Science is great as long as it is used as a tool to cure diseases, to ease daily tasks, to create platforms of information exchange - no sociologist or postmodern critic can do it. But when science is trying to mess with ontology and turning its positivistic method in to the worldview, then there can be ethical problems. So basically we are talking about two different domains - one is for scientists (material phenomena) and other for philosophers, sociologists, historians etc (culture).
But it does not mean that i am against this idea that common solid ground for reasoning must be the idea of pursuing well-being BUT in order to do this it is not enough with ONLY scientific knowledge. I do not think that human beings can attain certain spiritual and material well being ONLY with scientific knowledge - that is my point and not that there must not be a certain universal idea (peace, happiness etc) that we should pursue with any means - also those that science is offering.
I agree that science "works", but what i am saying is that with this mode of cognitive activity it is not enough to be a human. Human culture as we know it consists of variety of knowledge forms and it is stupid to say that one is better than another because they are inseparable. How do scientists know why they are creating all these things? Where they are getting the idea that it is worth to live? You think life is worth living because you can endlessly produce cars and planes?
That's again ridicule at work... first realize that plurality doesn't entail the absence of answer, nor the relativity of their validity -- that would be a good start.
Secondly, I would otherwise argue that upon a common quest from which flowed attempts, ethical concerns can be observed objectively. All ethical claims are reducible to one thing and one thing only: the pursuit of human well-being. There's not a single exception to that.
I call cultural answers an attempt, you call it a success... but you do not offer any reference as to where you base this judgement from; on the other hand, I do have a standard by means of which we can evaluate them -- if they meet or fail to meet, and if so, to which degree, the condition they all first sought to pursue which is well-being.
Our existence is bounded by substantial constraints and, as I conceive, there are many more ways to fail than to succeed in this quest.
Relativism builds a skyscraper and leave it to rest on sand... you need a basis to begin with, a common trait, a predisposition: something that drives the model. But relativism doesn't have that because it's a poor version of nihilism revised to excuse nonsense and take it away from criticism.
@KrugmanTheKing Ok, but there is nothing scientific in that very idea that "humans have to pursuit their well-being" that supports your further argument that science is a good tool (and it definitely is) in order to pursue this happiness. There is certain unscientific leap concerning the basic principle that will back up all the human endeavours in this world. You can not deduce the statement "well being is good" from any external, non human made reference point.
@KrugmanTheKing What i am against is the religious-like dogmatic attitude from science when it claims that their knowledge is the one and only true knowledge - that is utter bullshit and in saying that scientist is no better than any of those Christians that are saying that revelation is the only true knowledge. Science is fighting with religion only to put its righteous ass in its place and establish their regime of truth which is different content vise but structurally similar.
@KrugmanTheKing Tales with flying carpets and religions are having specific functions and it is stupid to say that these things are false because they do not comply with scientific criteria of truth. I am not religious but i have enough brain to acknowledge that religion IS A FACT and as such has some function and it is irrelevant whether it comply with science or not - it is affecting people anyway as a cultural fact and Dawkins obviously is not enough educated to learn this simple thing.
That religion is a fact is one thing, but to call what they teach "knowledge" is stupidity... it's like saying that 2+2=5 is knowledge. You don't know, if you contradict yourself it's not knowledge.
Secondly, you are empty headed if you just begin to compare science with religion: religion is a comforting offer of certainty granted by an illogical assumption and logically fallacious arguments with as only basis the appeal to authority.
Religion is a thoughtless arbitrary answer... Science isn't an answer: it's a method. When we're wrong, we stop making dumb claims about human nature or the physical world. How can you not see that there can be absolutely no exception to rational inquiry, that at the very second you make the exception, you introduce a double standard, you stop doubting and you become an intellectual slave? Faith is to surrender your judgement: that's not knowledge.
Finally, those dumb beliefs all make claims about factual, empirical, reality. When you tell people to resort to prayer when they have issues or, going into other beliefs, get them to suppose that astrological signs have an impact in their lives... what are you essentially doing? You're essentially telling them that there is a causal relation between two things and that if they use this one means, they will meet their end. But we know after inquiry that the relation is flawed...
They're basically wasting energy, hope, efforts and thoughts into reasoning a problem in a utterly inefficient way that won't grant any result -- and if and when it does, it won't be for that means they used at all... but they could so easily solve these if they'd understand psychology a tad, or sociology, or history, or political science, etc.
Religions and the likes are systems based on determined answers: they don't allow revision, nor doubt.
@KrugmanTheKing I absolutely agree that people should look for an answers in those fields you named. But religion in a way is a symbolic generalization of the most common human themes - "do not kill", "love thy neighbor", "frogive etc." - it is a simplified manual how to be a human - an important one for sustaining social coherence as there is a lot of simple minded people who can not grasp rational moral philosophies and similar abstract things so this is a good way how to socialize them.
@KrugmanTheKing On more thing - so you are saying that sociology, history, political sciences are legitimate sources of knowledge, right? But it is clear that they are not scientific in the sense like physics, or chemistry is. These disciplines are having different approaches (interpretative, semiological, historical) to their subjects than that of scientific method - so it seems that you admit that scientific knowledge is not the only form - is that so?
The point is that you could in term use something else to play the same role and it would at least have the virtue of not being presumptuous and fallacious.
I don't think at all that you had mis-typed. All i am saying is there is no knowledge which does not fit. The scientific model is the best model there is for use among homosapien human beings. Please enlighten me with such logic as to disagree?
@Merc240x If you are saying that scientific knowledge is "the best" then you have to justify this knowledge hierarchy which is behind your statement. And i do not see how mere fact that science is giving us planes and cars is making this kind of knowledge better than others. Planes and cars are just peaces of metal and they can not make sense without the framework of meaning (culture) where these things are embedded. And culture consists of different kind of knowledge, not just scientific.
Knowledge in a human sense is a synthesis between empirical experience and logic -- between intuition and reason, Kant would say. It really falls down to a sensory input and a research of coherence, of absence of contradiction and, wherever the basis is laid, we might use former judgments as the basis of later ones.
This is why culture all have a common ground and why being wrong is possible.
And the most ridiculous part is that your own answer cannot in anyway be asserted without by itself be refuted as it ought, as with anything else, be verified by its own measure which that asserted by anyone up to its liking... except that the rule no longer stands if someone disagrees with the statement that constitutes the rule: tell me how does a relatively relative truth is called? Relativism is fundamentally fallacious. It can be only be solved if everything is nothing.
But of the two frameworks -- nihilism and science -- only one seems to have any use at all; only one lends itself to discussion by appeal to a standard that isn't arbitrary; only one has provided predictable answers... to quote Hawkins, between science and religion, "science will win because it works."
If you doubt it, address my premises and find one example of knowledge that doesn't derive or tend to derive from that... if you read Kant and Hume, you know that you won't.
@KrugmanTheKing Every scientist is having some kind of set of values that can not be reduced to scientific method and this value-framework is organizing the work he is doing. Scientists are not isolated - they consume art, they communicate, fall in love and these forms are not scientific yet they are necessary for them to understand why they are creating all those planes and cars. Otherwise world would be just a pile of metal scrap with confused humans blinking their eyes in the middle of it.
Where is the logic in reasoning that if knowledge can produce things (planes, cars, computers) than it is somehow more true, than knowledge that gives us a framework of meaning witch makes sense out of those planes, cars and computers? This is as stupid as to say that for computers hardware is more important than software. I generally like Dawkin`s critical attitude towards religion, but sometimes he is naive in i making distinction between scientific and non-scientific knowledge..
@Merc240x You do not like the the term "Non-scientific"? Care to explain where you see the problem? English is not my native language, so it is possible that mistyped. However, grammar is not the issue here and if you disagree with me i would like to hear your opinion about the idea not some pathetic inspection of grammar.
Such thing as being so open-minded your brain falls out? Wow, whatever respect I had for Dawkins just flew out on the window. Name me one persons whose brain fell out as a result of open-mindedness. Though postmodernism--the idea that the Enlightenment was a farce and that all religions lead to the same destination--could hardly be better described as "a pretentious cop-out."
I always love coming back here to view the comments: people who seem to know little about either the philosophy of science or literary criticism making weighty comparisons and conclusions about both. Quite entertaining.
Dawkins is right, he told everything like it is and truth.
Religion is no valid not even 0.1 % to say anything about science questions, only science can provide truth and real true explanation, religion can only provide hallucinations and after more hallucinations.
I do not believe that relativism should be used for the natural sciences. It's social institutions that we're meant to attack not actual science. Regular people are not really qualified for academic discussion anyway.
