When you consider that this man wrote the Selfish Gene when he was 35, and compare that to what most of us accomplish in the first 35 years of our lives, you begin to realize how far out of our leagues he really is. And then came one book after another. And what a fantastic teacher he was and still is - just look up the Royal Society lectures. I am thankful to modern technology and the internet that I and my children will have access to his work and talks for years to come. Thankfully, once it is out on the internet, it is out for good. Burning books worked in the middle ages. They can't do that to electrons.
To Chiradean Sen. Are you not aware of the fact that many Neo Nazi's considered that book to be a master piece and used it in their shameful racist ideology. Dawkins should be ashamed.
He may be controversial, veering at times into stridency, sometimes a bit elitist, arguably showing less sensitivity for the beliefs of the less sophisticated. Whatever your convictions may be, there is no denying the fact that he remains a colossal figure in modern science and an intellect of the highest order.
+Fuzzo Frizzbeebot you can't blame some people for continuing to learn more and explore while others shut down and are satisfied with an ancient book that claims to know all the answers to the past present and future.
Actually i was thrown into this world. Not from tijuana, i am of indigenous decent, fortunate to be of warrior blood, unfortunate to have the last name of conquistadors who couldnt do a job right(spaniards). Im red skinned like the ones before me and that is my heritage, all else aside, what unfortunate event lead to you?...lol...
I was introduced to him by a presentation he made on "Science Friday" to promote "The Ancestors' Tale" and he was so interesting and good to the people who called in. I was very fortunate that I got to know him earlier, so he had a great deal of credibility!
I wish I had the patience of this man. When faced with idiocy, which is a condition of choice, I want to scream and lash out. Hats off to a true gentleman and scholar.
Mr. Dawkins, deserves a Nobel Prize for his work in helping free social consciousness to an alternative way of thinking that transcends religion and the norms western and eastern societies have used to control and subjugate social thought over the millennium of our species.
Well, I don't see any sign of happiness on his face. His head is fulled with reasons so his heart of empty from feeling. He don't even feel what was written by himself. He speak from the book instead of from his heart. I don't think this empty heart man deserves such a Price.
Shrati Bhumibodhi A person who acts on reason can't feel happiness? Excellent creation of a false dichotomy. If you can show evidence other than his "facial expressions" i'd be inclined to listen. In fact, he shows his wonderment and "happiness" in his field of study uncountable times.
I'm so sorry that don't know how to explain to you friends...you know...let put in this way...happiness in his field is not the same as happiness in his life. The evidence is in your feeling friends. Observe it, in the deepest place in your feeling, find the quiet place for a while you will feel it. It's not religion brothers, it's Science of Mind cause we can prove it. If you don't accept the existing of feeling please touch your face with your hand, do you feel it? The Mind Science is as simple as every one can prove it easily. I don't know what you mean by the word "religion" the word that tears human apart. I don't think that it is "religion" in my understanding, so I avoid using this word. The Mind Science is the study of our feelings which is the same no matter who they are: western, eastern, or between, they all have the same feeling. When sorrow happening they feel the same, it's the truth and never change since human appeared on earth. Happiness of Dr.Dawkins happen when he see, hear, smell, taste, and touch things favor to him, but there is happiness with out this five senses that longevity and sustainability. The happiness he got is a temporal pleasure. Science of Matter is not the only Science for human, there is the other side of Science, if you accepted that life comprise of body and feeling, so the Science of Mind should be part of the Sciences. I don't expect and convince you to believe, I's not the methods I keen, reasoning, I just want you to test it by feel it, if you don't feel it, so you are thing Dr.Dawkins called "The Selfish Gene" you are not the human, you are only machine learn to think. The Mind Science is not for you. Sorry robot friends, but we still love you brothers, even you don't feel love. Life is not mysterious entity, it's simple, but greed in power of machine man make it so. Good bye friend, thank you for your comments.
Charles Carz Well...I don't think three times marriage before sixty is the good evidence for happiness and peace, it's the evidence of pleasure, temporal happiness but longevity turmoil. I' am sorry to say that, but you know I love Dr.Dawkins as my friend like you do, but good friend not ignoring when friend suffering. He dare to give a word even he know that he will be stroked back by his fan clubs. However, please for give me. I don't mean to convict wright or wrong, I just want to share my true feeling, that's all. Good bye.
Shrati Bhumibodhi Every time I look at Dawkins he looks so sad, empty and perhaps a bit depressed. But when I look at Christians I see such peace and joy and contentment.
