Why Did Andrew Sullivan Apologise to Richard Dawkins?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 24 вер 2024
- I will be on tour of North America, UK & EU talking about my latest book, religion, life on earth and beyond. I will be joined on stage by a range of friends and foes on stage. The events will include a Q&A and a limited meet-and-greet. You can get your tickets here: richarddawkins...
#richarddawkins #richarddawkinstour
In an earlier podcast, Andrew Sullivan described Richard Dawkins as an unpleasant person. But that was before he had met him.
In this episode, they do meet, and consider whether direct clarity can be mistaken for unpleasantness. They go on to discuss the double standards that govern criticism, challenging the breakdown of civil conversation in America.
As they navigate the terrifying yet exhilarating immensity of the universe, they contemplate and debate life's meaning, Jesus, and the role of religion as solace in the face of nothingness. But does moral philosophy really require the supernatural? Does scientific truth make a person desolate? And what is the truth of human nature and the sex binary?
------------------
Join Substack:
richarddawkins...
Subscribe to Poetry of Reality Channel:
/ @poetryofreality
Follow:
Instagram: / the.poetry.of.reality
Twitter: / richarddawkins
Facebook: / richarddawkinsbooks
Reddit: / thepoetryofreality
I hate to break it to Andrew, but if there were undeniable evidence for a deity and this deity told us directly and clearly what the purpose of our existence is, we would still ultimately ask “Okay but _whyyy_?”
Also... Even if he's right that there has to be an answer to "why?".
.... Then what's the point of humans just making it up instead of just admitting that we don't know?
@@pm71241 In the world where feelings trump facts and reality yes it does. They will go as far as delusion to make sure it does.
There is no proof for any religion. And there will never be. Our gods are always created by us. Maybe there are super powerful aliens somewhere but that is not meant when people talk about gods.
Is it Andrew’s contention that if his God exists - I repeat his God - the meaning of life is to serve that God? That meaning is no more or no less than the meaning or no meaning without any God or the different meanings given to us by the holy text of the many gods worshipped today.
I appreciate Richard Dawkins no nonsense approach.
ikr he’s just fuck all these eggshells
I absolutely love the fact that he verbally annihilated the woke mob of snowflakes and other sorts of voluntary and wilful idiots and morons when he said:
“I don’t care about how you feel. I care about what’s true.”
and…
“You are offended? Well so fucking what?”
I don’t have anywhere near the same level or scale of his patience and kindness towards idiots and morons during arguments.
There is no way Richard Dawkins has become irrelevant.
What has become obvious is that he is so relevant that people jump on him for reasons that have nothing to do with him or what he has stated or by deliberately misinterpreting.
If Mr. Sullivan finds it pointless to live a life that isn’t up to his desires/wishes/beliefs doesn’t change reality in any way shape or form.
I love and respect Dr. Dawkins. His views on transgender people are archaic and silly however and mostly semantic. As a sociologist it has been clear for decades that human sexuality is binary, but human gender is expressed in a variety of ways. He refuses to understand the work of Kinsey or that of sociology for 50 years. Einstein also had a problem with modern physics near the end of his life.
@@stevenlancestoll629does that mean there is a difference between a male who likes to wear women’s clothes, has feminine interests etc. vs a male who wants to surgically rearrange their genitals, have breast enlargement surgery, and take female hormones to otherwise change their appearance from male to female?
@@Glasstable2011 of course there are differences. The bottom line of course is how does how someone chooses to live one's life affect you?
@@stevenlancestoll629
Spreading lies and misinformation over reality harms humanity. When the Far Left tries to spread their deranged, unscientific religion in stead of actual educaton, they should be stopped and punished.
Wow how frustrating for Richard to have to discuss this topic with a person like Andrew. I aspire to have this level of patience.
I didnt find it frustrating. you should approach these conversations not as a form of convincing someone but trying to understand why they think the things they do.
@@Arthera0
Dikki D's guest wasn't saying anything of value when he crapped on and preached about his mythology.
After hearing one, the droning might change slightly, but they ultimately sound the same as any other hive.
Listening to Andrew trying to rationalise (he said he was using reason, but that’s only possible if you’ve come up with your own definition of that word) his acceptance of the catholic belief in transubstantiation was like listening to Deepak Chopra rationalise his belief that the behaviour of particles and waves described by quantum physics is evidence for his gods existence.
There's the line about religion being capable of making a good man do bad things. Well likewise, hearing Andrew Sullivan go on (and on and on) about religion, it is also capable of making a very intelligent man sound like a dingbat.
Genius comment!!
I am an atheist. I don't believe in the existence of God. There is insufficient evidence or rational justification to support the belief in any gods or supernatural entities. I rely on reason, logic, and empirical evidence to form my worldview and do not find compelling evidence or arguments to support the existence of god.
ua-cam.com/video/xIHMnD2FDeY/v-deo.html
Dawkins sits mute/deaf/moronic as actual biologists with Nobel prizes and Pres. Freedom Award
ALL say, "it is impossible that humans will EVER know life's origin". BUUTTT...that's Dawkins'
single sine qua non: he has evidence of naturally occurring life. WHY IS HE SILENT AROUND ACTUAL BIOLOGISTS?!? 'CAUSE HE'S GOT NOTHING!!!
@@kindregardless tell it to the vast majority of humans.
Congratulations
Wow! Standing ovation!🎉👏🏻
Nobody cares….
A)Dawkins knows stuff B) He yearns for intelligent discourse
C) But he doesn't always get it.
What does he know then?
@@ahartify A bit more than you.
The attacks on Dawkins reflect his power. He is an extraordinary author, brilliant mind and powerful communicator. Something which does not serve him well at the moment are the simplistic, 2 minute concentration level, ideological, fundamentalist audiences that swarm over these types of platforms.
