In Conversation with Richard Dawkins - Hosted by Stephen Law
Вставка
- Опубліковано 15 вер 2024
- Professor Richard Dawkins in conversation with Dr Stephen Law, senior lecturer at Heythrop College, University of London, discussing the major issues of importance to humanists and atheists at a time when opposition to rationalist thought appears to be on the rise. Filmed at the Sheldonian Theatre, Oxford, on Friday 15th February 2013.
February 2013 marked the forth annual Think Week -- a week of high profile public events that ran from the 8th to the18th February. Think Week was organized by student groups from both local Universities, the Oxford Humanists and Oxford Sea of Faith. Events covered a range of themes from science and philosophy to politics, equality, human rights, and the arts.
1:11:38 - "It works, bitches" - Richard Dawkins. Hahaha someone watches Breaking Bad.
haha that was so bad ass
That is exactly what I was looking for..
That made me happier than anything else I have heard this entire year. The man is my hero...
It's great to hear a real philosopher as opposed to some dumb news reporter or radical religionist interview Dawkins. The questions are actually good, the atmosphere is calm, and they are intellectually productive.
Over the years I've become less interested in having "the debate" and more interested in the minds of those people who have irrational beliefs - it's fascinating.
This is, definitely, the best debate/conversation I have heard with Dr. Dawkins. It is emotional, thought provoking, and, to use a cliched term, human. Bravo!
Dawkins doesn't think much.
The 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. It is clear creation had to be done supernaturally yet it is still denied because people are just too proud to accept that, among other things.
Always a pleasure to listen to Richard Dawkins.
Best introduction i've seen to any debate/conversation on youtube.
Richard gives me a strong feeling that I can win every discussion against christians
Philosophy: questions that may never be answered. Religion: answers that may never be questioned.
1:11:38 thug life
Thank you very very much, I have seen the video but I wanted to know what happened affter thata
Thank you so much to Think Week Oxford for sharing this talk. These two gentleman add so much to the dialogue that friends and I explore.
How does Dawkins add so much? He believes we got this all from "literally nothing."
The 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. It is clear creation had to be done supernaturally yet it is still denied because people are just too proud to accept that, among other things.
"It works. Bitches!"
Religions are belief systems. Science is an evidential system.
👍👍
Galileo and his two balls.
Classic "experiment"
No kidding. It's amazing and humbling and without a hint of the selfish and almost narcissistic belief that a supreme being loves me and has a special relationship with me.
I weeped some manly tears on behalf of humanity when I read this.
of joy?
Yes, and how do you think humanity got here?
The 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. It is clear creation had to be done supernaturally yet it is still denied because people are just too proud to accept that, among other things.
@@2fast2block the only creation there is, is through evolution
@@tomato12terra oh, and this is the evidence you gave that your evolution can create....
(blank)
Your brain clearly shows how tiny it is.
@@2fast2block 🤣🤣🤣
Dawkins as always is lucid, articulate and entertaining but the interviewer was talking too much and rambled on unceasingly. Please interviewers please let us listen to Dawkins - that is why we are watching and listening to this video.
The stupidity of these questioners hurts. I feel sorry for Dawkins. What a patience-trying night.
👍
Wonderful discussion to listen too indeed
"It works, bitches"
Best quote by Richard Dawkins ever!
You can never get rid of eternal truth that only our Maker is able to remake us again because no one else can transform and translate us into forever where He is.
An audience largely made up of morons, they all kept asking the same question! Dawkins' patience is admirable.
I have to say I particularly liked Stephen Law's example about Religious people hitting the nuclear button. It's something I will definitely store away next time I get into a chat with a nutty Christian.
Steven seems like a great guy. Im glad he was the host!!
The questions were awful.
I'm so glad that there's always a religious person around to tell me what I believe.
Law was making a good argument with the potential regress of only relying on evidence. I think Dawkins kinda missed the argument and Law should've thought of better examples to illustrate the point. The point is that at some point, evidence and logic will break down and we need to just make assumptions. It's an assumption that evidence is the best way to determine truth, but once you assume that, you can make a lot of progress. Likewise, it's an assumption that logical consistence is good. You can't make a logical argument to show why logical consistency is good, you just have to accept that it is. That doesn't give any credence to ridiculous faith positions at all, but it's still a worthwhile point to make.
