The Value Of Science: Richard Dawkins And Sir David Attenborough

[freiheitsalv]

83 dislikes 0_0?

[webbess1]

Ripoff. I wanted to see Dawkins and Attenborough actually having a discussion. That would have been amazing.

[zensparkle2481]

@webbess1 If you go to Richard Dawkins' webpage and have a look over there, you should be able to find the audio of him and David Attenborough having a discussion.

[DeLunny]

I love David Attenborough.

I love him.

Not sexually.

[andymayor11]

A British science school teacher argued that there are no conclusive evidence to proof evolution and therefore it should be regarded as a theory equally ranked in school with creationism. I agree on the point he made about lacking proof, except evolution is backed by empirical evidence whilst creationism is not! A science teacher that doesn't know the scientific method, shouldn't be teaching science! Proper science can't proof anything, but it provides evidence! I rather believe in evidence.

[canaling15]

my 2 biggest heros

[s206031009]

From my experience, most medical doctors dont even know that antibiotics kill exclusively bacteria.

[dirtydonki]

It is so good to know that God had nothing to do with the design and creation of my penis. Only a complete moronic despot would have provided me with such a tiny & defective unit.

[intermender]

Actually i learnt about watson and crick before i knew who cezanne was (i went to a comprehensive school lol).

[ShallowBeThyGames]

David Attenborough's comment of people SHOULD know how things work or have a reasonable understanding of them, is spot-on.

[TrutherD1]

Don't waste your time with disinfo-idiots like beachcomber2008. You can prove chemtrails with contrail-science currently in use by NASA and the USAF: watch?v=zsXfqHp7G-g

[beachcomber2008]

An interesting read, and a refreshing break from fighting chemtrail morons

We all have difficulty realizing that the natural universe has no reasons for existing and no purpose in continuing - but will exist and continue

We, on the other hand, DO

It's Religion's comandeering of our individually-unique reasons and purposes I so detest

(And curse-words and figures of speech)

May it rot in Hell - or blow away to oblivion

[goliathlup1]

Scary as hell!

[pgl0897]

fuck me, dawkins making it through 4 whole minutes without pointlessly trying to slam religion and faith. I never thought I'd see the day. And how much more swallowable the man is for not having done so.

3:00 - 3:30 is the most honest I've ever heard him be about "science".

[Idontknowwhat2type]

The reason he "slams" it because he is one of the most well know Atheist he is "slamed" by christians and theist alike so he has to say things back or else they will carry on thinking they are right or have won the "battle" even though they can lose and still do.

[pgl0897]

Not sure I can agree with this really. Dawkins has, by his own admission, a particular agenda with regard to religion and faith. He's been writing books about the subject for several years now, and until he started doing so most of the 'theist' world had no idea who RD was.

With regard to your second point - "he has to say things back or else they will carry on thinking they are right". This is exactly the sort of attitude, conveyed by RD, that I was referring to with my first post. Bit sad.

[Idontknowwhat2type]

well as i said he is the worlds most well know atheist and obviously he will get some crap but i can tell he is not the kind who goes out picking fights for no reason if he does its because he believes this stuff which inspires him to love sharing it (as he said) not hating the opposers. but i see your point

[araless]

He does have his own agenda. Religion is constantly pushing ITS agenda on people, using legislation and brainwashing. In regards to faith, it is an entirely unadmirable trait and leads only to illogical and irrational trains of thought. Theism pushes hard every day using very forceful tactics. He's pushing back in a way that doesn't involve forcing others into his way of thinking. I fail to see your distrust in a man publishing books and giving lectures about the advantages science.

[pgl0897]

Well that's one view of faith. I struggle to understand the logic and rationality in taking that view, but it seems to be an increasingly popular one. I personally believe faith - in the majority of cases - gives people an inner peace and tends to make them more well-rounded human beings.

One thing I am aware of is that there seems to be a vast difference in how religion is 'used', both culturally and politically, between America and Europe. In Britain there's very little 'pushing' going on.

[araless]

Faith is the belief in something without any physical evidence observed or any questions asked. It is innately irrational. Inner peace should not be arrived at by this process. The reason we don't have inner peace is because of the stress of existence, which is cluttered with illogical processes that we are forced into, by governments founded and influenced by religion and religious minds.

[pgl0897]

Faith is not arrived at without any questions asked. Some people may claim this, but they are liars and usually nutters.