To me he is a journalist, not a thinker or philosopher in the strict sense. Like many aetgeusts with a conventional or conservative religious upbringing, he doth protest too much.
@ahartify DAWKINS is bright but his thinking is old Religion is in the past We are on climate change now Lest see him pull that apart Both are man made DREAMS????
Attacks? You mean counter-arguments, surely?
@ahartify Don't mind debates What is the point of raving about stuff 1000s of years ago DAWKINS has to lift his game he is becoming a handicap We are now on man made climate change the big co2 problem
Let's see old Richard sort this one out Der
People who say science is religion could also say vegetables are religion. I have zero patience for gibberish.
I have two comments, one about Richard Dawkins being “unpleasant” and the other about racial differences.
First, the latter:
Back in the ‘70 I realised that all the classical music I listened to - Rubinstein, Horowitz, Barenboim, Zucherman, etc., was recordings of performances by Jews. “Do you think,” I asked a Chinese classmate, I guess a little too loudly, “that the Jews are genetically superior in the field of classical music?” For he looked around anxiously, then whispered, “I’m not sure we’re allowed to ask that question. Maybe it’s nurture; maybe it’s because they all had Jewish mothers!” Then he brightened up a bit and added, “Mind you, it could be that there’s a Jewish Mother gene.”
Now the former:
At a Christmas party in 2008, my neighbour (and an old friend), a very lovely, always soft-spoken, Christian woman, asked me if I’d gotten any interesting gifts.
“Oh, yes,” I said. “my daughter gave me The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins.”
She looked appalled. She knew exactly who he was as her son was reading biology at Oxford as Bermuda’s Rhodes Scholar. (He was also, like the rest of his family, extremely tall and athletic, and was Bermuda’s Olympian cross country skier!) I couldn’t believe the anger and vitriol Richard Dawkin’s name elicited in her. She started fuming, telling me what an awful person he was…
“I dunno,” I said after a while, “he looks very pleasant in his photograph on the book jacket, so rosy and kind: I’d certainly like to have him over for tea.”
This only exercised her more, and she continued to heap aspersions upon his atheistic head.
“But Lucy,” I said, “I’M an atheist.”
She floundered, stunned for a moment; but then came to her senses and delivered her coup de grâce:
“Well, he’s…he’s…SHORT!”
(I’m 5’11” so escaped the same fate by the skin of my teeth.)
I dunno, this guy seems like a twat right off the bat, but listening to him doesn't change my mind.
Also, if i had a choice of who to hang out with, RD or CH, I'd go with Richard who doesn't seem arrogant.
I really admire him.
Two things came to mind after hearing this interview:
1 - The binary decision people make in the Matrix by choosing between the red and the blue pill. The Reds endeavour to understand the illusion created by the matrix (truth seekers), while the Blues allow them to experience only that illusion (delusional people).
2 - People having oratory skills often end up using them to strengthen their delusions.
I'm sorry, Richard - but Andrew Sullivan annoys me. What is he? He claims to be reasonable but isn't. He claims to be a Catholic while apologising for Christianity. He has cultivated a manner of the kindly, thoughtful thinker but his messaging is shallow. I hate the creepy way he name-drops Christopher Hitchens.
Is it easier to believe the virgin birth or that Mary cheated on Joseph?
Or a tale taken from a previous ones, ad infinitum.
i’ve always been soothed by Richard. content and tone.
What an uncharitable conversational partner this man is towards Richard Dawkins...and what a gentleman Richard is...at least in the introduction and as an underlying agenda.
Great conversation. I especially loved the slight disconnect between Sullivan and Dawkins about how a Godless universe can be empty and depressing at times. I’m a nonbeliever who has read, followed, and loved Dawkins for decades, but I always feel he doesn’t quite get that sentiment. He always just has that answer about how science and wonder is enough for him. But for many people it’s just not. So I just thought it was interesting to hear Sullivan press him on that a bit-in a friendly, curious way.
Well, considering that all we have is science, he is scientifically and realistically correct that science is enough in and of itself. That’s a realistic statement independent of sentiment.
With that said, it is understandable that people feel the way that there must be more, but not in any religious, “spiritual”, mysticistic, so called “supernatural” way whatsoever, but rather in a way that could and would, at least eventually, turn the universe into this prosperous place for all. I have that sentiment and that thought. I will say that it’s not merely a sentiment (if at all) but a thought and a mindset, which constantly pushes you to do at least a bit better everyday than the day prior to it.
In any case, what matters is what we have realistically got, which is science, and the sentiment you talk about in your post is only possible in the first place via and by science. I absolutely hate the fact that nature is so unbelievably and incredibly wasteful, mindless, random, spontaneous and indifferent to misery. Who knows who could have been here in the place of so many redundant people that actually are already here! Nature is totally out of control and we as a sufficiently intelligent and capable species are rendered inescapably responsible for making things increasingly better, which, as Hitch perfectly put it in one of his lectures, “is extremely difficult to maintain, let alone to advance”. All the more reason for each and every last one e of us to dedicate our individual and collective existence to exactly that: The protection, maintenance and advancement of civilisation, as opposed to superstition, fearmongering, hatemongering, fightmongering, warmongering, simple mindedness, primitivism, and other destructive approaches, mindsets, behavioural displays and such existence!
This is the reality we’ve got: Full of unpleasantness, pain, misery and suffering, and all that is pleasant is the end product of our ability to adapt to different conditions that would otherwise be unpleasant for us, rather than necessarily pleasant in and of themselves. If we didn’t evolve as an extremely breathing species we wouldn’t be here at all. When babies are first born, the very air they first breathe is torture to their bodies. The brain and the rest of the body has to adapt to it! A mother’s womb was perfectly comfortable before that and then they need to adapt to a very different environment in which they must survive. That demands change. That’s the same kind of situation. And for us to be here, there had to actually be an extinction, amongst many other life forms, of a micro species that hated oxygen.