My favourite line ever is "Throughout history, every mystery, ever solved, has turned out to be... not magic". I think this is an extension of that. We don't know yet everything about the singularity that started the universe, but by following the lines of science we have so far, we will find it, and it will not be magic or divine.
Hearing Dawkins choke up makes me choke up. I hope one of his fellow scientists like Krauss or Sam Harris does a speech about him and his life when he is gone.
You are absolutely right. I have already made world a better pace by praying all morning, and so far I have prayed antibiotics into existence, wished very badly for better communication satellites and and am currently exorcising my heart out for a cure to cancer and baldness. A few hail maries should probably do away with my halitosis too. PRAYER: doing nothing for no one since always!
So............. Fantastic Dawkins talk, but I found it a little strange he was at Google. When he finished his absolutely fantastic talk, I was slightly on alert when I heard a familiar voice penetrate the silence; when I saw the source, I was breathtaken and overwhelmed. Ray Kurzweil. The most successful person in giving me the hardest trouble in discerning the legitimacy of- here with the leader of atheism and reason. Dawkins is a leader of truth and science. Kurzweil's sincerity and
I had an experience this last week that parallels with your comment. One of the guys that I work with was extolling the value of Jesus's sacrifice, to which I responded "oh yeah?". He seemed confused by my response, and followed up by saying "well your a christian right?". I told him I was a Non Theist, he walked away muttering "that's F'd up man". I asked him "is that really F'd up?", and he said "yeah that's F'd up!". So I said "To each his own", and smiled. He wasn't very keen to my response.
When I wrote a very good paper though I was having a life-changing medical problem - the Professor offered to put his name first, fortunately, I ignored his desires. But this is greater. Mr. Cullen must have been a wonderful man.
i go to monash university now and hearing that about mike cullen is very inspiring, if it werent for dawkins i would never had heard his name but undoubtedly he would have contributed so much to the school i study at every day, it seems like such a small word sometimes
Exactly. I live my life everyday, greeting people like any other citizen would. I don't speak about ones religious background, nor do I speak about my beliefs on god and religion. I only do when someone speaks to me about it. At that point, I don't back down and I'm willing to express it if they're willing to listen. This is the opposite of the common stereotype about atheists.
Couldn't agree more with The_Suspect . You've got one of the best science communicators in history at your mercy. Why ask such banal questions? So frustrating!
Scientist, rational approach one, sacrifice their happiness seeking reason of truth. They are the men on fire in order to make our World peaceful. The matter is they have not been aware that peaceful is one step ahead to reason. May all prey for our beloved rationalism scientist around this World.
really? "sacrifice their happiness seeking reason of truth"? That is very unlikely.... do lawyer solely spend their life in courts?.... do working class citizens only spend time in factories?,,, or do scientist have a productive academic life, sharing knowledge, challenging young minds, educating people, have families, go dancing, celebrate birthdays, etc? and get amazed and get joy of what work they do... but that, for you, may not bring them happiness? (there is something called "transference". You may need to look for the meaning of that word)
Great Dawkins, nice contributions to the public understanding of science, free inquiry and rational skepticism. Detractors should try (even if difficult) and keep an open mind about his many remarks, if this debate is going to ever go somewhere, that is.
I've done martial arts for twenty years. There are two ways of looking at things: 1. By raising your hands into a guard position facing towards your opponent you can channel your energy towards them and push them backwards. or 2.By raising your hands into a guard position facing towards your opponent you put your fingers really near their eyes and they don't like it and step backwards. I go with the second theory. I'm still an atheist though.
really wish people questioning Richard Dawkins would have actually read the Origin of Species and some of his books enough times till they actually grasp the concepts with a firm understanding not just here but at any and all of his lectures!
For a critical examination of this claim, refer to the works of Hannah Arendt (a Jewish Woman) who addressed the reasons why the Nazis and Stalinist Soviets (and essentially Pol Pot, who acted under the same rubric) did the things that did, and that all were Totalitarian Regimes with only minor differences, where theism was subsumed by a worship of the state.
"Good science by definition allows for more than one opinion, otherwise you merely have the will of one man." Something to chew on for those of us who believe science has buried god.
Ok, I agree. When we are young we listen to our parents, teachers, etc. But I think once we mentally grow up and gain some experience we basically know what is good and what not and also what to do with our lives. We definitely don't need an ancient book filled with ancient barbaric mentality to 'guide' us through our existence.
