How Science Thinks with Richard Dawkins, Friedrich Nietzsche and Others

[ReverendParasite]

@3ohfive you take that back, you bastard!!!

[MrMilagroqq]

Dawkins is a smart bastard

[ConservativeAnthem]

@MrMilagroqq dumass

[MrMilagroqq]

@ConservativeAnthem you must be reiligious, you can't even spell, stay away from intellectual format's

[MrNobody47710]

Even if the universe is beyond us, it still provides a challenge. As a whole, humans can be obsessive achievers. There's this desire to build on top of what's been made, and to alter the architecture when change seems needed.

We have to go beyond what we've done, and we have to go beyond what we can do, all because the challenge is there. Sure, there are benefits to going beyond, and these benefits can drive us, but the drive to beat a challenge is still there.

[Howieeeeex]

2:32 that's an interrogative not a declarative sentence, and what should they have at the end of them??? ???????? tututututtutu

[nordhorny]

Professor Richard Dawkins M.A., D. Phil., Dr. Sc., FRS, FRSL

[cugel2]

lol good ole ramblin' dawkins

[linmgo]

LoL. Has Dawkins lost his noodles? Hes so bigoted now that hes dropping hypothesis' and passing them off as facts/theories........ where deception will take a person.

BTW yall The Qur'an is truth from word 1 till end...... read it and tell me what you think about "science and TRUE FAITH" after reading it.

[dominice112]

@linmgo

You can call Dawkins a lot, but a bigot is out of place. He was talking about how a concept told by a trusted one becomes factual by acceptance. That is hardly a theory.. it's what you did regarding what your mother told you when you were a kid.

"Don't eat that, don't touch that, God will punish you if you go there".. and you didn't eat, touched or went there. Cause you mother told you so.

And linmgo, I did read the Qur'an (translated version tho) .. and it was a fascinating story.

[356pla]

@linmgo - I think, and therefore know you are wrong.

[Asgath]

@linmgo Lawl. Everything you say must be taken as a joke.

[HonestMan395]

@linmgo you obviously have a skewed idea of what a bigot is.

A bigot is an arrogant person who is so sure of their beliefs that they want to compel others who don't agree with them, to comply with what they believe by any means.

This has happened throughout history, mostly by religious people of every faith.

Richard Dawkins only advises. He has never, to my knowledge, insisted people believe him or made any effort to force them into his way of thinking.

Only religion regularly does that.

[JONNOG88]

@linmgo

You are joking right!

You basically saying that the Thoery of Evolution is a "deception". But you believe in a magic man in space. Who causes Earthquakes, Tsunami's, Volcano's. And according to your particular edict. That a woman should be murdered. If she refuse to marry a pre-arranged partner.

[mossfitz]

@linmgo I´ve read the Koran first 30 years ago while exploring the human heritage and was shocked by it in the extreme. I have since read it more carefully and also read some of the Hadith and my first reaction was multiply confirmed. Anyone who is not brainwashed and reads this for what it is will realize what an appalling ideology this mass murderer and child rapist has imposed on the world. The people who were at the centre of the first civilizations must be freed from this horror.

[bahramf]

Polanyi isn't mainly a chemist though.

[dudesonman4200]

Dawkins is absolutely right when he says that there are evolutionary advantages to believing in religion, or at least, as he put it, having the kind of brain that leads to religion. In my experience, this kind of brain is synonymous with an outgoing, nonserious, lackadaisical sort of attitude. This sort of explains why for example the science nerds at high schools are less prone to social success. Ultimately, there are much more stupid people in the world than smart, and stupid like stupid.

[dinokralt4]

@dudesonman4200 so to you to be religous is to be stupid? Come on, this is a very silly argument. Some of the most brilliant minds in all feilds, science/math/philosophy/litera­ture are christian. To install such a false belief in the minds of those who question the necessity of faith to understand their consciousness will inevitably feel that their thoughts concerning God are the result of a poorly evolved brain. When so many have these thoughts, the squashing of them is a human rights violation

[dudesonman4200]

@dinokralt4

Humanity is so religiously hypocritical nowadays that faith and fields like science, math, (not philosophy or literature) have no effect on eachother. Religion nowadays is not a critical, binding contract in life. Its is nothing more than a manner of living which is determined by social surroundings. It is not necessarily the result of a poorly evolved brain, however there is a correlation between the stupid and the faithful. Besides the question of faith, the question of

[dinokralt4]

@dudesonman4200 is what you a fact of a belief? Because if it is the product of belief then it would suggest that you are a man of faith. Remember what you said about there being a correlation between the faithful and the stupid? The correlation is not true. Stats can be amnipulated to prove anything. I can prove to you that there is a correlation between violent leaders and those who are not faithful. To use religion in a manner that suggests that all religions are fundamentally the same is..