Evolution is not really the issue in the sciences. But, if I work in a different field it may not be worth it to support evolution. Denying evolution could, for example, pay my bills. If there is one thing that is certain, money is what we need to survive in today's world.
gravity? yes, as a simple concept of acceleration, of course! but the question is what produces gravity and that is a much deeper question! It is indeed the basis for relativity theory. As of the effects of gravity, they are negligible on a large scale universe, and the truth is that dark energy/matter is the driving force on a large scale! what is dark energy? No idea! That is also science, to accept our ignorance and be curious! To be humble!
For the basic case of a question that immediately validates one post modern equality of truths just ask about the existence of a human soul. That is not the same as what happens to it either which is still highly unknown. Just because you may be certain the eternity of hell or eating angel food cake in heaven is fiction says nothing about if it exists or does not exist. The same goes for that of a dog, an eagle or a honeybee. Does Dawkins have a soul? All he can do is deny outcomes.
Dawkins is laughably wrong on history vis-a-vis church of England and intelligent design vs. evoution. Those foundations go much farther back to the Deist enlightenment and that is pre Darwin, pre French Revolution. Who do you think came up with it? Church of England? Total hogwash.
Oh, really? So, what scientific evidence does Mr. Dawkins have that one's subjective conscious experience proves the external world? What evidence does he have that logic equips us to know existential truth?
@OgadaNosaFasu The fact that the world OBJECTS to our personal whims. The world corresponds to certain natural rules and the only way we can manipulate it is by following those physical laws.That makes what we percieve objective and therefore external. The world OBJECTS to our will. It is not SUBJECT to our will. If reality was subjective then we wouldn't need to follow its rules in order to manipulate it. We would just will it to change.
@DaveElectric Dawkins misses the point. No solipsist or metaphyiscal phenomenologist claims that one controls everything in their subjective experience. The unfounded assumption of modernism is that there is such a thing as an objective reality seperate of one's subjective perception at all. Saying that one's own experience of the "objective" is accurate based on their interpretations of phenomena--which inevitably fall within within their experience to begin with--begs the question.
@OgadaNosaFasu I don't understand. If solipsists or phenomenologists accepts that one cannot control everything through their subjective experience then they are tacitly admitting that an objective reality exists.That which isn't under one's authority is by definition OBJECTIVE.
@DaveElectric But all phenomena are still filtered through your subjective experience of them, no matter what measuring instrument you use. All phenomena are labeled and categorized by us - we have defined what matter, energy, time, and space are, and how to measure them.
@squamish4244 There cannot be an "apparent" world if there isn't a real one.
Okay, so we have defined what matter, energy, time, and space are? So what? All explanations for things are too some extent utilitarian explanations. I'm not sure where you get this idea all our attempts to classify parts of reality are arbitrary and therefore subjective.
@squamish4244 Not all clasifications/explanations hold equal utility so I'm not sure why make the leap that subjective understanding = arbitary understanding.
@DaveElectric Well, the participant/observer/role in the universe is a highly debated topic and I would be going out of my depth to further the discussion here. But of course many highly regarded physicists have had much to say on the subject. Roger Penrose is of particular interest to me.
@DaveElectric It's bizarre to apply it here though. As someone below pointed out, a 13th Century theologian would not have said people can float out of a 10th story window. Dawkins is a good scientist and a bad philosopher.
What a ridiculous quote: "it [gravity] IS the truth." So, what about explanations of gravity before modern science's try at it? A 13th century theologian would NOT have said that people could float out of a 10th story window. Would someone please inform Dawkins that he should study up on the philosophy of science before making ridiculous comments! Dawkins expresses an outdated view of scientific understanding and progress. Read Karl Popper on delimitation. Dawkins is into marketing not science!
Empirically verifiable concepts, i.e. gravity, and evolution cannot be compared to abstract ideas like ethics and metaphysics. We can't know for sure what we are, if we are, or what any of it means. We can only "know" what we're able to perceive and since our perception of anything is subjective and biased perhaps there is more to the ideas presented in post modernism than what our good friend Dawkins gives them credit for.
Yeah relativism is lame. I mean, come on...it's just so...insipid? Inert? Obvious? Banal? And the worst part is that it's becoming ever more popular. "Well that's what's right for you, but not for me". Postmodernism is something a little more substantial. Later wittgenstein is a good philosopher for postmodernism, imo
What I don't get about Dawkins is why he is so willing to prance into Philosophical debate when he is obviously a Philosophical amateur, what's wrong with just sticking to his own field of Biology?
I'm anxious to see if Richard Dawkins will debate William Lane Craig . Dawkins was accused of cowardice by a colleague professor/ atheist, because untill now Dawkins has been unwilling to debate Craig.
Date and time:
Tuesday 25th October 2011
7.30pm Lecture "Is God a Delusion?" A Critique of Dawkins' The God Delusion
[or a debate with Richard Dawkins if he should accept the invitation]
@hal970fx haha word games? is that the same thing as saying your too dumb to understand him? because these so called word games unpack philosophical truths that are considered to be established fact about logic, reason, and truth. Dawkins couldn't keep up to such conversation, which is why he is laughed at by fellow atheists as making embarrassing arguments against religion. He is not that smart frankly when it comes to philosophy and logic.
"Dead-to-the-spirit deluded "God Delusion" author & blithering fool scientist goon Richard Dawkins another "leader" given to the profane masses is another useful idiot for Jesuit machinations"-C.O.
Jesuitical: pertaining to the Jesuits or their principals; designing; cunning; deceitful; prevaricating
The Jesuits completely altered the education system to suit their evolution agenda to discredit the Bible. They cant have a Satanic society of 'Do as Thou Wilt' if people still follow the Bible.
it might be worth adding that postmodernism is not the same as relativism. relativism, which is an extremely old philosophical idea having it lineage within some of plato's dialogs, is certainly not a view-point adopted by the four main philosopher's who are associated with pomo: foucault, deleuze, derrida and lytoard. all of them believed that truth was out there somewhere. however, what makes them pomo is that they believe that traditional notions of ideas like freedom, etc, are complicated.
@dorianaustralia I don't agree at all. Gorgias and Protagorus influence Derrida quite directly at the least, and these were the Sophists that Plato is pointing out in the two dialogues. I agree that relativism and postmodernism are not the same thing (that's obvious), but to say that what Plato saw as relativism has nothing to do with post-structural theory is simply incorrect.
Yea, Dawkins is weird, because I'm pretty sure he must have some knowledge of Thomas Kuhn and how seriously his work has been taken over the past 50 years, how pragmatism was compelled to replace positivism, etc., etc. It's become plain political posturing that this point.
@featheon The worst thing about the neo-Darwinians is that appear to have no clue about WHY evolution is true. They encourage the creationists by having a hooh-ha-floaty-spacey-magicky attitude towards truth claims in science itself.
Evolution is true, but not for the reasons the neo-Darwinians think it is.
LOL! He's so embarrassing when he gets out of science. It's like Mother Theresa attacking reggae or DrSpock critiquing porn-flicks. Never got it, never will. The commanding tone with which he insists that [religion / ethics / politcs / moshing to death-metal rock on drugs...] is highly unscientific and he's having none of it. Its like Mr.logic in Viz magazine. It always makes me spit my coffee out laughing. "I refuse to believe in the truth of a historical Ugly Duckling. There Is. No. Evidence!"
I hate Richard Dawkins tone. I think he's really set the debate back, by being a patronizing, divisive twat. His oversimplification is face-punch-worthy. His description of Darwin's relationship with his wife would probably make Darwin do the face punching.
How can people be so insecure as to listen to this exploitative egomaniac? Study science. Don't let this patronizing twat make himself a name by oversimplifying and twisting Darwin, while dividing groups of people.
post modernism isn't relativism, it is perspectivism. this guy is a fool. always has been, always will be. i despise post modernism, but at least i know what the fuck i'm talking about. i wish dawkins would just dig up darwin's corpse and fuck it. btw, darwin was a staunch anglican. fuck you, dawkins...you are a cult leader by every definition.
Dawkins is right about evolution. But there are different types of relativism. it is easy to dismiss epistemic and moral relativism. But without cultural relativism disciplines such as sociology and anthropology couldn't exist.
"Science Works: Planes Fly!" Ha ha ha ha ha. The "Planes Fly" argument for the superiority of science has always made me giggle. Dawkins thinks planes can fly only because of science? Ha ha! To fly you need to buy a ticket. You need money, management and trade, you need finances, you need economics. To fly a plane you need the plane company to obey regulations, you need government, you need To fly a plane need to buy a ticket.
To fly a plane you need the plane company to obey regulations, you need government, you need law-makers, you need bureaucrats, so that planes don't bang into each other. You need airports, you need roads, you need taxes, you need cleaners, you need chefs, you need hostesses, you need security guards, you need industry, advertising, a paying public, unions, schools and universities. Planes don't just fly because of science--they fly because of the whole of society.
