that complex. Dawkins basically answered it in The Selfish Gene. The golden rule basically falls out of the iterated prisoners dilemma.
And from that follows a lot of what we regard as moral.
Re: sickle cell, I agree talking about what causes it and why a population is more likely to get it in race neutral terms is actually more accurate. You don't it because you're Black (just a correlation), you get it due the genetics of your ancestors (a population that historically encountered malaria).
I have to say that I disagree agree w/ the characterization Coleman made about the CDC. No doubt there was some secrecy around studies and that should usually be avoided, but in this case, I sympathize with an organization that has to COMMUNICATE the science to a public that is primed to use anything as a weapon. I knew someone who was a spokesperson for the CDC about twenty years ago and it's much more complex than just communicating "the science."
Beyond the designed elements of religion, it’s also important to note (and research) the history and prevalence of psychological abnormalities which affect beliefs. Psychosis in religion is HUGE. Very hard to study from a sociological perspective, but completely relevant. Psychological states are what religion is. The rest is expert and compelling storytelling, money, community, architecture, song, customs, laws, war, battles, etc. MDMA is temporary psychosis with clarity. Psilocybin is temporary psychosis without much clarity. Bipolar psychosis can have much clarity (and memory of it.) Schizophrenia, in general, lacks much awareness or insight. Again nobody studies this much because there are bigger fish to fry and it’s hard data to get. Psychotic episodes by Religious folks remain socially acceptable because they are sheltered by the religious framework itself. Psychotic episodes outside of religion are generally condemned - though less so, now. The basic point is, it is very very easy to be out of your mind and stay that way if you stay within a religious (or cult) community.
I'm torn as a newer atheist. While I no longer believe in God, I can't help but to see the many positives that come from religion for so many people. It's true I think we could advance in society more without religion, but it seems many people are not capable of hope and purpose without some divine religion.
Well Josh, you can ask Louis Pasteur, Robert Boyle, and most fathers of modern science. You can also ask Francis Collins, John Lennox, Michael Behe, Phillip E Johnson, Hugh Ross and the list goes on and on.
👍🙏
Consciousness is essentially an illusion.
Maybe you'll find Joscha Bach's lectures on the computational nature of consciousness interesting. They're available here on YT.
How can you say that? Isn’t consciousness the one thing that can’t be an illusion? Even if we were living in the Matrix or you were a brain in a vat or everything else about reality was somehow illusory, consciousness would still be real. It is the one thing that cannot be doubted because it is the very condition in which a doubt can even appear.
Randy, you thinking is an illusion.
@@motorhead48067 Good point, and that's why I prefer the word delusion to illusion in this context. We certainly have awareness, memories, and other mental processes, but for humans it's very difficult to separate these self evident truths from the idea of having an essential self, which is an illusion. I recommend Anil Seth's book "Being You"; he calls consciousness a "controlled hallucination", and presents a convincing case.
So is your comment also an illusion? Are we all just part of your dream?
The importance of study of group differences is correlated to the drive for equitable outcomes between groups. They go together, as one is a investigative step to the other
Possibly. But how do you propose to monitor whether actual racism of the sort seen in the mid-20th century has returned to business, for example. Is it sufficient to rely on measuring lawsuits?
Wait have you ever done mushrooms or acid or ‘tussin and not felt like a table? Have definitely felt like a table before
Re: The CDC. They are trying their damndest. Have you watched TV in the last 3 years? It’s a fucking MESS.
Richard Dawkins is one of the smartest people in the planet today.
Only dolts like you think that.
Richard Dawkins teaches the universe came from "literally nothing."
Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it.
We can't get anything from "literally nothing." We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God.
God is the reason for us and all we have.
ua-cam.com/video/JiMqzN_YSXU/v-deo.html
“However improbable the origin of life might be, we know it happened on Earth because we are here.” -Richard Dawkins.
We only get life from life...the law of biogenesis. We can't get anything without God.
The odds are NOT there.
ua-cam.com/video/W1_KEVaCyaA/v-deo.html
ua-cam.com/video/yW9gawzZLsk/v-deo.html
ua-cam.com/video/ddaqSutt5aw/v-deo.html
No, the eye did not evolve into various eyes. Your mere chance mutations are absurd.
ua-cam.com/video/X7h2HWcTwa4/v-deo.html
Even Dawkins admits we can't know what is true because of natural selection...
