Darwin, Humanism and Science - A C Grayling

[SEEANDPEA]

I wish that the audible version of The Good Book is read by AC Grayling himself.

[bukifuriku]

I really cannot find the meaning of his opening: "Everything has been said but not everyone has said it."

I must be that english is not my native language, does anyone care to explain above statement? Thank you!

[gamerunknown]

Point at 8:50 also applies to corporate control of research. One's manager is likely to be a scientist, but their manager may have studied economics or business studies and would purely be interested in increasing their profit.

[rarehman]

By far an excellent lecture.



[07Aristotle]

Science and humanism are mutually exclusive to each other. Why try to ascribe sentience to a mechanical system such as science? It is insensitive to real human values sense it is a tool for deriving fact, not creating meaningful human values. Secular humanism is an illusion because all values become subjective and opinion with no real collective value.

[rarehman]

@07Aristotle When you have delusions and schizophrenic convulsion the science can treat you. Science provides far better explanations of the questions that religions had been trying to answer. The religions start with a figure, never discuss where that supernatural figure came from, and attribute everything to them. If you don't have a secular society then you have a religious society like in pakistan and Afghanistan. Do you think they have a better moral standards and values.

[07Aristotle]

@rarehman I have never heard of a 'schizophrenic convulsion' before, I'm sorry I had to point that out. I thought that was funny. Anyhow, it is understood that our sciences have remedies for delusions and types of schizophrenia. What makes this of human value? There might be monetary gain or gaining function in society. But what does it give in terms of real objective meaning.

I agree with you that science is more conducive to health, being the fact that religion is not a health science.

[07Aristotle]

@rarehman Lets be honest, religion is not a science by it being not as practical as our sciences. Religion is a set of belief systems that people act in accordance. It gives human beings structure and human beings thrive on structure and routine in their lives. That is why religion, by itself, is so popular because it conforms to our natural tendencies. Not because what the religion itself promotes, but how well it conforms to our tendencies. It has not relevance on the things believed in.

[07Aristotle]

@rarehman My only quandary, is humanism, creating objective human value, and science,creating only facts, that how can it be that such a mechanistic functioning could be derived a human value. It seems a bit myopic to relegate human value to what science can tell us, rather than the human science. This makes science and humanism incompatible with each other because anything derived would have to be dependent on science. Humanism, creating objective human values, loses its objectivity because..

[07Aristotle]

@rarehman...it has now become dependent on science creating this so-called value. It has just become subjective and thus valueless because its non-objectivity.

[nflhester3]

so appreciative for uploaders like this and youtube, you guys are great

[BachScholar]

"Darwin" should not be in the title, since Darwin is not discussed. But in any case, Darwinism is not synonymous with "science" as this title impies. I am all for science and the scientific method, but evolution does not belong in this category. Darwin himself was not even a scientist. he had only an ordinary (bachelors) degree not in science, but theology. He had no Ph.D. and was never a professor. He merely invented a white-supremist laden pseudo-scientific theory that has never been proven.

[MrZathroth1991]

If you are looking for knowledge, truth and wisdom, television simply cant be the right option. You are constantly fed with bullshit and empty entertainment, no true insight and knowledge can come about with that form of brainwashing. Just sitting there passively while your brain is getting side fucked by total and absolute nonsense. If you want true knowledge and wisdom you have to go look for it. Thats why the internet is so beautiful. Everything is here and here is everywhere.

[richardaberdeen]

DEFINITION:  Humanist; among the most naive and superstitious of all human beings, who believe that science and education will save us from our sins, in spite of the historical evidence after a so-called "age of enlightenment", there arose global imperialism and slavery, the American, French, Russian, Chinese and scores of other violent bloody revolutions, WWI, WWII, Vietnam and continuing, global mass pollution and a looming WWIII, perhaps the real "war to end all wars", who can say for sure?