Planes fly because of tourism, trade, pilgramage, holidaymakers, long-distance love, students and travelers. All things that science knows little about. Planes fly because of commerce, because of romances, because of education, because of engineering, because of adventure, artistry, poetry and desire. Dawkins is such an arrogant ass thinking planes, or anything else in this world, works only because of science.
He's divorced from reality, operating in a tiny microcosm which pretends science is unique and superior, when, in fact, if all scientists were as blinkered as him, nothing would work--we'd be trapped doing little experiments with waterwheels forever. Dawkins only wants us to THINK science is better at understanding because he is a scientist, and he wants us to elevate HIM to the top of the social ladder. No chance!
@alannigelmarshall why is dawkins arrogant? he explains why scientific truths are different from non scientific truths, i dont see any arrogance in that.
he just advocates rationality, reason and critical thinking. He does not hold up to ideas that are not alterable. If something is wrong in a scientific theory like natural seletion, dawkins, would be the first one that would admit it and take the new ideas. A priest in other hands does not change his mind about the bible. Big difference
@SonytoBratsoni agreed. plus the fact that he's so bent on making the "truth" known that if his ideas are counterpointed, he refuses to believe them, regardless of validity. i dunno if counterpointed is a word, but i'll use it :)
@SonytoBratsoni from an "objective" point of view, the things dawkins said in the video, sound to me totally logical. I dont know where i could disagree with him or say "thats nonsense".
Maybe you focus too much on philosophical terminology
"Science is special, it's backed up by evidence , it works" undeniably true words.
However , it appears to me that he projects epistemic realism without having any concrete evidence for it.
A relativist , in terms of knowledge , would never say "well evolution is true in our culture but it doesn't apply to another" , rather he'd say "Our knowledge has more to do with how our mental apparatuses apprehend the world , it's a question of immediacy."
@SonytoBratsoni i think dawkins wanted to show that evaluated scientific facts, which evolution is one of them, shows that its not dependend on faith. Because this is a very common accusation, mainly from creationists, who say that evolution by natural selection is a believe system and scientists have faith in it. Dakwins point out that science is a self evaluating process. For example you have overlapping results! Its the best and only way, by far to get a working authentic version of reality
@alwaysright10000 It was a passing comment. The youtube comments section isn't exactly the ideal forum for rational analysis and debate. For a start though, it is a mistake to suggest that those who are a part of the postmodern/relativist tradition necessarily regard all "truths" as equally deserving of respect. Take the school of neo pragmatism for example (richard rorty etc).
Respond to this video...Secondly, it is wrong to bundle the "truth" claims of religious traditions with those of the positive sciences. Saying "gravity exists" is a truism and it is only relevant in terms of understanding our physical reality (phenomena). Religious claims (I do not subscribe to any myself) are relevant in an entirely different respect; they are (generally) claims about what lies beyond phenomena (the noumena). Two separate worlds of knowledge/belief.
Relativism and postmodernism are two different things. I thought maybe we could here that again :) They are though, so you're a stupid piece of shit, NonServiam2, for posting this bullshit.
I don't think Dawkins is even talking about postmodernism, haha. I believe, as w/ Dawkins' other main arguments, is not a critique of postmodernism, but one related to religion. I believe NoServiam2 is merely confusing this in order to try and relate it back to his/her own views of postmodernism, or lack thereof with understanding in regard to postmodern literature. If the uploader understood that Dawkins was also postmodern, they might re-think their posting.
@KevinVang1000 actually dawkins explained why "HE CHICKEN OUT ON WILL CRAIG"
believe me i am open minded towards craigs arguments but the problem with him is, that he argues for the existence of god...then suddenly he seem to know which god it is...the god of his parents. HMMM
So I guess Will Craig has a better confidence on his debate which will clown Dawkins like nothing. Horrible Dawkins, why won't to martyr your beliefs against Craig?
@KevinVang1000 i dont know any person who would engage in a debate with someone who believes in fairy tales (such as fairies, goblins, elves, trolls, dwarves, giants or gnomes, yahweh and usually magic or enchantments)
I think Dawkins is the one who believes in fairytales since He as himself cannot apply it to reality since he's a chicken. If he is so confident that Christianity is a bunch of fairytales, then he would have to refute all science datings of the bible, for example, the existent of governor Pilate. Most atheist believe that King David doesn't exist, but he was found in a coin named after King David. Therefore, if dawkins wants to go into this issue, he would have to deny every history books...
which they are talking about ancient times. If I was an atheist, I would've been a cult atheist who would create a religion so called, "Deludeism and Ignorantism." I would live my life as a meaningless, full of chemical and flesh, through random chance of mutation into the ideology of Frederich Nietzche. I would plan to live as a robot so that I cannot know what is thing. It's thinking's fault for brings that brings war and violence; therefore, I can live like a true martyr atheist.
@KevinVang1000 i can tell you one thing. You were born as an atheist too...dont forget that. i would assume you were brought up in a christian home. Are you telling me that without god your life is meaningless?
how on earth is life meaningless? You decide what meaning life has...either way you have to live your life the best way, cause there wont be one more life.
atheism brings war and violence? you dont want to brign up Mao, stalin and hitler again
But why should I live to be meaningful if there is no report cards about how I live to determine whether I did good or not. How come everything in life are subjective? O_o
@KevinVang1000 If you really are looking for meaning in life then my recommendation is to find a few really good friends and then hang out with them. What you are taking issue with is not the hard facts of human existence as delivered by science by your emotional reaction to these facts. Hence, the friends, community, leisure. This is a key benefit of religion: community. But you can have community without God...and it is there you will find meaning. Shared subjective experience enriches reality
I get your answer and it was very plain. I was asking the purpose of life since we humans don't have souls. We were meant to be here in a pointless of matter and when we die, that is the end of life. So, what's the purpose of being so moral and immoral in the perspective of the human nature since we came from nothing...right? If you think you have a purpose, where does that come from? What made you know that there is a purpose in life?
@KevinVang1000 By moral I assume you mean being nice to other people. That is self-evident to most people - it is so that they will be nice back which is pleasurable to most people. However, you are not really talking about this; you are asking about a grand purpose. My answer is that from a scientific perspective there really is none beyond the fact that you are alive and are biologically driven to remain alive. Emotionally, I understand, this is not very satisfying.
@sfeltmate and in that scenario your viewpoint works. but how about torturing babies? it does not kill the baby nor you, so by your standard it should be okay, yet there is something deep within us all that tells us that torturing babies is a bad idea. that is the moral law.
@sfeltmate this meaning still only provides that meaning up to death. yet God has shown us that we have worth, not only here, but after the grave as well. i'm assuming (i know, bad idea) that you don't believe in God. my question to you would be then, if you've seen the complexity of life and the universe, and even just the complexity of the human DNA, how can you not believe in intelligent design? time + matter + chance is such a far reach for a explanation of the complexity of life.
@Serpico261 unfortunately, every viewpoint can bring forth war if taken in a bad context. what i'd like to point out though is that in the case of atheism, since we came from nothing, then our worth is essentially the same, so killing for selfish reasons is justified, therefore making atheism a better conduit for warfare. not saying every atheist will make war, but it is a better possibility if there is no transcendant worth in a fellow human being or self.
@MrPs103 reading your comment, reminds me of richard dawkins first book "the selfish gene" published 1976, maybe you heard form it. There is a documentary from bbc from 1986 with dakwins, addressing exactly "this" notion that is reflect in your comment.
you have to watch it! Its very intreressting
simpy type in yt "nice guys finish first" and maybe tell me what you think of his view point
The propositions "the earth is moving/spinning." and "the earth is steady" seem to be contradictory. If one is true, than the second by necessity isn't, right?. Consider this funny example: A guard was ordered to shoot any prisonner who'd move. We find out he's killed everyone in the room because they were moving at fast speed around the Sun. The frame of reference has its importance according to truths. This doesn't indicate however that truth is whatever serves you. That guard is a sick maniac
i would argue to the contrary that it is now common to snub everything else then full fledge metaphysic realism... by arguing how self evident it supposedly is- Postmodernism and of coruse the big R word Relativism are mostly used as pejorative terms - philosophically speaking the term "...." is the plain truth is bullshit of course
"evolution is the plain truth" He is a sales man not a scientist! His thinking is Newtonian and a little out of date. There seems to be no true reality. so science says anyway. Truth is only relative to the observer. Sophisticated scientists don't deal in truths they deal in probability. This allows them to update there theories when new information comes along. dawkins dose not allow himself this flexibility.
you cant have one theory about the nature of reality. ..ps yes i am on LSD
@paddyrock666 On LSD, then try out the Newtonian "theory" of gravity and see if Dawkin's statement is wrong. Jump out of a ten story window and use thought to create your own reality.
@deaddooc.....sure gravity pulls humans down from 10 story buildings, id put the probability of that at around 99.9%.... most scientists would agree...Just because it has such a high probability of happening though, still dose not make it the TRUTH...There is no PLAIN TRUTH... only clergy men talk in truths... .. no one can say with conviction what it actually IS! this is my point.. .