Yet, with all that I still think the question that theists answer the least well is Epicurus. "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”
For the "believers" that want to hide behind terms...its called "natural selection" not "natural random chance" for a reason. An independent, reproducible reason.
Every question favors theism in the beginning. Then we learn to relate things we don't understand to things we do understand, and we find out our question can be answered by science. The atheists have reached a point where this has happened so many thousands of times that they abandoned the theistic idea. If you follow the cable science channels there are now a number of hypotheses suggesting the creation of the universe is part of something bigger and natural.
Bullet Craft There's a huge difference between starting a war being an atheist, and starting a war in the name of atheism. With your logic we might as well blame Christianity for world war 2.
I recently posted the following statement on a Dawkins’s website “Colonialism has aways been with us in some form. Without it we would not have any of the many nation states that make up the world, nor the civilisation that we take so much for granted in our lives”. I thought that was a complexly logical conclusion to say, but Richard replied: " What is so good about having 'Nations'? We have One World, One Life and One desire - to live the most healthy, prosperous, and peaceful lives we can - why do we need so many ways to divide our One Species? I would say that this is an extension of the ‘John Lennon’ “Imagine” nonsense, which is ok if people want to believe it, but for someone who lectures on the accreditation of scientific knowledge it demonstrates a delving into a fairyland that Richard always attributes to religious thinking?
And this is my experience too. I've had that woman kissing a crucifix in from of me and she is the most dreadful, prejudiced, nasty, spiteful and vengeful person I've ever met in my life. One silly episode of honest misunderstanding and she would not forgive me and she could badmouth me forever. On the other hand I'm working with a lady who is always the first to help others and I only recently found out she's an Atheist. Conclusion: religion has nothing to do with how good or bad you are.
I'm actually currently reading one of Dawkins old books, "The Blind Watchmaker" and just got to the point where Dawkins is criticizing the USSR for it's anti-science dogmatism, specifically he bashes Lysenko who is probably responsible for killing millions with his crackpot biology. If he lived in the USSR and said this stuff openly he would have been off to the Gulag faster than you can say the word "heresy."
Just call it concentration and focus if that's what you mean. "Inner energy" doesn't mean anything as far as you've said and reeks of woo. Even martial artists using terms and concepts from Buddhism and other various practices unsupported by science realize that regardless of their phrasing, there is often a very real phenomenon behind their words that has explanations grounded in reality and isn't just throwing around special terms.
Interesting idea on a need to thank leading to the mistake of deity attribution. I would think rather humans major niche in our evolution was as tool makers, and as a result, we are programmed in a sense to seek purpose in things, it started from tool conceptualization, but then we made the mistake of carrying over "purpose" and seeing it in everything. As cows probably live constantly around the frame of reference of grazing, we are purpose seekers. Luckily this seems to develop into sentience
Nice to know everything Doc but can you explain how the LSD experience is a separate consensus reality,....it has been bugging me since 1968,.....if all that is between our ears is electric jelly,....how is it possible?
I'm not saying it actually is woo. Great discipline can lead to surprising feats, which is why I pointed vaguely to martial artists. I just don't agree to calling these sorts of things and the having the ability and discipline "inner energy", especially when "energy" has a specific meaning, and energy really doesn't have anything to do with it. I don't agree that it's something that you would tap into either, really. It isn't "tapping into ANS", it's controlling things that the ANS controls.
While that's a snarky way to put it, I don't think it's very prudent to say that non-belief in gods enables a person to have their own worldviews. Part of what atheists try to tell theists is that you don't -need- a belief in a god to have a worldview. That everyone has their own worldview regardless of what they believe in, and that usually one's worldview -informs- their ascribed beliefs. Of course, religious dogma often hampers and restricts the expansion or alteration of your worldview.
The "golden rule" is not from religion. It is from humanism. It existed and was (re)invented in many cultures of different civilizations outside the context of any religion.
I've not read the other comments but I would answer that of course religious indoctrination won't make you an especially good person however what of the notion that being an intrinsically good person 'tends' one toward religion more so than being an intrinsically bad person? This is the point worth most to be explored. I am a nonbeliever but I'm drawn to spiritual ideas in virtue of my nature - a nature that others, though not especially I, regard to be essentially good.
