Richard Dawkins responds to perceptive Australian questioner

[swag]

Run time: 03:14 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g3Yv7Qlt7Nk   Posted on YouTube: May 14, 2010 By YouTube Member: SecularResponse Views on YouTube: 115   Posted on DU: May 15, 2010 By DU Member: swag Views on DU: 4500

 

[truedelphi]

1. That was fine.

And logical also.

[Lena inRI]

47. Even more finely logical in the entire 44 min video clip. . .

. . .I highly recommend watching the entire 44 min event here:

http://richarddawkins.net/articles/5244-richard-dawkins-on-why-evolution-trumps-creationism

I've read and seen Dawkins speak. . .this 44 minute speech and interaction with Australians is by far the most intellectually enjoyable clarification of his evolutionary knowledge.

Like Darwin, as Dawkins himself described, Richard is BOTH a great naturalist AND thinker.

Plus I am so impressed with Richard's command of the English language, particularly diction or word choice, with perfect analogies to C L A R I F Y what can often be complex evolutionary knowledge.

There are 4 additional questions from the audience that are good examples of Richard's excellent interaction with just about anybody.

Enjoy the FULL clip. . .better yet read Richard's books!






Plus several others. . .(10 in all)
:applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause:

[localroger]

2. That was a really excellent statement. $

[tblue37]

3. How about a summary for us deafies and for the dial-up folks? nt

[Esra Star]

6. OK, Guy in audience asks Dawkins if there is any way

he/we can inform all 12 year olds that religion is fanciful nonsense.
Mr Dawkins replies that we should just calmly speak what we see as the truth.
The question of the style of language came up and Richard said, (paraphrasing),
"Each to his own"

Cheers

[tblue37]

7. Thanks! nt

[teknomanzer]

54. You left out the word bullshit...

A rather key element of that exchange.

[thesquanderer]

29. Summary for you

Summary: Dawkins says that, to spread the word of non-belief, finessed and blunt approaches can both be useful, though people often find blunt speaking to be threatening.

So you didn't miss much.

But yes. Video posts should require text descriptions. Not just for hard of hearing and dial-up users, but also for people checking out the site at work, or in libraries, or late at night in a shared room, or other times when playing sound may not be an option.

Or just to spare us from wasting time watching things that are not as interesting as the headline makes them sound.

[defendandprotect]

44. Or -- simply when you don't have time to run the video, no matter how brief!! Thanks!!

:)

[nonoxy9]

4. So, basically any liberal who has faith is full of shit???

Guess all us Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, Jews, and Hindus that voted for Obama don't belong on this site, eh?

[Iggo]

8. Yes, that's exactly it.

:eyes:

[Forrest Greene]

10. There Is No Concept Of A Diety

...found in Buddhism. It is a system of thought & practice rooted strongly in the here & now.

[Prof Lester]

13. That's your little piece of Buddhism

The philosophical, intellectual few. The other 900 million Buddhists of the world are praying to statues, asking for Lord Buddha's intercession on inumerable issues. Likewise, there are a small number of self-identified Christians who honor the actual principles of Jesus.. but most the rest are praying to 'Jesus' nonstop for personal wealth, health, good luck, and to smote down their enemies (and other people they don't like.) You see, we're not all as ignorant of other religions as you'd assume us to be.

[nonoxy9]

17. Wow, and so MOST Muslims in the world

just want to strap bombs to themselves and blow people up, and MOST Jews in the world really ARE greedy, Oh, and MOST Athiests have no morals or values! I'm glad you're not judgemental like all those religious nuts.
:banghead:

[Name removed]

18. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Forrest Greene]

30. "You see, we're not all as ignorant of other religions as you'd assume us to be."

Of course not. You are clearly a wise & compassionate, highly-educated individual with no axe to grind who can read minds.

[KathieG]

12. I am really confused by your post.

One of the great things about board members here is we aren't clones...we come from different backgrounds, have different ideas, different belief systems etc., but come together on many subjects when it comes to our politics. Just because someone doesn't share your faith, doesn't mean they aren't on the same page with you on many issues. If you want lock-step clones that all believe the exact same thing...go to freeper-land.

[DeSwiss]

15. ....

[nonoxy9]

20. Agreed!

So, if a right wing nut like Rekers or Haggard gets busted being a hypocritical liar, that's great! We're all on the same page there. But posting a video that just insults probably 80% of democrats is just not appreciated. Sorry, but I'm gonna say it! Athiests can be judgemental and hypocritical, too.