@paddyrock666 postmodern ideas such as your own are boring.. it's very easy for us to say there is no plain truth. calling the probablity of not falling from a 10 story building @ 0.01% is a bit ridiculous. If we took that approach to life as in "we can never really know a plain truth.." we would just walk around clueless not certain about anything... a true post-modernist would technically need to be admitted to a psych ward because he would never truly realise reality.
@mgthemis...Post-modernism boring!!! how do you propose we extract an essence of boredom from my personal views?? Its perception... YOURS MAINLY... Dose this boredom exist in the physical world??? No!! it exist in your head along with the rest of your world... So how can you claim to possess the plain truth about life or my posts on YOUtube... You cant!! Life my friend is the same.... Its impossible to remove the observer from the observed.
The problem with Dawkins and his opponents is that both sides believe that can't coexist. Science is taught in schools because its useful for technology, if both sides could quickly get it through their heads that evolution is a useful model for medicine and other biotechnology, we'd all be able to save a hell of a lot of time.
richard dawkins has a vested interest in being controversial and RIGHT. Simply..because it sells books... So many of these people are unable to put there hands in the air and say they were wrong when new information comes along that refutes there life's work. Map is not the territory, mate
If we sat the Reverend Dawkins down and up loaded 200micros of pure LSD-25 into his fuzz little brain, i feel he might get a glimpse of what relative reality is..welcome to the party DICK
@paddyrock666 "So many of these people are unable to put there hands in the air and say they were wrong when new information comes along that refutes there life's work."
Um, Dawkins has never been proven wrong. Evolution has never been proven wrong. And what on earth is that whole LSD rant about? You sound like you yourself are on LSD...
This reminds me of an analogy Scott Adams made. He compared belief in god, to belief that a truck heading your way would kill you, and he argued that a true believer should defend his faith with the same strength and speed as the one used to get out of the way of the truck. And of course following that logic there aren't very many true believers.
I don't think Richard Dawkins understands what post-modernism is. He has consistently shown himself to be a lousy philosopher. I applaud his effort to make evolution indisputable fact, but he should really stay away from moralizing, he looks like a bafoon every time he does it.
another thing is that scientific evidence is not objective because data can be interpreted in many ways and i also found the planes fly ,magic carpets and broomsticks don't saying funny because in the same way that planes were designed too fly one might come up with a flying broomstick some time in th future
@DanteWhite oh dear... what ever are you talking about? Evidence is, by definition, something that points distinctly to one interpretation. If it could be interpreted in contradicting ways, it wouldn't be evidence.
Example:
If I say, "the evidence shows that smoking increases the risk of lung cancer," you cannot then say "but the evidence also suggests that smoking reduces the risk of lung cancer."
@deadeaded that smoking increases the risk of lung cancer is the data what you do with that is the interpretation because from that data the interpretation could be smoking kills or smoking too much leads to cancer and many different actions can be taking in accordance to that interpretation someone could ban smoking or someone can put a limit too how much you smoke a day
@DanteWhite Whether you ban smoking, or limit how much you smoke is a matter of personal choice and has nothing to do with science. What people do has nothing to do with science. Science is concerned with facts. They are true. The end. You can interpret gravity any which way you like. That doesn't change the FACT that that mass generates an attractive force.
woah, woah, woah. He's tracing Postmodernism to the CHURCH OF ENGLAND?! Does this guy even do research for his stuff?
AdmiralPrice 12 hours ago
Science is great as long as it is used as a tool to cure diseases, to ease daily tasks, to create platforms of information exchange - no sociologist or postmodern critic can do it. But when science is trying to mess with ontology and turning its positivistic method in to the worldview, then there can be ethical problems. So basically we are talking about two different domains - one is for scientists (material phenomena) and other for philosophers, sociologists, historians etc (culture).
cikuuzis 2 days ago
I think it's just disappointment with the products of reason and science.
datasoluble 3 days ago
But it does not mean that i am against this idea that common solid ground for reasoning must be the idea of pursuing well-being BUT in order to do this it is not enough with ONLY scientific knowledge. I do not think that human beings can attain certain spiritual and material well being ONLY with scientific knowledge - that is my point and not that there must not be a certain universal idea (peace, happiness etc) that we should pursue with any means - also those that science is offering.
cikuuzis 4 days ago
I agree that science "works", but what i am saying is that with this mode of cognitive activity it is not enough to be a human. Human culture as we know it consists of variety of knowledge forms and it is stupid to say that one is better than another because they are inseparable. How do scientists know why they are creating all these things? Where they are getting the idea that it is worth to live? You think life is worth living because you can endlessly produce cars and planes?
cikuuzis 5 days ago
@cikuuzis
That's again ridicule at work... first realize that plurality doesn't entail the absence of answer, nor the relativity of their validity -- that would be a good start.
Secondly, I would otherwise argue that upon a common quest from which flowed attempts, ethical concerns can be observed objectively. All ethical claims are reducible to one thing and one thing only: the pursuit of human well-being. There's not a single exception to that.
KrugmanTheKing 4 days ago
@cikuuzis
I call cultural answers an attempt, you call it a success... but you do not offer any reference as to where you base this judgement from; on the other hand, I do have a standard by means of which we can evaluate them -- if they meet or fail to meet, and if so, to which degree, the condition they all first sought to pursue which is well-being.
Our existence is bounded by substantial constraints and, as I conceive, there are many more ways to fail than to succeed in this quest.
KrugmanTheKing 4 days ago
@cikuuzis
Relativism builds a skyscraper and leave it to rest on sand... you need a basis to begin with, a common trait, a predisposition: something that drives the model. But relativism doesn't have that because it's a poor version of nihilism revised to excuse nonsense and take it away from criticism.
KrugmanTheKing 4 days ago
@KrugmanTheKing Ok, but there is nothing scientific in that very idea that "humans have to pursuit their well-being" that supports your further argument that science is a good tool (and it definitely is) in order to pursue this happiness. There is certain unscientific leap concerning the basic principle that will back up all the human endeavours in this world. You can not deduce the statement "well being is good" from any external, non human made reference point.
cikuuzis 4 days ago
@KrugmanTheKing What i am against is the religious-like dogmatic attitude from science when it claims that their knowledge is the one and only true knowledge - that is utter bullshit and in saying that scientist is no better than any of those Christians that are saying that revelation is the only true knowledge. Science is fighting with religion only to put its righteous ass in its place and establish their regime of truth which is different content vise but structurally similar.
cikuuzis 4 days ago
@KrugmanTheKing Tales with flying carpets and religions are having specific functions and it is stupid to say that these things are false because they do not comply with scientific criteria of truth. I am not religious but i have enough brain to acknowledge that religion IS A FACT and as such has some function and it is irrelevant whether it comply with science or not - it is affecting people anyway as a cultural fact and Dawkins obviously is not enough educated to learn this simple thing.
cikuuzis 4 days ago
@cikuuzis
That religion is a fact is one thing, but to call what they teach "knowledge" is stupidity... it's like saying that 2+2=5 is knowledge. You don't know, if you contradict yourself it's not knowledge.
Secondly, you are empty headed if you just begin to compare science with religion: religion is a comforting offer of certainty granted by an illogical assumption and logically fallacious arguments with as only basis the appeal to authority.
KrugmanTheKing 4 days ago
@cikuuzis
Religion is a thoughtless arbitrary answer... Science isn't an answer: it's a method. When we're wrong, we stop making dumb claims about human nature or the physical world. How can you not see that there can be absolutely no exception to rational inquiry, that at the very second you make the exception, you introduce a double standard, you stop doubting and you become an intellectual slave? Faith is to surrender your judgement: that's not knowledge.
KrugmanTheKing 4 days ago
@cikuuzis
Finally, those dumb beliefs all make claims about factual, empirical, reality. When you tell people to resort to prayer when they have issues or, going into other beliefs, get them to suppose that astrological signs have an impact in their lives... what are you essentially doing? You're essentially telling them that there is a causal relation between two things and that if they use this one means, they will meet their end. But we know after inquiry that the relation is flawed...
KrugmanTheKing 4 days ago
@cikuuzis
They're basically wasting energy, hope, efforts and thoughts into reasoning a problem in a utterly inefficient way that won't grant any result -- and if and when it does, it won't be for that means they used at all... but they could so easily solve these if they'd understand psychology a tad, or sociology, or history, or political science, etc.
Religions and the likes are systems based on determined answers: they don't allow revision, nor doubt.