@@OnlyScienceRulesthat was enjoyable to read!
I am an atheist. As regarding the planet I live on and the universe. I feel incredibly lucky to have experienced life as a sentient being. However, I am perfectly at ease with being completely insignificant in the greater scheme of things. When I cease to exist the elements that made me will degrade and enter the chain of life again, unless I am cremated, and then I will be reduced to my basic carbon element. I think Richard described himself as a cultural Christian. I am probably too. I live in a country that was built on Christian values. Early life was attending Sunday school and going to a church of England school. I have no bad memories of that time growing up. So I am not a butt hurt ex Christian. I still appreciate beautiful coral music and the incredible architecture of our churches and cathedrals. I do not glory in vision of God. I glory in the composers of the coral music and the stonemasons of our cathedrals. Most of Christianity was based on early Pagan religions. They were based on nature and natural phenomenon. That at the time, no one had any answers for. Fortunately, as a species we have grown up. Thanks to our inquisitive minds, we have found the answers our early ancestors could only speculate on. In most cases wrongly. 🙂
I'd like to apologise to Richard, for not listening enough.
❤
Xenophobia was an important evolutionary strategy that has way outlived it's usefulness. We also had organs that had important function that are no longer of value and can be destructive like the appendix!
In what way has Xenophobia outlived its usefulness?
@@Andre_XX we live in multiethnic societies
@@stevenlancestoll629 Have you not registered the dysfunction this causes? Recently in Sydney a muslim dude stabbed an Assyrian preacher during a sermon. When the police turned up to arrest the dude, the Assyrians attacked the police and trashed the police cars. How's that for a multiethnic society? In England when the police arrest transgressors in ethnic suburbs, the crowds gather and harass the police. And I have not mentioned the terrorist incidents that happened in France in recent years. In Myanmar have you seen what has happened to the muslin minority? Did you ever study what happened during the partition of India? Going back a few hundred years only, do you know what happened in France between the Catholics and Protestants? And more recently a similar thing happened in Ireland. How well did the Nazis and Jews co-exist? In America today different sections of society hate each other with a white hot passion. Hatred of those that are "different" in some way is built into our DNA because that difference can be disruptive to our own existence. We may wish it away, but we can't change our DNA.
Andrew apparently is not Catholic, as he describes consubstantiation not transubstantiation, “mysterious” is not a way to square his word salad wonky circle.
In any case they should say "religion-like" to have some respect for scientists. For one this "religion" hardly ever resulted in prolonged bloodbaths at any point in time...
"If you're watching this on UA-cam, you might have noticed that this episode is a week delayed." -- No, because how would I notice that?
In the heading:
I am an agnostic - I have absolutely no idea what I exist for, and I appreciate both sides of this argument. I think people manufacture meaning for themselves out of fear. I really like Dawkins because he stares that fear in the face without a crutch. That takes courage
Oh dear! Richard is so patient. Listening to Andrew defending his strange view of catholicism is painful. The bit about transubstantiation is pure nonsense. This is hopefully the only time I will ever have to endure Andrew Sullivan. Lightweight.
Andrew who? Frankly, I don't give a damn.
And I'm not being a smartass. I just dont know, nor do I give a damn who he is.
As I’ve always said, the fact that you can start with nothing but hydrogen and gravity, and if you wait long enough you’ll wind up with Beethoven and sunsets and a mother’s love for her child, etc, is a much more mysterious and “miraculous” and “spiritual” idea than “God did it.”
"Mysterious", “miraculous” and “spiritual” are entirely subjective, emotional statements. I don't see anything particularly magical and beautiful in any of what you described.
@@LordTurtleneck Your loss.
@@LordTurtleneck Indeed. A mother’s love for her child, for example, is purely emotional and subjective, by definition. But the fact you can get to that from a bunch of hydrogen floating in space for 14 billion years is at the very least awe-inspiring, wouldn’t you say?
It so rarely gets mentioned when the question of celebration and "but how do you deal with the Soulful?" comes up, but that is where Art provides. What's plain is that all humans need solace and recognition for our tremendously developed emotional intelligence. Religion already knows this. How we comfort ourselves IS important, but it isn't a question to ask scientists. It's a question to ask artists and philosophers.
What is distinction between mythical gods and the specific God?
Please coat reality with sugar, because i don't like facing reality without a sugar coating.
I think Andrew stated you were unpleasant because you really upset his worldview w.r.t. “God”.
As someone who has gained so much from being a “rationalist”, I have to say that the greatest mystery is that of consciousness, and no one is able to explain it, especially religious dogmatists, but I would also add rational dogmatists.
One has to be open to understanding, rather than being understood; this is one of the most difficult challenges we all individually face.
You’ve never been irrelevant, and neither has Andrew especially in his journey with HIV. This was a great conversation. Thanks to you BOTH for posting it.
28:46 oh no, truth is not desolate! In another of Richard's recently released videos, his interviewee said something along the lines of, "truth is far more beautiful than any hocum."
I feel that so intensely, the beauty of truth fills any gaps and cracks in my human experience, with light and love and a sense of majesty and intense beauty. That's what I get from truth-seeking. I'm sure there's a reason Richard calls his channel "the POETRY of Reality," maybe he feels it too. It's a feeling like experiencing painting or music or dance or poetry of the most heartfelt and accomplished kind, but yet still amplified. The quest for truth and reality is SO so beautiful.