Your argument requires a discussion about what rationality is. I agree in principal with what you say, but human beings do not and cannot rely entirely on empirical methodology and critical reasoning in order to function. It's not how we're programmed and never will be. By definition there will therefore always be room for gut feeling and instinct, and thus a 'God gap'.

[araless]

I agree, we're not made that way, but answering scientific questions without using the scientific method is ridiculous. If you ask logical questions about any religious faith, and it all falls apart. You cannot question it and still retain your faith in religious doctrine.

[pgl0897]

But 'religion' or faith doesn't ask scientific questions, does it?? It asks us to question the immaterial and search within ourselves for a deeper truth, which we may not necessarily find in the universe around us, by empirical method or otherwise.

To be honest i'm struggling to understand how you have arrived at the idea that all religious faith falls apart under logical questioning. What are the questions you've put up against religion which have led you to that premise??

[araless]

The beginning of the universe. The beginning of life on this planet. Our morality. Healing. These are all scientific topics that need to be investigated properly. Going to an ancient text and having faith in its explanation, regardless of current knowledge, is unscientific and exactly why Dawkins gets aggravated. Give me one religious faith that is logically comprehensible. That is my challenge to you. All monotheistic faiths are contradictory, and polytheistic faiths are equally silly.

[pgl0897]

Well this is where you're going wrong then. Just as RD does, you are picking up a Bible, reading Genesis and interpreting the words as if they are intended to be taken with absolute literalism. This is the exact same process undertaken by the religious fundamentalists and nutcases that the atheist community criticise the most, and yet you stoop to their level without further thought?

The primary and overwhelming message of the world's ancient religions is one of tolerance, of love for others

[araless]

If you aren't willing to take the words of genesis literally, it's all metaphor and god is allegory for something else. No need to pray; no need to worship; no need to donate; no need to rally to save souls, because there is no heaven or hell. Many people take these things literally, and cause a lot of problems for everyone else with their fantasies. I'm not sure what religion you're referring to, as religions are not of tolerance and love for others. Religious people might be, but their . ..

[pgl0897]

... of treating the people we share the planet with as multiple parts of a single whole, for the greater good and for personal fulfilment/enlightment. And what's illogical or contradictory about that?

RD himself argues that altruistic behaviour is beneficial to a species in any number of ways, so it sounds like perfectly well-rounded logic to me.

[araless]

Altruistic behavior is beneficial, but religion doesn't foster altruism, and religion is not necessary for altruism. Altruistic behavior exists regardless. Why add in the unnecessary jargon that is the theory of god?

[pgl0897]

As for not 'forcing' others into his way of thinking, I can't agree. If all RD did was address the advantages of science then I would take no issue with him at all. But he constantly wants to attack religion where there is little need to imo, and this not only serves to meaninglessly agitate people who otherwise agree with him (like me), but also weakens his position as a man who prides himself on critical reasoning.

The man knows no more about 'religion' than creationists do about evolution.

[araless]

Have you ever listened to his arguments? They are not needlessly attacking religion. All he's saying is that religion is irrational and dangerous, which it is. It's founded on contradictory dogmas, It forces people to think completely backwards and illogical, and it has fought progress for far too long. Critical thinking will force you to rule out religious world-views as valid, unfortunately. There is not one religion that holds up to the rigors of logic.

[pgl0897]

It is needless imo, because he doesn't need to concern himself with such matters. Statements like "religion is irrational and dangerous" are exactly the type of one-sided nonsense that RD himself subscribes to. Religion can lead people into dangerous thinking and behaviour, yes, but for the vast majority this is not the case and the opposite is usually true.

Until 'science' can explain everything, which by definition it never can, then there will always be a gao filled by some kind of faith.

[araless]

You can fill a gap with some faith, but to do so is willful ignorance, and it isn't healthy. The vast majority of people are uneducated, and if they were, they would not need to rely on the crutch of religion. Not saying all religious people are morons. The more intelligent ones hold onto faith simply because it's a tradition, and acts as the foundation of their world-view; indoctrinated in their formative years.

[pgl0897]

And because they find some value in that faith presumably? Why assume it's unhealthy? There's a saying - "ignorance is bliss". Why not allow people to get on with their own ignorant existence, if it's not doing you any harm? Why pick a fight where it's not necessary to do so?

If you feel religion is harming you or your community in some way, then I'd consider moving to Europe :o) The social 'clash' between religious and secular institutions doesn't occur here in the way it does in the US.