[polystyleneman]

@richardaberdeen I believe you misunderstand the meaning of DEFINITION. a DEFINITION of humanism would go something like this: A way of life that has grown out of the enlightenment, which has brought us the great democratic experiment of the United States, cures for countless diseases, the ability to stem off our own extinction, helped us to understand our origins and encourages a lifestyle that treats others well because it's right and not because of a baseless fear of an imagined sky god.

[richardaberdeen]

@polystyleneman I think you misunderstand the definition of the term "evidence". For example, historians claim that more people died from war and related violence in the 20th Century then in all previous centuries combined. And for example, the U.S., a supposed "democratic" nation, has never been at peace longer than 25 years except once, which was shorter than 50 years, even though many nations of history prior to the so-called "enlightenment" experienced 100 years and more of peace.

[SEEANDPEA]

@richardaberdeen you have misplaced your knowledge. I hope that your "wisdom" guides your claims more appropriately in the future.

[richardaberdeen]

@SEEANDPEA It is very easy to use phrases like "misplaced knowledge". Any politican can do that. What is more difficult, is to provide evidence for one's position, which like all atheists, you conveniently have not. There is no evidence for magically appearing universes, which is what all atheism and agnosticism pretends is either true or could be true. Try going back to elementary school and starting over.

[TheGodlessGuitarist]

I have never heard a more eloquent speaker. He is a joy to listen to whether you agree with him or not.

[stephenblackman2003a]

So what will these money-grubbing academic divas do next, since we have all their shit already on youtube? Will they get their lectures pulled off the internet? That would make capitalist sense. Cos I don’t know what new stuff Dawkins, Grayling and Singer can come up with. We’ve heard it all – Dawkins: no gods, except Mammon, Grayling: pomos are killing philosophy but it’s alright when I plagiarise, Singer: all animals are equal but affluent animals are more equal than others!

[TheGodlessGuitarist]

@stephenblackman2003a

Dawkins, Grayling et al will keep going, and in all probablity will have to keep repeating themselves, since they are fighting an intellectual battle against the real 'money-grubbing' and grossly doshonest capitalists of the world, like Rick Warren, Pat Robertson, Billy Graham, William Lane Craig et al. Notice that Dawkins and Grayling aren't stinking rich, but the demagogues of religion are, yet they are far more intellectually distinguished and credible.

[kirked007]

@stephenblackman2003a What very charitable comments. Clearly your adhominem remarks must replace your lack of salient facts to support your case. It surprises me that you have such an approach towards 'academic divas' when religious 'theologians' adopt a pseudo academic stance about the Bible or Koran when what is really being undertaken is literary review (if one can place it that high).

[arminius6661]

@vjwebster As far as I could see he wasn't putting forward a hypothesis but more of an opinion. Anyway spelling is important, especially when writing on an international organ like this!

[XieYali]

All fantastic scientists and philosophers have amazing hair. If they don't they can't be classified as a 'great'. :P

[billhitchcot37]

'A. C.' translate as 'Absolute Clarity" . Game, set and match !

[TheObservationDeck]

@billhitchcot37

Except of course nothing can be absolute in his worldview.

[vjwebster]

@TheObservationDeck Er..I think you missed the point somewhat

[dltanner99]

Novel about an alternative view of evolution see video book trailer

[arminius6661]

Come on TomFynn, if you are going to debate these people at least get it right, it is the pre-Cambrian. Not pre-Cambrium!

[vjwebster]

@arminius6661 ..and your point is..? A spelling error invalidates the hypothesis? - surely not! The most brilliant lecturer I ever had at Uni was quite dyslexic. A biologist who spelled ground "grownd" for example.

[qtzlctl2012]

He's so smart and says such wonderful things, but i really need to READ his views, because his voice is so soft and gentle i can't help but be lulled to sleep.

[MardukHail]

This was a wonderful lecture. I was unaware of AC Grayling. Count me as a new fan.

[FeelOfFriction]

Painfully boring speaker.

