Dr. David Berlinski: The Devil's Delusion: Atheism and Its Scientific Pretensions
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 27 сен 2024
- Eric Metaxas and Socrates in the City present an evening with Dr. David Berlinski at the Union League Club in New York City on June 12, 2012.
I come back to this lecture every few months because it has it all! David Berlinsky is never a waste of my time!
“Gravity explains the motions of the planets, but it cannot explain who sets the planets in motion.” ― Isaac Newton.
I am Catholic.
Dr. Beinski is not.
Having said that, the world needs as many Dr. Berlinskis as it can have.
Agreed.
No doubt about it.
Thank you for being you sir
Hopefully you are a Christian.
@ William F. Buckley Jr. I actually got to see William F. Buckley jr over 20 yrs ago. He did the Commencement speech to my step-sister's graduating class at St. John's College in Annapolis. He was a great speaker.
What an intriguing man. It's as if perceiving to be in the presence of one of the senior priests from the Pharaonic era imbued with a good sense of Jewish repartee/humor. A riveting & enlightening presentation.
I love listening to Dr Berlinski. Thank you so much (all you involved in SITC) for hosting him. His final remark is great: "Cut out the middleman..." (and think for yourself, especially about the great questions such as the existence of God and what that means for your life and mine).
DOMINICAN GANG...THE MAN KNOWS THE SCIENCES AND THE STREETS
What an artful speaker. He puts as much effort into his thoughts as he does how he delivers them.
Brilliant speaker. I hope he has the peace he may find if he accepts Jesus. I find Dr. Berlinski not wanting but with an open heart and a beautiful mind. God Bless you Dr. Berlinski!
Actually, Dr. Berlinski is very well informed, and the information he presents has been painstakingly researched. He is a shrewd and cunning warrior and no one in the atheistic camp wants to debate him. He and Dr. William Lane Craig are an extremely formidable tag team of sorts.
One of the all time greats on revealing the bigger picture and how the culture weaves its way into the theories.
I wonder if Eric Metaxas missed his calling as a standup comic.
As a theist I just love videos like this! Its great that believers can be emboldened by people like this.
love this guy-- I'm glad he takes Dawkins and Dennett down a notch(since their claim to fame is more from their virulent atheism than their science.........
Well actually both men are pretty well known for their science and prolific authorship. Dawkins' fame initially came from a popular science book entitle 'The Selfish Gene' which had NOTHING to do with atheism.
in 1979-- since then his claim to fame is his false narrative of angry, bitter atheist---- good gig if you can get it-- apparently you haven't found out how to make a living doing this! haha
He rightly takes them to task for the main reasons for their atheism(book sales)
Dawkins is more of an ideologue than a serious scientist. He refuses to even try to have a debate with a knowledgeable ID theorist or a creationist.
He is really good at writing books to sell to the atheists who want their beliefs supported. He makes millions off of unsuspecting folk who think him scientific. He is hardly that. He rarely uses any observable or testable evidence to support Darwinism.
Read Dawkins. Climbing Mount Improbable. You will see his fame as a scientist is deserved.
Apart from the content - which was fascinating (which I am always happy to discuss), I am amazed that he gave this entire, hour-long speech, without a single note. His memory must be incredible.
+Scott Campbell He not only has a good memory. Don't think he might have a God given talent, plus, with the Spirit of God within him I would not rule out that "unseen" help!
I read his book recently, The devils delusion, nothing short of amazing. His entire speech is in his book and much more.
At the moment, being an agnostic, Berlinkski does not profess faith in the Christ. We should pray that he does move from one of the best defended and secure positions of any academic agnostic I have come across, to the appreciation of who the Lord Jesus Christ is.
Indeed. After all, a brilliant unbeliever who knows the case for atheism is a poor one, is probably more accountable for his unbelief.
mcmanustony "Berlinski was a research assistant in molecular biology at Columbia University, and was a research fellow at the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA) in Austria and the Institut des Hautes Études Scientifiques (IHES) in France. He has taught philosophy, mathematics, and English at Stanford, Rutgers, the City University of New York, the University of Washington, the University of Puget Sound, San Jose State University, the University of Santa Clara, the University of San Francisco, San Francisco State University, and taught mathematics at the Université de Paris".
fampeople.com/cat-david-berlinski
This statement appears not to contradict the Wikipedia entry for him. Would you please offer a revision of the Wiki article if you feel it is not correct? I would like to see your revision offering when you have it.
