Richard Dawkins reads and takes questions from 'The Greatest Show on Earth' at Berkeley

[ProfessorPlum]

Run time: 10:01 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eeK4u5I1w_U   Posted on YouTube: December 08, 2009 By YouTube Member: Views on YouTube: 0   Posted on DU: January 26, 2010 By DU Member: ProfessorPlum Views on DU: 636

 

Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cmbonodIlRU&feature=channel

Part 3: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xcyBxN1DCp0&feature=channel

Part 4: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cS56N8MNsmY&feature=channel

Part 5: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vdynvinmrx8&feature=channel

Part 6: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H_kpt1pOXqA&feature=channel

Part 7: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t8AipgsTqTU&feature=channel

Part 8: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QlttRpKkbQs&feature=channel

This is his new book presenting the abundance of evidence for evolution having happened. Creationists (and Noah's Ark believers) will want to pay special attention to the argument from geological distribution of animals in part 3.

[FiveGoodMen]

1. K&R

[CrawlingChaos]

2. While I applaud the spirit of this post...

I've sworn off Richard Dawkins due to his troubling association with warmongering assholes and right-wing think tanks (e.g. Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, The Reason Project, etc).

Also, if you'll pardon a brief digression, I hate the way Dawkins treats atheism like another religion, with his lame badges and pledges and all that crap. Not to mention his evangelical-style message that the world would be a better place without religion is not very Darwinian. He doesn't seem willing to acknowledge that human nature, with or without religion, will produce similar results through different mechanisms. So I don't even think much of him as a scientist.

Which is not to say creationism isn't completely absurd - obviously it is - I just wish we could see the message delivered by someone else besides this jerk.

[ProfessorPlum]

3. I think you'll find nothing objectionable and quite a lot to like

in this lecture. Take the good where you find it.

[paulsby]

4. reason is not rightwing and they are not war mongering

they are libertarian. they were ALWAYS opposed to (for example) the iraq war

fwiw, the new yorker magazine had a great article on "the new atheists" making a claim that essentially the "new atheists" (sucha s dawkins) are in many ways fundamentalists of the same ilk as ... well... fundamentalists

this says nothing about creationism, which imo is of course absurd.

i quote ": athiesm is structurally related to the belief it negates, and is necesarsily a a kind of rival belief; indifferent agnosticism would be a truer liberation."

[ProfessorPlum]

5. Dawkins himself hates having atheism compared to fundamentalism

and of course it is very different in many important ways. It doesn't demand you shut up and stop thinking, for example.

But I think you'll find that Hitchens was completely on board for the Iraq war, I'm sorry to say. And Sam Harris continues to have a chip on his shoulder regarding Islam and seems unable to consider confounding variables which have made Muslims in certain parts of the world particularly bellicose.

[paulsby]

7. of course he hates it

the truth hurts and all.

and actually, neither the new atheism or fundamentalism requires you shut and stop thinking.

hitchens fwiw, didn't come from reason. he came from THE NATION.

he was long a writer for the nation. when he dared to go against their orthodoxy, he was shunned. but he didn't come from reason.

that says nothing about the fact (fact) that reason is a libertarian mag, and is about as anti- neocon as you can get. if you had read it AT ALL, you would know it was AT LEAST as anti-bush as it was anti-obama (in both articles and comments)

it is not rightwing.

it is far less "war mongering" than obama (or clinton (hillary or bill) for that matter

it is libertarian.

my point stands.

hth

[ProfessorPlum]

9. What a strange post - who are you arguing with?

I don't think anyone here claimed that Hitchens wrote for Reason.

and, it is hardly "the truth" that atheism (new or not) is just like a fundamentalist religion.

[paulsby]

10. the truth was that reason is a libertarian rag

and definitely not right wing or war mongering, both of which were OP claims.

as for whether the new atheism has much in common with fundamentalism, that's clearly a matter of opinion, one i happen to agree with.

[ProfessorPlum]

12. OP would refer to my top post.

I'm happy that you agree that atheism is much like fundamentalism, but you haven't provided even one argument to back that up.

[paulsby]

13. it's not a dissertation

i was referencing the new yorker article, which was referencing the new atheism as a sort of fundamentalism.

i'm not trying to "prove it".

i was as much talking ABOUT it, as a means of analysis, moreso than trying to establish it in anybody's mind.

it's like referencing a marxian analysis. i don't agree with marxian analysis, in general, but it's certainly a phenomenon that exists and something i would reference w/o entering into a long defense of it as a way to view the world.

fwiw, we've had these "strong atheists" as belief system arguments before and they go on endlessly. not intending to redo THAT monstrosity all over again.

i was more interested in dispelling the myth the OP made about Reason magazine

[quantass]

6. Dawkins knows his stuff but i can see how people can find him grating...You should check out...

Kenneth Miller...The guy is a master explainer of science and says it in a understandable way that doesnt offend religious folks. He claims to be catholic but based on his phenomonal work in evolution and being a scientist i find that hard to believe (about 99% of scientists are atheists). Ken was a primary withness in support of evolution in the famous Dover High School case in the Supereme Court when Creationism was once again demolished by the facts of science.

[ProfessorPlum]

8. I also like Miller

see if you can find his lecture on YouTube about the "missing" chromosome in humans that shows up under examination. It is a brilliant bit of science that just about proves evolution all by itself.

[paulsby]

11. not true

that 99% of scisntists are atheists.
it is true that about 98% are neither fundamentalist nor evangelical.

not even close. that's one thing touched upon in the new yorker article.

depending on how one defines theist, it is surprising percentage of scientists are theists.

VERY VERY few are fundamentalists, otoh.

the generally accepted %age is that about 40% of scientists are theists.

i've seen #s as low as 20% are theists., but that was based on a survey that asked them about a "personal god", which isn't quite the same thing. it's more specific

out of the 60% that aren't, what percentage are atheists vs. agnostics, is a bit more difficult (depending on how one defines terms)