Richard is not trying to make anyone feel *desolate*, but has spent his life trying to reveal reality, its *beauty* and its *adequacy* to fill our human need for meaning and an intangible "something more". Traditionally people have stuffed this yearning full of false stories because they had nothing better, but now we do.
We could be so much more as a species if we weaned ourselves off the traditional falsehoods and directed this fervour and admiration towards seeking the truth of things in all its glory and savagery.
There is one fundamental point on which believers and non believers will never understand one another. For an atheist, being a part of this world as a natural creation is just as meaningful as it is for a theist to believe we are created by a supernatural force. One just cannot believe that the other truly feels the way they do 😅
Richard, I miss you making new videos of college campus debates and lectures. Please do an American tour again.
He is. He’s doing a book tour.
I follow Dawkins totally.
Sullivan is backpedaling and not taking responsibility for the ugliness of his comment.
I have met a few people who see Dawkins a harsh, even SouthPark attacked him.
I have watched hours of his comments, and I don’t see it.
The whole idea that we should not claim people are bad when they are supporting a bad idea is a little PC, coming from Sullivan.
If you back a policy that hurts others, you are hurting others, how else can you say it?
Then he brags about being someone who just says what he thinks and that’s OK.
It’s very contradictory and always in favor of himself, not fairness.
America is getting like British Parliament and it sucks.
This interview is a classic example of a terrible interview. 90 per cent of the time Andrew overspoke over Richard jumping from one topic to another not giving Richard a chance to finish! Terrible!
In ages past, a man of thought did rise,
Richard Dawkins, with his skeptical guise,
In the realm of science, he made his stand,
Challenging faith with a relentless hand.
With words as sharp as a double-edged sword,
He pierced through dogma, struck at its core,
"The God Delusion," his battle cry,
Against blind belief, he dared to defy.
But in his quest for truth, he oft did err,
For in his pride, he failed to confer,
The wisdom of ages, the Quranic lore,
Which holds the keys to mysteries galore.
In his quest for truth he oft did err. Really? Any examples?
It sounds to me as if you have one foot in each world.
Never heard of this guy before (and definitely have no interest in looking into him after suffering through this) but the whole conversation I found myself asking, “how or why did this conversation happen?? This guy is so insufferably simple.. I haven’t had this heavy second hand embarrassment for a while.”
If there were a true religion, it would be universal and indisputable. The existence of an actual God wouldn't require faith.
Richard Dawkins showing us all how to listen, show respect, and be patient. Imagine speaking to Richard Dawkins in the 2020s, and assuming you need to educate him on the basics of Roman Catholic practises 😂
I find myself increasingly feeling bad for Mr. Dawkins.
As I've watched and listened to the various installments of this show, I've come to the conclusion that his guests are there primarily to try to impress him.
Their never-ending blathering and continual insistence why their beliefs, contrary to his, is maddening. They are somehow convinced their beliefs are more nuanced and deeper than the usual dreck he's forced to endure from others who've been on his show.
His guests seem to over-talk him by more than double the time. They generally wind up taking over the show as though they're in charge. And they talk over him and cut him off incessantly to get their myriad points across.
All this just to show him how awesome they are and why they're worthy of wahatevr bone he wants to tss then.
Take comfort, Mr. Dawkins, in the knowledge that you're the apex intellectual here. They would treat you with much more defe they weren't so eager for a pat on the head.
Cheer!
John
Brilliant across the board. 'Apex intellectual', priceless.
Some of these comments are coming across as trolling.
When I was young I was taught about a loving God, to love my neighbor, all that jazz and at the same time I was taught that slavery wasn't that bad, that races shouldn't intermingle, that non whites shouldn't be allowed in schools, stores, restaurants, ect.
You know what I wish... I wish that scientists would dedicate more time to answering the question, "Is there life after dead?" To say "no, because there isn't any evidence" is too premature because there has not been a real effort on answering the question. True scientific inquiry would answer, "We don't yet know". When you have worked in a hospital for as long as I have (over 18 years) you begin to understand the importance of having an answer. That is humanity's biggest challenge, and yet we decide to ignore it in favor of wrong attitudes towards the possibility of self-transcenence. I hope we can overcome our bias and truly begin working in this area as well.
WELL SAID I AGREE
Prof. Dawkins, I admire your infinite patience!
1:16:36 there is no reality that comes from wishing something to be true, Mr. Sullivan. Biological impossibilities should not be believed in based on Hope that come from some form of evidence.
I am with Richard Dawkins on this
Andrew is unable to overcome his indoctrination. Not sure I can finish listening since he is also unable to listen.
This is the discussion I have been waiting for with Professor Dawkins. It cuts right to the heart of the matter. Both openly grapple with religion and science viewed as they often are as conflicting opposites. Both are unwilling bedfellows in the search for truth, whose main difference is the chosen or preferred expression of the meaning underpinning western culture.
Unfortunately our shared mythology and history is not well understood today at the expense of a nonsense political divide and activism - so many discussions regarding the topic easily become derailed toward the irrational. More often than not discussions of this kind overlook that the individual and by extension society and wider culture, require more breadth ; science and religion / spirituality to make progress and to avoid descent into a crisis of meaning and identity.
I get really tired of hearing the obsessive focus on scientific materialism, atheism and invented ideology being the only available frameworks and religion being merely the domain of the supernatural. This conversation is a good step in the right direction.
All churches, faiths and science ( and pre dating it gnosis / alchemy ) are in essence the entire human story. Discussions and investigations of this type are essential to the continuing story of our relationship to the ancestors, nature and a universal meaning.
The few occasions I’ve met Richard Dawkins in person, I found him aloof and abrupt, but is this from rudeness or shyness (or from his very English, public school upbringing) ?
Often the intellectually gifted are wanting in social skills.
Nevertheless, I still adore him, his intellect, courage, honesty and compassion.