The God Delusion, “Since we are creatures of natural selection, we cannot totally trust our senses. Evolution only passes on traits that help a species survive, and not with preserving traits that tell a species what is actually true about life.”
Oh, but Dawkins knows what's true about life...killing those who don't meet his expectations for living.
dailycaller.com/2021/05/19/richard-dawkins-down-syndrome-roe-v-wade/
I think therefore i exist, therefore i was created or always existed and the creator was created or always existed, therefore God exists. I challenged humanity to debate with me the existence of God.
I hope Dawkins will be asked what he thinks of the increasingly popular conservative claim that atheism directly leads to what is effectively Atheism+, which is to say, woke. This is particularly interesting as we now see what might be termed Judaism+, Christianity+, and even Islam+.
Edit: they get close to this at about 33 minutes, but it's not exactly the same idea....
Dawkins shows no desire to face reality.
Richard Dawkins teaches the universe came from "literally nothing."
Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it.
We can't get anything from "literally nothing." We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God.
God is the reason for us and all we have.
ua-cam.com/video/JiMqzN_YSXU/v-deo.html
“However improbable the origin of life might be, we know it happened on Earth because we are here.” -Richard Dawkins.
We only get life from life...the law of biogenesis. We can't get anything without God.
The odds are NOT there.
ua-cam.com/video/W1_KEVaCyaA/v-deo.html
ua-cam.com/video/yW9gawzZLsk/v-deo.html
ua-cam.com/video/ddaqSutt5aw/v-deo.html
No, the eye did not evolve into various eyes. Your mere chance mutations are absurd.
ua-cam.com/video/X7h2HWcTwa4/v-deo.html
Even Dawkins admits we can't know what is true because of natural selection...
The God Delusion, “Since we are creatures of natural selection, we cannot totally trust our senses. Evolution only passes on traits that help a species survive, and not with preserving traits that tell a species what is actually true about life.”
Oh, but Dawkins knows what's true about life...killing those who don't meet his expectations for living.
dailycaller.com/2021/05/19/richard-dawkins-down-syndrome-roe-v-wade/
I disagree with Richard Dawkins’ statement at 13:20 , that Consciousness must provide an adaptive advantage. Ever heard of something called an evolutionary by-product? ua-cam.com/video/ZhmMNUL2rUg/v-deo.html
I don’t intend to be contrarian to this audience but isn’t there an issue with concept of scientific sanctity of life? Can science prove a sanctity of life? I can see how it can make a case for creating life but what’s the value in preserving life? In the statement, “the worst possible suffering for everyone is bad”, doesn’t that only hold weight if that which suffering is being applied to holds a universal acceptance of sanctity?
Does science have to prove that?
Human compassion is innate in most those without are not wired properly and science can explain that.
It's all just part of our evolutionary journey to survive as pack animals.
@@jameswright... ok, if we were to assume Human compassion is innate, though I don’t know if the research fully backs that up. Being innately compassionate does not mean you do not have the propensity to be uncompassionate. Rather, and more direct to this discussion; evolution seems to support both altruism and selfishness as a way to propagate. So the question is not whether compassion is innate but does evolution have a moral preference to propagate through altruistic means vs selfish means?
I will also add, I disagree with your sentiment that science explains ‘being wired improperly if you lack compassion’. “Properly” seems to imply an absolute standard. Standards are socially or religiously set. In a relative statement, Dawkins himself said that when he wrote the Selfish Gene it was not prescriptive rather descriptive.
The US is the most religious of liberal democracies and those of us who live outside the US in the other liberal democracies don’t get why people in the US keep saying humans have a religious shaped hole that needs filling if organised religion fades. You’re right Coleman that if one was never raised religious this idea that there’s a religious hole that needs filling seems nonsensical. I’d be interested to see a poll done of the woke in the US where wokism arose to see if any of them have supernatural beliefs, because I suspect many of them do and if I’m right it would quash this idea that the woke have invented a new secular religion to replace an abandoned one. Of course there’s a lot of prominent US atheist groups that are woke and non-US atheists find them cringe worthy, but those groups are populated by a lot of people who were very religious in the past so I wonder if that has something to do with it. I mean these so called sceptic atheists appear to have abandoned evolutionary biology in order to prop up the idea people can change their sex and can’t admit the dimorphism of our species let alone describe how or why it happened. Anyway, I’ve gone on too long. Loved the interview. Richards next book sounds great.