[araless]

. . . and repression. It's a self-perpetuating loop, ever evolving. There is no value in faith. Faith is unnecessary. If something made sense, you would see it for truth, or at least you would acknowledge the evidence. If not, it needs faith. Ignorance is a fake bliss, and it needs to be protected (by the ignorant) at all costs. It is doing us great harm, because religious zealots are being given power to legislate, and decide what's right and wrong for everyone else.

[pgl0897]

Ramblings like this just remind me of some Borg drone.

"Human. We used to be exactly like them. Flawed, weak, organic. You are an imperfect being, created by an imperfect world. Freedom is irrelevant. Self-determination is irrelevant. Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated."

Step outside the box man.

[araless]

I'm rallying against ignorance. You really see it as borg-like rambling? You can't take any meaning away from it? It sounds like you are the one that is unwilling to see another side without your personal bias. There is enough beauty and magnificence in our real world, without having to manufacture it in our minds. Humans ARE flawed, weak, and imperfect. The bible reminds you of that consistently. However, Instead of praying to mythological characters, we can discover the truth about our world.

[pgl0897]

But according to popular atheist doctrine - science - there is no 'truth' to discover, only facts. Facts about the properties already inherent to the universe, which are just because they are. That's what puts me off atheism. Any value it has as a worldview is purely material.

I try and see things from this point of view all the time, and I struggle with it because I always hit that brick wall. Contrarily, I have never spoken to an atheist who was prepared to enter a temple/church/synagogue.

[araless]

First off, science is not an atheist doctrine, you can be a religious scientist, and second, it is not a doctrine at all. A theory can be gone POOF if there is evidence to suggest a more accurate alternative. Secondly, if it's fact, then it is truth. Of course it's purely material; we live in a material universe. It's up to you to make inferences and put feeling to it. You could just be matter of fact and cold about it, or think it's awe-inspiring and gorgeous. I've entered churches many times.

[pgl0897]

"science is not an atheist doctrine" - agreed. Which brings me all the way back to my original point, which was why do so many people (usually scientists, namely RD), have such trouble seperating the two?

...and upon entering these churches you've only ever met weak & ignorant people who need a 'crutch' and are being brainwashed into illogical & irrational trains of thought, and you've found no value at all in the teaching of faith there?

Some pretty fuct up churches you've been in imo.

[araless]

Richard Dawkins has never had a problem seperating the two. He has not made atheism synonymous with science, it's just that people who are knowledgeable about science tend to not believe in a personal god. Likewise, atheists tend to rely on the scientific method rather than their subjective experience. And neither atheism or science are doctrines. Typically, (not all) christians I've met are lacking an understanding of the theories they rally against, and are christians because . . .

[araless]

. . . their parents were, or it was socially advantageous. Also, a common attitude I've noticed is a shame for past behavior, and a need to feel repentance. So yes, I've met lots of weak and ignorant people who need a crutch and are brainwashed. I've found no value in the teachings of faith. The place faith fills in your mind could easily be replaced with more truthful concepts.

[maslab]

@pgl0897

Atheism has no doctrine, thus negating your argument.

Truth is fact. How can you say that the Bible is more truthful than facts?

[pgl0897]

imo Atheism has a very simple doctrine. That there is no "God", and that therefore one can/should live one's life accordingly. For many people, this doctrine - or belief/wordlview, whatever you want to call it - leads them to a search for other kinds of truth.

I have never said that the Bible is "more truthful than facts", merely that religion/spirituality can offer us something different (and in my opinion more valuable) than the material "facts" that 'science' tries to give us.

[maslab]

Then you REALLY, and I mean truly, need to get to know an atheist.

My point is that there is no atheist doctrine because there is no organized atheist church/organization/cult. While atheists do often go to groups, it's generally not to teach ways in which to spend your life.

So tell me, what can religion offer that science can't?

[pgl0897]

Yeah, and I totally understand the point you're making. And I also completely appreciate why Atheists would want to disassociate their worldview from any kind traits which might incline people to lump Atheism in with organised religions. My point is simply that everybody has a worldview; even if that worldview is "i don't know" or "i don't care".

[maslab]

Fair enough. Actually, part of mine is that the more individuality a country gives its people, the less they use it :P

[pgl0897]

Re: your question -

I feel that material knowledge, "science", helps us to explain the what's, where's, when's and how's, but falls down a little bit with the 'why?' questions.