Americans also might not be blunt in their communication, particularly men, because the spector of violence-all kinds, including gun violence. Key word here Might.
When somebody stresses "honest-y",there's usually something rotten on the core 😊
Even though I disagree with pretty much everything that comes out of his mouth, I’ve always at least given Sullivan credit for being a deep thinker. Not after this! He was so out of his league! It pretty much seemed like some random Christian guy off the street debating Richard Dawkins. I mean, what could possibly go wrong?!
Yes, he comes across as rather wishy-washy.
ok, around 1:19:53 this whole thig changes, and we suddenly get the " I cannot believe this because it seems so abysmally terrible" Like the rabbit that was simply foraging for its next meal suddenly taken by the hawk doing just the same thing, complaining, " Hey!" . First you must understand you are a meaningless part of a mechanical process, that has no goal other than to travel forward in time. "OH my God!" you mean I have no special purpose? You mean I am not special, nor any of my friends and family? Yes. Only when you truly understand this can you smile :) and face this brief moment in the light, enjoy the beautiful fantasy, and then, like a May fly, you are gone. Grow up a million times and be what you are.
People choose to Like like that which is not direct and clear. I believe because most of our education and all of our politics is not direct and clear facts, but it's just people making broad sweeping terrible statements. That's what people seem to be used to in many cases.
Can’t agree with the value of religions and attrition resulting in worse behaviour. The problem is lack of social ties that were part life whereas now people commonly move further apart. It is creating other social groups that would be helpful so there is support for people not hanging onto the apron strings of the church. Have seen too much ‘vicious’ behaviour from church members thinking they are following gods ‘moral’ law.
Removing the civilization to protect human complexity, not all worth is superbly spoken
1:16:51- it’s not necessarily contemplating the inevitability of ones own death which is distressing, but rather contemplating the death of someone you dearly love.
If I really was as certain as Richard Dawkins that there’s nothing afterwards, I would find it immoral to have children,(not that I have any), as it would be immensely cruel to bring someone into existence who’ll eventually have to face the fear of their own mortality and the agony of bereavement.
I'm with Richard....even before I knew he existed.
Unfortunately for many, myself included, eulogizing over the wonders of the Universe offers small consolation in the face of great personal tragedy.
Knowing we’re all made of Stardust might be uplifting at first, but the belief that we’ll eventually be reunited with our loved ones in a better place is even more alluring.
Until science comes up with something equally consoling, we’ll always have religion, whether we like it or not.
Also, not everyone has the good fortune to have lived a relatively comfortable life like Richard Dawkins.
For millions of people around the World today (and throughout history), life is “nasty, brutish & short”.
So believing in a higher purpose or some heavenly reward is what makes this life bearable.
One could argue that much of this suffering has been brought about by religion in the first place, through “holy”wars and persecutions, and by religious leaders opposing science and various forms of medical treatment eg. blood transfusions, contraception, stem cell research etc.
It’s possible that someday, through the wonders of science, we’ll someday cure all diseases and achieve immortality, but until then, we’ll always need religion of some kind.
Richard Dawkins seems to be abit hypocrate in his recent interview where he claims to be curtural christian and said to become christian against Islam,he harshly rejected Islam .here he advocates white racialism in west.he has destroyed his stance on atheism nobody is going to believes him any more.we condemn Richard remarks.
'Not everyone is you Richard', then I feel it in my gut. Hahahahaha
We'll have to agree to disagree on that.
Why does Richard Dawkins refer to himself in the 3rd person?
There is natural selection,and there is "joker",like asteroids and such
Given the immense lifespan of a Universe, this one may still be in its infancy at only 13:7 billion years old.
And Earth might be one of the first planets where life has evolved, potentially seeding other worlds with life through terraforming, assuming we don’t destroy ourselves first - which is highly probable.
Nope. Science supports Intelligent Design.
Does it have a Holy Book?
Really? I have seen none at all.
So sayeth the Lord. Nope. So sayeth Greek philosophers centuries before "Jesus" (did he really exist?). Apostle Paul was a student of Greek teachers as were many of the Roman wealthy and their sons. New Testament is blatant plagarism.
Judith Butler is brilliant and so thoughtful...Andrew's attitude is due to his bias apparently.
37:22 - I really think we atheists need rituals and festivals as well, to provide structure and meaning to our lives. Not everyone is solitary by nature, including the non-religious.
We need beautiful places to meet where we can feel part of a wider community - where we’re valued and can take part in charitable activities which help society as a whole.
We need an atheistic (architectural, artistic and musical) aesthetic. Why should religion have a monopoly on beauty, which itself is uplifting ?
Art as well as science, can inspire and heal, in its own way.
The danger with getting rid of religion is we end up “throwing out the baby with the bathwater”.
Mr. Dawkins, you definitely do not come across as unpleasant in writing. Indeed, I have and do characterize your writing as avuncular.
About christianism being free game for everyone. I think it's a matter of one's background. Is there a lot of muslims saying it would be better,if christianity never was ? Western culture(christian) has matured enough to take critic. You know
Sorry
But it is very difficult for me to keep on listening to the I I I I I....I s from Mr Andrew Sullivan.
It makes any speech icy.
Religion, the definition of which is to which we are bound. Whether religious or atheist our belief or non-belief is our religion.
We are not evolved enough to know, so we are stuck with belief, either on there being an intelligence in the universe that is greater than human intelligence. Or in human intelligence, expressed through the ego, as being the supreme and only intelligence in the universe, in other words, the universe is not intelligent.
Consciousness and intelligence believed as originating with humans. The universe may teach us otherwise, if we overreach. There is the expression; you can’t fool Mother Nature.
Religious dogmatism or atheistic dogmatism are both problematic. Whatever we believe in, or disbelief in, non-dogmatism is the way to go.