I think most scientists would believe that Dr Berlinski's experience qualifies as a fairly academic life. What part of the meaning of the word 'academic' do you not agree with? Or is it that his name is David Berlinski the anti-Darwinist, which resultingly earns him your approbation?
All humans are hardwired for God. So the question to be asked is not whether God exists, but rather do atheists exist.
+Mortimer Snerd Great question
God doesn't believe in atheists ;-)
Mortimer Snerd, I find that the acid test for something truly funny is if a recipient laughs out loud without anyone else present. Your comment did that for me, though I suspect you didn't mean to
People are hardwired to believe in ghosts, goblins, fairies, etc. Just because one is "hard-wired" to believe something doesn't mean it's true.
How about the divine realm the more we learn about it it squelch’s that desire.
Dr. David Berlinski is an open minded human being, i appreciate his courage and mind that is intuitive and grounded.
Berlinski is an opportunistic hoaxer as anyone who really understands the subject will recognise
pads mutbut Mr Pad, this is a human being who deserves respect, what would you say his motives are to cheat monkeys out of their imagined conclusions ?
Shocking naivety on your part I'm afraid.
There are multiple reasons why he would dissemble, didn't you realise there's a lot of money to be made through talking BS - sad I know but that's the way the world is
How much is Richard Dawkins worth ?
Obviously your logic is flawed : The existence versus the non-existence of a creator God is an antonymic pair so one side must be right regardless of their wealth. Berlinski is bloviating his obscurantism because he is exploiting the market of credulous people such as yourself, who are not prepared to dig deeper because they have a vested interest in their delusion
I'm praying for Dr. Berlinski. God has blessed him with an awesome mind. He is careful, steady and thorough. I think his upbringing did him great justice. Today we can hardly say the same in America. If you're under 40 you probably have no well-rounded, honest mental reference of true history. I hope that Dr. Berlinski is persuaded to accept the real gift that is waiting for him in Christ. I hope I will see him and Chris Hitchens in heaven someday. I truly respected and relished in listening to them both.
I think it's okay for a YT comment for the sake of brevity. It's not out of disrespect and I don't know a lot of random facts about him.
Berlinski is a very smart guy. He makes good arguments. Luckily he is in a position to criticize evolution that not many scientists are in. He has gravitas, and that allows him to criticize evolution where a young teacher fresh out of college couldn't.
A young scientist, looking for a job in almost any area, couldn't possibly be openly antagonistic about evolution. Neither could he openly share scientific evidence that evolution wasn't true. Without already having tenure at a university a young person would never get tenure if he even questioned evolution. These young graduates can be the best teachers in the world but if they don't teach and preach the evolution dogma, their careers are over before they begin.
The paradigm of evolution must never be questioned. We have seen over and over again what happens if a high school teacher, untenured college professor or even a editor of a science magazine, dares to put out any information that goes against the evolution story. Even peer reviewed papers that throw doubt on the evolution story aren't to be used or shown to students. Failure to keep this anti evolution information out of the hands of students could cost a teacher his career. It is 1984 come to fruition in America.
+nahshon But THIS is what needs to CHANGE!!! We are NEVER going to progress scientifically if we allow the scientific community to silence those who question its authority!! Only TRUE scientists are open to new ideas, new mathematical propositions, etc. ANY scientist who tries to shut others up isn't really a scientist, now are they?
+Susan Burns That's sure is different, and more interesting from the posts I read every day. I am not sure what you mean though. Which scientists are trying to control the discussion?
+nahshon Too bad he doesn't know a thing about evolution to criticize it. He has the understanding of a grade schooler. Well, scratch that. I know grade school kids who know more than he does.
+nahshon God has always had the advantage. I once asked a minister how could I go about convincing an atheist that there is a God. He simply mentioned to have the atheist to have God reveal himself. I know of persons who did not believe, and one a hard core atheist, the other a hard core agnostic who BOTH came to God when they kept an open mind and were serious, as well as desperate. One I knew personally, the other I read his book. He gave a powerful of how he came to believe in God as did the hard core atheist that I knew personally, and heard his testimonial twice of how he came to believe, and also both in the church or spiritual program supported by the New Testament.
+Susan Burns I think when the most notorious atheist Antony Flew after over 50 years an atheist, and then came to believe in God, and wrote a book, that I personally read, "There Is a God." And others I know who have come to God and even former church goers said how they came to believe in God. My email is 63messenger777@gmail.com for anyone who "dares" (hee hee ) to email me. How Great is God will be answered.
Thanks for posting!