It seems to me that everybody is searching for meaning in their lives, one way or another, and I don't feel science helps me in that respect. No matter how much we know, you will still be able to ask the question "but, why?". There will always be a God gap in other words. And science, by definition, can't fill it.

[maslab]

Science can't help you fill it, but logic can. You are right, science can't give us a reason for existence.

But think of it this way: Religion assumes we have a reason for existing. Do we NEED one, and do we have one is the more important question.

I personally think we have no purpose for existing, and that life is enough for me.

[pgl0897]

That's an interesting way of looking at it actually. Maybe some people just need a 'raison d'etre' more than others. I know I certainly do. Whether that makes me weak of mind or flimsy in my reasoning, I have no idea? But it definitely works for me, and I find an awful lot of practical value from it in my day-to-day life, even if it's not for everyone.

[maslab]

I like not having a purpose. It means I'm not expected to do something.

[DemokritosAbdera]

Why do you tell your kids the truth about the world?

Maybe because they need to grow up, and living in the childist mind is confortable, but you know there is an intrinsic danger in it as an adult.

Humanity need to grow up, and figure it out that there is no santa to give us gift.

[pgl0897]

Oh woe is me. Oh cold, bleak world.

If there's one thing that puts me off being an out and out atheist, it's that it just presents existence as depressingly vacuous and void of any warmth or hope.

Jeez.

[DemokritosAbdera]

Yep, if that is what keep you happy, keep believing in god, i guess nothing should or could be done for you.

[pgl0897]

I'm not sure I'm the one who needs saving bro.

(or what it would be that needs to be done for me, for that matter)

Peace.

[DemokritosAbdera]

Well with that mini-mesianic complex of preching i think you are certain to be a case closed.

[araless]

Atheism. A=lack of. Theism=belief in a personal god. If you have any doubt that there is a personal god listening to your thoughts and answering your prayers, you're an atheist. It only presents the existence you imagine. If life completely changes for you without a positive believe in god, then that's on you. There is no atheist doctrine that dictates that life is cold hopeless. It can feel that way sometimes, but that's life.

[pgl0897]

I also think you're falling into the same trap that RD does, in starting from a position formed out of your own worldview which leads you to assume that all people of faith are somehow using religion purely as a crutch to support their own ignorance or weakness. It's a very blinkered and patronising view and, in my experience, also very wrong.

Is it really so hard to imagine that there's something, beyond your own current personal experiences, that others draw great benefit and value from?

[araless]

. . . religions are about exclusion, judgement, and righteousness. I'm not sure what you mean, "position formed out of your own worldview". What does that mean? I only have my own worldview, and from my worldview, I see it as a crutch. Not necessarily to support their own ignorance, but a cop-out to not have to deal with reality. The only reason they need a crutch is because of the reality that religious minds have shaped, which are based on imaginary and illogical systems, brainwashing . . .

[pgl0897]

"I only have my own worldview" - that's exactly what I mean. Your thought process has gone: religion is only bad, therefore anyone with any religious inklings is an idiot/ignorant/weak etc. At no stage is any critical reasoning being applied, which is exactly what you're criticising the same religious people for doing themselves.

What is so challenging about stepping outside the comfort zone to imagine something beyond your own experience or understanding?

[sexistpig]

"religion is only bad, therefore anyone with any religious inklings is an idiot/ignorant/weak etc"

Yes, that is correct. Do not make the mistake of mistaking SPIRITUAL inklings for religion. The latter is an organised institution of mental retardation and at it's core is divisive, arrogant, asinine and dangerous. It IS only bad and for the weak of mind.

[sexistpig]

"What is so challenging about stepping outside the comfort zone to imagine something beyond your own experience or understanding?"

Imagining is one thing, testable reality is another. There may indeed be a God or Gods or invisible fish with penises which sing karaoke in ancient Martian dialects that cause French people to implode and leave nothing behind but the faint scent of daisies, but unless these can be PROVEN then they are a personal matter and should not be organised into a religion.

[sexistpig]

So, the minute you try to organise belief then it becomes pernicious and that is what religion offers the world. It tries to foist upon people a set of rules to live by, but the rules differ from religion to religion, from denomination to denomination and so division between people is born. The Protestant believes this and the Catholic believes that. The Muslim believes in something else and the Hindu in none of the above. It is nothing more than ego on display: 'My God's better than your God'.

[CaIgaryFIames]

how can one even put Attenborough and Dawkins in the same sentence? Attenborough is a legend. Dawkins has contributed nothing.

[IAmKingBonzo]

ever heard of memes?