[dudesonman4200]

@dinokralt4

"Atheism is no more a faith than christianity"

We could sit here and nitpick about what the difinition of faith is and get nowhere. You already stated atheism is a faith only in that it makes judgement calls concerning reality. My argument would be that any judgement call would be based on reality, and not arbitrary, or at the very least, far less arbitrary than faith-based judgement calls.

I meant to say this in my first comment but I got carried away on something else. Faith--

[dinokralt4]

@dudesonman4200 a product of idealogy. Everyone has beliefs and as a result everyone has faith. atheism is no more a faith then christianity. I do not mean that atheists group togethor and worship their egotistical selves as deities, by they do make judgement calls concerning reality. There is substantial evidence t hat the case for atheism which dawkins presents is perhaps the least intellectually stimulating case to be so popular. If you want to find grounds for your atheism be a man a quote..

[dinokralt4]

@dinokralt4 if you find dawkins case persuading you should watch the video of william lane craig discussing the premises of the book at UBC. It is a must if you are going to stick by this man's arguments

[dudesonman4200]

@dinokralt4

unintelligent. (remember our conversation about how intelligence and education werent the same thing) (Damn, extremely was the last word on that comment and its too late to erase) Extremely is a little bit of an exaggeration, but the point is that religion leads down a certain path that leads to certain things. Id love to account for all the things I mentioned about christians if you want.

***VERY IMPORTANT NOTE

This is not an argument FOR atheism. Personally my religious--

[dudesonman4200]

@dinokralt4 friends are a lot more fun than my atheist friends because (dont be offended) I find them to less serious, which in my opinion is a result of less "intelligence". Just because something is intelligent doesnt always mean its good. Sometimes, ignorance is bliss.( a good example, partytime vs. studytime. You wouldnt want to hang out with a genius at party) Now of course, Im commenting because I believe that many religious nuts have overstepped their boundary, but, many havent.

[dinokralt4]

@dudesonman4200 and quote someone like nietzsche or sartre.

[dudesonman4200]

@dinokralt4

standard of evidence, its general irrationality leads to the development of a certain kind of person. Im not talking about morality, and Im not directly talking about intelligence. Im not saying religious people are stupid just because their religious. Remember, Im not necesserily calling this a negative thing. According to my experience, the american 21st century style christianity creates a sort of outgoing, quite irrational, often annoying, rather educated, although extremely--

[dudesonman4200]

@dinokralt4

intelligence, or at least, the only thing people commonly use to judge it, academic success, is also determined by social surroundings. Personally I dont think that grades are a measure of anything more than effort, and in my personal experience Ive found that a suspension of certain qualities that are related to what one would call intelligence, if not the intelligence itself, is/are required in order to be successful in school.

[dinokralt4]

@dudesonman4200 this is a good point. If you don't mind i'd like to use as a bit of a plug for some christian apologetics, haha, sorry. Many intelligent christians spend substantial amounts of time and energy outside of institutions. They don't ask themselves what is best way to utilize my time to maximize my efficiency? They ak themselves what is the best way to use my time to give glory to God. As a result they sacrifice the development of some of the intellectual tools the world considers imp

[dudesonman4200]

@dinokralt4 has no real effect on the study of math or science, but precisely what it does affect is philosophy and literature, or more specifically , our perception of reality. You have to understand the domino effect that occurs when a certain person might think a certain way. (Im not necesseraliy calling this a negative thing) (Btw, Ive never seen a stat supporting a positive correlation between stupidity and faith. Ive seen the existence of this correlation in real life.

[dudesonman4200]

@dinokralt4 I know youll probably say something like "how do you know thats accurate if only youve seen it? Dont you think your taking things on faith? My answer to a question like that would be that I wasnt the only judge, and ultimately, arrogantly, yes, I am a sufficient judge)

Typically, when people think a certain way they start to subconsiously apply that thinking to other parts of their life. Religion has no effect on math or science because of its 21st century hypocrisy, but its low

[azmanabdula]

@dinokralt4 potential.........i wonder if they were not christian........could they see something in there work they once wouldnt have?

interesting.......

or is it religion that made them seek for answers.....as there is none in church...