33:53 - unfortunately “love of Truth” offers little consolation when dealing with the loss of a child or some other terrible tragedy in one’s life.
I think it’s human nature to want to fill the “God shaped hole” with something…..
Dawkins is not scientist. A scientist makes some studies, experiments and produces results. Dawkins writes books and he lectures about evolution in the sense of suppress zexistence of God. This is not a ny science.This is ideology. He could be a philosopher if he would not express his hate to religion in such a furiuos way.
The bottom of his bookcase looks like a couple crucifixes
Some interesting questions but a sign of a good interviewer is to speak less his/her guest.
Coldxman mmoooaaarrrr music please 🙏
Yus.
I'm not going to argue for religion one way or the other, but his response to the religion-shaped-hole question doesn't sound very scientific. Who cares whether it's pathetic or not? If it's true, it's true. Again, I'm not saying it's true, but why should this one human being's idea that we should substitute science for religion have any effect on the world around us, which shows us over and over and over again that people act justly most often when they feel compelled to do so by society, whether that's social norms or religion or laws or whatever.
It's like saying "Isn't it pathetic that we can't teach a chimpanzee to write original poetry?" Obviously, a chimpanzee has the physical ability to learn how to write (or type), and we could probably teach it to copy an already written poem, but just because it's physically possible doesn't mean it's anywhere in the chimpanzee's mind to write original poetry. Maybe it's not in the human mindset to live in a world without myths of some sort or the other. the humanism-as-a-replacement-for-religion is a kind of myth as well.
I'm kind of surprised Dawkins answered the way he did about the "forbidden knowledge" question. Maybe some questions in science, whose answers are potentially most practical in making society better, should be given highest priority, but I am of the opinion that no one should be FORBIDDEN to study anything they want. As long as we maintain the axiom that policy should not be affected by the results of studying something like race, I don't think such research will destroy society. The example of genetic probability of disorders could be framed without making any reference to race, but I don't think anyone should be "in trouble" for approaching the question that way. (The attitude that discovering differences between races might ruin people's sense of equality and justice is vaguely analogous to the warning of many religions to their practitioners, to not research their beliefs lest their faith be ruined. There shouldn't be any forbidden knowledge--I like to think most people can handle the truth without disintegrating morally. And if you make a taboo about studying something like race, it inevitably fascinates everyone all the more.) Anyway, great interview. It is always good to hear from Dawkins.
You can replace religion with ideology ...
you talked more than Richard
Yeah, If he was a christian chances are he woudlnt talk as much as that
I'm genuinely disappointed with Richard Dawkins inquiry concerning the validity of race ...
AS A HOST IF HE WOULD TALK LESS ALLOWED DAWKINS TO SPEAK MORE IT WOULD HAVE BEEN BETTER.
whether race is a construct or not, it does not pertain to the obfuscation and total encapsulation of the black and white dichotomy concocted by colonialists, that has been promulgated for the last 500 years. So much so, that Africans believe they are separated by their "race" of skin colour difference from Europeans, even though Europeans can be closer genetically to some Africans than those Africans to other Africans. There are studies that people use that use gene studies to relate the obvious difference we see between different groups and how these suggest different races, as we see them and socially label them, but this ignores the interconnectedness and complexity of those genes studies that show the aforementioned closeness of groups that dont look the same and are from different geographical areas like Africa and Europe.
Sadly, liberty and intellectual curiosity are minority thoughts, as more prefer religion and government edicts to tell them what they should and shouldn't do and say and think and investigate.
And history is history and it doesnt lie
Paraphrasing "I'm very impressed the way science has come together and produced these vaccines so fast." Ikr! Couldn't have done it better if it had been planned....
54:55 I'm sorry Dawkins, I respect you, but I can't let you get away with blaming the victim group. It is always feasible that an individual victim is to blame for their predicament. But it is impossible to justify lying to the public and making us all victims because of some individuals who you believe can't be trusted with the truth. You are better than that. I expect better of you. ☮️❤️🌈
So you respect Dawkins?!