[Eeeark]

ever heard of the selfish gene?

[PaXx]

Both are awesome

[maestroanth]

Lol, I actually had a nurse prescribe me a antibiotic for a bad cold.

It's not necassarily knowledge, but just common sense. You shouldn't have to read a book to dictate things where common sense can whether sacred or secular.

[Friday9951]

Who was Cezanne?

In Australia they wouldnt know either - now if he had mentioned a cricketer or other sporting hero...

[MilesB1975]

Well, I know who Cezanne is, along with all of mt other Australian friends.

People are dumb all over MATE!

[WritingBull]

Cezanne is a painter

[williac787]

Did you actually listen to what he said? 'Not that we should value Cezanne less, but we should seek to value science more'. It's simply an analogy, in no way is he downplaying Cezannes importance.

[comanchio1976]

@williac787 I cant believe you had to explain that to someone. That by itself supports the point Dawkins was making.

[hennybuggy4]

I don't know anyone who I haven't taken an art history class with who knows who Cezanne is.

[shanefairhead]

I must admit I know who Watson and Crick are, and what they did. But not cezanne.

[conman2317]

I hope people begin to turn on their brains and stop hindering science with religion.

[lucas198]

who are watson and crick?

[ScapegoatYoni]

They discovered that DNA is a double helix

[lucas198]

i think i was being a little facecious..

[Redshift21]

They discovered the structure of DNA

[wheelchairassassin]

This man will eat your religion and poo out reality.

[DiscoveryInstituteID]

Dawkins is the anti-christ

[otissimo9]

The sad thing is I actually think you believe that. An actual scientist in pursuit of knowledge and understanding of the natural world is the 'anti christ'!?! wtf? I also find it odd that you did not capitalize the name of your so-called 'savior'. SAD :(

[otissimo9]

Nevermind. I call Poe's Law.

[DiscoveryInstituteID]

You know Poe too? ;)

[Athrek]

oh really? let me guess...just because he doesn't believe you and agree with you right? 'cos then he's also the anti-Allah and the anti-Shiva and the anti-Zeus and the anti-Ahura Mazda and the anti-Great JU-JU up in the mountain... or you mean it literally? please tell me it's not literal...I don't wanna die of massive awesome LMAO attack... XDDDDD

[DiscoveryInstituteID]

Allah? Shiva? Zeus? I cannot understand your atheist pagan gods... ;P

[Athrek]

atheist pagan gods? I don't know where to begin with you, lame lame lame... get lost and learn something and then come back...

[Kazzathekat]

DiscoveryInstituteID,

I don't know if your American, but I suspect that Athrek was being mildly ironic in order to make the point that he doesn't believe in ANY gods, including those outdates gods you probably don't believe in either.

I think there should be some kind of block on comments from those with the mental age of 5.

[jjmm112]

FFree.5*.

[lostagainrob]

To of the greatest men alive.

[raramstad]

two*

[thecommonsenseguy]

3:30 - 3.52

i hear that

[GermanAirborne272]

Isn´t that convincing, folks?! I mean that is what I call "Dawkins-style"! Calm, rational, etc. I love his videos and speeches!

[wiskawind]

I have learned so much, in such a short time, just listening to Richard Dawkins. His voice is so steady and calm, and I have never seen any anger show in him; he really is a good human being and gives me great hope for the planet. (smile)

[MadisonFro]

Also look at some older but equally enlightening Carl Sagan videos.

[wiskawind]

Oh thank you! I just watched The Blue Dot; it's wonderful! (smile)

[aquamammal]

Science is not a democracy~

And it fuckin' owns!!!

XVX for life, R.A.S.H. 'til death.

[theinquisitor]

I guess I'm an anomaly since I knew who Watson and Crick were, but no idea who Cezanne was.

Isn't it amazing that here we have a scientist saying scientists shouldn't be the ones to make these decisions? Would we ever hear the same humility and restraint from a politician or priest? And yet scientists are touted as the most arrogant of these categories. Very odd.

[JohnTraviss]

That's deep man, that's deep.

[Promatheos]

Is it bad that I know who Watson and Crick are but don't know who Saizan is?

[TripeHoundRedux]

A little, like Dawkins said, it's not that Cezanne should be less know but that science should be more known. One really should aim for a well rounded knowledge of both Science and the Arts really :)

[TripeHoundRedux]

It's David Attenborough; Richard's Brother :)

[FFreeThinker]

Indeed! Thanks! :)