Enjoyable. Mixing natural bullshit with a sincere agreeing & disagreeing has left me pleased about the different states of humanity. "Bullshit feeds the soil & in some feeds the soil. Thanks.
28:36 - Perhaps in the future, science will enable us to attain the very immortality promised by the religions of today.
39:43 - if there really is a God responsible for our existence, then They’re either good but not all powerful or all powerful but not good.
To be both is an oxymoron !
Given the unimaginable suffering of most sentient life which occurs in Nature (alongside man-made cruelty), this God has a lot to answer for !
Or perhaps we have to accept there may be more than just the One. Why Monotheism ?
I’ve always liked the polytheistic idea that there’s a god of good and a god of evil battling it out in the Cosmos, as that would explain both the beauty and suffering of this Life
Having said that, I still don’t need to believe in God to find morality or consolation. However I think an afterlife, where things are put right, would be rather wonderful - even if it’s not eternal.
The explanations for Christ given by Christians were (still are!) incoherent to common sense - and this incoherence derived from the Christians philosophical insistence on monotheism and ex nihilo reaction - while trying to say that Christ was fully divine. On simple, common sense reasoning if Christ is a God that means either than there is more than one God or else that Christ was just part of the one God (some kind of emanation or avatar). The first was the true reality - I would say.
Christ is fully divine, and so is God the primary creator. But ‘classical theology’ Christians had an absolute commitment to metaphysically-one God infinitely separated from All other beings, whom God created from nothing. Christians tried to explain this by the trinity - but that is just a form of words. Christians tried to say that Jesus was fully God and fully Man and this added up to One God (described as a Trinity). But to assert this is not to make it coherent to common sense.
Christian theologians and church leaders therefore paid (and pay) a heavy price for philosophical insistence in one absolute, all powerful, all creating self-sufficient, infinitely distant God.. yet somehow still trying to wedge Jesus, love and free agency into this absolutist schema!
105:16- Perhaps Free Will really is an illusion, and the choices we make in life are determined by our genes as much as by our environment.
What if there really are genes for various kinds of criminal behavior ? Once we eradicate the social and economic reasons which lead people down this path, could Gene editing help eliminate this antisocial behavior altogether ?
One could argue that we also eliminate Free Will, but if genes are also responsible for the more positive aspects of our behavior, such as altruism and intelligence, then isn’t it better to be controlled by good genes rather than bad ?
Virgin Birth: Hopefully Jobs and Gates kept their seed in preservation for women, who now witness men in highest state of mind. That they feel the sense of ‘downgraded’. Women would have never gotten to know so intimately men who are both mind and word and company
Human beings just evolved differently depending on the part of the world. Over time humans have intermingled and created other different types. It’s beautiful. We are all human. Diversity and mixed race is a great thing. We can do much better without religion. Love and kindness should be the only religion we should follow.
31:24 - let’s not be terrified by the idea of Infinity, because it’s probable we are at its center - from the macro-verse of the observable Universe outside us, to the micro-verse of the quantum world inside us.
We ARE the Cosmos, composed of atoms from exploding stars, part of the cycle of creation and destruction, (ad infinitum ?)
Is this a kind of immortality, through endless universes inflating and collapsing ? (or rippling apart to seed new universes, just as exploding stars seed new stars ?)
37:22 - perhaps we atheists need rituals, and festivals like religions have, to provide structure and meaning to our lives. Not everyone is solitary by nature, including atheists.
We need beautiful places to meet where we can feel part of a wider community - where we’re valued and can take part in charitable activities that help society as a whole.
We need an atheistic (architectural, artistic and musical) aesthetic. Why should religion have a monopoly on beauty, which itself is uplifting. Art as well as science, can inspire and heal, in its own way.
The danger with getting rid of religion is we end up throwing out the baby with the bathwater”.
Enjoyable.
Listen to "women in coma has NDE on podcast by Andre Duqum and love to hear your response.
In the realm where intellect dances with grace,
In the corridors where wisdom finds its place,
Let us delve into Dawkins' keen insight,
And the Quran's guidance, radiant and bright.
In Dawkins' words, the universe unfolds,
Its mysteries vast, its stories untold,
From "The God Delusion" to "Selfish Gene,"
His thoughts ignite, like sparks unseen.
"The God of Old Testament," he pens with might,
A character wrought in darkness, not light,
For Dawkins sees through the veils of faith,
Urging humanity to reason, to contemplate.
"We are all atheists," his bold claim rings true,
In the pantheon of gods, in the sky's vast blue,
With science as our guide, we navigate,
Through the cosmos vast, and our mortal fate.
But let us not forget the Quran's embrace,
Its verses profound, its wisdom's grace,
In the heart of Islam, a treasure untold,
A paradigm of guidance, for young and old.
"Indeed, in the creation of the heavens and the earth,
And the alternation of the night and the day,
Are signs for those of understanding."
(Quran 3:190)
In the Quranic verse, a symphony of thought,
A call to ponder, to reflect, as we ought,
For in the heavens and the earth's embrace,
Lie signs of truth, of beauty, of divine grace.
"Whoever is guided is only guided for [the benefit of] his soul."
(Quran 27:92)
In these words, a profound truth unfurls,
Guidance is for the soul, as it twirls,
Through the trials of life, the depths of despair,
Guidance awaits, for those who dare.
So let us weave Dawkins' intellect,
With the Quran's wisdom, its profound effect,
In poetry and prose, let us find,
The sweet nectar of truth, the fruit of the mind.
For in the union of intellect and faith,
Lies the essence of life, in its fullness, its breadth,
Richard, do you really still not understand what religious people mean by meaning? They mean that there 'must' (as in strong desire) be a purpose, which means there 'must' be a mind at work with a plan, meaning there 'must' be a parental figure that has something wonderful and eternal planned for them.
