23. Roughgarden, Dawkins, Harris, and Tyson Discussion (1 of 2) - Beyond Belief 2006

[jamesrgrs]

SAY UHM ONE MORE TIME, I DARE YOU, I DOUBLE DARE YOU!

[phildirt3]

its funny how people that defend religion just blather on about nothing

[writersblock26]

Thank you for posting this, BarryJBelmont.

[subramaniann1]

I think that lady was attacked by Dementors !!!!!!!!!!!!!! lol

[smashtankful]

There's nothing worse than the double "uh" or "uhm" in public speech or discourse. Once it happens I nervously wait for it to happen again and am distracted, at that point the video is a waste. At least that speakers part of the video.

[lopytube]

@smashtankful Damn it.You mean after the double um its done.

You mean after the double uh it's ug-ly.

But watching these videos make me some what happy.Reason being we are looking at some of the most perspicacious minds on the forefront and here we even see them circumnavigate a slight bit in thier points and lose rhythm.

I gotta find more vids with Sam Harris go one on one with somebody

[smashtankful]

@lopytube haha, uhhhhgly, for sure. I wrote that before I'd really watched any of it, I was just so distracted. I definitely agree with your later bits and yes, Sam Harris is an animal, a true intellectual. Love him.

[SkeksisRule]

There are no moral absolutes. Just look to nature. Is any animal truly evil? It is impossible, because nature is impartial. There is no good and evil except what we humans attribute to things we like or dislike based on societal norms and our own emotions.

[andrizzleton]

"Science is a way of thinking much more than it is a body of knowledge." -Carl Sagan

[test123ok]

Tyson nailed it. Most of the scientific news on popular media does tend to make the general public skeptic about scientists. Unfortunately this influences who they vote and the government policies that fund those projects.

[franciszek8D]

We can breed different kind Of dogs but we are not able to change their nature, for example, to change them into cats. How did a blind nature accomplish such wonder - what inteligent scientists are not able to do having all modern tools in their disposal?

Another problem! What was the first, a hen or an egg; a tree or a seed. If a seed how it happened to be if there were no trees. If trees, how it became when there were no seeds. So we must accept a mystery And admit we do not know And probob

[meucunt1]

@franciszek8D You have got to be trolling, you just have to be. 150 years of gathering data, excavation, arduous study, compilation of cladograms and evolutionary genetics; and you're giving us the chicken & egg?

Carnivorans split into Feliformia (cat-ish) and Caniformia (dog-ish) about 42 million years ago, if you really want to know how "blind nature" did this it would take about 3 minutes on google. Or you can keep regurgitating this primary school level Ray Comfort bile.

[franciszek8D]

Genxtargetmarket!

First! Bible is not a scientific book. God revealed in the Bible how to live in order to be saved, not how the world was buildt.

Second! In the science we also use a verb: "to believe". For example some people "evolution theory" use as a scientific fact, while it is only theory, which, we believe, may explain the origin Of mankind. So far nobody proved evolution without any doubt, I mean the origin Of one species from some previous primitive species. We are able to breed diff

[spareaxe]

@franciszek8D dude...you have no understanding of Evolution and it is the best evidence of how we became human based on years of study and falsifying evidence too. In Science no one thinks "to believe" .....and Science isn't always right but, they find answers sooner or later. Your supernatural beliefs in Gods and man made religion are just plain stupid.

[FrozenSolidTwo]

Neil always brings lightheartedness and even comedy to these usually serious talks he gets involved with.

[franciszek8D]

Faith And science can not condradict each other because they both come from the same God And God is One God.

If we see some contradictions sometimes, then science may be wrong or understanding Of faith may be wrong.

For example in the past time Christians believed that God created the universe in 6 days. Now we believe that 6 days may be understood as a evolotionary process. In the time when Bible was written nobody knew what is evolution. What is withour any error that The universe is created

[genxtargetmarket]

@franciszek8D

Prove the 1st claim that you make. The one in the first sentence.

[shabido1]

Dawkins is killing me! He looks like my dog when I don't take him to play ball.

[margiedemello]

Jean Claude, re last note, now you are being silly and exaggerating beyond the point.