KrugmanTheKing 4 days ago
@KrugmanTheKing I absolutely agree that people should look for an answers in those fields you named. But religion in a way is a symbolic generalization of the most common human themes - "do not kill", "love thy neighbor", "frogive etc." - it is a simplified manual how to be a human - an important one for sustaining social coherence as there is a lot of simple minded people who can not grasp rational moral philosophies and similar abstract things so this is a good way how to socialize them.
cikuuzis 3 days ago
@KrugmanTheKing On more thing - so you are saying that sociology, history, political sciences are legitimate sources of knowledge, right? But it is clear that they are not scientific in the sense like physics, or chemistry is. These disciplines are having different approaches (interpretative, semiological, historical) to their subjects than that of scientific method - so it seems that you admit that scientific knowledge is not the only form - is that so?
cikuuzis 3 days ago
@cikuuzis
The point is that you could in term use something else to play the same role and it would at least have the virtue of not being presumptuous and fallacious.
KrugmanTheKing 4 days ago
I don't think at all that you had mis-typed. All i am saying is there is no knowledge which does not fit. The scientific model is the best model there is for use among homosapien human beings. Please enlighten me with such logic as to disagree?
Merc240x 6 days ago
@Merc240x If you are saying that scientific knowledge is "the best" then you have to justify this knowledge hierarchy which is behind your statement. And i do not see how mere fact that science is giving us planes and cars is making this kind of knowledge better than others. Planes and cars are just peaces of metal and they can not make sense without the framework of meaning (culture) where these things are embedded. And culture consists of different kind of knowledge, not just scientific.
cikuuzis 5 days ago
@cikuuzis
I will then answer you as Kant did.
Knowledge in a human sense is a synthesis between empirical experience and logic -- between intuition and reason, Kant would say. It really falls down to a sensory input and a research of coherence, of absence of contradiction and, wherever the basis is laid, we might use former judgments as the basis of later ones.
This is why culture all have a common ground and why being wrong is possible.
KrugmanTheKing 5 days ago
@cikuuzis
And the most ridiculous part is that your own answer cannot in anyway be asserted without by itself be refuted as it ought, as with anything else, be verified by its own measure which that asserted by anyone up to its liking... except that the rule no longer stands if someone disagrees with the statement that constitutes the rule: tell me how does a relatively relative truth is called? Relativism is fundamentally fallacious. It can be only be solved if everything is nothing.
KrugmanTheKing 5 days ago
@cikuuzis
But of the two frameworks -- nihilism and science -- only one seems to have any use at all; only one lends itself to discussion by appeal to a standard that isn't arbitrary; only one has provided predictable answers... to quote Hawkins, between science and religion, "science will win because it works."
If you doubt it, address my premises and find one example of knowledge that doesn't derive or tend to derive from that... if you read Kant and Hume, you know that you won't.
KrugmanTheKing 5 days ago
@cikuuzis
I'm not saying it's the best... I'm saying it's the only one which can be called knowledge.
KrugmanTheKing 5 days ago
@KrugmanTheKing Every scientist is having some kind of set of values that can not be reduced to scientific method and this value-framework is organizing the work he is doing. Scientists are not isolated - they consume art, they communicate, fall in love and these forms are not scientific yet they are necessary for them to understand why they are creating all those planes and cars. Otherwise world would be just a pile of metal scrap with confused humans blinking their eyes in the middle of it.
cikuuzis 5 days ago
Where is the logic in reasoning that if knowledge can produce things (planes, cars, computers) than it is somehow more true, than knowledge that gives us a framework of meaning witch makes sense out of those planes, cars and computers? This is as stupid as to say that for computers hardware is more important than software. I generally like Dawkin`s critical attitude towards religion, but sometimes he is naive in i making distinction between scientific and non-scientific knowledge..
cikuuzis 1 week ago
@cikuuzis "Non-scientific knowledge". Lol. There is none sunshine.
Merc240x 6 days ago
@Merc240x You do not like the the term "Non-scientific"? Care to explain where you see the problem? English is not my native language, so it is possible that mistyped. However, grammar is not the issue here and if you disagree with me i would like to hear your opinion about the idea not some pathetic inspection of grammar.
cikuuzis 6 days ago
Such thing as being so open-minded your brain falls out? Wow, whatever respect I had for Dawkins just flew out on the window. Name me one persons whose brain fell out as a result of open-mindedness. Though postmodernism--the idea that the Enlightenment was a farce and that all religions lead to the same destination--could hardly be better described as "a pretentious cop-out."
superclaydude 1 week ago
I always love coming back here to view the comments: people who seem to know little about either the philosophy of science or literary criticism making weighty comparisons and conclusions about both. Quite entertaining.
featheon 1 week ago
I want this video on my N160 unit.
radleyholla71b 1 week ago
This video went viral on Rabat
rturozamora37a 1 month ago
Dawkins is right, he told everything like it is and truth.
Religion is no valid not even 0.1 % to say anything about science questions, only science can provide truth and real true explanation, religion can only provide hallucinations and after more hallucinations.
zigifrojd 1 month ago
I do not believe that relativism should be used for the natural sciences. It's social institutions that we're meant to attack not actual science. Regular people are not really qualified for academic discussion anyway.
Evolution is not really the issue in the sciences. But, if I work in a different field it may not be worth it to support evolution. Denying evolution could, for example, pay my bills. If there is one thing that is certain, money is what we need to survive in today's world.
testmark1 1 month ago
@testmark1 Maybe if you change the path, the outcome will be different.
Merc240x 2 weeks ago
gravity? yes, as a simple concept of acceleration, of course! but the question is what produces gravity and that is a much deeper question! It is indeed the basis for relativity theory. As of the effects of gravity, they are negligible on a large scale universe, and the truth is that dark energy/matter is the driving force on a large scale! what is dark energy? No idea! That is also science, to accept our ignorance and be curious! To be humble!
iammaxwelldemon 1 month ago
British pronounce evolution evilution and Americans say it like ayvilution
cwood4ever 1 month ago
@cwood4ever Americans tend to pronounce evolution eh-vol-u-shun. The regular way.
TheAndyChandy 1 month ago
@cwood4ever I have never heard evolution pronounced that way. No one speaks like that except Alex from A Clockwork Orange.
veilofanoath 1 month ago
For the basic case of a question that immediately validates one post modern equality of truths just ask about the existence of a human soul. That is not the same as what happens to it either which is still highly unknown. Just because you may be certain the eternity of hell or eating angel food cake in heaven is fiction says nothing about if it exists or does not exist. The same goes for that of a dog, an eagle or a honeybee. Does Dawkins have a soul? All he can do is deny outcomes.
911jbg 1 month ago
Dawkins is laughably wrong on history vis-a-vis church of England and intelligent design vs. evoution. Those foundations go much farther back to the Deist enlightenment and that is pre Darwin, pre French Revolution. Who do you think came up with it? Church of England? Total hogwash.
911jbg 1 month ago
Oh, really? So, what scientific evidence does Mr. Dawkins have that one's subjective conscious experience proves the external world? What evidence does he have that logic equips us to know existential truth?
OgadaNosaFasu 2 months ago
@OgadaNosaFasu The fact that the world OBJECTS to our personal whims. The world corresponds to certain natural rules and the only way we can manipulate it is by following those physical laws.That makes what we percieve objective and therefore external. The world OBJECTS to our will. It is not SUBJECT to our will. If reality was subjective then we wouldn't need to follow its rules in order to manipulate it. We would just will it to change.
DaveElectric 2 months ago
@DaveElectric And quantum mechanics determining that the act of observing a phenomenon changes it?
squamish4244 2 months ago
@squamish4244 Whe did I bring up quantum mechanics?
DaveElectric 1 month ago
@DaveElectric I did.
squamish4244 1 month ago
@DaveElectric Dawkins misses the point. No solipsist or metaphyiscal phenomenologist claims that one controls everything in their subjective experience. The unfounded assumption of modernism is that there is such a thing as an objective reality seperate of one's subjective perception at all. Saying that one's own experience of the "objective" is accurate based on their interpretations of phenomena--which inevitably fall within within their experience to begin with--begs the question.
OgadaNosaFasu 2 months ago
@OgadaNosaFasu I don't understand. If solipsists or phenomenologists accepts that one cannot control everything through their subjective experience then they are tacitly admitting that an objective reality exists.That which isn't under one's authority is by definition OBJECTIVE.
DaveElectric 1 month ago
@DaveElectric But all phenomena are still filtered through your subjective experience of them, no matter what measuring instrument you use. All phenomena are labeled and categorized by us - we have defined what matter, energy, time, and space are, and how to measure them.
squamish4244 1 month ago
@squamish4244 There cannot be an "apparent" world if there isn't a real one.
Okay, so we have defined what matter, energy, time, and space are? So what? All explanations for things are too some extent utilitarian explanations. I'm not sure where you get this idea all our attempts to classify parts of reality are arbitrary and therefore subjective.
DaveElectric 1 month ago
@DaveElectric How else can we classify reality except through our own subjective minds?
squamish4244 1 month ago
@squamish4244 Not all clasifications/explanations hold equal utility so I'm not sure why make the leap that subjective understanding = arbitary understanding.