[gtar100]

23. Noooo! Athiests? Nooo way!

:sarcasm:

Me thinks those fine human qualities of 'judgmental' and 'hypocritical' transcend religion, or lack thereof.

[AtheistCrusader]

38. 80%?

Hahah not a chance.

[ooglymoogly]

52. Judging others where it effects our lives and the progress of us and the world

and where there are those impressing their beliefs on everyone else by force of law, cementing their beliefs into laws that everyone must follow, as is the case, in this and other countries; And especially since it is horseshit they are forcing upon us; That judgment of which you speak, is the difference between survival of mankind and not; Otherwise they and you can believe in hobgoblins and spooks and angels flopping around the firmament performing miracles on anyone found bourrée-ing around on their knees with their hands clasped in supplication, for all I care, as long as you keep it between you and other like "minds" and leave everyone else alone; Live and let live, so to speak; Who gives a flying foootch? If we had meaningful separation of church and state (not by a long shot), I don't believe anybody here gives a damn what you or anyone else think on the subject of religion. Unfortunately we live in the opposite, la, la land, which has ended, over and over and over, in dead ends for entire civilizations. The miracle of the universe is us and we need to get on with progress until we can truly understand what and how and why we are here. Fantastic and unlikely fairytales, where the not yet explainable, is just "its a murcle! Its a murcle!", does not cut it.

[SidDithers]

14. Do your ankles get sore from jumping to conclusions?...nt

Sid

[greiner3]

16. And your question is???????????

[jonthebru]

24. Wait a second

This is a prominent atheist. You would expect him to respond in his way to the comment/question. You should know that if you wish to have a religious faith, that's OK, really. Just make certain to allow others to not have a religious faith. You choose to have, they choose not to have. The two of you can really have fun talking sports or whatever, even politics if you wish.

No, the posting of this video is not an unwelcome mat.

[bowens43]

28. never mind......

[lumberjack_jeff]

35. No, what he's saying is that some people are tremendously threatened by clarity.

Oh, wait, I mean yes.

[Sander]

40. Religion and Faith are Not Necessarily the Same

I am a liberal progressive. I voted for Obama. I was raised in the Jewish tradition, but later became more of an agnostic or secular humanist. A few years ago though, I reinvented for myself a God that I could believe in. A loving and caring God who suffuses my soul and the universe - who is within me as I am within Him. He is not the biblical God who lives in a far-off place, heaven, but is in the very air I breath. He/She/It speaks to me in those insightful "ah-ha" moments of clarity. I have faith that my God, my Higher Power (HP), does exist. Yet I am not a religious person. I do not believe in what Bill Maher describes as the "book of the myth of the talking snake."

Yet, I also believe that each individual approaches his/her faith via different belief systems. All that is required, in my opinion, is an open mind. A belief in the basic humanity of all people, regardless of race, creed, color, sexual orientation, national origin, etc. So, yes, if an individual cannot accept the universal brotherhood of all mankind, he indeed doesn't "belong" on this site.

[DeSwiss]

5. Excellantly put!

The questions we haven't answered are what people call "god."


- As we answer those questions, god gets smaller......

K&R

[nonoxy9]

9. Hey, just saying!

Last time I saw someone blog that 'all Athiests were full of shit' was on a Tea Bagger site. Religious bigotry is ugly in any direction.

[1monster]

34. I didn't see that they were calling people who have religious beliefs as bing full of cattle dung...

They were saying that religious teachings were all b.s.

The difference may be subtle, but it wasn't THAT subtle.

[baldguy]

11. The problem in the debate between believers & nonbelievers is a total and absolute absence of faith

Not from the nonbelievers - they're not supposed to have faith and do fine without it.

Its the believers who have no faith - so they end up suppressing facts that contradict their belief system, and promoting ideas that support their belief system yet have no basis in fact.

[sulphurdunn]

19. Neither deism nor atheisim

can be proven or falsified. That leaves agnosticism as the only reasonable position regarding the existence or nonexistence of the supernatural.

[liberation]

21. By your same metric, agnosticism can't be proven either.

Do not confuse "personal preference" with "only reasonable position."

[sulphurdunn]

22. Of course it can't. And that's the point.

Agnosticism is not a preference but a method of reasoning which states that one should not accept as certain any conclusion that is not demonstrable. It is the basic of the scientific method and is the only reasonable means of regarding untestable propositions.

[my future me]

25. for clarity

Agnosticism doesn't answer the question "Do you believe in a god or gods?". Gnosticism strictly deals with knowledge. Theism with belief. Many people try to use agnosticism as a middle ground between atheism and theism, when it is actually a non sequitur.