Richard Dawkins teaches the universe came from "literally nothing."
Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it.
We can't get anything from "literally nothing." We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God.
God is the reason for us and all we have.
ua-cam.com/video/JiMqzN_YSXU/v-deo.html
“However improbable the origin of life might be, we know it happened on Earth because we are here.” -Richard Dawkins.
We only get life from life...the law of biogenesis. We can't get anything without God.
The odds are NOT there.
ua-cam.com/video/W1_KEVaCyaA/v-deo.html
ua-cam.com/video/yW9gawzZLsk/v-deo.html
ua-cam.com/video/ddaqSutt5aw/v-deo.html
No, the eye did not evolve into various eyes. Your mere chance mutations are absurd.
ua-cam.com/video/X7h2HWcTwa4/v-deo.html
Even Dawkins admits we can't know what is true because of natural selection...
The God Delusion, “Since we are creatures of natural selection, we cannot totally trust our senses. Evolution only passes on traits that help a species survive, and not with preserving traits that tell a species what is actually true about life.”
Oh, but Dawkins knows what's true about life...killing those who don't meet his expectations for living.
dailycaller.com/2021/05/19/richard-dawkins-down-syndrome-roe-v-wade/
actually RD is very dishonest. and wrathful.
It is quite unfortunate that Dawkins refuses to have an open dialogue with the ideas brought to light by analytical psychologists such as Peterson and his own inspiration, Jung. It would go so far as to help identify the connection between tens of thousands of years in story and narrative, commonality across such stories and narratives, describing the journey of the human condition to the concept of the Self (capital S) and how that transcends human limitation, like an instrument resonating with the symphony of the orchestra. None of that is ever interesting to Dawkins and wont ever be in the future because his entire career is entirely in opposition to such thought or at the very least, in denial as to how that connects to the idealistic and symbolic values behind the concept of a "God" and gods.
Dawkins only likes to pretend he thinks. His braindead followers bring money to him.
Richard Dawkins teaches the universe came from "literally nothing."
Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it.
We can't get anything from "literally nothing." We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God.
God is the reason for us and all we have.
ua-cam.com/video/JiMqzN_YSXU/v-deo.html
“However improbable the origin of life might be, we know it happened on Earth because we are here.” -Richard Dawkins.
We only get life from life...the law of biogenesis. We can't get anything without God.
The odds are NOT there.
ua-cam.com/video/W1_KEVaCyaA/v-deo.html
ua-cam.com/video/yW9gawzZLsk/v-deo.html
ua-cam.com/video/ddaqSutt5aw/v-deo.html
No, the eye did not evolve into various eyes. Your mere chance mutations are absurd.
ua-cam.com/video/X7h2HWcTwa4/v-deo.html
Even Dawkins admits we can't know what is true because of natural selection...
The God Delusion, “Since we are creatures of natural selection, we cannot totally trust our senses. Evolution only passes on traits that help a species survive, and not with preserving traits that tell a species what is actually true about life.”
Oh, but Dawkins knows what's true about life...killing those who don't meet his expectations for living.
dailycaller.com/2021/05/19/richard-dawkins-down-syndrome-roe-v-wade/
Not sure what the subject matter will be, but Peterson has said a few times on his podcast that he has recorded a great conversation with Dawkins (in his estimation), and will be released soon. Can't wait!
@@gregevenden6515 I heard that too, I believe he did talk to Dawkins after his second Oxford address, and if so then I'll definitely want to listen in.
Dawkins: "Any potential utility of religion doesn't make it *true*."
Peterson: "What, *precisely*, do you mean by true?"
@@virtualalias Seems like my comment is wasted on you
What does "suffering is bad" even mean? Isn't that a tautology? Included within suffering itself is the idea that it is bad. That's why it is suffering, and not something else.
Mother Theresa would have disagreed. She thought that suffering brought people closer to Jesus Christ, and was not enthusiastic about measures to reduce suffering in her hospices...
Pardon my ignorance, but what is the difference between an evolutionary biologist, and a biologist? aren't all real biologist adhered to the evolution theory?
"I certainly hope people don't have a religion shaped hole..." says the individual on the higher end of the human IQ spectrum.