Anyway, I suspect you have not travelled the third world lately where you could drop in on Adam and Eve just about any time. You probably have not seen the kind of tin shacks people live in in the US, literally, right around the corner from big rich main street. Read some history and get out more kid.

[jeanclaudtransam]

@margiedemello My point was "silly" because your position is silly. You very seriously put forth the position that scientific advancement may not be or have been in the best interest of humanity. Read that sentence slowly and tell me if you actually believe that. Many religious people treat science as some kind of boogeyman because it is incompatible with their religion. Meanwhile they ignore the benefits of science that they reap. Science is not going away. Religion is. And thank god for that.

[RejechtedGaming]

@margiedemello I'm sorry but what is your point? If science is evil, then reject it in favor of faith.

[margiedemello]

@RejechtedGaming

Science is not evil, I did not say that.Not sure what note you are replying to. No, that would be silly, science is awesome, more so cause am clinical social work therapist not a scientist. Have heard that some religious people treat science like a boogeyman, I don't know any never have. Taught philosophy of science and social research have post grad education. I'm pals with a top physicist and a brilliant logician/mathmetician.Hope this helps you see where I'm coming from.

[mehico33]

@margiedemello The point, I think, is that many religious people do see science as the enemy as it threatens to undermine their precious worldviews, the classic example is the hysterical rejection of evolution, or dating methods, medical research etc.

It might appear to be cherry picking on the part of atheists to mention these people however there are a large enough number of them for them not to be considered extremists. This is what needs to change

[margiedemello]

@mehico33 Thanks, I see your point. I would still guess they are a minority. Any stats? Is it more in the American experience than elsewhere? Is evolution taught in the public schools in US? Even the Catholic private schools here teach evoltuion, for long as I know of. I'm interested in evolution. To generalize that theists do not know science is false and unreasonable. I bet no one here knows about epigenetics or neuropsychiatry, new research implications on natural selection?

[mehico33]

@margiedemello Yeah it is mostly an american phenomenon, its been up to around 40-50% 0f those polled for like 15 years. "Theists are anti science" Is very much a stereotypical jab, it is certainly unjust to say that every theist is anti science. I think it comes from the fact that all distrust of science stems from religious doctrines (or perhaps their misinterpretation).

Ill admit ive never heard of neuropsychiatry lol.

[margiedemello]

@mehico33 Hi, so are you in New Mexico or is your handle abbreviation? I mention Neuropsych because new research is stressing life experience and effects on the genome. I don't understand it all. Also structures of the brain are significantly affected by life experience, enrichment and deprivation. Talk later

MdM

[mehico33]

@margiedemello Actually im Maori, but my father is white so I look like a mexican lol, kind of an in joke.

Yeah, ive always imagined there must be more to it than simple non random survival, I mean Darwins basic premise (Descent with modification) still holds, but I feel its somewhat insufficient.

I could be wrong, I mean it is very hard to visualise 3 billion years but surely other forces would have been in play.

[margiedemello]

@mehico33 My adult children are bi-cultural, son is often mistaken for Spanish or African heritage. Come to think of it he does have both from way back. Their dad is from Goa India by way of east Africa. I have been looking for videos that I can understand on the subject, but some of them put me off with the creation rhetoric. I just want a good science video on the principles of evol. and to Q and A with someone knowlegable and patient! lol

Regards

[mehico33]

@margiedemello Right on, ill admit the comments I leave seem quite provocative/condescending, I just enjoy the dialogue. My motives are quite different, my mother is a devout Jehovas Witness so im essentially refining my arguments.

Richard Dawkins books on the subject are pretty good but hes more about getting the public interested in the subject than exploring the finer details, still pretty fascinating.

[margiedemello]

@mehico33 you mean to support her beliefs or refute them? I don't know much about JW, but if it reassures her you can tell her many theists do not believe that evolution or science in general conflicts or dis confirms the most important tenents of Christian belief. She does not need to worry, IMO, and the opinion of others. Science gives spirituality the opportunity to mature, and for people to keep making choices about faith, in rational not magical thinking. Cheers.

