David Berlinski—Atheism and its Scientific Pretensions

[firelawn74]

ugh...opressed by the scientific community that actually studies and validates things as opposed to just agreeing it is so because books written around 2000 years ago say it's true. Can I prove there's a god? Other than the fact that praying to him/her does nothing, no. Can anyone prove there is a god? Certainly not. There is NO way you can be sure there is or isn't a god, gods or alien life form that started everything, so please stop passing opinion as fact. God is your opinion, not fact.

[Touchthesky412]

Shyster youre dead wrong. You can't have natural selection without first having reproduction--an immensely complex process. How do you explain that?

[Touchthesky412]

Ritchouli are you really satisfied that nothing in science since 100 years ago is really not worth consideration? Really?

[MrShysterme]

Berlinski is paid by the Discovery Institute. Enough said.

[MrShysterme]

For goodness sake..........if you can't access it via observation, then you have no right to claim it exists........if you do have access through it via observation, then it can be part of science........this Berlinski guy sucks at life.

[gary83uk]

It's a shame Hitch isn't still around to hitchslap this fool.

[Catz007]

@gary83uk

no, he's no longer around; he's too busy these days being "hitchslapped".

[HayPennie]

@Catz007 Berlinski and Hitch have debated several times. You can watch the debates on YouTube.

[HayPennie]

@gary83uk Berlinski isn't a theist. Nor are many of his atheist colleagues who think Darwinian evolution is horseshit.You don't have to believe in God to debunk Darwin. Of course, debunking Darwin doesn't mean Intelligent Design is necessarily correct either. Evolutionary biology would be unrecognizable to Darwin today - his own pillars hit a brick wall with the discovery of bio-machines & DNA. Why don't you listen to Berlinski instead of retreating to your own close-minded dogma.

[emdtb2001]

wow.

[lrobinx]

To compare a magical belief system based on no real evidence (religion) with science based on physical evidence and finding science lacking is ludicrous. Then to blame science for media coverage of science rather than the media was just too much. I quit watching at about the 7 minute mark . . .

[emdtb2001]

@lrobinx of course you quit watching it. you don't care about the arguments.

[HayPennie]

@lrobinx He's not endorsing a 'magical belief system' - Berlinski is not a theist. Did you object as strongly to Richard Dawkins' conjecture that 'an alien intelligence' may have meddled with the universe?

[TejasM14]

Rather than leave the holocaust as a terrible occurance in human history, I find it rather shocking and appalling that Berlinski chooses to even put forth an unfounded assertion that it could be a result of god's wrath.

[HayPennie]

@TejasM14 He never said any such thing. He was posing a philosophical question..'if 6 million Jews were killed to make a point, only to have smashed their persecutors..' Berlinski is arguing, throughout the entire video, that it is perfectly logical and reasonable to pose religious questions.He never claimed he subscribed to the 'Wrath' theory himself. His own parents were murdered by Nazis. It is just as reasonable to ask, 'if there was a big bang, wasn't there also a banger'.

[Entropy56]

Summary of this interview is... "Richard Dawkins (et al) is a huckster."

[eroceanos]

Great philosopher.

[LogicIrrefutable]

Too stupid to understand science? Try Religion!



[MrFaisoly]

What is this non sense?

[CelestialEmbodiment]

Elitism spawns Darwinism, infanticide, "terra"-forming, collectivism, eugenics, fluoridated water, animal "rights," the E.R.A., the Z.P.G. movt., fiat money, gun & water rights, land confiscation. Elitism = death to self-sovereignty, redress of grievances against the govt., & free speech. Atheism {sans quotes} is the religion of the animal world as animals don't contemplate the Heavens nor wage planetary war.

[CelestialEmbodiment]

Elitism spawns Darwinism, infanticide, "terra"-forming, collectivism, eugenics, fluoridated water, animal "rights," the E.R.A., the Z.P.G. movt., fiat money, gun & water rights, land confiscation. Elitism = death to self-sovereignty, redress of grievances against the govt., & free speech. Atheism {sans quotes} is the religion of the animal world as animals don't contemplate the Heavens nor wage planetary war.