Quaran and Islam teach Morality and explain the race problem that science and western world are shy to touch upon. Instead of disregarding religion, take religion to shape up your morality and furthermore Islam explain consciousness where natural selection doesn't explain it. I am Muslim and I like science. Why all this hate towards religion?
I very muched enjoyed this conversation. Though I can't help but to find people that hold strictly mechanistic views of the universe such as Dawkins annoyingly narrow minded and somewhat arrogant.
and wrathful too
and dishonest. He doesnt accept to debate WL Craig just because " Craig believes in a God that is a genocide", but agreed to debate many other theists. Very dishonest. Wiiliam L Craig is ready, RD.
ua-cam.com/video/7Y4znlARl08/v-deo.html
As opposed to a false fictitious worldview? Dawkins will always annoy the mediocre minds of the masses. Make no mistake, Richard Dawkins is a great man and a scientist, not a witch doctor. Calling him arrogant is extremely hypocritical condescension and foolish.
kam fong chin ho
When talking about making brute assumptions in order to make a system of morality, how is it not a “leap of faith” to make those assumptions? Isn’t that then in some ways religious?
Also, Dawkins says we should have reverence to science, how is that not religious language? Science, as I understand it is a system of finding material truth in the universe but is derived off of assumptions such as the world is not random and chaotic. How is that also not religious language and in some ways an act of faith? All that said, it feels like all that Dawkins wants is indeed a religion just not one of the major denominations. Instead his religion is science and the assumptions that come along with it.
I’d be interested to hear where people think I am misguided and disagree. I am a Catholic (who’s not actually self-loathing and shame ridden like Dawkins apparently would assume so) so I am not super familiar with his way of thinking. Thank you!
Dawkins only pretends to care about science. He's promoted and popular by braindead followers and our braindead woke MSM. He's an insult to science and most anything good and honest.
Richard Dawkins teaches the universe came from "literally nothing."
Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it.
We can't get anything from "literally nothing." We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God.
God is the reason for us and all we have.
ua-cam.com/video/JiMqzN_YSXU/v-deo.html
“However improbable the origin of life might be, we know it happened on Earth because we are here.” -Richard Dawkins.
We only get life from life...the law of biogenesis. We can't get anything without God.
The odds are NOT there.
ua-cam.com/video/W1_KEVaCyaA/v-deo.html
ua-cam.com/video/yW9gawzZLsk/v-deo.html
ua-cam.com/video/ddaqSutt5aw/v-deo.html
No, the eye did not evolve into various eyes. Your mere chance mutations are absurd.
ua-cam.com/video/X7h2HWcTwa4/v-deo.html
Even Dawkins admits we can't know what is true because of natural selection...
The God Delusion, “Since we are creatures of natural selection, we cannot totally trust our senses. Evolution only passes on traits that help a species survive, and not with preserving traits that tell a species what is actually true about life.”
Oh, but Dawkins knows what's true about life...killing those who don't meet his expectations for living.
dailycaller.com/2021/05/19/richard-dawkins-down-syndrome-roe-v-wade/
Well, yeah. RD is a very dishonest guy.
ua-cam.com/video/7Y4znlARl08/v-deo.html
Even some of his fellow followers called him a coward
I don't like this interviewer, so damn slow.
Race is 100% biological.
What gene or chromosome determines a person's race?
** The Truth About Professor Dave **
Yawn: Atheist UA-camr “Professor Dave” Rants about Intelligent Design
Günter Bechly
May 25, 2022
This article is available online at Evolution News.
If natural section were true why is their female and male only why can’t their be a 3rd 4th 5th type of sex? Or male only? And when being conscious why is it that I can only be conscious in my body but not in nobody else’s body? And what is it exactly in the body that makes me, me? Why are we the only ones that can speak a language? What would happen if we wipe out the human race? Would the universe simply keep going or eventually make humans again on its own? Maybe we need to accept we don’t know everything and we never will cus we are not Gods! To think we came here by simply chance Is ridiculous!!! May god help y’all’s souls!!!