(Part 3) myths do not usually evolve spontaneously, but are manufactured in places like Wall Street in order to suggest a "need" for which a product may be sold. Any person who thinks that non material realities exist is "spiritual". A simple example is the unique human quality of COMPASSION. This experience is familiar to virtually all people on the planet. Nevertheless, there are a very small minority of persons to whom
"inner energy" is just a scientific sounding woo-woo term that doesn't really mean anything. Not the same thing as concentration and focus. When you're lying on a bed of nails your weight is distributed across all the nails, that's why it's not painful (focusing on not leaning your weight in one area probably helps). When the bricks break, the human body isn't completely hard, it can absorb some of the forces. or something like that. It's a magic trick.
which debate are we on? as far as i can remember, you've started the conversation with explaining how someone is becoming a scientist through being molested by his professor, then someone made an analogy to the abuses by christian priests, then you freaked out, then i told you so and since then you talk about having explained your position and me not answering your questions. i mean this sound quite loopy. ask if you have a question and name a topic of the debate you are "open to", you know?
(Part 5) melting point of altruism or describe empathy in its solid state. They do not because these are non material realities, and hence, inaccessible to the scientific paradigm. When one posits that the ONLY reality is that which may be deduced by the scientific method, one necessarily severely truncates one's perception. It is like viewing life through a pin hole and claiming that the only realities are those seen in your field
I cant seem to articulate the answer as well like richard, although I know his work, to me friends and end up feeling stupid myself. HAHA . Wish i have a personally Richard Dawkins whenever i want to explain something about evolution..zzz
Well he did study Evolutionary Biology. So I suspect he should be able to explain the concepts of Evolution. Also since Evolution is attacked a lot by religious people, you have to be able to communicate ideas clearly to show people what Evolution is about.
The following comment diminishes his fine work, and the rest of this fascinating discussion, but at 36:38, an amusing question about Dr. Who is presented to Richard. I'd feel sad if that was the only part of this that you watched though.
![Lp. Сердце Вселенной #60 РОЖДЕНИЕ ЛОЛОЛОШКИ [Финал] • Майнкрафт](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/YoR0pAV9FVQ/mqdefault.jpg)
The speech about his tutor was very touching.
When you consider that this man wrote the Selfish Gene when he was 35, and compare that to what most of us accomplish in the first 35 years of our lives, you begin to realize how far out of our leagues he really is. And then came one book after another. And what a fantastic teacher he was and still is - just look up the Royal Society lectures. I am thankful to modern technology and the internet that I and my children will have access to his work and talks for years to come. Thankfully, once it is out on the internet, it is out for good. Burning books worked in the middle ages. They can't do that to electrons.
To Chiradean Sen. Are you not aware of the fact that many Neo Nazi's considered that book to be a master piece and used it in their shameful racist ideology. Dawkins should be ashamed.
Exactly. I just love the Royal Society Lectures. I don't know now many schools/university/teachers teach like him.
I'm in awe of this man.
Ela Alvarez So am I. I would LOVE to meet him one day.
Yes. Just to listen to one of his lectures would be great.
NSLM I saw him in person at a presentation in London -- didn't get a chance to talk though.
***** Definitely.. I just saw him in Los Angeles a few days ago, interviewed by Penn Jillette. It was a dream come true!
+Millan Doobay If you're going to insult people, learn the proper grammar and spelling to do so. *primitive* *clearly*
Dawnkins is so brilliant.. one of the best minds we have... it is a privilege to hear him speak.
He may be controversial, veering at times into stridency, sometimes a bit elitist, arguably showing less sensitivity for the beliefs of the less sophisticated. Whatever your convictions may be, there is no denying the fact that he remains a colossal figure in modern science and an intellect of the highest order.
+Dez White speak for yourself...
+Fuzzo Frizzbeebot you can't blame some people for continuing to learn more and explore while others shut down and are satisfied with an ancient book that claims to know all the answers to the past present and future.
Intellectual prowess is missing in this thread....cock sucking is allowed...
Actually i was thrown into this world. Not from tijuana, i am of indigenous decent, fortunate to be of warrior blood, unfortunate to have the last name of conquistadors who couldnt do a job right(spaniards). Im red skinned like the ones before me and that is my heritage, all else aside, what unfortunate event lead to you?...lol...
Google, Paleo-Hebrew Word Pictures, by Aquilla Fleetwood, youtube!
Richard Dawkins is a true role model, it would be a nice thing to see scientists be considered celebrities the same way artists are.
Srithor Exactly, he has inspired a lot of people to get into science, I think it would be nice to see more people interested in the subject.
Srithor I wouldn't know, from what I've seen I'd say Einstein is more popular even now. But I agree, Stephen Hawking is pretty amazing.
Very important.
@@LexusFox : If only he were into science ????
Oh wow, interesting to find this old comment of mine.