[HeavyDickSince93]

@margiedemello You are unbelievably wrong in your rationing. Science does NOT support spirituality or help to mature or refine anyone's belief! Only the lower educated, lacking understanding of true science would ever claim that science is proving the bible. Science is merely giving the evidence that our world can be created and continue to evolve without any divine interaction! If anything science is only disproving "god" or 'gods" day by day, as technology gets greater and greater.

[HeavyDickSince93]

@margiedemello ... it isn't neuropsychiatry it is called neurophysiology.

[Clifton100]

I've never really wanted to punch someone for being boring, but this ugly bitch is really annoying.

[margiedemello]

Children are still dying from hunger , disease and poverty all over the world. Wars are ever more sophisticated thanks to scientists.. Empiricism is not and cannot be the primary foundation for social relationships. There is no scientific morality, only Ideology - and that led to nihilsm, utilitarianism, Nazism, Marxism and Social Darwinism as moral social structures.The age of reason did not produce the kind salvation it promised for the 20th century.Religion bashing is a red herring.

[jeanclaudtransam]

@margiedemello Do you think more or less children would die without the aid of sciences like agro-biotech and nutrition? At least science is trying to solve these issues while an omnipotent God watches and does nothing. Also, disease? Like the spread of AIDS in Africa perhaps, where the RCC ministries condemn condom use? Religion has had 3000+ years and has still failed to produce your moral society while science makes uncountable advances in spite of tyrannically religious societies.

[margiedemello]

@jeanclaudtransam

thats a good question, do you have demographics and reliable stats on any of these propositions? I have my doubts. And do not assume I am one of the American right, my background is social work and history. Harris and Tyson are better speakers than D who should not be taken seriously. Did you see his repsonse to Tyson in next section of this video? This is his ethic of engagement? It won't endure, you'll see.

[jeanclaudtransam]

@margiedemello My question was rhetorical. And I was not referring to GMO, rather the vast scientific understanding of agriculture and nutrition that has fed billions throughout history. The idea that science is somehow culpable because hunger/disease/poverty still exist is nonsensical. Compare the condition of humanity in the 1st century and now. These advances ARE science, often in direct conflict with religion. As for Dawkins, he is only concerned with the truth, not social niceties.

[margiedemello]

@jeanclaudtransam -well if you are seriously going to cite benefits of science over faith in support of your position, then you should give empirical evidence not rhetoric. I don't know for certain whether mass production has been better for everyone than traditional ways. That is a big claim to make without evidence.

Re Dawkins, we were discussing ethical debate, re control and engagement, (as wasTyson later in this video), not manners. He basically tells T and any critics to F off..????

[jeanclaudtransam]

@margiedemello If you seriously believe that scientific advancement may not be in the best interest of humanity then you should have the courage of your conviction and please avoid using things like antibiotics, indoor plumbing, refrigeration, anything mass produced or containing a microchip. Also, turn off your computer, which was invented, leave your house, which was built with advanced machines and materials, and go live in a forest, collecting berries and roots to live on like Adam and Eve.

[margiedemello]

@jeanclaudtransam I would love to learn more about agro biotech, but don't know what is happening with it in the west and internationally. I do know that GMO's are being resisted in developing countries and will entrench millions in poverty. Science could improve human condition, but philosophy of science is not alternative to faith. Europe is now secular, Canada secular/tolerant/pluralist - US culture is dominated by conservatism and materialism.- has approprated religion as a product.

[jeanclaudtransam]

@margiedemello Perhaps GMO is the answer to the food crisis. Or perhaps it will be revealed as useless/obsolete. Science will determine it in due time and it will not be thrown out of hand needlessly. Also, a successful GMO tech will alleviate poverty not increase it. Not sure where that part came from. As for science as a moral system, I suggest you watch Sam Harris give his talk at TED. -> "Sam Harris: Science can answer moral questions"

[margiedemello]

@jeanclaudtransam

There is much debate over GMO in case you don't know. Many dangers associated with it including third world poverty.

Yes I'll look for the video on Sam Harris, I like his speaking style and intellect-what I've seen..