By seeking to hear, know and understand Jesus' words the Holy Spirit will teach you understanding of all things. Reading the four gospels over and over asking your questions spiritually to God and you will receive revelation of understanding. God sent Christ preaching the mystery of God in parables to grow and convert your mind spiritually and in this process we become spiritually changed from serving sin to serving that righteousness in Jesus Christ.
We are to follow in the faith in which Jesus came preaching; not our own works but the work in Jesus' name. Seek and ye shall find.
I wonder if any of the inevitable opponents evasively nibbling around the edges of Berlinski's remarks or person, searching for any small opening to criticize or denigrate (as is done against Meyer), can capably respond to his core points with any real significance.
They cannot.
I like this guy
Berlinski is in a class of his own when it comes to marrying speech, ideas, and their reverence. It's easy to see why he is disliked. Nothing angers athiest more than someone that doesn't come out and scream. "Creation is 100% right, and you're wrong". That is their level of debate, they just don't know better. You cannot expect all people to like fine things, fine wine, fine music. There is always going to be people that feed off trash, and ask for more.
Subversive Intentions, speaking of fine experiences, basic and good grammar often provides one such experience. I think you meant “There are always going to be people who...” not “There is always going to be people who...”
"Science gives man knowledge, which is power; religion gives man wisdom, which is control. Science deals mainly with facts;religion deals mainly with values. The two are not rivals.” Martin Luther King Jr.
But science also explains values and religion google "evolutionary psycology of religion"
This video is great. I love listening to Dr. Berlinski.... and his books are amazing,
I have not seen a speaker and a lecture more brilliant than this. Ok, maybe Craig's lectures are as good. But Berlinski is a phenomenonal speaker.
He really is. His wit is singular.
Hery very intelligent, quick-witted, and has a high degree of verbal fluency. Agreed.
to me he is just a creationist and doesnt convince me ..
Timothy Mostad
Atheism minded people are aware that absolutly nothing in the universe was created with intent but have no evidence for it, they are just annoying; poor atheists :D
Timothy Mostad A priori assumption at its finest. It's clear you're a fish out of water regarding cosmology, ontology, and philosophy, in general.
Atheism is a belief system about God (that He doesn’t exist). Since in so doing it makes a metaphysical assertion, it amounts to a form of religion. It is very refreshing to hear such a wonderfully erudite explanation of the history of this religious viewpoint, and why atheists might think they are superior thinkers, despite atheism being a denial of both hard fought truth and the value of costly freedoms, both moral and spiritual.
Atheism is polytheism and Hinduism repackaged in scientific jargon. They will deny this, because they only know how to bash monotheists, knowing nothing about their roots.
what absolute drivel.
" The Cambrian explosion often makes them squirm in that they really have no logical explanation for this"
I presume you've read the standard work on this- Erwin and Valentine? Can you tell me where in this they squirm?
Do you just post whatever rubbish comes into your head- hoping that no one notices you've not the remotest clue what you're talking about?
Berlinski received his education at Princeton....sadly it ended decades ago.
Stunning and elegant speech. Great.
Try to listen to what he is saying instead of just sharing opinions that are not supported by any real arguments. The existence of God, cannot just be rediculed, or rejected by default. Rather we might need to define what God is. And what this speaker means by God. Do realize that there are many inside the elite of the scientific society who have deep spiritual insights, which cannot just be discarded by default. that would be massive ignorance, not to investigate. If we think of God as a principle of consciousness and force that governs obviously everything, we see the proof for that in everything when we mathematically scientifically invetigate the nature and laws of the universe
+Prajnaparamita Aham Well said.
+Prajnaparamita Aham I indeed. This is true !!
+Prajnaparamita Aham Yet none of that points to the specific Christian deity at all.
+Prajnaparamita Aham I believe it just as the scripture says it: (John 4:24) "God is a spirit and they that worship Him must worship Him in spirit and in truth. So what is a spirit? It is a non physical entity with a mind. It is not physical as our bodies. But being created in the Image of God, we have a soul, and spirit. God is the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit, or "the breath of God" which God breathed into man and man became a living soul."
+Prajnaparamita Aham The universe is finely tuned and exhibits vast amount of intelligence behind it. Reducing God to mere "force", in this case, is ludicrous. Judaeo-Christian concept of God explains the creation the best in my opinion.
When you listen to enough atheist arguments and read enough of their books, their arguments become more transparent...
They don't argue that God can't exist.
They don't argue that God doesn't exist.
They don't even argue that He probably doesn't exist.
They argue that God MUST not exist; They WANT God NOT to exist.