DaveElectric 1 month ago
@DaveElectric Well, the participant/observer/role in the universe is a highly debated topic and I would be going out of my depth to further the discussion here. But of course many highly regarded physicists have had much to say on the subject. Roger Penrose is of particular interest to me.
squamish4244 1 month ago
@DaveElectric And the world is indeed "real", but only to the extent that we can perceive it.
squamish4244 1 month ago
@OgadaNosaFasu Very well said.
squamish4244 1 month ago
Relativism is generally used in discussions of ethics and values. Dawkins is taking it out of its usual context here and constructing a strawman.
squamish4244 2 months ago
@squamish4244 Post-modernism is a lot more than just moral relativism.
DaveElectric 2 months ago
@DaveElectric It's bizarre to apply it here though. As someone below pointed out, a 13th Century theologian would not have said people can float out of a 10th story window. Dawkins is a good scientist and a bad philosopher.
squamish4244 2 months ago
@squamish4244 No, but they would say the earth is flat....or you can make Gold with magic.
DaveElectric 1 month ago
What a ridiculous quote: "it [gravity] IS the truth." So, what about explanations of gravity before modern science's try at it? A 13th century theologian would NOT have said that people could float out of a 10th story window. Would someone please inform Dawkins that he should study up on the philosophy of science before making ridiculous comments! Dawkins expresses an outdated view of scientific understanding and progress. Read Karl Popper on delimitation. Dawkins is into marketing not science!
scarabsl2000 2 months ago
@scarabsl2000 Dawkins really is a terrible philosopher.
squamish4244 2 months ago
Empirically verifiable concepts, i.e. gravity, and evolution cannot be compared to abstract ideas like ethics and metaphysics. We can't know for sure what we are, if we are, or what any of it means. We can only "know" what we're able to perceive and since our perception of anything is subjective and biased perhaps there is more to the ideas presented in post modernism than what our good friend Dawkins gives them credit for.
boonskety 2 months ago
This video ends with the words "science started in the first place." So there is creation then....
justcheckingoklol 2 months ago
@justcheckingoklol "Existence" does not equate to "creation."
belladonna5012 2 months ago
its our good ol' pope who also fights against todays horrible relativsm
wildhias 2 months ago
This has nothing to do with postmodernism whatsoever.
wahuur01 3 months ago
relativism, not postmodernism. relativism is more readily associated with the antiquated modernism.
cnmaster01 3 months ago
@cnmaster01
Yeah relativism is lame. I mean, come on...it's just so...insipid? Inert? Obvious? Banal? And the worst part is that it's becoming ever more popular. "Well that's what's right for you, but not for me". Postmodernism is something a little more substantial. Later wittgenstein is a good philosopher for postmodernism, imo
FeelingFreshSon 2 months ago
What I don't get about Dawkins is why he is so willing to prance into Philosophical debate when he is obviously a Philosophical amateur, what's wrong with just sticking to his own field of Biology?
Onieracraft 3 months ago
Comment removed
radscorpion8 3 months ago
Comment removed
radscorpion8 3 months ago
I'm anxious to see if Richard Dawkins will debate William Lane Craig . Dawkins was accused of cowardice by a colleague professor/ atheist, because untill now Dawkins has been unwilling to debate Craig.
Date and time:
Tuesday 25th October 2011
7.30pm Lecture "Is God a Delusion?" A Critique of Dawkins' The God Delusion
[or a debate with Richard Dawkins if he should accept the invitation]
Sheldonian Theatre, Broad Street, Oxford, OX1 3AZ
reasonablefaith org/ site/
LLThenu 3 months ago
@LLThenu
All Craig does is play word games and appeal to emotions. Debating someone like that is useless and only legitimises their position.
hal970fx 3 months ago
@hal970fx
and the same can obviously not be said of dawkins...
LLThenu 3 months ago
@hal970fx haha word games? is that the same thing as saying your too dumb to understand him? because these so called word games unpack philosophical truths that are considered to be established fact about logic, reason, and truth. Dawkins couldn't keep up to such conversation, which is why he is laughed at by fellow atheists as making embarrassing arguments against religion. He is not that smart frankly when it comes to philosophy and logic.
BigG99 3 months ago
@BigG99 Hahaha, oh wow!
hal970fx 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"Dead-to-the-spirit deluded "God Delusion" author & blithering fool scientist goon Richard Dawkins another "leader" given to the profane masses is another useful idiot for Jesuit machinations"-C.O.
Jesuitical: pertaining to the Jesuits or their principals; designing; cunning; deceitful; prevaricating
The Jesuits completely altered the education system to suit their evolution agenda to discredit the Bible. They cant have a Satanic society of 'Do as Thou Wilt' if people still follow the Bible.
SpencerBenedict2nd 4 months ago
how so?
kidonlyle 4 months ago
Dawkins scoffs at relativism, yet it is one of his greatest friends.
WC3POchannel10A 4 months ago
@WC3POchannel10A how is that?
surshot56 4 months ago
Poor, misleading title alert.
chapaev36 5 months ago
it might be worth adding that postmodernism is not the same as relativism. relativism, which is an extremely old philosophical idea having it lineage within some of plato's dialogs, is certainly not a view-point adopted by the four main philosopher's who are associated with pomo: foucault, deleuze, derrida and lytoard. all of them believed that truth was out there somewhere. however, what makes them pomo is that they believe that traditional notions of ideas like freedom, etc, are complicated.
dorianaustralia 5 months ago
@dorianaustralia I don't agree at all. Gorgias and Protagorus influence Derrida quite directly at the least, and these were the Sophists that Plato is pointing out in the two dialogues. I agree that relativism and postmodernism are not the same thing (that's obvious), but to say that what Plato saw as relativism has nothing to do with post-structural theory is simply incorrect.
featheon 3 months ago
Comment removed
verwoestijning 5 months ago
Yea, Dawkins is weird, because I'm pretty sure he must have some knowledge of Thomas Kuhn and how seriously his work has been taken over the past 50 years, how pragmatism was compelled to replace positivism, etc., etc. It's become plain political posturing that this point.
featheon 5 months ago
@featheon The worst thing about the neo-Darwinians is that appear to have no clue about WHY evolution is true. They encourage the creationists by having a hooh-ha-floaty-spacey-magicky attitude towards truth claims in science itself.
Evolution is true, but not for the reasons the neo-Darwinians think it is.
DarkwingScooter 5 months ago
@DarkwingScooter There are better versions of the lectures your listening to, with the video @velicamer
featheon 5 months ago
LOL! He's so embarrassing when he gets out of science. It's like Mother Theresa attacking reggae or DrSpock critiquing porn-flicks. Never got it, never will. The commanding tone with which he insists that [religion / ethics / politcs / moshing to death-metal rock on drugs...] is highly unscientific and he's having none of it. Its like Mr.logic in Viz magazine. It always makes me spit my coffee out laughing. "I refuse to believe in the truth of a historical Ugly Duckling. There Is. No. Evidence!"
leconfidant 5 months ago
i intrigued by richard dawkins' strong faith on science and evolutionism
Faith,and open-minded,so poor ironic dawkins
y34r 5 months ago
@y34r Faith in facts is a contradiction.
HybridD91 5 months ago
I hate Richard Dawkins tone. I think he's really set the debate back, by being a patronizing, divisive twat. His oversimplification is face-punch-worthy. His description of Darwin's relationship with his wife would probably make Darwin do the face punching.
How can people be so insecure as to listen to this exploitative egomaniac? Study science. Don't let this patronizing twat make himself a name by oversimplifying and twisting Darwin, while dividing groups of people.
derdriui 6 months ago
@derdriui
What a pathetic assessment...
Wrath0fKhan 6 months ago
Is there a part two?