Law was a big disappointment.
I love philosophy, and I came up with examples for him even though I'm unfamiliar with the points he's raising, and it's 3am and I'm trying to sleep.
I mean, "phantom pain" is a legit thing. Amputees experience it.
They present no physical symptoms, in fact they cant possibly present physically.
If I heard the word conceptual one more time I was gonna punch myself in the face, by the beginning of the audience questions.
As you ay, the key assumption at the foundation of many things we believe is that we can trust our senses, or that other people's agreement means that our senses match.
What I see as "green" may be very different to another person's "green" and it cant be verified, because green things will appear as green to the viewer regardless of the actual colour interpreted by the individual.
If I say that I see a glass, and another person present always says they see the glass that does not mean either that there is a glass, or that they see the same glass as i do.
As you say, past a certain burden of proof, past a certain level of confidence, doubt becomes irrational.
Interesting points. Although I think you're maybe talking about slightly different issues. I'm not saying at all that we should doubt whether there's a glass in front of us. To me, that's a level of philosophical inquiry that's almost pointless. We should just agree that we'll define this universal agreement as the fact that it IS a glass and get on with it.
chebob2009
I was agreeing with you on that, simply supplying how it is still "reasonable" to disbelieve.
Irrational certainly, but eminently reasonable.
Reasonable to disbelieve what? My general view (I don't know if pro philosophers would poke holes in it or not) is that instead of the fundamental concern being what truly (with a capital T) exists, the fundamental concern should be based on practical concerns. Can we truly know if we should only believe what the evidence supports? I don't know. But following that as a mantra seems to produce the most reliable results in life.
chebob2009
It is a reasonable position to doubt the existence of anything, even when provided with evidence.
Evidence can be faulty, and consensus doesn't necessarily reveal the truth.
Reason is a tool, it can be used to justify all manner of irrational things. (hell, maths past grade school is perfectly reasonable, but completely irrational :3)
It was once a reasonable position to suppose the Earth was the centre of the universe.
Why?
Because that was the consensus, there was little evidence to refute such claims AND you could be killed for suggesting otherwise.
Seems bloody irrational to question that just because you correctly surmise the Earth is not, actually, the centre of the universe.
Excellent reply!
1:11:38 LOL!
The truth lies in the unseen, and those who will not seek, shall not find.
Worst questions ever.......
My friend after your last comment, you win the debate!, you totally convince me that you are right: the world shouldn't use the word bright to describe people like you.
What a boring video, I only kept watching for the sake of Dawkins' genius. I wonder how he feels being surrounded by idiots. Law is a total disappointment, first time I saw him and will be
the last, I'm sure.
hes not really a genious, just good at arguing and reason
Man I saw Law for the 1st time in a debate with Lane Craig....And in my opinion, Craig walked on him with his rhetorical style...
Law, at least on that debate, seemed not so articulate and intelligent as it claimed around here. Boring speaker
PS: And by very far I'm NOT a fan of WLC
ho you think you are ?...maybe a genius like Dawkins...and if you're not a genius, how can you say that he is ? ...and what means be a genius?...
👍
@rxp56 👍
'Stoned' can mean two things, and both make good sense in your statement (though the more painful kind would make chatting more difficult). Love it.
WAIT A MINUTE...DAWKINS BELIEVES IN THE LITTLE GREEN MAN.....XD
She didn't lather on all the miscellaneous facts of Dawkins' academic and financial success before introducing him?
I'm in love.
Anyone else notice how intriguing Stephen Law's questions are? He helps make this conversation the joy to listen to that it is.
There is no need to believe in evidential things, like that glass of water...
you know he's 70 years old but he still got it
Yes, Dawkins still has a tiny brain.
The 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. It is clear creation had to be done supernaturally yet it is still denied because people are just too proud to accept that, among other things.
1:14:53 - "they will use reason in their argument until they realize they're losing". Very good point! However it's a pity Stephen didn't give credit where credit is due: it was Aristotle who first identified this fact.