[CallanPage]

@FeelOfFriction It really depends on your definition of "boring speaker". You make no attempt to explain your thought without providing at least the first analysis of why your found him boring. AC Grayling is one of the foremost philosophers and critial thinkers of the modern day and as such should not be judged on his mannerism (which I myself find rather charming) but rather on the content of speech. Only when this is considered, you would perhaps realise that his speech was far from boring,

[MegaGeoffro]

@CallanPage I believe a correct term for FeelOfFriction is, Hard to Follow Speaker. I myself am having a hard time following AC Grayling but the stuff that I have pick up have been very... Awesome.

[gerontodon]

I don't see that a belief that there is an aspect of reality that transcends physical description is incompatible with a belief that physical description is always open-ended-- in fact I think it virtually *implies* it.

Also, the characterisation of religion he gave, that it's simple to explain and not open-ended at all, applies to the idea of the blind watchmaker of random mutation and natural selection.

[TomFynn]

@gerontodon

Incompatible? No, but if it is not comprehensible, what's the point?.

Implied? No.

Evolution *is* open-ended, since it can be disproven.

Find rabbit fossils in the pre-Cambrian era.

[gerontodon]

@TomFynn

It's implied to me, because if description can never come to an end, that implies that reality can never, even in principle, be summed up by physical description. Therefore, there is more to reality than physical description.

It may be difficult to comprehend, but no more so than the belief that consciousness arose from physical causes.

Finding rabbits in the pre-cambrian wouldn't disprove the blindwatchmaker hypothesis, so it's irrelevant.

[TomFynn]

@gerontodon

What is beyond physical description now, or ever, is irrelevant, since we do not know about it.

If people want to make up stories about, fine. But never claim that they're more that that. Stories.

"Rabbits fossils in the pre-Cambrian" -J.B.S. Haldane in response to the question what would disprove evolution.

[gerontodon]

@TomFynn

A lot of the stories don't make much sense to me, but I don't presume to know that therefore they're meaningless. I don't think that science is the only way of 'knowing'.

J.B.S Haldane no doubt said that. The fact remains that neo-darwinism and 'evolution' are separate concepts.

[TomFynn]

@gerontodon

To have meaning is not the same as being real or an accurate description of reality.

What you think or think to "know" is irrelevant. Only what you can demonstrate.

"...the term neo-Darwinism for the synthetic theory is wrong, because the term neo-Darwinism was coined by Romanes in 1895 as a designation of Weismann's theory." E. Mayr, Proc. Bien. Meet. Philos. Sci. Assoc. 2: 145–156, (1984)

Weismann's theory of inheritance by what he called "germ plasm" is now known to be wrong.

[gerontodon]

@TomFynn

Irrelevant to you I'm sure, but that's pretty irrelevant to me. I think that the popularity of Dawkins, Dennett and co is part of the last burp of positivism- and that will be demonstrated when fashion changes, probably around the same time that it becomes glaringly obvious that the modern synthesis (which many of its advocates refer to as neo-darwinism in print, whatever E. Mayr said) is incorrect.

[gerontodon]

@TomFynn

All this aggressive atheism, or materialist philosophy as I think it really is, is probably more understandable in the US, where freethought might have been a bit suppressed. I know that the 'synthetic theory' being shown to be wrong won't prove God or anything, but it will obviously raise questions- or it should do, since it would be inconsistent to draw on it for support for atheism, as many do, but not think it's unreality could have implications.

[gerontodon]

@TomFynn

I wonder whether what Dawkins and his fanswill say when the blindwatchmaker turns out to be as real as 'the flying spaghetti monster'. I expect they'll say that they were being intellectually honest and following the evidence-- but why not now, when many qualified people already think the evidence is against it?

[TomFynn]

@gerontodon

If evolution will ever be proven – and I mean proven – wrong, Dawkins and this fan will say: “Hmm, what else could be? Let’s find out.”

“Aggressive” atheism? What happened to militant? The popularity of Dawkins, Dennett and all is because D&D et al. provide clear, level-headed and above all reasoned thinking instead of the shrill and strident BS from the Robertson, Haggards and their ilk.