[sulphurdunn]

32. Agnosticism isn't supposed

to answer the question. I thought gnosticism was premised upon an apriori presumption of God's existence, not a posteriori evidence that God exists.

[my future me]

56. Labels

Labels have a wonderful, inherit quality of being both necessary and useless at the same time. They can unite, divide, separate, or confuse. To this end, when there is a conflict involving labels, it's important to flush out the discrepancy. Some quick hits:

Atheism is not a positive position; it is a label for those who reject a theistic position. Without theism, there is no atheism.

Atheism is not a descriptive label of a persons affirmed beliefs. There are a nearly innumerable number of labels that atheists use to describe their actual beliefs, such as secular humanists, rational skeptics, pearlists, objectivists, etc.

Atheists are not necessarily rational people. Atheism is simply the rejection of theistic claims. Raelians, Scientologists, certain Buddhists, certain Satanists could all be considered atheists. Some atheists are even believers in the Paranormal, followers of alternative medicines, conspiracy theorists, anti-vaxers, utopian communists/libertarians, or utilitarians.


Back to the topic at hand, Gnosticism, at its root, deals with a claim of absolute knowledge. Agnosticism is the claim that you can't claim absolute knowledge. As you may or may not agree, outside of certain logical absolutes, any claim of or claim about absolute knowledge is useless: brain in a vat, solipsists, etc. Agnosticism and atheism are not mutually exclusive terms. They are, however, commonly presented as such. When agnosticism is presented as this middle ground between theism and atheism, it has the side effect of straw-manning all atheists. It redefines the negative claim (rejection of a positive theistic claim) into a positive claim that there is absolutely no god, a fairly indefensible position. The vast majority of atheists that I have talked, discussed, or interacted with(noted obvious sample bias) make no claims about the existence of a god or gods. They simply have rejected as insufficient any claims of a deity that have been presented to them. This is why agnosticism is a description of belief rather than a position of belief. There already exists a framework as can be seen here: http://freethinker.co.uk/2009/09/25/8419/. I do have some qualms with the link, so it's more of a guide than a canon. Most people fall into the camps of gnostic theism or agnostic atheism. Gnostic atheists could include atheistic religions or emotional atheists. Agnostic theists would be mostly deists.

I do accept these labels as valid, but I don't think they are sound. They are still very useful for everyday conversations about belief and deal with a problem of agnosticism quite well. I am only discussing this caveat in response to your post about the scientific method and agnosticism:

Agnosticism is not a preference but a method of reasoning which states that one should not accept as certain any conclusion that is not demonstrable. It is the basic of the scientific method and is the only reasonable means of regarding untestable propositions.

I would have to wholeheartedly disagree. Agnosticism,especially in the form presented by those who proclaim that position and reject atheism, is inherently unscientific. When one is presented with a claim, he could either accept the claim or reject the claim as insufficient. In every day life, most claims are either accepted or rejected without much scrutiny. This usually depends on social relationships, authority, or the importance of the claim. If I were to tell you that I don't have any dogs, you would most likely accept that as true. I don't have a reason to lie to you, and the claim is relatively insignificant to you. As the importance of the claim increases, the necessary scrutiny for that claim to be accepted increases. If you were over my house and were bitten by a rabid dog, my claim about not owning a dog has suddenly become very important. Even though the claim is about not owning something, there is still a positive testable claim. It would be your claim, however tenuous, that I do own a dog. You could check my house for dog food, dog bowls, collars, leashes, or fur. You could contact the town or local vets and see if I have any dogs registered. You could check my credit card statement. You could talk to my neighbors. If, after all this searching and investigation, there was no evidence that I own a dog, would it be reasonable for you to claim that I own a dog? Would it even be reasonable to say that you can't "know" whether or not I own a dog? If a rabid dog, matching the description you gave, was found to be owned by someone down the street, would it still be reasonable to claim that I own a dog? Would it be reasonable to claim that you can't "know" whether or not I own a dog?

Let's assume your search was fruitful. You found a bag of dog food in my garage. You found a dog collar with the name 'Spike'. You found a TV that plays an endless loop of All Dogs Go to Heaven, The Lady and the Tramp, and Homeward Bound. The local vet has a record of me. The town says that there is a dog registered at my address. A receipt shows that I recently spent 35 dollars at Scrub'a'Pup. Several neighbors claim to have seen me walking a dog that fits the description you gave. Yet, you still haven't found a dog. Would it be reasonable for you to assume that I don't have a dog? Would it be reasonable to claim that you can't know whether or not I own a dog?