God has failed to live up to their standards. And in doing so, they remove from themselves the responsibility to meet God's standards.
All that can be learned about human social behavior can be learned on the playground. The scientific community and their minions have found naturalism desirable and react the same way kids in elementary school would when someone doesn't play the sport they like well or wear what's fashionable or use the right slang. Most people are social slaves who cannot understand why anyone would choose to step out of line. Many religionists act this way as well, because most people in both groups share the same spirit and hence, manifest the same disposition.
parraphrase. So well said!
Brilliant man and great sense of humour.
The book of God's work is dependent on the priestly class of scientists, so equivalent in power and behavior to the Catholic Church of the Middle Ages. It also goes through revision about every five years. The Book of God's Word however has been given to all, thanks to the Reformation, and we don't need a priestly class to tell us what it means.
He makes the error of collecting all people who do not believe in a god together. There are many atheistic positions and he has focused on the one he can rightly show to be incorrect. I do not say there is no god, I say that the evidence does not lead to a conclusion there is one.
I think you are right. But Berlinski is an agnostic, not a theist. He doesn't make a claim for the existence for God, just shows that believing in God is not THAT ridiculous as many atheists claim.
Berlinski is the Vincent Price of the after dinner circuit...
Where is the proof of God? The "just look around you" thing doesn't work for me.
When the only evidence you have to offer for one theory is disproving another theory the only thing you get is nothing. Therefore you can get something from nothing.
Some truths, some half-truths, some at least misunderstandings.
What a treat to be in the presence of such a brilliant mind.
If scientific thought does not address your deepest human concerns it would be truly immoral for someone to take from you any alternative root
GREAT INTELLECTUAL!!
where?
Francis Collins has a lot of talks on this topic. Highly decorated scientist who has interesting perspectives on faith and science.
Eric is great :) But Berlinski is even better
DNA is the "planet of the apes" moment.....In the movie, the astronaut comes across the beach and sees the Statue of Liberty....at that point he knows now exactly what planet he is on- Earth.....when DNA was fully studied and found out, that should be the game- changer..."Yes, God has made everything- THERE is the code".....but scientists refuse to humble themselves to that fact.....this whole lecture is about that very fact......
Brilliant comment. I read a book called Childhood's End by Arthur C. Clarke, a book by a man who was also quite plugged in to the government, media etc. The same thing happens in that book to an extent. The scientists are leading a movement of people to an elitist Atlantis like community that is completely Orwellian in nature. I'm done listening to the rambling.
I don't understand your argument.
How is the idea that molecules with a periodic structure that can self replicate would become more common than those which can't evidence for God?
You can tell Santa is real because there are so many people that believe in him, and parents would never lie their children, and look at all the millions of books about him. Plus, that's what chimneys are for, and he's so nice giving us things.
1:03:29 "I think in the case of Lawrence Krauss, the converse is far more appropriate. I don't know if you've read it but you really should look at [David] Albert's review in the New York Times which is one of the few annihilating reviews of a text in physics published in the last 25 years."
Also good: 1:08:37
Q: "You've made a number of historical references tonight which I found interesting. What do you think of Richard Weikart's argument in "From Darwin to Hitler"?
A: "Absolutely Right. Richard Weikart is a very distinguished historian of German history, a thoroughly professional historian. I've read his books very carefully and I've learned a great deal from them. But I knew much of this before from the environment in which I grew up. And Weikart make the case--it's not a simple case--but he says, ideologically the Nazis did not spring out of the air. There were antecedents, intellectual antecedents, and they were especially strong in the biological community and just as strong in the medical community. For example, you may not know about the horrendous massacres in Africa undertaken in 1905 presided over by a Dr. Goering--Herman Goering's father. And the massacres were undertaken entirely for Darwinian reasons--the elimination of the less fit. Now this is an argument that needs a lot of scholarly care to develop but assuredly I think Weikart's fundamental thesis is correct. There is a red line of correlation between The Origin of the Species, its entry into German academic life, its reception in German academic life, its provenance in the German medical and biological establishment--not the physics establishment--medical and biological. And the views that the Nazis developed which after all they claimed--they claimed many things--but they certainly claimed scientific authority for what they're doing. And I think he's absolutely right and of course he's been mercilessly abused for making that case.
As a young Science graduate, I have respect for Dr. David Berlinski, he is clearly an academically intelligent man. Although he is here and has been in previous debates extremely evasive when certain questions have been raised and passes it off as quirky humour. How can someone such as him, choose to be evasive when he has more to offer.