PS: What “qualified” people, what “evidence” against it, which "print"? [Citation needed]

[gerontodon]

@TomFynn

Stuart Kaufmann and Stuart Newman, Gerhart and Kirschner and Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini off the top of my head. Note that they doubt the ability of random mutation and natural selection to create complex life forms not 'evolution', and yes, they also think there must be a totally physical explanation. Darwin's mechanism isn't 'evolution'. As Dawkins (of the flawed analogy) says, Darwin explained the appearance of design & made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.

[gerontodon]

@TomFynn

So yeah if it comes to be that the scientific consensus is that Darwin's mechanism can't do what's on the tin- i.e. originate species, then you can still believe that all causes in the world are physical. But you can't pretend there's as much evidence for that belief as there would be if Darwinism looked convincing, because having used Darwinism as evidence for materialism, that would be inconsistent.

[gerontodon]

@TomFynn I think it's a bit sneaky to use the word 'evolution' in a vague way. It doesn't mean a completely physical process, such as random mutation and selection clearly is, it means some kind of change and development from one thing to another.

[TomFynn]

@gerontodon

Kaufmann, Newman and that MPP guy say the physical mechanism of self-organisation is part of the evolution of life forms. So? Every enzyme works because of it. In the words of N. Block and P. Kitcher: “For 150 years everybody in the business has known, very clearly, that cases of natural selection are diverse.” Boston Rev. Online 3/2010

Oh and: Nothing sneaky about the word evolution in the context of this discussion. Period.

PS: “So, yeah if…inconsistent.” WTF?

[gerontodon]

@TomFynn

I think they say more than that, I think they say that self-organisation is the reason fro the origin of biological structures. If you require self-organisation to explain a complex structure, then the idea that it has been built up bit by bit by darwin's mechanism is not part of that explanation- or if it is, it adds nothing beyond saying 'whatever survives, *does* survive'. Obviously natural selection *weeds out* anything that's not viable, but that's not what Darwin claimed for it.

[TomFynn]

@gerontodon

Darwin claimed “that any being, if it vary however slightly in any manner profitable to itself, under the complex and sometimes varying conditions of life, will have a better chance of surviving, and thus be naturally selected.” Origin of Species (1st Ed., p. 6)

If self organisation determines the building blocks, so what? Crystals are self-organised, do they change? No. The question of evolution is how change in complex organisms as a whole comes about.

[gerontodon]

@TomFynn

They're not saying that self-organisation just determines the building blocks. I read the Plausibility of Life and the authors were saying that some kind of organising principle of those building blocks explains the origin of large-scale structures, like organs. Kaufmann and Newman have similar ideas. That's obviously not what Darwin was suggesting, and to imply that it was is disingenuous.

[TomFynn]

@gerontodon

To imply that I intentionally misrepresented their ideas is disingenuous. As I can make it out, the principle of "facilitated variation" claims to shed light on the mechanism of variation. These mechanisms constrain the number of systems on which natural selection then acts. They did not disprove Darwin, but added to and refined on the question of variations, which Darwin had observed. I stand by my judgement on their theory.

[gerontodon]

@TomFynn

Yes, “So, yeah if…inconsistent.” *was* a long sentence and not too clear. I meant that it's inconsistent to claim that, the ability of Darwin's mechanism to explain life forms is evidence that the process is totally mechanistic, and so there's no need to postulate agency, but it's inability to do so wouldn't count as counter-evidence to that position.

[TomFynn]

@gerontodo If Darwin's process of natural selection is ever falsified by finding an organism which did *not* change in accordance with it, this would still require anyone to find positive proof for any outside, non-physical, agency. Dinosaurs fossils holding “Ban the Bomb”-banners for instance.

Just saying something is not incompatible is not enough.

[gerontodon]

@TomFynn

Obviously we can't find an organism that doesn't change in accordance with natural selection, because natural selection necessarily incurs change- so your challenge is meaningless. People who dispute Darwin's theory generally don't dispute natural selection, what they dispute is its ability to originate complex systems. I don't see any relevance of Dinosaur fossils holding banners at all, I don't see why non-physical agency has to 'outside'....