Brockhad 6 months ago
Richard Dawkins Foundation? So this idiot calls his cult a foundation?
cepiolidus 6 months ago
@cepiolidus Ya, he and his followers of reality. Real crazy bunch, believing in stuff that's real.
vakz15 6 months ago
@vakz15 Followers? Thats a sign of a cult. I believe in reality but I don't need to turn it into a cult.
cepiolidus 6 months ago
@vakz15 and being really patronizing about it, while oversimplifying Darwin as well as any other person or theory they come across?
derdriui 6 months ago
post modernism isn't relativism, it is perspectivism. this guy is a fool. always has been, always will be. i despise post modernism, but at least i know what the fuck i'm talking about. i wish dawkins would just dig up darwin's corpse and fuck it. btw, darwin was a staunch anglican. fuck you, dawkins...you are a cult leader by every definition.
bmbenblog 6 months ago
@bmbenblog Pretty sure the only person talking about postmodernism is the person that posted this video.
neverender71 6 months ago
Dawkins is right about evolution. But there are different types of relativism. it is easy to dismiss epistemic and moral relativism. But without cultural relativism disciplines such as sociology and anthropology couldn't exist.
fidomusic 6 months ago
"Science Works: Planes Fly!" Ha ha ha ha ha. The "Planes Fly" argument for the superiority of science has always made me giggle. Dawkins thinks planes can fly only because of science? Ha ha! To fly you need to buy a ticket. You need money, management and trade, you need finances, you need economics. To fly a plane you need the plane company to obey regulations, you need government, you need To fly a plane need to buy a ticket.
alannigelmarshall 7 months ago
To fly a plane you need the plane company to obey regulations, you need government, you need law-makers, you need bureaucrats, so that planes don't bang into each other. You need airports, you need roads, you need taxes, you need cleaners, you need chefs, you need hostesses, you need security guards, you need industry, advertising, a paying public, unions, schools and universities. Planes don't just fly because of science--they fly because of the whole of society.
alannigelmarshall 7 months ago
Planes fly because of tourism, trade, pilgramage, holidaymakers, long-distance love, students and travelers. All things that science knows little about. Planes fly because of commerce, because of romances, because of education, because of engineering, because of adventure, artistry, poetry and desire. Dawkins is such an arrogant ass thinking planes, or anything else in this world, works only because of science.
alannigelmarshall 7 months ago
He's divorced from reality, operating in a tiny microcosm which pretends science is unique and superior, when, in fact, if all scientists were as blinkered as him, nothing would work--we'd be trapped doing little experiments with waterwheels forever. Dawkins only wants us to THINK science is better at understanding because he is a scientist, and he wants us to elevate HIM to the top of the social ladder. No chance!
alannigelmarshall 7 months ago
Wow---this guy is so arrogant. His claims for science are so overstated. He's a evangelical priest of science, not a scientist .
alannigelmarshall 7 months ago
@alannigelmarshall Say it!
TheRacistsMustDie 7 months ago
@alannigelmarshall why is dawkins arrogant? he explains why scientific truths are different from non scientific truths, i dont see any arrogance in that.
he just advocates rationality, reason and critical thinking. He does not hold up to ideas that are not alterable. If something is wrong in a scientific theory like natural seletion, dawkins, would be the first one that would admit it and take the new ideas. A priest in other hands does not change his mind about the bible. Big difference
Serpico261 6 months ago
@Serpico261 ive not yet read anything in depth from him yet. Im but a 22 yr old apologist seeking to learn and share. Ill be glad to read into this.
MrPs103 7 months ago
Richard Dawkins , great biologist , poor philosopher.
SonytoBratsoni 7 months ago
@SonytoBratsoni agreed. plus the fact that he's so bent on making the "truth" known that if his ideas are counterpointed, he refuses to believe them, regardless of validity. i dunno if counterpointed is a word, but i'll use it :)
MrPs103 7 months ago
@SonytoBratsoni from an "objective" point of view, the things dawkins said in the video, sound to me totally logical. I dont know where i could disagree with him or say "thats nonsense".
Maybe you focus too much on philosophical terminology
Serpico261 7 months ago
@Serpico261 Perhaps I do.
"Science is special, it's backed up by evidence , it works" undeniably true words.
However , it appears to me that he projects epistemic realism without having any concrete evidence for it.
A relativist , in terms of knowledge , would never say "well evolution is true in our culture but it doesn't apply to another" , rather he'd say "Our knowledge has more to do with how our mental apparatuses apprehend the world , it's a question of immediacy."
SonytoBratsoni 7 months ago
@SonytoBratsoni i think dawkins wanted to show that evaluated scientific facts, which evolution is one of them, shows that its not dependend on faith. Because this is a very common accusation, mainly from creationists, who say that evolution by natural selection is a believe system and scientists have faith in it. Dakwins point out that science is a self evaluating process. For example you have overlapping results! Its the best and only way, by far to get a working authentic version of reality
Serpico261 7 months ago
Dawkins may be a fine biologist and a strong writer, but a philosopher he certainly isn't.
ThePatchpocket 7 months ago
@ThePatchpocket Ad hominem. Argument from authority. Fail.
alwaysright10000 7 months ago
@alwaysright10000 It was a passing comment. The youtube comments section isn't exactly the ideal forum for rational analysis and debate. For a start though, it is a mistake to suggest that those who are a part of the postmodern/relativist tradition necessarily regard all "truths" as equally deserving of respect. Take the school of neo pragmatism for example (richard rorty etc).
ThePatchpocket 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Respond to this video...Secondly, it is wrong to bundle the "truth" claims of religious traditions with those of the positive sciences. Saying "gravity exists" is a truism and it is only relevant in terms of understanding our physical reality (phenomena). Religious claims (I do not subscribe to any myself) are relevant in an entirely different respect; they are (generally) claims about what lies beyond phenomena (the noumena). Two separate worlds of knowledge/belief.
ThePatchpocket 7 months ago
Postmodernism doesn't say planes might not fly. It looks at planes flying and says so what? - NOT to be mistaken for the phrase "do not bother."
NearVSMello 8 months ago
Relativism and postmodernism are two different things. I thought maybe we could here that again :) They are though, so you're a stupid piece of shit, NonServiam2, for posting this bullshit.
beeeefcurtains 8 months ago
@beeeefcurtains I think it's relevant, dawkins is making a claim of truth, post-modernism is a way of approaching truth claims...
teddancin100 8 months ago
I don't think Dawkins is even talking about postmodernism, haha. I believe, as w/ Dawkins' other main arguments, is not a critique of postmodernism, but one related to religion. I believe NoServiam2 is merely confusing this in order to try and relate it back to his/her own views of postmodernism, or lack thereof with understanding in regard to postmodern literature. If the uploader understood that Dawkins was also postmodern, they might re-think their posting.
wuz352 8 months ago
Wow, there have been some high quality comments on this post.
philresearch 9 months ago
Buy the DVD.
uriituw 9 months ago
if you think post-modern philosophy boils down to hard relativism, you've been very misled.
heylittlehouse 9 months ago
@heylittlehouse Dawkins never used the word "post-modernism" but only relativism
janmlt 9 months ago
@janmlt Obviously, but the video poster seems to think they're equivilent
heylittlehouse 9 months ago
@heylittlehouse the poster yes, i'm just point that out to some people here who though dawkins said it is.
janmlt 9 months ago
Post-Modernism /=/ Relativism.
Distortion0 9 months ago
Again Mr. Dawkins, you're making an absolute claim on post-modernism.
Why not Modernism instead since post-modernism doesn't really exist in the end?
KevinVang1000 10 months ago
@KevinVang1000 Dawkins never used the word "post-modernism" but only relativism only the titles say post-modernism
janmlt 9 months ago
Eh, potato Poetahtoe...they are the same...
KevinVang1000 9 months ago
@KevinVang1000 sorry man i cant take seriously somebody who is easily allured to criticise by a title without even listening to what he said.
janmlt 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
also it perfectly explains why you believe jesus is a god
janmlt 9 months ago
He claim to be I am. As the matter of fact, HE CHICKEN OUT ON WILL CRAIG, LMAO!
Might as well turn to the logical area where Will Craig's philosophy is the right way. Moreover, his arguments outweighs than Dawkins, lol...
KevinVang1000 9 months ago
@KevinVang1000 actually dawkins explained why "HE CHICKEN OUT ON WILL CRAIG"
believe me i am open minded towards craigs arguments but the problem with him is, that he argues for the existence of god...then suddenly he seem to know which god it is...the god of his parents. HMMM
Serpico261 8 months ago
So I guess Will Craig has a better confidence on his debate which will clown Dawkins like nothing. Horrible Dawkins, why won't to martyr your beliefs against Craig?
KevinVang1000 8 months ago
@KevinVang1000 i dont know any person who would engage in a debate with someone who believes in fairy tales (such as fairies, goblins, elves, trolls, dwarves, giants or gnomes, yahweh and usually magic or enchantments)
Do you?
Serpico261 8 months ago
I think Dawkins is the one who believes in fairytales since He as himself cannot apply it to reality since he's a chicken. If he is so confident that Christianity is a bunch of fairytales, then he would have to refute all science datings of the bible, for example, the existent of governor Pilate. Most atheist believe that King David doesn't exist, but he was found in a coin named after King David. Therefore, if dawkins wants to go into this issue, he would have to deny every history books...
KevinVang1000 8 months ago
part 2...
which they are talking about ancient times. If I was an atheist, I would've been a cult atheist who would create a religion so called, "Deludeism and Ignorantism." I would live my life as a meaningless, full of chemical and flesh, through random chance of mutation into the ideology of Frederich Nietzche. I would plan to live as a robot so that I cannot know what is thing. It's thinking's fault for brings that brings war and violence; therefore, I can live like a true martyr atheist.