I acknowledge that there is a dogmatic system in the scientific community and I hope I can in my future career, withstand it's grasp. I, at this moment do believe evolution is the more sensible position to take over creation, I'm an atheist and I couldn't imagine myself changing my mind on that conviction, but I do think there are gaps in the theory of evolution and it is only by acknowledging the arguments against your position that you can further the debate.
In defence of evolution it is a retrospective science, it is impossible to to view it now in real time. It has, if you believe in it, taken millions of years to get to where we are, evolution could never be demonstrated in larger complex currently living species, until millions of years into the future. Evolution has however been observed in small controlled groups such as the galapagos finches and In bacteria such as MRSA. I know this is not exactly proving human evolution but the DNA that comprises us, finches or bacteria is the same just in a different sequence. I personally don't consider us different to any other species in our genetic makeup, it is only our anthropological view of us not being animals that tends us to reject the notion that we are comprised the same as other species. Any one have any views on any of this?
Not trying to argue but am trying to discuss. Thanks
+MrPseudonymJim It is impossible to view *large-scale* changes in real time, but that doesn't mean that evolution is not observable. We can see speciation today, and we have documented cases of beneficial mutations occurring and reaching fixation.
I think the biggest problem is that many people who are opposed to evolution try to separate it into micro and macro, thinking that there is some clean distinction between the two, whereas macro-evolution is simply micro-evolution over longer time periods..
Having studied evolution for a few years, I think that there is no doubt that it is happening, and that we share common ancestry with the other great apes (and all life on Earth) is beyond dispute. We have the nested hierarchy of genetic relatedness that exactly matches what we would expect if evolution is true, and we have evidence of chromosomal fusion after we split form chimps. There is the pattern of endogenous retroviruses, pseudogenes, hundreds upon hundreds of transitional fossils for human evolution (and thousands upon thousands for other transitional species), so for me, the question of whether or not evolution is real has been quite firmly settled.
This guy is smart! It sounds like he memorized and is reciting a book as he gives this discussion.
Great intro. Great jokes.
In listening to his intorductory comments about Galilio, Dr. Berlinski says it's only the mathematicians and the "mathematical community' who can penetrate the language of nature and therefore they are the only ones in a position who are able with complete "confidence and lucidity" to rightly interprete God's work in nature. It seems to me that Dr. Berliski makes the same mistake that Galilio accused the religious authorities in the church of making.
The guy at 1:07:00 is the best hands talker ever
Here we see the cardinal sin of those weighed in the balance: they demand, in their arrogance, moreover in the actual Presence of God, what He could possibly mean.
He's very thought-provoking and informative. Don't find the style of delivery very exciting though, like a cross between Norman Finkelstein and John Malkovich!
Excellent.
Wow! Not one note or a teleprompter....
lol. you are a joke.
It's easy when you rely on misrepresentation!!
Play at 1.5x speed. It makes his speech and body language normal.
Sainthood says I ! More words, could only cloud the issue.
Outstanding speak... clearly spoken, very intelligent presentation. Facts are there. You can teach a chimpansee sign language, music and dancing... followed by a reward. Humans do it because they will to do it, amazing musicians create music, do not pretend to follow a sequence of rutinary repetitions... That's a fact.
This guy is putting us on! Brilliant!
no, he's right. Berlinski is a total fraud.......no more a mathematician than he's an olympic gymnast.
You're presupposing aren't you that our current reality of mathematics is sufficient enough to explain the "Book of Nature" --- was not calculus created on a whim to explain stellar mechanics and it still falls short? I'm not 100% sure we have the "math" on hand needed to describe the cosmos accurately. But then again I'm a dope. :D
+Ben Patton I think you're wrong about the history and purpose of calculus. I bought this DVD course years ago that really explains in basic terms what calculus does: www.thegreatcourses.com/courses/change-and-motion-calculus-made-clear-2nd-edition.html
Plus, that website has so many other great courses in human knowledge to offer, I love just paging thru their catalog, it's like looking for my own birthday present, ha ha.
A remarkable man who is not afraid
You can't not love Berlinski...
You can if you don't enjoy style, humor, beautiful storytelling, amazing intelect and honesty.
Btw, you are not bad yourself. I read some of your posts/comments on another video, The History of Disbelief, so i know what i'm talking about.
+Mimi Mimz Ah, yes, well, some people like to stay in their own little worlds...
Thanks!