[gerontodon]

@TomFynn

people like Dawkins make a big show of saying how the existence of such non-physical agency *is* incompatible with the facts, so to say that it is, when life clearly does look designed, as he himself states, would make it an obvious possibility. Why do you assume agency has to be physical? If it's on the basis of neuroscience, I disagree that correlation between brain activity and subjective experience proves cause.

Can you empirically prove that reality is primarily mindless?

[TomFynn]

@gerontodon

Proving non-existence is impossible. If you want to convince me that the universe is “mindful” bring me positive proof i.e. Dinosaurs with “Ban the Bomb” signs, or rabbit fossils in the pre-cambrium. Based on Dawkins “Growing up in Universe”-series, objects look designed, but are not designed. And in all known cases where people investigated closely, evolution was found to have been the organising principle. “God” is not incompatible with evolution. Just not needed any more.

[gerontodon]

@TomFynn

As is typical, you're arbitrarily introducing a lot of question-begging assumptions about what we should consider rational premises, and not explaining either why you believe them to be true, or their relevance, which makes it hard to know what specific points you're making. Maybe science should only explore the physical world. It doesn't then follow that its findings must suggest that only physical reality exists and we should believe that.

[gerontodon]

@TomFynn

Actually I retract that statement that your challenge is meaningless, I read your statement as saying that we haven't found an organism that natural selection has acted on and hasn't changed, not that we haven't found one which hasn't been changed thru natural selection which was unjustified.

I don't think that because evidence of natural selection is widely, and, for all I know, universally found in the genomes of organisms, logically implies that it's built them.

[Sirbringabel]

I love the fact that Creationists claim we don't properly understand a book that was written second hand by semi-literate scholars with a blinding agenda. They probably didn't understand what they were writing either...

[MrGuitarvent]

Excellent! Shame on the BBC, with its ridiculous 'Thought For The Day' propaganda.

[JaguarEscarlata]

I like AC Grayling. I used to dislike his soft spoken manners, but the more I listen to him or read his writtings, I think he is actually smarter than Dawkins, Dennett, Harris or even Christopher Hitchens.

[zencat999]

@JaguarEscarlata you might be right but nobody can snarl like Hitch!

[unapologeticmind]

What a strange-looking audience...

[nothingnesswithouten]

"the lucubrations of illiterate goatherds..." Nice.

[nothingnesswithouten]

How many times is A. C. going to use that Hungarian MP joke? :)

[darizzle7]

Darwin? who cares about some dead guy anyways,.....,you guys have it all wrong,we believe all humanism and evolutionsitic thinking has not place among God's People ,....,why do you evo-heads keep trying to say God's people only care about Darwin,atleast you could change it up and like say "hey those Creationist only care about Muhammed ! " or "hey those Creationist only care about Joseph Smith ! " or "hey those Creationist only care about Carl Sagan" atleast pick a better dead man !!!!!!!

[teraise84]

@darizzle7 your a bit special.

[wolverine005]

@darizzle7 You are indeed right, rationality and intelligent thinking has no place amongst ignorant people.

[GABand39]

Ultamum Heterotrioxide

[timrice666]

This man is what it means to be human. Listen and learn. Only my opinion but heartfelt nonethe less.

[WastedTourist]

Good old A.C. and his Hungarian MP.

[mohfoz77]

LET’S MAKE ALL MYTHS, RELIGIONS AND SUPERSTITIONS HISTORY.

[markkind]

@mohfoz77

Agreed.

[Blodhosta]

Grayling seem to pick up where Russell left off in more than one fundamental way, and I applaud him for that. I hope he, too, will fruitfully and progressively challenge the parts of our thinking that just don't add up (and that's a lot!) and attract more people to good philosophy.

He may not remind me of why I first fell in love with philosophy, but he sure reminds me of why I'm staying in it!