Brilliant! I definitely didn't expect that for this fine British gentleman.
Creationist responses can usually be reduced to x2 false conflations:-
1) attacking the belief as an attack on the individual
2) attacking the belief as an attack on an individuals right to hold the belief
In an open forum such as this, where beliefs are not being held privately- it is entirely appropriate for such beliefs/opinions to be scrutinised
That made my day!
May the Lord Jesus have mercy on your soul. I pray that you come to the truth of Jesus Christ before it's too late. Good luck, my friend.
Dawkins isn't forcing anyone, at gunpoint, to do anything. Ideas aren't force, because people can always choose to think differently. We have free will, in the sense that we have the ability to consciously choose to focus on the facts, rather than just go along with whatever an authority figure says.
Thank u...
Hi. I am an atheist. Here is the answer to your question,so prepare to be amazed:
Having sex with a goat is wrong in the same way it is wrong to have sex with a child. They have in common the fact that they do not have the ability to make any well considered choice in that matter, which is the cause of their underdeveloped brain. This makes having sex with anyone or anything that has a consciense but is not able to make choices in that matter morally wrong, which has nothing to do with religion
I'm trying to imagine a two year-old - or a ten year old - "Marxist - Leninist child" - a very powerful analogy, when discussing whether children may be described as Christian or Muslim - or by any other religious label
Thankfully, The Prof eventually took the chance to confirm the scientific method of having to PROVE that the belief in - and observation of - something (e.g. the glass of water ) MUST be independently verifiable and repeatable . Bless the scientific method :))
👍
Dawkins is not a genius, he'd be the first to admit that, but he is able to translate the works and words of a genius for all of us to understand.
It's not 'a kind of faith' to believe in other scientists. It's TRUST that they are being held to scientific standards
Take for example the practice of Vipassana, this doesn't rely on any belief, no prayers, no chanting of mantras, no influence on the mind what so ever. Its purely an observation technique where something within us can observe objectively what we are experiencing through introspect and awareness, both being natural products of us just as much as we have eyes, ears nose and more gross parts of our anatomy. Consciousness has more subtle attributes and these can used to explore itself.
0:54:00 very good point from Stephen. I fully agree.
You can feel chi. It helps you relax. Being able to see or perceive something is already a limitation. Therefore, going beyond that is beyond scientific understanding.
He's great I haven't seen much from him in the past lil while either I'm hopen he is working on something good
I was once a person that made ridiculous claims like "Evolution is a fairy tale" too.. It's not your fault. You're conditioned not to question your faith.
God bless you to
Because those who believe in invisible friends has a mental affliction that needs to be cured rather than ignored or stimulated.
It is our duty to help the weak so they can learn reason and logic so they can go on a live a full life without being imprisoned by the will of a god.
I almost want that quote as a ringtone. the reaction is got is hilarious
Goddamn, sharp as always! As you were, soldier.
@santa
You keep spoiling us with your profound witticisms and 'thoughts for the day'
Evolution doesnt suggest we "spring from apes". It provides clear evidence that we share a common ancestor with them. Its really very simple to understand.
1:22:30 This is why every individual has to discover what's true using his own mind. Truth is based on the individual's sense-perception, not on what other people claim that they can or can't perceive.
Morality is about how we maximize our well-being, and "wel-being" can be a concept as open to revision, as new data comes up, just as concepts like "health", "life" and "energy" are. It´s about how go about we seeking positive experience in life.
It is the message in the bible that is Holy. So you can do anything you want to it, you can't insult it. Because you can never destroy the message.
If that is true,than you are right,for now I don't have time to investigate the issue,so I will remain undecided.
after reading this quotation i just thought that it was a sarcasm and u didnt get it... but then i clicked whole post u referred to and damn... u're so right :D
The Philosopher Dr, Law was worth his place when he answered the "The nuclear bomb " question." Is reason reasonable or can we trust our reason anyway?" I call it the throwing the monopoly board over technique, when noticing you will lose. Well put Doc,.