[HumaneAnon]

This discussion is probably the most amiable I've ever seen Berlinski. I guess I have those two visions of him at the debate and speaking about the mechanism of "Darwinism" stuck in my head. You can tell he's speak a lot of time in Francd merely from the way he gestures lol

[GaryCheevers]

Thank You Hoover.

Wonderful, refreshing discussion. I have not heard of this gentleman before will look at his work.

[procommenter]

Hundreds of thousands of Americans are losing their homes as the economy is deliberately imploded. Small house movement = impoverishment & disenfranchisement.

[angularkid]

Thanks David berlinski for putting some sense in my mind. I am your admirer.

[funhistory]

At 13:46 "It depends, what they're filled with, doesn't it?" Classic Berlinski! This interview had its ups & downs, but mostly ups from my perspective. Thanks for making it available to view!

[lordabacu]

Wow. So much slippery BS. "Who discovered the arrows?" for starters. And then he uses "knowledge is power" line straight out of Foucault to defend anti-scientific propaganda. Poststructuralist relativism as theist apologetics. Priceless.

[Onieracraft]

@lordabacu Do you even know what Post Structuralism is? Tell you what, first grasp what the heck Berlinski is talking about, and what he argues in general (on Evolution and on Academia) then comment.

[HumaneAnon]

@lordabacu

Yeah, if your grandparents are alive and your parents die without having remaining evidence of their existence (photo, dna bones etc) then I can only assume Berlinski thinks you aren't real [sarcasm] ^_^

[SmalltimR]

@lordabacu

Well the issue is not the science(never was). The problem is and always will be with those wielding it. Personally I agree with Berlinski on the misuse of science through atheism. And that's not to say that I'm attacking atheism(I'm a fan of individuality), though I do believe it has been subject to abuse for far to long to keep looking the other way about.

[lorinhart]

I had the pleasure of visiting with him after he spoke in Los Angeles and he is a wonderful, well spoken, kind, somewhat jaded smarty pants. I love him, I love what he is doing and whatever he needs to speak truth to power, as they say, so be it... he is quite clever and delightfully, perhaps painfully skeptical...He is the perfect guy to point out that the Emperor has no clothes.

[mcmanustony]

@lorinhart

"He is the perfect guy to point out that the Emperor has no clothes."- perfect? with not a single contribution to any scientific discipline and a revolting track record of sitting on the sidelines sneering at his intellectual superiors.

if he's so well spoken why does he lie about the views of mathematicians like von neumann?

[mcmanustony]

@lorinhart

what the hell are you talking about? he's a pretentious, pseudo-intellectual fraud funded by right wing power. what you mistake for "painful"scepticism is intellectual cowardice. he's incapable of articulating and defending any position of his own so instead sits helplessly on the sidelines sneering at his betters- you know, actual scientists who do actual work.

[AlleluiaElizabeth]

This vid was great. Especially loved the big bang theory and anthropic principle segment onward. Very thought provoking.

[RebelfireLives]

He had me right up until he started to get into the old scapegoat of the "Nazis", and the "Hollow-caust".

[justgold76]

I wish Berlinski would stick to maths as on other matters he's somewhat ridiculed over here in the U.K as an arsehole,which I tend to agree with.

[Onieracraft]

@justgold76

Should he stick to Maths when he was a post doctorate fellow at Columbia University in Molecular Biology?

Most people don't even take the time to grasp his arguments.

[AnnaMishel]

Evolution is NOT a belief. It is a proven fact!

[spiff8082ms]

@AnnaMishel No it is not a proven fact. It is still called the THEORY of evolution. And any scientist

would point that out to you.

[TejasM14]

@spiff8082ms I think you have no idea that a theory. Many major scientific findings are called theories. Theory loosely means 'a way of looking at'. It doesn't make the assertions any less relevant when called a theory. Some theories apart from evolution are circuit theory, plate tectonics, kinetic theory of gases, cell theory, quantum theory. They are called theories as they are logical explanations and predictions based on reasoning. It is not because they have any less factual basis.

[ritchloui]

@spiff8082ms Oh dear, another numbskull who doesn't know what a scientific theory is. You need to find out before you make stupid comments that show you to be totally ignorant. Evolution is a proven fact and the debate was concluded over 100 years ago. It is now called the unifying theory of biology as it unifies all fields of biology, all of which confirm and inform eachother because of the family relationships between all living things.