[margiedemello]

@jeanclaudtransam

I don't know too much about this, but if you recall Gandhi and his spining wheel, and the salt marches, the same is still happing in the developing world. Resources taken by the west or harvested locally for foreign markets, leaving the locals in poverty. Dr. V. Shiva talks about GMO's; its time science slowed down and re considers its complicity with oppressive economic forces. Ever more achievements do not necessarily lead to better living- Its often just spin.

[jeanclaudtransam]

@margiedemello Do you think more or less children would die without the aid of sciences like agro-biotech and nutrition? At least science is trying to solve these issues while an omnipotent God watches and does nothing. Also, disease? Like the spread of AIDS in Africa perhaps, where the RCC ministries condemn condom use? Religion has had 3000+ years and has still failed to produce your moral society while science makes uncountable advances in spite of tyrannically religious societies.

[dhx84]

Too bad the Dalai Lama was a theocratic priest-king with serfs.

[featheon]

Funny comments here, since Roughgarden makes the critical argument that rationalism cannot be the source of ethics and moral values, as the 20th century clearly demonstrates. Yet the rest of the panel, and these commentors below, continue to act as though the Enlightenment has been steadily hurdling social problems since the 18th century. I guess it's easy to be an atheist when you don't know anything about history.

[dhx84]

@featheon

It has moreso than religion.

The argument here is basically, "rationalism cannot provide complete and authoritative answers" with the silent corollary that religion doesn't either.

Yet the Enlightenment is pretty much why we aren't serfs dying to diseases and living on the border of famine. It is also why children don't die moments away from birth with the mother following them at some point.

[margiedemello]

@featheon

exactly

[oneirishpoet]

who is the transexual boring everyone to death?

[bookwormbandit]

Yeah, Joan roughgarden was John roughgarden a herpetologist/biologist at Stanford. I read her book Evolution's Rainbow and ay yi yi....it's was so political. She actually dedicated the book to 'all her sisters...' in addition to capping on EO Wilson. She's also Christian (fuckin a). As you can see here she's a kinda dull and manages to drop gender issues (non sequiter and boring) while she gets her ass handed to her by everybody.

[stojadinovicp]

uhm, she's a he... (Joan Roughgarden, born Jonathan Roughgarden)

[jaymuhumuza]

The look on Dawkin's face at 4.44 was EXACTLY how I felt as the lady spoke...Just so dull!!

[koshiamamoto]

It's great that he's moderating this, but jeez, David Bowie's let himself go.

[TheGutterMonkey]

Who's the dude with the ponytail again?

[dcx1287]

Notice that I'm not suggesting that this analogy to health solves the is ought dilemma. It doesn't. I'm merely pointing out the double standard at work here. One could easily argue for a "health relativist" position where people that stick swords into their hearts are "just as healthy" as people who don't.

[dcx1287]

I encourage you to ponder, not consider. The fact that health is a loosely defined term and is necessarily dependent on certain axioms that cannot, in and of themselves, be proved to be truly "healthy" does not pose a problem to the science of medicine.

[dcx1287]

The fact that this is indeed an axiom does not appear to draw this constant barrage of philosophical attacks to the underpinnings of medicine, and this is a frightening double standard that we should be aware of. You don't get people saying "well who are you to say that living pain free and not vomiting all the time is healthy"

[dcx1287]

The next question to ask is, how do we arrive at a sufficiently elastic axiom for morality that should generally be followed? I consider you to ponder the concept of human health. We can have a science of human health (medicine) by working under the axioms that it's generally better to live free of debilitating pain than it is to live with constant pain.

[dcx1287]

Once you realize that we are the arbiters of moral truth when reading a holy book given the fact that there exists no inherent protocol for distinguishing between divine edicts that should be followed and ones that should not, it follows that we are necessarily applying some external presuppositions or axioms when assessing an action as moral, immoral, or amoral.

[dcx1287]

God is a divine authority so we ought to follow his rules is a total non sequitur. That's lesson number one. Lesson number two is, when we read, for example, the Bible and accept the golden rule and simultaneously reject the endorsement of slavery, that assessment is necessarily external.