If I ever wanted to have a president for the human race, this would be the guy.
Antti Harju Os Sam Harris. Sorry to leave you out like that.
I'd vote for him.
Jello Biafra aka Eric Boucher too
I was introduced to him by a presentation he made on "Science Friday" to promote "The Ancestors' Tale" and he was so interesting and good to the people who called in. I was very fortunate that I got to know him earlier, so he had a great deal of credibility!
what? lol an ex ape? lol
I wish I had the patience of this man. When faced with idiocy, which is a condition of choice, I want to scream and lash out. Hats off to a true gentleman and scholar.
Dawkins has given many great lectures, contributed to numerous discussions and lectures, but this speech, if you will, is one my most favourite.
Mr. Dawkins, deserves a Nobel Prize for his work in helping free social consciousness to an alternative way of thinking that transcends religion and the norms western and eastern societies have used to control and subjugate social thought over the millennium of our species.
Well, I don't see any sign of happiness on his face. His head is fulled with reasons so his heart of empty from feeling. He don't even feel what was written by himself. He speak from the book instead of from his heart. I don't think this empty heart man deserves such a Price.
Shrati Bhumibodhi A person who acts on reason can't feel happiness? Excellent creation of a false dichotomy. If you can show evidence other than his "facial expressions" i'd be inclined to listen. In fact, he shows his wonderment and "happiness" in his field of study uncountable times.
I'm so sorry that don't know how to explain to you friends...you know...let put in this way...happiness in his field is not the same as happiness in his life. The evidence is in your feeling friends. Observe it, in the deepest place in your feeling, find the quiet place for a while you will feel it. It's not religion brothers, it's Science of Mind cause we can prove it. If you don't accept the existing of feeling please touch your face with your hand, do you feel it? The Mind Science is as simple as every one can prove it easily. I don't know what you mean by the word "religion" the word that tears human apart. I don't think that it is "religion" in my understanding, so I avoid using this word. The Mind Science is the study of our feelings which is the same no matter who they are: western, eastern, or between, they all have the same feeling. When sorrow happening they feel the same, it's the truth and never change since human appeared on earth. Happiness of Dr.Dawkins happen when he see, hear, smell, taste, and touch things favor to him, but there is happiness with out this five senses that longevity and sustainability. The happiness he got is a temporal pleasure. Science of Matter is not the only Science for human, there is the other side of Science, if you accepted that life comprise of body and feeling, so the Science of Mind should be part of the Sciences. I don't expect and convince you to believe, I's not the methods I keen, reasoning, I just want you to test it by feel it, if you don't feel it, so you are thing Dr.Dawkins called "The Selfish Gene" you are not the human, you are only machine learn to think. The Mind Science is not for you. Sorry robot friends, but we still love you brothers, even you don't feel love. Life is not mysterious entity, it's simple, but greed in power of machine man make it so. Good bye friend, thank you for your comments.
Charles Carz Well...I don't think three times marriage before sixty is the good evidence for happiness and peace, it's the evidence of pleasure, temporal happiness but longevity turmoil. I' am sorry to say that, but you know I love Dr.Dawkins as my friend like you do, but good friend not ignoring when friend suffering. He dare to give a word even he know that he will be stroked back by his fan clubs. However, please for give me. I don't mean to convict wright or wrong, I just want to share my true feeling, that's all. Good bye.
Shrati Bhumibodhi Every time I look at Dawkins he looks so sad, empty and perhaps a bit depressed. But when I look at Christians I see such peace and joy and contentment.
Wonderful speech. Dawkins is an inspiration for those who are attracted by science. His knowledge and skills in concatenate ideas are undeniable.
He deserved an applause after each reading, particularly the emotional one! Curious of the Americans to be so uncharacteristically placid.
Dawkins is pretty awesome. Glad I watched this.
Fernando Herrera...Dawkins is actually...OFFSOME!!!
My favourite line ever is "Throughout history, every mystery, ever solved, has turned out to be... not magic". I think this is an extension of that. We don't know yet everything about the singularity that started the universe, but by following the lines of science we have so far, we will find it, and it will not be magic or divine.
Hearing Dawkins choke up makes me choke up. I hope one of his fellow scientists like Krauss or Sam Harris does a speech about him and his life when he is gone.
Ray Kurzweil sem-interviewing Dawkins.... This is why I love google talks so much.
Enjoyed this talk.
society is in dire need need of more men like sir richard dawkins
Google talks are so much better than most other talks I've seen because the questioners are so much better.