I admire many aspects of Richard Dawkins but have always found his arguments against the idea of the religious shaped hole in humans to be weak and contradictory. He finds answers to all things in the enlightenment - which is fine. But every human is not inclined to be a scientist. His bit on thinking in terms of academic philosophy as a source for morality is just an abstracted bait and switch for religion because it is "logical" and it makes sense to him. Yet that is what religions did and have done for people for far longer than the enlightenment has been around. He substitutes deduce for faith. I am not religious either but I think he is just missing a deeper level of thinking around these abstractions and that, to me, has always been the most disappointing aspect of him.
I agree with your point. Though I believe it's religious shaped hole, not whole (because it's being filled).
yes, i was underwhelmed by his response to that. i also thought of loads more questions on that topic that i was hoping coleman would raise, but he sort of moved on. never mind, it was still a great conversation
The Old Testament spoke of how to treat your slaves, and who should be put to death (like for homosexuality or blasphemy), which cities must be destroyed with all people including woman, children, old and sick, which foods are unclean (including pork and shellfish) and how women were unclean to be present in much social life while menstruating. Are these are logical morals?
@@Norrieification thanks for the typo correct :D
@@homewall744 probably for the time they were in and what they understood.
It's worrisome that Dawkins when asked his opinion about religious people being happier in secular societies he doesn't know about the study, aren't you the expert on religion? Didn't you think a little bit about the consequences of destroying communities when you were telling people they were dumb because of their beliefs?
Coleman Hughes is disingenuous with his pontifications. Richard didn't play into his political game.
Dawkins is so toxic. So full of hate for religion he doesn't really see anything else
He wears blinders to reality.
Richard Dawkins teaches the universe came from "literally nothing."
Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it.
We can't get anything from "literally nothing." We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God.
God is the reason for us and all we have.
ua-cam.com/video/JiMqzN_YSXU/v-deo.html
“However improbable the origin of life might be, we know it happened on Earth because we are here.” -Richard Dawkins.
We only get life from life...the law of biogenesis. We can't get anything without God.
The odds are NOT there.
ua-cam.com/video/W1_KEVaCyaA/v-deo.html
ua-cam.com/video/yW9gawzZLsk/v-deo.html
ua-cam.com/video/ddaqSutt5aw/v-deo.html
No, the eye did not evolve into various eyes. Your mere chance mutations are absurd.
ua-cam.com/video/X7h2HWcTwa4/v-deo.html
Even Dawkins admits we can't know what is true because of natural selection...
The God Delusion, “Since we are creatures of natural selection, we cannot totally trust our senses. Evolution only passes on traits that help a species survive, and not with preserving traits that tell a species what is actually true about life.”
Oh, but Dawkins knows what's true about life...killing those who don't meet his expectations for living.
dailycaller.com/2021/05/19/richard-dawkins-down-syndrome-roe-v-wade/
@@2fast2block Thanks this is interesting stuff. I was also really disappointed reading the God Delusion. Will have to think about the stuff you wrote more
@@chrslb it's not like I'm a churchy person. I've stayed out of churches for many years now. There is a lot of good they do but there's a lot of BS taught there. I wanted to go where the evidence was and where I was free to think things through to the fullest extent and not have to be ashamed about it if ever somehow challenged me. Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, Greene, Susskind, Sagan,Tyson, ets, may sound good, but in reality when challenged, they have a CLEAR naturalist bias, that no matter how clear they are wrong, the excuse of 'we just don't know yet' or 'science is getting closer to solving that' and a whole host of other lame excuses, I'm not going with the braindead liars. It's my brain, my life. I'm not looking for a comfy group of nitwits, I want to think and learn. Sure, everyone can claim that, but so few actually do.
Love of truth necessary. "He that would seriously set upon the search of truth ought in the first place to prepare his mind with a love of it. For he that loves it not will not take much pains to get it; nor be much concerned when he misses it. There is nobody in the commonwealth of learning who does not profess himself a lover of truth: and there is not a rational creature that would not take it amiss to be thought otherwise of. And yet, for all this, one may truly say, that there are very few lovers of truth, for truth's sake, even amongst those who persuade themselves that they are so." ---John Locke about Truth
I've come to learn that the God of the bible is the true God because He has ALL the evidence to make that so. I'm not ashamed to declare that and kowtow to it, I say it boldly and am not afraid of challenges because I know I can shoot them down. It comes down to, how much is a person really looking for truth, as Locke so eloquently wrote.