I was the first in this discussion to quote the video,I quoted that last question that was asked before the "it works" answer, and I gave an example of what would have been a circular argument based on the question. But sure, ignore all that.
"Religion... provided people, and provides people still, with a place to ask questions we must ask. Why are we here? How should we live? How can we be good? Atheists often argue that these questions can be equally answered by reading poetry or studying philosophy. Perhaps, but how many people who would once have gathered in a place of worship now meet on philosophy courses? Oughtn’t poetry books to be selling by the millions by now?"
D Murray The Spectator. 9.2.2013
Look, just because logic and truth make you happy does not mean it makes everyone else happy. Stop telling people what to believe, and stop calling people idiots just because they don't think the way you want them to.
At 27:00, "and now I am going to throw the glass of water in your face, you idiot. Now do you have evidence it is a glass of water?"
Top marks for not having a pointless 5 minute introduction.
Quran chapter 109.. for those who reject islam...what muslims say to you..
Say, "O disbelievers, [1] I do not worship that which you worship, [2] nor do you worship the One whom I worship. [3] And neither I am going to worship that which you have worshipped, [4] nor will you worship the One whom I worship. [5] For you is your faith, and for me, my faith." [6]
stephen has to remind people that philosophy is the way.
philosophy is not denied by richard. it is about proof and evidence using different methods including science and philosophy.
I am always amazed that people don't understand the difference between the trust in science, based on the knowledge of the principles of scientific work, and faith in an supranatural beeing.
Well then tell us the difference.
These guys got the mirror "problem" wrong! Mirrors don't switch left and right: they switch front to back! Look in a mirror and raise your right hand and you will see the hand *on the same side* in the image move. Put a yardstick between you and the mirror and you will see that the image forms at exactly the same distance behind the mirror as you are in front (curved mirrors will distort the image to make it seem closer or farther but distort the yardstick as well, and that's how you measure the distance).
What at first glance seems to be left-right reversal is explained when you realize that you and your mirror image are looking at each other from opposite directions exactly 180 degrees apart - it's that simple.
But if a physicist or an environmentalist comes out and say that based on his research we should abandon fossil fuels or that women should not have abortions
if we are not expert in their field would we have to take their words for it ?
As Dawkins said. You can determine the benefits and damages of a specific action. Under the premise there are finite actions possible to each situation it follows one of them is the best, or there being a group of equal good actions.
1:16:15
An excellent question, and what immediately jumps in my mind is a quote from one of my favourite movies, K-PAX - when "Prot" explains that his planet has no sociable structure or government, that how did his people know the difference between right and wrong, he simply explains "every being in the universe knows the difference between right and wrong", excellently laid out answer as well.
In my opinion and experience we have 2 realities, the external reality where we depend on maintaining the physical world, health, home environment ect. Then we have a more subtle world, thoughts, feelings emotions. We have sciences that can observe the outer physical world, and i propose that the ancient methods of Buddhist and Vedic meditations give us a much better picture of the internal conscious world. Its available for everyone to access and test it through observational meditation.
@1:19:00 What dawkins is referring to is a phenomena known as ring species but instead of distribution across spatial distances (geography), its a temporal distribution. Its really an interesting way to understand species level evolutionary changes.
I don't agree with capitalism, but that doesn't make capitalism illogical.
‘How tall is cheese?’ is not a rational question. However most people would agree that ‘what is the meaning of our existence?’ is a reasonable question to ask even if you don’t agree with the answer. And even if an answer is in fact wrong that does not make it irrational, it just means it’s wrong
I know what you are saying. I've noticed that the theist sides often have a higher production value. Perhaps it is when they are on their home turf and have their "Churches" money to spend on it. For most of the atheist community, it seems they are mostly volunteer and come from many different places. I think we're lucky to have a few guys at these events who commit to producing a video and uploading it such as ThinkWeekOxford.
Instead of being arrogant like a number of people tend to be, especially when it hurts there pride (which, I believe, is why people who follow a particular religion refuse to open there minds to the possibility of no God, or an alternate God[s]), I have to agree with you here. I made a horrible point.