[CO2Junkie]

What a brilliant man. And this is the first I've heard of him - how embarrassing for me :p I'll be listening to & reading more from this fellow.

[xSilverPhinx]

I think the most common belief of the western world in the future is going be something more like deism or pantheism, along with an increase in atheists and agnostics obviously. The increase of islam however could retard the western world's ridding of older beliefs such as christianity.

[lanceawatt]

What a great man.

[byScrooby]

"God: Hidden Science" - Google it!

[ridgetownpimp]

I have a feeling theres a awful lot of creationist that simply search for the word Darwin, then leave stupid comments without bothering to even watch the videos.

[stoprainingonme]

@ridgetownpimp Probably, but if creationists actually bothered to watch videos, read books, listen to discussions then they probably wouldn't be creationsts

[JordanKimball]

That's what cured me from the disease called creationism.

[stoprainingonme]

@JordanKimball How old were you when you were cured?

[JordanKimball]

embarrassed to say that I was 19. most people stop believing in fairy tales much younger.

[xSilverPhinx]

@JordanKimball

Many go on into old age still believing in it. Well done!

[nuitaridark]

@ridgetownpimp LMAO

[BachScholar]

@ridgetownpimp Atheists and humanists do the same thing on creationist videos. Grayling never discusses Darwin or Darwinism in all 36 minutes. But equating Darwinism with science is one of the biggest mistakes atheists and humanists make because Darwinian evolution is unscientific (or pseudo-scientific) and Darwin wasn't even a scientist by our standards today. He wasn't smart enough to study medicine and had only a bachelors degree not in science, but theology. (See my other comment)

[ridgetownpimp]

@BachScholar 1. Darwin, Humanism and Science is the name of the conference A C Grayling is speaking at. 2. Evolution is not pseudo science 3. Its not that Darwin wasn't smart enough for medical school, he never had the stomach for it. 4. If you really wont to argue evolution with me, you first need to clearly define your position. Young earth or old earth? Are you OK with "micro" evolution? Please explain your position in as much detail as possible

[rarehman]

@BachScholar I am a physician scientist and according to my knowledge there is no better theory than evolution to explain the biological processes. We see drug resistant bacteria selected out by antibiotics. Humans do a lot of 'artificial selection' to provide better crops and animals for consumption. Defying evolution is representative of the degradation of the education system. We did experienced pure religion in the medievals. Your views are not going forward but simply going backwards.

[ThePurpleSpeck]

Lots I could say that. But simply,

'Why?'

[versanil]

Strange they didn't put that in the bible

[richandthepoor]

@ananiasacts

Interesting and funny point. However, to my understanding evolution works at the level of the gene and the individual that passes it. Not at the level of society.

[ananiasacts]

Isn't it at least possible that religion is a perfectly natural biological mechanism? There is some evidence that it correlates inversely with intelligence. Perhaps societies that are infected with it do better than others simply because they enjoy a significant artificial boost in applied intelligence. The more efficiently a mythology compels the weak minded to waste their time exploring a fantasy, the more it leaves genuinely important issues to the more thoughtful and wise.

[stinny777]

It actually seems that countries that placed highly on the U.N.'s quality of life ranking were typically more atheist. Although I think your idea of taking a step away from atheism as a social prescription is a good idea. It seems more probable that atheism arises from the success of the government to provide for it's citizens. If people no longer have to constantly worry about death or desperation and actually achieve a high level of education they feel less of a need for God.

[ananiasacts]

@stinny777, Atheism seems to be a consequence of intellectual integrity. Once a person decides to use their capacity for reasoning to examine their beliefs religion starts to look not just meaningless, but unjust, inane, and very counterproductive. I agree that the highest standards of living are achieved by the more secular societies. I agree its due to higher levels of education that are simply not available to religious people because they reveal religion to be so willfully dysfunctional.