Dr. Dawkins has such a warm wit. It's always a pleasure to hear.
You are absolutely right. I have already made world a better pace by praying all morning, and so far I have prayed antibiotics into existence, wished very badly for better communication satellites and and am currently exorcising my heart out for a cure to cancer and baldness. A few hail maries should probably do away with my halitosis too. PRAYER: doing nothing for no one since always!
What an amazing man. I am totally mesmerized by Dawkins.
What a great man. Easily one of the finest humans of the 20th-21st centuries...
Fantastic talk, looking forward to more!
So.............
Fantastic Dawkins talk, but I found it a little strange he was at Google.
When he finished his absolutely fantastic talk, I was slightly on alert when I heard a familiar voice penetrate the silence; when I saw the source, I was breathtaken and overwhelmed. Ray Kurzweil. The most successful person in giving me the hardest trouble in discerning the legitimacy of- here with the leader of atheism and reason. Dawkins is a leader of truth and science. Kurzweil's sincerity and
this guy is awesome! thankyou so much richard darkins for the richness you add to my life
One of my most respected speakers on sience n reason
Greatest Thinker, Speaker and Scientist of All Time...Farewell to the skeptics of Science and its Wonders...The skeptics will have to evolve more..
I had an experience this last week that parallels with your comment. One of the guys that I work with was extolling the value of Jesus's sacrifice, to which I responded "oh yeah?". He seemed confused by my response, and followed up by saying "well your a christian right?". I told him I was a Non Theist, he walked away muttering "that's F'd up man". I asked him "is that really F'd up?", and he said "yeah that's F'd up!". So I said "To each his own", and smiled. He wasn't very keen to my response.
When I wrote a very good paper though I was having a life-changing medical problem - the Professor offered to put his name first, fortunately, I ignored his desires. But this is greater. Mr. Cullen must have been a wonderful man.
Cool to see both Richard Dawkins and Ray Kurzweil together - two great men.
i go to monash university now and hearing that about mike cullen is very inspiring, if it werent for dawkins i would never had heard his name but undoubtedly he would have contributed so much to the school i study at every day, it seems like such a small word sometimes
Exactly. I live my life everyday, greeting people like any other citizen would. I don't speak about ones religious background, nor do I speak about my beliefs on god and religion. I only do when someone speaks to me about it. At that point, I don't back down and I'm willing to express it if they're willing to listen. This is the opposite of the common stereotype about atheists.
I love you Richard. Forever my hero.
Respect to Dr Dawkins.
Bravo!
Thank you for the decent quality audio and video.
Couldn't agree more with The_Suspect . You've got one of the best science communicators in history at your mercy. Why ask such banal questions? So frustrating!
Scientist, rational approach one, sacrifice their happiness seeking reason of truth. They are the men on fire in order to make our World peaceful. The matter is they have not been aware that peaceful is one step ahead to reason. May all prey for our beloved rationalism scientist around this World.
really? "sacrifice their happiness seeking reason of truth"? That is very unlikely.... do lawyer solely spend their life in courts?.... do working class citizens only spend time in factories?,,, or do scientist have a productive academic life, sharing knowledge, challenging young minds, educating people, have families, go dancing, celebrate birthdays, etc? and get amazed and get joy of what work they do... but that, for you, may not bring them happiness? (there is something called "transference". You may need to look for the meaning of that word)
Great Dawkins, nice contributions to the public understanding of science, free inquiry and rational skepticism. Detractors should try (even if difficult) and keep an open mind about his many remarks, if this debate is going to ever go somewhere, that is.
I am in awe of this man, he is so poetic
a new one! I must have become addicted to him
thanks professor!
Richard Dawkins is a HERO
I try really hard to be serious and keep my childish brain in control, but, "divine knob twiddler," definitely made me chuckle.
This man is next level in human evolution.. Brilliant mind
The selfish gene is probably the best book of the 20th century. It blew my mind.
I've done martial arts for twenty years. There are two ways of looking at things:
1. By raising your hands into a guard position facing towards your opponent you can channel your energy towards them and push them backwards.
or
2.By raising your hands into a guard position facing towards your opponent you put your fingers really near their eyes and they don't like it and step backwards.
I go with the second theory.
I'm still an atheist though.
really wish people questioning Richard Dawkins would have actually read the Origin of Species and some of his books enough times till they actually grasp the concepts with a firm understanding not just here but at any and all of his lectures!
good points fall on deaf ears, unconditionally
great quality, thanx for the upload..**
brilliant session, also delighted that ray kurzweil was there :D
If Richard can come up with a way to get rid of trolls, i'll bow down to him.