Meaning is a desire to believe that they are children taken cared for, by an all mighty parent.That's religious meaning. Unfortunately, this primal desire for parental protection and immortality causes back pressure on science. Andrew want's a supernatural daddy, therefore evolution isn't just laws of physics in action, therefore, therefore... You can't reason someone out of a position they haven't reasoned themselves into.
Read what you just typed and ask yourself if you make sense!
@@longstrobe2547 I can't help you, I'm not a psychiatrist
@@mdesm2005 I guess it's the narcissism an egocentrism in humans. A healthy amount serve good purposes and in our development. The problem is when adults do not mature past the infantile stages of these things and can only see the world through their own warped narcissistic lense.
Neuroscience has offered many important insights into both the structure and function of the human brain and how it's evolved. One of the most well-known models of brain structure, and how it relates to function is the 'Triune Brain' model. There is three dominant structures in the human brain. These three structures
are simultaneously active in all circumstances. Those who subscribed to the triune brain model believed that the three major brain structures developed sequentially. First of all, the basal ganglia (found at the center of the human brain) was 'acquired', followed by the limbic system (which consists of various component brain structures, such as the amygdala and hippocampus), then the neocortex (which is implicated in conscious thought, language and reasoning).
The three major brain structures are thought to be in control of three major aspects of human thought and behavior. One of these brain structures is referred to as the 'Pre-reptilian' or primal brain, as it is in charge of our basic, primal drives, such as self-preservation, preservation of family, and reproduction. One of the major functions of the primal brain is to help us distinguish between threatening and non-threatening stimuli. At its most basic form, this function is represented in our ability to distinguish between familiar objects, things, people, scenarios, etc. and unfamiliar objects, etc. immediately. Designing according to the primal brain can encompass all of the basic drives we have, but one of the most effective ways of targeting the primal brain is to make new things seem familiar.
The emotional brain, sometimes referred to as the limbic system, which is largely in control of the human emotional response, as the paleomammalian brain. This region is thought to have developed some time after the 'reptilian', or primal, brain. The component structures that make up the paleomammalian brain include the amygdale, the thalamus, and the ventral tegmental area (VTA). Each of these regions plays an integral role in our emotional response to sensory stimulation. One of the primary functions of the paleomammalian brain is to help us distinguish between positive and negative things in our environment: good from bad. This overall system is also in charge of the natural reward circuit, where dopamine is released following sensory stimulation, which reinforces positive experiences, such as impulsive buying of clothes, food, etc. Given this, we have a powerfully accurate 'road map' to work from in our design considerations.
The neomammamilian brain represents the 'third brain' of the Triune Brain model. This region is seen as the brain structure responsible for the 'self' (i.e. what makes you 'you'). The neomammalian brain consists of various structures located on the outermost section of the brain, such as the neocortex and other thalamic structures, and is in control of higher-order functions, such as learning and memory, problem-solving, decision-making, and reasoning. Perhaps most importantly, the neomammalian brain receives, analyzes, and converts information from the rest of the brain to help us form an accurate and usable representation of the world for action.
He farted.(?)
🫣😵💫🤕
Atheism is not so much about a disbelief in god, rather it's the general inability to understand that there is more to existence than physical reality.
No😂
It's not believing in god because the reality is no evidence.
It's theists who fail to understand reality is all there is physical or otherwise.
Like your failure to see the reality of what Atheism is.
"...more to existence than physical reality." Such as?
@@Andre_XX Non-local consciousness is a concept that suggests consciousness might not be solely produced by the brain, but could instead be a fundamental feature of the universe. This idea challenges the traditional materialistic view that consciousness emerges from neural interactions within the brain. It encompasses phenomena where consciousness seems to extend beyond the physical brain and body, potentially across space and time, and includes experiences like perceiving information from distant locations or future events, and mental impressions from other people.
The term “non-local” in this context is used to denote these purported transcendent properties of consciousness, which are difficult to explain with current materialistic models of neuroscience. Some researchers propose that these phenomena could be vaguely suggestive of quantum entanglement, a physical phenomenon where particles remain interconnected regardless of distance. However, the exact mechanisms and implications of non-local consciousness remain a topic of debate and speculation within the scientific community.
@@rodin2840 From what you have described, I somehow doubt that serious scientists would be looking into it. It is always impressive how the seeming weirdness of quantum physics always creeps into the discourse of pseudo science to justify just about anything. I think perhaps you have been listening to Deepak Chopra a bit too much.
Richard Dawkins -- a natural science graduate -- should apologize to all engineers, for propagating the most absurd "scientific" theory ever developed ...
What the theory of evolution claims, is not only beyond absurd, but it is also very offensive ...
I am a mechanical engineer with decent background in IT and I am expecting an apology ...
Engineers seem to be the worst of scientists when it comes to the most proven theory in science backed by all fields of science.
Evolution is fact!
God, you're both so dull-witted when it comes to philosophy/meaning. There is only bootstrap axioms in nihilism. All desires are just subjective preferences determined by internal and external variables, that don't appeal to logic, rather post hoc rationalization. They are non-cognitive, non-real, non-descriptive. It's odd as you're just comparing 2 intuitions against each other, with "internal/ subjective" vs. "external/ objective". A subject can subjectively have any preference, either determined by prior internal/ external cause or random due quantum indeterminacy. There’s no objective, non-circular, stance independent, objective transcendental "ought" for meaning regardless of if there is free will (definitely incoherent, as thoughts are either determined, random/ mixture of both) or not, if there is a god or not, as God is a disembodied mind, and therefore a subject, deriving subjective value.