(or at least mentally stimulating answers)

[dinokralt4]

@azmanabdula of course there are none in church, in the sense that there are non that pop out in the physical building. The church does try to hash out what true spiritual discernment looks like though. For those who honestly look at the life of the christ, and the way in which individual christians have attempted to infuse his teachings into their lives, they may begin to see essential building blocks to understanding the answers which the church preaches

[azmanabdula]

@dinokralt4 true....Jesus didn't have a house of worship

[azmanabdula]

@azmanabdula i must have been pissed when i wrote this : )

[azmanabdula]

you fool @bahramf, your religion hasnt given ANYONE ANYTHING that we didnt already have, this stuff i beleive they call it DOGMA IS DESTROYING logic reasoning and with it our ability to investigate and reveal said unknown phenomena, NOT JUST LABEL IT dam idiots GROW UP science cant reveal the nature of existence?, HOW CAN STUPID RIDDLES EXPLAIN LIFE?, ill stick with research over the degeneration and final destruction of my chemical and bioelectrical neural pathways

[dinokralt4]

@azmanabdula come on guys evolution, if its in fact in accordacne with reality, is not incompatible with christianity. To believe that this topic is where various spiritual beliefs collide is foolish. Visit biologos.com to get a graps of their compatability

[bahramf]

@azmanabdula I'm an atheist... moron

[azmanabdula]

@bahramf as i read over my original comment.......i get a giggle......

man i must have been wasted.....

i cant recall a reason why you were in the comment.....sorry mate.......

[karlgreifenklau2y]

great

[nire135]

Hey Craig

Good, but your first one is better. The podcast did make me want to watch 'in conversation with llen greg.' Looking forward to checking ut the next one.

[EminemBase]

Dawkins, my hero.

[bahramf]

Dawkins is being mocked, rightfully so in this video. You do see that right?

[GowanBray]

One does not mock Dawkins, one only reveals one's own ignorance. Ideas and explanations can be argued, but it is pointless to personify them.

[bahramf]

It's mocking his idea that science has some sort fo superiority over other intellectual endeavors.

[GowanBray]

Well it does have superiority ! For example, which would you rather fly in, an aircraft designed using science or one designed using astrology ?

[bahramf]

You've created the false dichotomy. When designing an aircraft, of course science is superior, but when understanding life... A scientific interpretation may be the most stupid.

[spacecowboy95]

@bahramf What do you mean understanding life? Science is the only accurate tool for understanding life, have you heard of Evolution? If on the other hand you mean questions about how we should live and what constitutes beauty, then those are philosophical questions. But still, that is not to say that science is useless to these questions either.

What we can agree on is that religion has the least to offer in both these cases, for the simple fact that it is based on supernaturalism and magic.

[bahramf]

I agree with that, but even when trying to understand human life, do the facts of evolutionary theory provide people consolation? Nietzsche understood a good life as an aesthetic phenomenon. I rather agree with this and I think it is a better way to look at life.

[spacecowboy95]

@bahramf A scientific theory is not judged by how consoling it is, its judged by its explanatory power and whether the evidence supports it. I dont know exactly what you're talking about, evolution is not meant to be consoling, its meant to be an accurate scientific description of observable evidence. Are you saying you would find evolution more believable if it made you feel better? Science is about truth, so you cant claim its weakness is its inability to console, thats a ridiculous straw man.

[bahramf]

Science is about paradigms more so than truth in the platonic sense as I think you are using it. Working within the evolutionary paradigm ignores endless possible observations, quite rightly.

My point is that artistic explanations of life, and its origins are actually just as accurate, if not, more so, but also, more relevant to people.

[spacecowboy95]

@bahramf - I still dont know what your whinging about, what exactly is an "artistic explanation of life"? and further, what has this got to do with the fact of evolution and the power of science? Art is a nice part of our culture... so? What IS your point? Do you place emotion before truth? Is that it? And how is science NOT relevent to people? How can art be more accurate when we know art is not truth? "We all know that Art is not truth. Art is a lie that makes us realize truth" - Picasso.

[bahramf]

Well, just stating a quote does not make it true, but even so, Picasso claimed that art makes us realize truth, even if art itself is a lie.

It's not just a nice part of our culture. It is as important and on an even-footing with science.

I place utility before truth and I believe that truth and reality should be in service of social considerations and the well-being of social institutions and not the other way around.