Do you know if and where might be able to find the transcript of this , so intelligent lecture? Thank you so much.
For a critical examination of this claim, refer to the works of Hannah Arendt (a Jewish Woman) who addressed the reasons why the Nazis and Stalinist Soviets (and essentially Pol Pot, who acted under the same rubric) did the things that did, and that all were Totalitarian Regimes with only minor differences, where theism was subsumed by a worship of the state.
When I first heard of the title the Selfishness Gene I thought it might be an explanation of why certain humans devolve into politicians :).
"Good science by definition allows for more than one opinion, otherwise you merely have the will of one man." Something to chew on for those of us who believe science has buried god.
Richard is the man..!
Ok, I agree. When we are young we listen to our parents, teachers, etc. But I think once we mentally grow up and gain some experience we basically know what is good and what not and also what to do with our lives. We definitely don't need an ancient book filled with ancient barbaric mentality to 'guide' us through our existence.
I really liked the title 'The Selfish Gene'. I thought it well phrased the nature of some of the gene action that was described.
Yet, with all that I still think the question that theists answer the least well is Epicurus. "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”
For the "believers" that want to hide behind terms...its called "natural selection" not "natural random chance" for a reason. An independent, reproducible reason.
***** Wibbly-wobbly timey-whimey.
Words have meanings, but only when used meaningfully.
+Locutus Borg No, in context.
SenorQuichotte
Same difference.
32:35 What is "organized atheism" about? Where can I join the nonstampcollectors club?
I Love this man!
Every question favors theism in the beginning. Then we learn to relate things we don't understand to things we do understand, and we find out our question can be answered by science. The atheists have reached a point where this has happened so many thousands of times that they abandoned the theistic idea. If you follow the cable science channels there are now a number of hypotheses suggesting the creation of the universe is part of something bigger and natural.
He has great love for nature .
If atheism is a religion, then bald is a hair color.
Very creative! Lol!
Yet it starts wars just as successfully, oppresses people just as harshly, and now has churches just like every major religion on earth…
Bullet Craft There's a huge difference between starting a war being an atheist, and starting a war in the name of atheism. With your logic we might as well blame Christianity for world war 2.
I recently posted the following statement on a Dawkins’s website “Colonialism has aways been with us in some form. Without it we would not have any of the many nation states that make up the world, nor the civilisation that we take so much for granted in our lives”. I thought that was a complexly logical conclusion to say, but Richard replied: " What is so good about having 'Nations'? We have One World, One Life and One desire - to live the most healthy, prosperous, and peaceful lives we can - why do we need so many ways to divide our One Species?
I would say that this is an extension of the ‘John Lennon’ “Imagine” nonsense, which is ok if people want to believe it, but for someone who lectures on the accreditation of scientific knowledge it demonstrates a delving into a fairyland that Richard always attributes to religious thinking?
I can't believe this genius had to be put next to someone like Chopra. Dawkins is ina whole another level.
And this is my experience too. I've had that woman kissing a crucifix in from of me and she is the most dreadful, prejudiced, nasty, spiteful and vengeful person I've ever met in my life. One silly episode of honest misunderstanding and she would not forgive me and she could badmouth me forever.
On the other hand I'm working with a lady who is always the first to help others and I only recently found out she's an Atheist.
Conclusion: religion has nothing to do with how good or bad you are.
Where can I see Kurzweil's introduction to this?
Kingdom of God as Divine North Korea. Priceless.
per Christopher Hitchens
I'm actually currently reading one of Dawkins old books, "The Blind Watchmaker" and just got to the point where Dawkins is criticizing the USSR for it's anti-science dogmatism, specifically he bashes Lysenko who is probably responsible for killing millions with his crackpot biology.
If he lived in the USSR and said this stuff openly he would have been off to the Gulag faster than you can say the word "heresy."
Just call it concentration and focus if that's what you mean. "Inner energy" doesn't mean anything as far as you've said and reeks of woo. Even martial artists using terms and concepts from Buddhism and other various practices unsupported by science realize that regardless of their phrasing, there is often a very real phenomenon behind their words that has explanations grounded in reality and isn't just throwing around special terms.
Google should be ashamed of what they did to James Damore
As an IT professional, I'd be delighted to fix Dawkin's computer issues. lol
People who believe that everything was created by a god have nothing to figure out about the universe. They say why question god? I question their IQ.