You have an interesting name for the viewpoint you express. But I agree with you. I would also like to add that a lot of things considered objective or obviously true is subject dependent. Countries and stock market may be objective but their existence is subject dependent. We can measure luminosity perhaps but it is subject dependent that more luminosity gets brighter. Chairs are subject dependent. In the meaning lies a teleological essence.
I think this interview was very boring You can rubbish religion
but what else have we got Just imagine back1000s of years The world was not a very pleasant place so what could we do We have religion or atheists Lets say every one was atheists what would we do You would not do anything as atheists do there own thing So man realised that humans had to be controlled and encouraged to be GOOD Religion is about controlling THE MASSES Facts are it worked and look at us today amazing how far we have come CHANGE takes time Religion is not about facts or fiction Except religion and look to the future not the past it's going to be better The world today is fantastic thanks to fossel fuel Lets hope we make the right decision It worries me if scientist are going to have to much say. We need more logic in climate change for an example
I think you could do with a it more education in science.
@Andre_XX What do you mean IF I DID THAT PERHAPES I WOULD BE MORE SCATHING A lot of my education is giving you the benefit of the dought When your own scientist are telling your own scientist have to improve on their predictions Perhapes they need more education
BY THE WAY THATS THE LAST 2 NOBEL PEACE PRIZE WINNERS SAID THAT. CHEERS
@@rodmartin-nl8ns I don't think there is much connection between Nobel Peace prize winners and scientists. Perhaps if you knew a bit more about science you would have realised that.
@Andre_XX lf your so clever how come you beleive in climate change l dont think there's any connection with fossel fuel and climate change
It's ridiculous to think that little bit of co2 could effect weather Father Christmas is more real Er sorry you might believe in father Christmas
Have a good one
That was fascinating your answer
@Andre_XX As you seemed to not no The last 2 nobel winner have been climate scientists Amazing isn't it
عمو داوکینگ بیا حال بزرگ بهت بدم
دقت کن در خانواده هایی چند فرزند دختر دارند و پسری ندارند
دخترهایشان ،
مخصوصا و مخصوصا کوچکترین دخترشان رفتارهای پسرانه دارد و میل زیادی به جنس دختر دارد یعنی پتانسیل لزبین شدنشان خیلی بالاست اکثرا ظاهر پسرانه و استخوان بندی و خواص بدنیه نزدیک به پسرها را دارند
و بعضا بسیار پرمو هستند.
مخصوصا در زمان قدیم که سونوگرافی نبوده و مادران آرزوی پسر داشتن را در دل داشتند هنگام بارداریشان ..
و بر عکس این موضوع برای پسرانی که گی هستند و در ادبیات ما، اوا خواهر نام مینهند صادق است ...
و بقیه را دیگه خودتون بررسی کنید و به جزئیات بسیار جالب و ارزشمندی میرسید..🙏🙏🙏💚💚💚
Definition of woke "aware of and actively attentive to important societal facts and issues (especially issues of racial and social justice)". I'm proud to be woke. You guys are so far removed from reality. It's so sad to have lost such a great mind to anti trans/woke bull.
Unfortunately, the word has morphed. We can’t control language. It now means people who are hypersensitive to every issue to the point of ridiculousness.
I’m old school woke, but this new, somewhat strawmaned version does suck.
It may have started out like that, but that is no longer the case. Woke has become too much of a good thing and it has become incessant, obnoxious, and irrational. I'm gay, an atheist, and I happily describe myself as center left, but the extreme left woke nonsense is dragging the rest of us down and it has made the extreme right even worse than they already were.
@@ihatespam2 the new woke is an invention of the right. They have adopted a term used by black folks because of course they have. Woke is now whatever people believe it is. Once you've had one person explain what the term woke means then you only know one version of what the term woke is.
Woke is just another box for one group who particularly enjoy putting folks in boxes. Metaphorical and literal, body length, wooden type boxes.
Woke is a distraction. Just another culture war and it's disappointing to see such a bright mind, a former beacon to many, become just another right wing stereotype.
@@chocopuddingcup83 well by your definition it's not only a Left thing it's also a right wing thing too. It's always the right wing that b!tches about free speech but as soon as you say something they don't like they go bonkers. My definition of woke is still the original one that first came up within Black Americans during a hard time the other definitions mean nothing to me. I'll be honest as a Brit I don't really think there's a Left Wing in America.
He shouldn’t Dawkins has became irrelevant
yet here you are :>
He's become relevant alright just to a different crowd. It's been super disappointing to see him fall into the trap of Conservative religion. The irony that a man who fights against church and it's single mindedness should become such an idealogical zealot.
@@tomh5094 Richard Dawkins has not fallen into conservative religion in any way shape or form. He is stating the obvious that having grown up in Christian surroundings in a Christian family he is culturally Christian.
You could say that having grown up in Sweden with a Swedish family, you are culturally Swedish if you move abroad
This conversation is awesome! I absolutely love Andrew, have followed him from years, subscribe to the Dish, etc BUT how fascinating this was! Dawkins is simply not having it. Listen to Dawkins and Hitch. Listen to Dawkins and Sam. But listening to Dawkins and Andrew it’s clear in the tone of voice and the complete lack of enthusiasm that Mr Dawkins is barely humoring Andrew- “ with the very American accent” LOL I love them both, but I felt like Andrew was a beagle with his tail between his legs for the unkind words he spoke of Dawkins.
Of course, if someone who speaks truth and facts, and prove other people wrong, they will find that person unpleasant and annoying🤭. By the way, Sir Dawkins is 1000 times more polite than me in conversations, because I lose my temper most of the time when arguing with morons😁🤣. Yes I know that arguing with morons is most of the time pointless, but I do it anyway thinking and hoping that I will change their minds and also for the sake education and awareness.