Science has never been about absolute knowledge. It never has, and it never will. If man ever reaches the point where we know everything, then science simply stops. Science has also never been about proof; it is about evidence. Science can not prove the sun will rise tomorrow. Science can show evidence of all the previous occasions the sun has risen. It can show that most stars die around age x, and the sun is at age y. It can show that there has been no irregular activity from the sun indicating its collapse. It can show piles and piles of evidence against an implosion of the sun tomorrow. It can still never prove that it won't happen. There exists all of this evidence that leads to the conclusion that the sun won't implode tomorrow. There is no evidence suggesting that it will. What is the reasonable position for someone to take, since there is no proof either way? Is it to say that we can not know whether or not the sun will implode tomorrow? Or, is it more reasonable to reject the claim that the sun will implode tomorrow as insufficient?

I reject the claim that the sun will implode tomorrow. If evidence is presented indicating the star's collapse, then I will reevaluate my position. Until then, I am justified in assuming that the sun will rise tomorrow. I also reject the claim that leprechauns exist. If evidence is presented indicating the existence of leprechauns, then I will reevaluate my position. I also reject the claim that I am Julius Caesar reincarnated. If evidence is presented that indicates that I am perhaps Julius Caesar reincarnated, then I will reevaluate my position. It is not scientific to say that because we can not ever "know" anything, we can't reject claims. Science frequently rejects claims as unfounded, insufficient, or unsupported. Science throws out previously held beliefs when they contradict the evidence.

There is no current study on the existence of leprechauns because there is no evidence to test. No scientist has ever approached me to examine the possibility that I am Julius Caesar reincarnated. Why? There is no evidence to suggest that it is true. There are scientists, however, smashing atoms in Switzerland looking for the Higgs-Boson. There is an observable phenomenon and a proposed hypothesis. The scientific position on the Higgs-Boson is that it does not exist. Existence is a claim, whether we are discussing the Higgs-Boson, leprechauns, or a deity. Until there is sufficient evidence of existence, it does not exist. It is perfectly reasonable and justified to claim that no god exists, until there is sufficient evidence of its existence.

[liberation]

27. Huh? That has nothing to do with the "point" that you were trying to make, which was wrong.

You rendered deism and atheism "invalid" according to your very arbitrary metric, while completely ignoring said metric to reder agnosticism "valid" just because.

That approach is too logically dissonant to even pretend that it makes sense. I don't think you comprehend the "scientific method" at all.

[sulphurdunn]

36. Neither theism or atheism are invalid.

They are merely unsound. As unsound I might add as positing ad hominem insults as refutations. A scientific method consists of the collection of measurable data through observation and experimentation, followed by the formulation and testing of hypotheses. You confuse this method with philosophical systems of knowledge.

[dbmk]

26. There is nothing to prove in agnosticism

How do you prove "I don't know"? An agnostic is awaiting proof either way.

It is proven by the absence of proof, basically.

[sulphurdunn]

37. Thankyou.

[Autonomy]

50. Actually, there is

Agnosticism POSITS that 'one cannot know', not merely "I don't know." Therefore, one must be able to prove that 'one cannot know', which is tough to do.

[sulphurdunn]

55. That is true

regarding metaphysical claims. If we ever finally develop "the theory of everything" I will renounce agnosticism. Believe me I would very much like to.

[dbmk]

57. I would call that a hardline interpretation of the stance

Qouting Wikipedia (with all possible reservations about the validity of that source):
"Thomas Henry Huxley defined the term:

Agnosticism is not a creed but a method, the essence of which lies in the vigorous application of a single principle... Positively the principle may be expressed as in matters of intellect, do not pretend conclusions are certain that are not demonstrated or demonstrable."

Seems to me to be a contradiction of terms to call one agnostic and claim that something cannot be known. :)

[Joe Bacon]

31. Love that questioner!

He hit the nail on the head! All religion is based on lies and all Religion does is promise you pie in the sky when you die as long as you follow your corporate masters on Earth without hesitation. All religion does is enslave people. Marx was right, it is the opiate of the masses that turns them into asses!

[theFrankFactor]

33. Religion: Moral training wheels at best. Batshit deadly psychosis at worst

I agree with the general premise that "it's bull shit". And that's my opinion, argue against it to your satisfaction. I don't give a fuck. Generally speaking, religion is founded on IMAGINED SHIT. God is IMAGINED SHIT. You can take your pick, anthropomorphic being or existential entity = SHIT.