I said "at least when it is self-evident", which only applies to 6) (for a small child that hasn't been indoctrinated). I had a child decades before I became an atheist and the topic just never came up because I had lost interest in religion and she was very happy with fairies, Santa and other imaginary beings who were fun and never had to be feared or worshipped.
What findings do you have other than findings about the state of mind during meditation? I still haven't heard anything from you about the significance of these findings.
What he was saying is that he believes emotional reactions to beautiful poetry and music may exist outside of Science, but only in a trivial way: not that poetry itself is trivial. He adores poetry. Any fan of Dawkins can attest to that.
For one thing, Enviromentalism isn't a scientific discipline.
If you are expert in the field in question or not, the answer is no. If you are an expert in the given field then you should be doing peer review if the claim for yourself. If you are not an expert then you should be waiting for peer review to be done. Then you make your decision based on the concensus of the expert community.
I'm honestly glad that resistance is on the rise, because otherwise someone would be doing something wrong... it shows that the pro-reason movement is gaining ground, if it weren't no one would care enough to resist it :D
this should be one of the top comments!!!
We don't. Not to any real certainty. We try the best we can and are getting better at it. Perception has a lot to do with the "experiencing" part.
We can also observe brain activity and so on. Though one thing we do, collectively, is share our personal experiences and make an operating assumption that other humans are experiencing the same that we are.
Solipsism is an alternative, but if you prescribe to that mode of that we may as well stop talking as it would be a pointless exercise.
When you built a building, you don't just take into account where to put each brick, you also account for the environment. Skyscrapers in earthquake prone areas don't collapse because the designers use damage prevention. In the same way, a God that does not want anyone to be homosexual should prevent people from being gay. And I disagree, there is no absolute good or absolute evil, only perceptions of it. No one does something because it's bad. A problem with "the evil will be punished"
I have witnessed the Spirit of God changing my life. I taste the truth and pure goodness of Jesus. Jesus Christ has changed my life and there is no variation or shadow of turning in Him. I believe in the witnesses who testify of His resurrection from the grave. These were simple men who, refusing to recant their testimonies, spread the gospel of Jesus Christ crucified and risen from the dead. They suffered terrible deaths for their testimony.
It's a language issue, not a philosophical one. "I" refers to the subject in the first-person tense. I could, if I was so inclined, use the phrase "My body walked", it would not be incorrect.
I am not "standing athwart", it is merely an identification. "I" includes my feet, my legs, arms, head, brain, etc.
If you really wanted to you could say "I, being the conscious portion of my brain, sent commands to the legs and feet that are attached through muscle, bone, tendons, and nerves, to walk."
I hope you know he's the person that actually came up with the word ''meme'', but for a much more useful and noble purpose than internet memes.
As far as the mirror issue is concerned, nothing could be easier to understand. If you write something on a piece of paper and face it towards a mirror, you have turned it around left to right, so naturally it reads backwards in the mirror. If you were to turn it upside down, only then would it also appear to be reversed from top to bottom. I can't believe intelligent people even need to have this explained.
...except "there" is indeterminate in this particular case, making it quite difficult to actually figure out where to look.
There are some who are worth listening to. Check out the interview between Richard Dawkins and Peter Singer, for example (it's on UA-cam).
Glad to hear it. My understanding is that the UK doesn't even HAVE a pledge of allegiance. Skeptics here in the US keep talking about taking out "under God" from the pledge, I'm wondering why we even have a pledge to begin with!
I've heard people call dawkins too aggressive and I just immediately reply, 'Have you even HEARD of christopher hitchens?'
no, as I said Stephen Law pointed out it during the answer it was an inductive argument. As you should know inductive arguments don't have to be internally valid just probable.ex.
How do you justify bills teaching methods?
Because his students are the best in state.
What is circular about the above?
The question you want answered is"how do you know evidence is a means for justifying anything, especially without using evidence itself?" That is different.
Unfortunately youtube comments are short and its difficult to explain the full dynamic of meditation in such a small space. But Hawkins at 6.20 more or less highlights the problem that without any further exploring individually of inspiration, introspect of the mystical experience by ones own inert ability to think about and ponder these things then there is little or no chance of it being understood.