You can't (not) love Berlinski.
the beauty of the thing is that to an outside observer a creation wouldn't look any different than a materialistic event. that is the crux of the debate that both sides miss. the physical appearance of the universe's beginning is the same in both accounts.
if we hypothetically assume that God created the universe and that an atheist had a time machine to watch the creation, he wouldn't see anything supernatural. A big bang happened and then the planet earth formed and then life came into being.
Yes. I recently realized this too.
Science may be a misnomer unless we tack on -one kind -of before its presumption to be 'knowledge'. Its the hubris of the scientific establishment to rigidly assert life is 'nothing but' a pure mechanism, the assertion of which is something like saying 'were so smart we figured out the universe is nothing but a dumb machine'. This demotion of humans and all life ultimately leads us to a meaningless and unmagical universe though vastly complex, which is the foundation for the emergence of a transhumanist nightmare. Having no humility for mystery and the accumulated wisdom of the ages were left with a mechanistic philosophy profoundly powerful yet without any sense of purpose beyond dominating all life as a mechanical entity.
Would love to hear discussion between Dr Belinski and Sir Roger Scruton.
Fantastic speaker the Dr. Each sentence spoken so clearly and carry great weight. And seems like no notes. I'm sure he's a thinker like the greats of the polymaths in history. This guy is the vanguard that will demolish atheism
+walkergarya Atheism/naturalism is unknowable in principle. In order for something to be real it must be able to "kick back" (Daniel Dennett confessed "atheist"). Atheism/naturalism doesn't kick back, there is nothing to invoke or signify anything in my mind at it's appearance (mention). You could make up any word and it would have the same existential penetration, none. "I'm a glilbglabberist. We're the most intelligent, and moral, we're underrepresented in jails and prisons, we deny atheist claim, it's not a belief, it's a lack of belief in atheism." Want to join? No dues!
walkergarya Your god is far worse than false, you're an evil blasphemer hating The Holy. You don't even have any science that controverts any of the data from billions and billions of experiencers of our Creator.
walkergarya You're the one who keeps invoking the Bible, there are a thousand scientific studies that prove human intentions can modify the laws of nature that utterly destroys all of your stated beliefs in scientism. You eliminate the need for a Creator, true, but then you're left without an explanation for your existence, dumbass.
walkergarya You're the one committing the taxi cab fallacy. the first time you've heard the term because you're a moron. Jesus is not the Bible for me, not the 24 book Bible, the 27, 39, 66, 73, or 81 book bibles. That's an assumption you've made repeatedly confining me to a collection of books you're not even identifying because you can't. In order to practice propositional calculus you have to learn what it is first. You're an insane evil hater telling people, "THIS IS WHAT YOU BELIEVE YOU MORON, YOU BELIEVE X AND X IS MORONIC!" That's just a straw man argument you dork. I don't believe any of the things you say I believe, and you can't even identify what it is I believe, it's not a talking snake you moron, it's Satan. And you evil religious diatribe is proof that evil exists, and that you embody it, so you're inadvertently proving all the premises you're invoking and denying. I'm not going to you about science when you don't know any.
walkergarya I'm a member of Straights for Gays, and PFLAG, and have fought physically on several occasions to save the LGBTQIA community from injury, countless times from the psychic damage you try to inflict on everyone but other evil sadists. I gave you the science you asked for before you asked for it and then said some evil shit about me not having the science! You're making a modal logic error, I said the law we now have is based on the law from all the Bibles I keep informing you about, I never said the law in the Bibles is the law we practice today. We don't want an evil demon as a part of the body of Christ. You have to go see an exorcist like Annaliese Michel and have 67 exorcisms (51 recorded on magnetic tape). I accept what Annaliese Michel says about being possessed by demons not a demon possessed person like you who serves your demons bidding.
Why use the sexual distinction of "he" when a theist speaks of a deity? Does god have sexual organs? Does god have sex? Would it not be more in line to speak of it as it? When a human can prove to me that a consciousness can be achieved without a physical organ to house it then you can speak to me about the pretension of atheism.
I suppose this is an interesting point of contention, one which is largely explained through practical matters of language. Within typical theistic philosophy, God has no gender/sex. He is the fullness of both. That said, linguistically and perhaps philosophically/theologically, it is appropriate to refer to God as He because of the nature of His relation to us, in particular within revelatory contexts. God reveals Himself as wholly other and apart from the world by entering into it. He proposes, seduces, and invites. We accept and receive and through that communion new life arrives. This is, of course, an imperfect analogy, but it's the reason God is typically spoken of as male and (at least within Christian thought) the Church as female.