[GoodScienceForYou]

@AnnaMishel Evolution is a religion. DNA is absolutely irrefutable evidence that ONLY shows genetic degradation in all multicellular creatures. There is ONLY genetic degradation, gene loss, atavisms, and screwed up cell replication. This is absolute and not up for discussion.

[Sawa137]

This video is a Shame for the Hoover Institution.

[jfcoop99]

I'll bet Berlinski has read Chesterton and Pascal among many other prominent authors from the past. I agree with them and tend to believe that Chesterton and Berlinski would agree with Pascal in stating that you can't use reason in your decision to believe in God or not. It is a choice to assume one or the other and then you have 2 different starting points for were you end in your thinking about the purpose of everything. We need a free market place of ideas, not unproven theories forced on us.

[procommenter]

Cells that heal are indistinguishable from pre-embryonic cells (a.k.a. trophoblastic/placental cells). The healing cells and the primitive cells that begin the process of gestation are one-and-the-same. The body needs the naturally-occurring substance Amygdalin to kill errant healing cells. If a person is deficient in this substance (designated as vitamin B17 by chemist Ernst Krebs) that person will have malignant growth.

[girlygoalie]

Have to disagree. He has the humility to grant that there is a chance that other side may be right (at 11:00 and 17:00). Don't hear that kind of humility from the self-described "experts".

[michktt]

Say what You want - to me Berlinsky seems hipocrytical. He starts with a rant about grandstanding arrogant scientists telling people what to think. Then comes a barrage of smug, self involved verbal masturbation about how everyone is full of shit but him... no original thesis, no theory of his own, no nothing - just an old man in love with his own voice, not sure what it is he's saying

[semitope]

@michktt pissed off atheist or evolutionist? lol. He is on point. Get over it and open your brain up

[ajamison]

I wonder if Berlinski has read any Chesterton. I'm sure he'd enjoy Chesterton's digging into materialism.

[girlygoalie]

The point is that the phrase "Survival of the fittest" is circular reasoning - a tautology. The fittest survive in a Darwinian or non-Darwinian universe. It says nothing.

[ramheg]

@girlygoalie, "Survival of the fittest" is another way of saying that unfit do not survive. What is missing from your belief that its a 'tautology' is that what is fit today may not be fit tomorrow. That's how the dinosaurs became extinct after surviving for almost 300 million (or more) years. In a non-Darwinian universe, the dinosaurs would have continued surviving even after the asteroid/comet hit earth and living conditions became unsustainable for them.

[dsaxton1]

@girlygoalie Um, no, it's not a tautology. The survival of those that survive is a tautology. Fitness is not defined in terms of whether or not you survive, but whether or not you are prone to reproduce effectively. Besides, the fact that it is a near-tautology argues FOR the theory and not against it. You also realize that all of mathematics is comprised of tautologies, right? Are mathematical statements meaningless?

[weetbixthecat]

@girlygoalie Survival of the fittest: The survivers survive.

[ritchloui]

@girlygoalie Of course you must be aware that Darwin never coined the phrase 'survival of the fittest'. But, hey, we're used to cretards putting forward straw man arguments. In fact Darwin explained evolution by 'natural selection'. Sorry to blow your bubble with the truth.

[MrShysterme]

@girlygoalie Actually, any universe will be darwininian if it has the following properties: 1. inheritable traits, 2. variation, and 3. differential survival. The phrase "survival of the fittest" is simply not a good phrase.

[laitho90]

@girlygoalie 'Survival of the fittest' says a lot... it means that the ones that have the highest survivability rates in any given situation will be able to pass on their genes to their offspring while the ones that can't will stop passing on their genes. That just means that as time goes by, species will be able to deal with their surrounding in a more and more efficient and effective way.

[EnvGeoMike]

Berlinski begins by criticizing scientists for commenting on the existence of God about which they know so little. (I agree.) He then proceeds to critique biological evolution about which he knows very little. Hmmm.

"Whatever survives, survives." is not an adequate description of evolution through natural selection. It's not even close.

[teajay74]

@EnvGeoMike Good point.

[redeyetime]

@EnvGeoMike Could you give a short, "adequate" description of macro-evolution?

[jazzjosh]

What a guy!