There's a b & w picture of him as a 16/17 yr old standing alongside classmates. He was(almost...) supernaturally good-looking.
Interesting idea on a need to thank leading to the mistake of deity attribution. I would think rather humans major niche in our evolution was as tool makers, and as a result, we are programmed in a sense to seek purpose in things, it started from tool conceptualization, but then we made the mistake of carrying over "purpose" and seeing it in everything. As cows probably live constantly around the frame of reference of grazing, we are purpose seekers. Luckily this seems to develop into sentience
Sandro_Pertini
He was the seventh President of the Italy, from 1978 to 1985.
a very honest and wise man. After him just caos.
Nice to know everything Doc but can you explain how the LSD experience is a separate consensus reality,....it has been bugging me since 1968,.....if all that is between our ears is electric jelly,....how is it possible?
Exactly. Thanks for that.
I'm not saying it actually is woo. Great discipline can lead to surprising feats, which is why I pointed vaguely to martial artists. I just don't agree to calling these sorts of things and the having the ability and discipline "inner energy", especially when "energy" has a specific meaning, and energy really doesn't have anything to do with it. I don't agree that it's something that you would tap into either, really. It isn't "tapping into ANS", it's controlling things that the ANS controls.
While that's a snarky way to put it, I don't think it's very prudent to say that non-belief in gods enables a person to have their own worldviews. Part of what atheists try to tell theists is that you don't -need- a belief in a god to have a worldview. That everyone has their own worldview regardless of what they believe in, and that usually one's worldview -informs- their ascribed beliefs. Of course, religious dogma often hampers and restricts the expansion or alteration of your worldview.
gotta get the book
The "golden rule" is not from religion. It is from humanism. It existed and was (re)invented in many cultures of different civilizations outside the context of any religion.
I've not read the other comments but I would answer that of course religious indoctrination won't make you an especially good person however what of the notion that being an intrinsically good person 'tends' one toward religion more so than being an intrinsically bad person? This is the point worth most to be explored. I am a nonbeliever but I'm drawn to spiritual ideas in virtue of my nature - a nature that others, though not especially I, regard to be essentially good.
"Being an Anglican Church, they didn't indoctrinate or punish us in any way, which, I think is a nice advertisement for the Anglican Church." ~Dawkins
that could apply to many priests as well
You embody the notion of "deranged prejudice".
(Part 3) myths do not usually evolve spontaneously, but are manufactured in places like Wall Street in order to suggest a "need" for which a product may be sold. Any person who thinks that non material realities exist is "spiritual". A simple example is the unique human quality of COMPASSION. This experience is familiar to virtually all people on the planet. Nevertheless, there are a very small minority of persons to whom
"inner energy" is just a scientific sounding woo-woo term that doesn't really mean anything. Not the same thing as concentration and focus.
When you're lying on a bed of nails your weight is distributed across all the nails, that's why it's not painful (focusing on not leaning your weight in one area probably helps). When the bricks break, the human body isn't completely hard, it can absorb some of the forces. or something like that. It's a magic trick.
which debate are we on? as far as i can remember, you've started the conversation with explaining how someone is becoming a scientist through being molested by his professor, then someone made an analogy to the abuses by christian priests, then you freaked out, then i told you so and since then you talk about having explained your position and me not answering your questions. i mean this sound quite loopy. ask if you have a question and name a topic of the debate you are "open to", you know?
long time since i've listened to some dawkins.
(Part 5) melting point of altruism or describe empathy in its solid state. They do not because these are non material realities, and hence, inaccessible to the scientific paradigm. When one posits that the ONLY reality is that which may be deduced by the scientific method, one necessarily severely truncates one's perception. It is like viewing life through a pin hole and claiming that the only realities are those seen in your field
I was there!!!
I cant seem to articulate the answer as well like richard, although I know his work, to me friends and end up feeling stupid myself. HAHA . Wish i have a personally Richard Dawkins whenever i want to explain something about evolution..zzz
Well he did study Evolutionary Biology. So I suspect he should be able to explain the concepts of Evolution. Also since Evolution is attacked a lot by religious people, you have to be able to communicate ideas clearly to show people what Evolution is about.
The following comment diminishes his fine work, and the rest of this fascinating discussion, but at 36:38, an amusing question about Dr. Who is presented to Richard.
I'd feel sad if that was the only part of this that you watched though.
Why would you think objects made you, without being directed?
Whos the man in your picture
As a Christian I love science but can’t take Richard Dawkins seriously.