I think that calling a deity by a sexual orientation is for the sole purpose of humanizing it thus making it approachable. How can we be made in it's image if the image doesn't match? How can a human organization be a she? It is an it also. These are just examples of humanities tendency to anthropomorphize our concepts.
Atheism has no scientific pre tensions, it is just a rejection of religious claims,
Science is not needed to evidence the false claims of religions , religions own history does that.
Historical literature shows the evolution of religious beliefs from 42,000 years ago to this day.
Non of which involve a GOD based in reality .
ROTFLMAO!!!
Thank you.
I LOVE THIS GUY
Berlinski looks a lot like Mikhail Tal.
Hes great. Great vocabulary...lol. The more advanced we become the more rediculous Darwin's theory looks.
Love this Berlinski guy
Talks like Norman Finkelstein
What a speaker! Like poetry.
I man of great intellect which deserves much more credit/Per Wallerstedt
Great talk. Why is it that the first questioner completely ignores the instruction to ASK A QUESTION??
Berlinksi takes the limitations of science that are acknowledged in science, uses them like a sledgehammer on the foundations of science and walks away laughing without actually postulating anything...
30:00 Absolutely I would press the button! If the world would gain infinite riches, wisdom, or almost anything else, not only would I press the button, I would be willing to sacrifice myself so that someone else could, assuming we, humanity would gain infinite wisdom or riches (which could obtain infinite wisdom.) But it's not just simply to enrich ourselves but to grow beyond our wildest dreams.
Brilliant!
didn't know that Galileo was quoting Tertullian.
He was shown the instruments of torture. Very Biblical!
Brilliant speech. To understand "In the beginning God created..." is the rope by which modern evolutionary scientist hang themselves with. This is where God begins His evidence for mans stumbling toward Edens Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. Given all the knowledge the tree bestows speaks nothing of the wisdom it takes to acknowledge it's author and to use it wisely. Thank you Dr. Berlinski.
So Galileo being threatened with death for holding a correct opinion for which there was powerful supporting evidence was somehow okay, but when mostly non-scientist/biologist academics advance "refutations" of evolutionary theory that have no basis in fact criticising them is not?
If you're an expert in a field you're not being tyrannical when you tell someone who's spouting nonsense to sit down and shut up, you're doing your job. Not all the time, perhaps not even all that often, but sometimes getting the science right is a matter of life and death.
So he finds evolution lacks scientific evidence. I don't know why I think Mr. Berlinky is not that meticulous when it comes to evidence regarding the existance of a deity...
He is, that's why he is an agnostic.. Fail.
Terrific
My question to those who are wise, what would you say to First Corinthians 13? Is this true? Because you are wise I just assume that you have read it. Is Paul, like you, wise? Or do you have another word?
Al Milligan yes
Berlinski talks slowly and deliberately and sounds impressive. His logic seems to usually be flawed. His arguments are not strong even though he makes them sound important. For instance: he says that he got Christopher Hitchens, an avowed atheist, to admit that there could be a God- maybe yes, maybe no. That is misleading. Hitchens always says that you can't prove a negative. You can't prove there is no God. You could prove there is one if you could see him or talk to him. Belief is based on faith. Hitchens said there could be a Christian God just as there could be a Zeus or a Neptune or an Apollo. The Gods of the Vikings could in fact exist. He says that he feels there is not sufficient evidence of any of those gods for him to be a believer in any of them. Many, many people believing is not evidence. Written scripture is not evidence. Hitchens is not being wishy-washy. He is stating a scientific viewpoint that God could exist, he just sees no real evidence to make that claim. Berlinski uses a lot if twisted philosophy to support his arguments, but it doesn't really don't add up to much.
He's making the point that writing books proclaiming the definite nonexistence of a god and getting paid millions for sales and speeches and being fawned over by every high school and college atheist is not the same as the more modest and reasonable claim that there is scant evidence but that a god could possibly exist. Basically a book or speech full of "could"s and "maybe"s and "possibly"s is not nearly as compelling nor profitable as "God is dead; get used to it." Hard atheism is more popular amongst that set of consumers than "could-be" agnosticism. And you surely can prove a negative. If you prove you have a total of ten digits on your hands, you have just proven you DON'T have eleven or nine.
That's a good point. I never thought of Atheism as a profitable business. It's pretty much right in your face w/ religion and "seed offerings" and prosperity gospels and what not but it's true that the ppl on the Atheist side of things stand to make money, gain notoriety, authority, a following of "disciple" type people and profit in many ways as well. No one is completely 100% altruistic, unbiased and objective.