[bkishar]

While emotionally I share your pessimism, we cannot give up and let them have it their way. I think it is the duty of every enlightened individual to try and counteract their infectious agendas. We are fortunate to live in an age where mass media is available to all and we can spread the light of reason and humanism far more effectively. Truth and reason are on our side.

[fivefathoms04]

Thank you for this comment.  I needed to see this today.

[hungsolow123]

@isamelbou It is heart warming to hear you broke free from your religion.

[iamFegor]

21:22 wow I love that word

I have read his books. he writes like he talks here, his books are very easy to read because they have the rhythm of a conversation like he dictated his books, even the parentheses, you can hear it in this talk lol

[iLuvCiconne16085868]

I agree - each word, each sentence, each paragraph - so thoughtful, succinct and yet rhythmic with a certain comfort in pace! Most importantly, the significance of the ideas are simply astounding!

[DoctorPlausible]

It is because of videos like this that I don't watch tv anymore.

[RawhardDickins]

@DoctorPlausible Hear Hear!!!

[beradification]

@DoctorPlausible great point, especially in america material like this couldn't make it on tv, because it requires consideration instead of being just idle noise.

[Kan2209]

@DoctorPlausible Meh, there really is no use for a tv anymore.

[OriMeissa]

It took a little bit of warming up at the start, but what an insightful and enlightening presentation. My cynicism has suffered a good dent today :)

[UppruniTegundanna]

This has the single most important quality for any talk on any matter, in my opinion, and that is this: during this talk, I was presented to with many perspectives on science and religion that I had never considered in that precise way before, that I know I will be thinking many of his points over again for a long time to come.

Rather often, talks on science and religion are certainly entertaining, but don't give you anything new to chew on. This was a very interesting presentation.

[qaplatlhinganmaH]

great podcast on Humanism google:

Speaking of faith Exploring a New Humanism

[starlighteds1]

Great lecture and a brilliant man. I believe in god, a creator and the oneness.

[richardcadbury]

"the oneness"

can you share any evidence of this oneness?

(a serious question, asked in all earnestness)

[starlighteds1]

You know I knew nothing of the oneness. I had a dream of my dad who I lost a couple of years ago. We could always talk and in my dream asked him what its all about, he said "We are all one, the WHOLE universe is one and we all function as one, the oneness" I woke and thought what the heck?? So looked in to it. There you go my evidence a dream but it was pretty powerful of finding out for me : ) xx

[normskis69]

The metaphorical 'oneness' you speak of my be related to the fact that we are made up, along with the rest of the matter/energy in the universe, from the very same matter/energy that came into existence a fraction of a second after the big bang/expansion.

In 'that' way, we do indeed share a oneness. Your individual spirituality aside.

[Pa1impsest]

So good to drink the water from a clean well.

[NYatheist]

One of the best things I have ever heard in my life. Beautiful.

[VeroniqueCG]

I have always liked listening to this man. His books are well worth reading as well. He is a very clear and confident speaker who imparts an excellent sense of the juxtaposition between two mindsets; one from science, the other from the arts.

I am attempting to reconcile these two aspects of my own thought processes as I consciously study science and the scientific method while having been trained in the arts. I am bridging this gap quite well, thanks to all these marvellous public figures.

[seanThree16]

That has got to be one of the...well, the most well played comments I've ever read on Youtube. It's a good break from "lol" and "Did he died" that I usually read, even on videos like this.

[VeroniqueCG]

I am afraid I don't understand you. Am I being particularly dense or something? I meant that without people like Grayling, Dennett, Atkins, Coyne, Weinberg et al, I would be missing out on what is available to all of us.

Dawkins started me off on evolutionary biology and the world has widened immeasurably for me is the past 25 to 30 years. I have learnt an awful lot for which I am grateful.

Are you laughing at me or something? Let me know and I'll smile for you.

[seanThree16]

Yes, you misunderstood me. No, I was not laughing at you. I was complementing you by saying your comment was "well played" meaning I liked what you had to say and how you said it. Alright, hope that clears things up. Have a good one.

[chessdawgz]

Great lecture!