[dinokralt4]

@spacecowboy95 john lennox, professour of math at oxford provides an example to prove the errorousness of this. If a women bakes a cake, science can explain in exact detail how the cake was made, and provide advice on how to improve it. It cannot exmplain why it is made. It cannot state why it would or would not be benficial to humanity for the women to insert poison into the cake. I'm not saying the bible is onyl way to see that poisoning a cake is bad, but the point is that science has nothing

[spacecowboy95]

@dinokralt4 A cake is baked for a reason, so people can eat it, there is a reason why it is made to be sweet, so it is appetising.

You cannot attribute any such reasons to a thing like our universe and so asking "why" our universe was made is meaningless. It makes the presumption that it was made and also that it has meaning, none of those things are established. So attacking science for not being able to answer such questions doesnt work. And science can determine human values.

[dinokralt4]

@spacecowboy95 the point of thought example is that there is more to the purpose of the cake than what is empirically observable. Perhaps she is baking a cake to attmept to make one more willing to take a bribe, or perhaps she is baking it with the hopes that the person she is serving it to will dies of clogged artiries. This is the point. Science cannot provide any insight to such a discussion. It cannot answer any sort of why question. Dawkins admits this. He simply says the asking of why... 

[spacecowboy95]

@dinokralt4 It doesnt matter what the reason is for the cake being baked. The only thing that matter's is that the cake has SOME purpose.

There is no reason to assume that the universe has a purpose. It is childish to attribute purpose to everything, that is not an insult, it's an actual observation on the behaviour of children, they are natural creationists attributing purpose to everything, rocks, flowers, stars etc...

And check your spelling.

[dinokralt4]

@spacecowboy95 what if someone rapes and murders the women you love? Do you think it is silly to look for the answer of why a human would be led to behave in such a manner? Oh, and thanks for the advice about my spelling. I looked over my previous posts and realized they were as sloppy as Dawkins atheistic logic. Sorry everyone!

[spacecowboy95]

@dinokralt4 I dont know what you are talking about anymore, trying to discover the motive behind a rape has nothing whatsoever to do with the question of whether the universe has a purpose.

If Richards logic is sloppy (which it isnt) I dont know how to categorise yours.

[dinokralt4]

@spacecowboy95 fair enough, i admit i'm reaching a bit here. I guess what is preventing me from truly understanding him, is how it is that science can lead to an understanding of human psycology. If it is silly to look at things within the universe and look for reasons of its purpose or existence, does this not necessarily include the questioning of the behaviour by which humans seek utility? On what grounds can science develop the idea that all individuals deserve respect and dignity?

[dinokralt4]

@spacecowboy95 sorry about the spelling errors!

[dinokralt4]

@spacecowboy95 what i find exceptional difficult to grasp is how it is that proper behaviour can develop without the belief that one needs to be forgiven for acting or thinking in a way that would encourage future contingent situations, in which severe pain is caused to another. It would appear that under a materialist psycology such a belief has no connection to reality. Am i understanding Dawkin's argument's correctly?

[dinokralt4]

@spacecowboy95 questions is childish. To ask questions about why we feel and experience certain mental states is just as childish. Evolution explains such things, knowledge of God's grace is a pure delusion. The christian is agnostic about the question of how life developed. I'm okay with either long term creation or evolution. The fact is, neither chagnes how one is to interpret human psycology. A materialist psycology is insufficient.

[dinokralt4]

@GowanBray right. but why are you the plane? To visit loved ones. Biology provides a perfect explanation of love though doesn't it? Come on.

[dinokralt4]

@bahramf boo ya. The worst thing that can happen to humanity is a for a biologist to run rampant out of a lab. Dawkins is a fundamentalists, i find it very hard not to accept this. I have a biased opinion, but at the same time... come on.... evolution provides a wonder explanation of literature? Get real.

[vincentpricesnephew]

@GowanBray that sounds like a challenge. a comedy based on Dawkin's ideas. i bet he'd go see it

[dinokralt4]

@EminemBase you may want to compare him to other atheists before you do this. William lane craig's address at UBC provides an excellent reasoning of why you should do this. To each their own though!

[azurenscens]

@EminemBase lol.

[ConservativeAnthem]

@EminemBase You must not be much of thinker, then!

[EminemBase]

@ConservativeAnthem Why, because Richard Dawkins - a prominent scientist, champion and torch carrier of Darwin and advancer of modern biology is A hero of mine?... how the fuck does that make sense. Get lost you psuedo-intellectual.

If you're implying Dawkins is subpar or that I'm unaware of superior thinkers, think again.