[dcx1287]

Joan Roughgarden may well have suggested that critical scholarship of cookbooks is important for deriving moral truth and her talk would've had just as much of a non impact as it did. She is so terrifyingly far removed from the very simple thought experiments that necessarily lead to the conclusion that supposed holy books with mutually incompatible moral precepts cannot be the sources for morality.

[MrDonovanFrost]

@chrisuk19yootube Looks like he's falling asleep!

[TomFynn]

This woman(?) is truly beyond belief...

[pustolov9]

dawkins is covering his ears not to hear this boring woman :)

[Hermoor]

lol at dawkins, I agree retarded christian...

[FlyingOverTr0ut]

What is wrong with that woman? She's maliciously boring.

[jgonsalk]

@FlyingOverTr0ut She was scared to death. Reason vs lack thereof? She wouldn't win in a million years!

[GiulianoTaverna89]

@FlyingOverTr0ut she's trying to justify religion by claiming atheism has a tendency to be reactionary... in other words,she's a blithering idiot with no concept of history.

[jujumen]

Is dawkins sleeping or face palming at 4:30?

[Frog869]

@jujumen lol

[JoSoong]

@jujumen He looks like he's getting ready to blow a raspberry.

[acr08807]

@jujumen Both.

[Str4ng3F0lk]

@jujumen He refutes the 'we need religion for morality' idea in his book The God Delusion. I'd say he face palming :p

[lewisner]

@jujumen He's doing the little known "DOUBLE face palm"!

[jujumen]

@lewisner from what i gather, when stupidity approaches galactic proportions the double face palm is needed.

[JoolsCaesar]

@jujumen Looks like he's trying to imagine what it would be like to be attacked by a face-hugger.

[troyatwork]

Morality can not be based solely on reason .

[zivanlee]

@troyatwork because???

[troyatwork]

@zivanlee Because morality is by definition not based on reason . Moral action implies being/doing good without having any particular reason for being/doing so . Think of it this way .. if we try to remember a time any time when we can be certain we acted in a "moral" way you will see that it is those situations in which we did what was right just because it was the right thing to do not because there was any other reason to do so .

[zivanlee]

@troyatwork so what are these acts of morality that have no reason.

[troyatwork]

@zivanlee  By "reason" i mean that the person doing the act should not seek to be benefited in any way by it. It could be anything ,like making an anonymous donation etc . Morality is imo a kind of an abstract concept and it should remain that way in order to preserve its spirit .

[zivanlee]

@troyatwork There is a reciprocal nature to donating though, be it indirect or never returned at all. IMO i think the wealthy do it as a false sense of keeping some sort of conscience, especially for the religious.

[troyatwork]

@zivanlee I was using donations as an example( and I agree that a lot of rich people donate to make themselves feel better ) . The basic idea is that the person should not expect any payoff when he/she does it . It maybe that some benefits (material or otherwise ) accrue form such acts but the person should not set out to do those things with that benefit in mind . There is an element of abstractness inherent in the rules of moral conduct ..... contd.

[Ender0410]

@troyatwork The ego is that everything is done for some sort of of gratification to the self.

[troyatwork]

@zivanlee There is an element of abstractness inherent in the rules of moral conduct and any system which tries to capture the spirit which drives moral conduct using only the tools of reason (which are the only tools available to science ) is bound to fail .

[zivanlee]

@troyatwork Indeed the system would have to be extremely complex to encompass 'feelings' of solidarity, however we have the science and knowledge as to create an abundance eliminating the need to donate, we lack the transition to put it in place. Our economy is our enemy! I really like the new movie by peter joseph 'moving forward' which goes into more detail as to where we could be.

[troyatwork]

@zivanlee Will watch the movie if i get hold of it .

[markgg1]

the assertion morality cant be found without god is bullshit for the simple reason im an atheist, and I have performed moral acts that can never possibly benefit me personally....

so I wish this argument would become non-existant, like god is.

[blenderpanzi]

@markgg1 Also people do not take everything in the bible into their morals, they pick and choose. And how do they choose? By imposing their own moral values that already preexists independent of the bible. Ergo even the moral values of Christians don't come from the bible/their religion.

[synyst3rgat35]

Thank you for uploading this, sir.