KevinVang1000 8 months ago
@KevinVang1000 i can tell you one thing. You were born as an atheist too...dont forget that. i would assume you were brought up in a christian home. Are you telling me that without god your life is meaningless?
how on earth is life meaningless? You decide what meaning life has...either way you have to live your life the best way, cause there wont be one more life.
atheism brings war and violence? you dont want to brign up Mao, stalin and hitler again
Serpico261 8 months ago
But why should I live to be meaningful if there is no report cards about how I live to determine whether I did good or not. How come everything in life are subjective? O_o
KevinVang1000 8 months ago
@KevinVang1000 If you really are looking for meaning in life then my recommendation is to find a few really good friends and then hang out with them. What you are taking issue with is not the hard facts of human existence as delivered by science by your emotional reaction to these facts. Hence, the friends, community, leisure. This is a key benefit of religion: community. But you can have community without God...and it is there you will find meaning. Shared subjective experience enriches reality
sfeltmate 7 months ago
I get your answer and it was very plain. I was asking the purpose of life since we humans don't have souls. We were meant to be here in a pointless of matter and when we die, that is the end of life. So, what's the purpose of being so moral and immoral in the perspective of the human nature since we came from nothing...right? If you think you have a purpose, where does that come from? What made you know that there is a purpose in life?
KevinVang1000 7 months ago
@KevinVang1000 By moral I assume you mean being nice to other people. That is self-evident to most people - it is so that they will be nice back which is pleasurable to most people. However, you are not really talking about this; you are asking about a grand purpose. My answer is that from a scientific perspective there really is none beyond the fact that you are alive and are biologically driven to remain alive. Emotionally, I understand, this is not very satisfying.
sfeltmate 7 months ago
Type this on utube: Life is Meaningless
Ravi Zacharias...
KevinVang1000 7 months ago
@sfeltmate and in that scenario your viewpoint works. but how about torturing babies? it does not kill the baby nor you, so by your standard it should be okay, yet there is something deep within us all that tells us that torturing babies is a bad idea. that is the moral law.
MrPs103 7 months ago
@sfeltmate this meaning still only provides that meaning up to death. yet God has shown us that we have worth, not only here, but after the grave as well. i'm assuming (i know, bad idea) that you don't believe in God. my question to you would be then, if you've seen the complexity of life and the universe, and even just the complexity of the human DNA, how can you not believe in intelligent design? time + matter + chance is such a far reach for a explanation of the complexity of life.
MrPs103 7 months ago
@Serpico261 unfortunately, every viewpoint can bring forth war if taken in a bad context. what i'd like to point out though is that in the case of atheism, since we came from nothing, then our worth is essentially the same, so killing for selfish reasons is justified, therefore making atheism a better conduit for warfare. not saying every atheist will make war, but it is a better possibility if there is no transcendant worth in a fellow human being or self.
MrPs103 7 months ago
@MrPs103 reading your comment, reminds me of richard dawkins first book "the selfish gene" published 1976, maybe you heard form it. There is a documentary from bbc from 1986 with dakwins, addressing exactly "this" notion that is reflect in your comment.
you have to watch it! Its very intreressting
simpy type in yt "nice guys finish first" and maybe tell me what you think of his view point
Serpico261 7 months ago
The propositions "the earth is moving/spinning." and "the earth is steady" seem to be contradictory. If one is true, than the second by necessity isn't, right?. Consider this funny example: A guard was ordered to shoot any prisonner who'd move. We find out he's killed everyone in the room because they were moving at fast speed around the Sun. The frame of reference has its importance according to truths. This doesn't indicate however that truth is whatever serves you. That guard is a sick maniac
MichelCroz 10 months ago
i would argue to the contrary that it is now common to snub everything else then full fledge metaphysic realism... by arguing how self evident it supposedly is- Postmodernism and of coruse the big R word Relativism are mostly used as pejorative terms - philosophically speaking the term "...." is the plain truth is bullshit of course
wildhias 11 months ago
hey, I'm a guy. I love relative-ism. that's why I'm a LESBIAN.
rgaleny 1 year ago
@rgaleny hey, don't you oppress me.
rgaleny 1 year ago
"evolution is the plain truth" He is a sales man not a scientist! His thinking is Newtonian and a little out of date. There seems to be no true reality. so science says anyway. Truth is only relative to the observer. Sophisticated scientists don't deal in truths they deal in probability. This allows them to update there theories when new information comes along. dawkins dose not allow himself this flexibility.
you cant have one theory about the nature of reality. ..ps yes i am on LSD
paddyrock666 1 year ago
@paddyrock666 On LSD, then try out the Newtonian "theory" of gravity and see if Dawkin's statement is wrong. Jump out of a ten story window and use thought to create your own reality.
deaddoc 11 months ago
@deaddooc.....sure gravity pulls humans down from 10 story buildings, id put the probability of that at around 99.9%.... most scientists would agree...Just because it has such a high probability of happening though, still dose not make it the TRUTH...There is no PLAIN TRUTH... only clergy men talk in truths... .. no one can say with conviction what it actually IS! this is my point.. .
paddyrock666 11 months ago
@paddyrock666 postmodern ideas such as your own are boring.. it's very easy for us to say there is no plain truth. calling the probablity of not falling from a 10 story building @ 0.01% is a bit ridiculous. If we took that approach to life as in "we can never really know a plain truth.." we would just walk around clueless not certain about anything... a true post-modernist would technically need to be admitted to a psych ward because he would never truly realise reality.
mgthemis 11 months ago
@mgthemis...Post-modernism boring!!! how do you propose we extract an essence of boredom from my personal views?? Its perception... YOURS MAINLY... Dose this boredom exist in the physical world??? No!! it exist in your head along with the rest of your world... So how can you claim to possess the plain truth about life or my posts on YOUtube... You cant!! Life my friend is the same.... Its impossible to remove the observer from the observed.
paddyrock666 11 months ago
Magic carpets? This is nothing but clap trap.
zaynzaynzayn 1 year ago
The problem with Dawkins and his opponents is that both sides believe that can't coexist. Science is taught in schools because its useful for technology, if both sides could quickly get it through their heads that evolution is a useful model for medicine and other biotechnology, we'd all be able to save a hell of a lot of time.
Distortion0 1 year ago
richard dawkins has a vested interest in being controversial and RIGHT. Simply..because it sells books... So many of these people are unable to put there hands in the air and say they were wrong when new information comes along that refutes there life's work. Map is not the territory, mate
If we sat the Reverend Dawkins down and up loaded 200micros of pure LSD-25 into his fuzz little brain, i feel he might get a glimpse of what relative reality is..welcome to the party DICK
paddyrock666 1 year ago
@paddyrock666 "So many of these people are unable to put there hands in the air and say they were wrong when new information comes along that refutes there life's work."
Um, Dawkins has never been proven wrong. Evolution has never been proven wrong. And what on earth is that whole LSD rant about? You sound like you yourself are on LSD...
Lockjaw95 1 year ago
Comment removed
HillDueceua 1 year ago
This reminds me of an analogy Scott Adams made. He compared belief in god, to belief that a truck heading your way would kill you, and he argued that a true believer should defend his faith with the same strength and speed as the one used to get out of the way of the truck. And of course following that logic there aren't very many true believers.
zapopaul 1 year ago
I wish I could "like" the uploader comments.
phinny5608 1 year ago
I don't think Richard Dawkins understands what post-modernism is. He has consistently shown himself to be a lousy philosopher. I applaud his effort to make evolution indisputable fact, but he should really stay away from moralizing, he looks like a bafoon every time he does it.
NathanJSweet 1 year ago
I hate how Richard Dawkins is saying "evilution.'
andy1sim 1 year ago
another thing is that scientific evidence is not objective because data can be interpreted in many ways and i also found the planes fly ,magic carpets and broomsticks don't saying funny because in the same way that planes were designed too fly one might come up with a flying broomstick some time in th future
DanteWhite 1 year ago
@DanteWhite oh dear... what ever are you talking about? Evidence is, by definition, something that points distinctly to one interpretation. If it could be interpreted in contradicting ways, it wouldn't be evidence.
Example:
If I say, "the evidence shows that smoking increases the risk of lung cancer," you cannot then say "but the evidence also suggests that smoking reduces the risk of lung cancer."
deadeaded 1 year ago
@deadeaded that smoking increases the risk of lung cancer is the data what you do with that is the interpretation because from that data the interpretation could be smoking kills or smoking too much leads to cancer and many different actions can be taking in accordance to that interpretation someone could ban smoking or someone can put a limit too how much you smoke a day
DanteWhite 1 year ago
@DanteWhite Whether you ban smoking, or limit how much you smoke is a matter of personal choice and has nothing to do with science. What people do has nothing to do with science. Science is concerned with facts. They are true. The end. You can interpret gravity any which way you like. That doesn't change the FACT that that mass generates an attractive force.
deadeaded 1 year ago