The best thing to happen to humanity would be the abandonment of SHIT based morality. "God" didn't write a fucking book and "he" didn't dictate his plan to some fuck in the desert. That someone can abandon a basic sense of judgment for such SHIT says everything about the individual and nothing about the FAIRY GOD except that it is a figment of someone's imagination.

Want to know how to treat another person? Concentrate REAL FUCKING HARD on what you might have in common with that other human being. Even the Golden Rule fails when the practitioner is a masochist.

[Sander]

39. Clarity as a Threat?

I believe that those who feel threatened by "clarity" are really simply responding as our basic psychology predicts. Anytime one sees or hears something that conflicts with a firmly held basic belief, one experiences cognitive dissonance. The outward manifestation of such dissonance is anger.

Psychologists hold that human beings cannot hold two conflicting thoughts in their mind at the same time. I believe in God (as my religious upbringing trained me to believe) and when I hear a clear and logical argument that what I believe is not true, I become very upset. The clearer the argument, the more angry I become. If the argument were wishy-washy, I might not feel so threatened. After all, I can still hold on to my original belief because the argument against it simply is so absurd.

We see all sorts of examples of that in the news and even here on DU. "Obama is the savior." "But Obama sent in more troops to Afghanistan and approved more off-shore drilling. He is therefore a DINO" "You S.O.B! How dare you speak out against Obama?" Not only in politics but in religion as well. "My God (Allah) is better than your God and to prove it, I'll blow up the WTC." Or, "My Gods (Yahweh and Jesus) are better than Allah, so I'm going to send murderous hordes on a crusade to take back the 'Holy Land'. Not only that, but on the way, we're going to murder anyone who doesn't believe in Jesus (i.e., the Jews) as well." In fact, I'll bet someone here gets angry because I referred to Jesus and Yahweh in the plural and referred to them as "Gods."

[theFrankFactor]

41. Great Comment +1

[sulphurdunn]

42. Intelliegence or doublethink or mere naivete?

The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to
hold two opposing ideas in mind at the same time and
still retain the ability to function. One should, for
example, be able to see that things are hopeless yet be
determined to make them otherwise.
F. Scott Fitzgerald -- The Crack-Up (1936)

[Sander]

43. "Hopeless" - I don't think so.

I would hold that if the individual truly thinks the situation is hopeless, he would not even try to change things. After all, why bother, its all hopeless anyway. Right? I would argue with F. Scott that this individual still really has "hope." A true belief in hopelessness would result, IMO, in a profound paralyzing depression.

[glitch]

45. That may be the most common but it depends on the individual.

A few people fight harder when they perceive the situation is hopeless. A conscious choice of going out swinging.

[tinrobot]

46. Most religions point to the same core concepts

And generally, those concepts are sound - deep inner peace, universal love, compassion, etc... These are all good concepts that I have absolutely no problem with. Jesus had some very good ideas, so did the Buddha.

Too bad most people who follow religion have no clue how to read the maps they were given by Jesus, Buddha, and others. They take metaphorical teachings too literally and have no capacity to look within, or have compassion. They don't see the deeper meaning of the teachings and use religion only as a way to create tribes that divide people into "us" and "them."

My problem is with these people. The ones who profess to be on the path but aren't even close to the core principles they claim to follow. Too bad these people are usually the loudest of the bunch. It really gives religion a bad rap.

[nonoxy9]

48. Again, here's the word "most"

Most of the millions of Muslims in the world are not dedicated to "killing the infidel", and most Buddhists disagreed with imperial Japan, and most Christians are not lying, judgmental hypocrites.

[nonoxy9]

51. Thank you all for this!

It's been a while since I've been active on DU, but it's good to be back. This has been fun!
Here's what my basic point was; If I came on DU and posted a video of a room full of Christians calling all Atheists full of shit, how does that advance the progressive agenda?
It doesn't, all it does is prejudge and insult a whole bunch of people that I share most of my convictions with.
This site is a great place to discuss and debate, but I would like to think people with supposedly open minds would also be less judgmental and arrogant.
Besides, if all religion is bullshit, what does that say about Gandhi, MLK, and Mother Theresa? Just brainwashed, war loving fools?

[Autonomy]

49. Atheism is the new '17th century Reformation'

As a whole, they are convinced that their worldview is the only legitimate one, and that everyone else else is doomed, and therefore it is their role to make everyone believe what they believe. A worldview without profound humility is doomed, an modern atheism is profoundly arrogant in its assumption that it alone holds the Keys to the Kingdom.

[Swagman]

53. my problem with Dawkins is that he seems to have asolutely no

sense of humour !:shrug:

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

58. A. No sound, will watch later. B. The predictable squirming amuses me. -nt