Sienna, You can't prove evolution either. But the evidence for God far surpasses any evidence for evolution.
If you have an argument refuting Berlinski then give it. Enough of this "his logic seems faulty". That is merely an attack on Berlinski.
As Martin Luther King said, "attack the argument, not the man".
May he find God. Amen.
The "DEVIL?" Really? Using an imaginary supernatural being to "debunk" atheism and its "scientific pretensions" is hilarious.
I hoped for more substance, and at least more definition as to what he believes, etc., especially regarding the nature of the Abrahamic God. Instead we got a pompous, arrogant human being who puts on the airs of an elitist. He insulted his questioners but it’s more likely that he simply didn’t want to answer the questions, choosing to humiliate the questioner instead. This is the mark of a very small man, no matter how erudite he pretends to be. In fairness to him, I presume he did not actually have the time to compose a proper lecture, possibly because of scheduling. But to scapegoat Darwin by saying we should never be compared to chimpanzees, is to miss the point of evolution completely. Surely he knows better.
Richard Dawkins does say that existence is meaningless as it all started by accident
It’s hard to listen to the substance when the delivery is so irritating. This guy is very vain and pompous.
I love Berlinski in his earlier years... but not really this lecture.... although the Q & A was entertaining...however, what compels an electron is a completely different type of causal system than freewill moral decisions,
+Breckmin He's asking why should things be the way they are? especially when we can easily concieve things be differently.
it's the natural order.... it's physical... freewill is a different type of causal system that is not based on external forces... it is self-determining and self=generating... that was the point. molecules, electrons sub-atomic particles are all the natural order... the metaphysical aspects of dualism and freewill are a different type of causal system where the cause is self-generated (freewill). That was the point (edit: someone above deleted their comment)
Dr. Berlinski is brilliant!
Funniest intro ever!
The similarities between humans and chimp are endless - "what more could you want?" - right down to the chromosome structure and DNA sequences.
The differences can be readily understood by the concept of 'emergent properties' and 'the whole greater than the sum of its parts'
+pads mutbut If you truly want to see a difference then I suggest adopting a Chimp and raising him. Then will you see the differences.
+pads mutbut That's your theory, only (and other evolutionists). Now you need to become acquainted with the facts.
*****
Similarities alone aren't enough to prove common decent. Sure it can be used as "Evidence" but doesn't prove the evolution hypothesis. It has to do more with faith.
"Enough to determine that he indeed is our nearest cousin in the animal kingdom"
-Also with the evolution hypothesis bananas and elephants have a common ancestor. Makes perfect sense.
For some reason people can't seem to notice it takes faith to believe in that!
+Alexis Velazquez
Yes that would be the result of those 2% differences in DNA
There are far fewer genetic differences between a wolf and domestic dog and the wolf would likewise be impossible to civilise/domesticate
***** "Seems in your Little world evidence is not important as Long as you can make up any shit you want"
-For once I thought I was going to have a discussion with you but it seems that you're emotionally tied to your beliefs a little too much
"Concerning that: that cross confirms our fossil record. Also similarities between ALL Major Groups of animals are a large reference to a common descent!"
-Similarities of fossils again like I have said can be used as evidence but it does not prove the evolution hypothesis.
"Also Evolution is an observed natural phenomenon"
-This is where evolutionists get confused so I'll take it slow here. What is observable is indeed adaptions but what is also observable is that the adaptions always have limitations. This is science. To say it takes "billions of years" means it can't be observed and therefore isn't science but a hypothesis that has yet to be proven.
"sceintific theory:"A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation."
And the THEORY of Evolution is such a theory, due to the above mentioned points."
-Here let me take it slow again so you can understand because many evolutionists get confused on how much of the evolution theory is scientific and how much of it cannot yet be observed (unscientific or if you like a hypothesis yet to be proven). The parts that are observed and experimented on are the adaptions which you can clearly observe they have limitations. What is NOT observed is a banana tree changing (evolving) into an animal (exaggerated example so you can tell the difference)
"Got any other valid scientific theory or only a hypothesis to explain the Change of life during earth history (Evolution of life.....because Evolution is latin and simple means Change and thats what life DID)"
-First off I don't need another valid scientific theory to show how unscientific the evolution hypothesis is and how much faith you need to believe in such a theory. Of course giving the word "evolution" such a limited definition is more of a cop out since change(adaption) does occur. However what does NOT occur is an animal evolving into something that resembles nothing like it (banana to elephant for example). What also is Observed is that the adaptions have Limitations. I keep repeating this so you understand what I'm saying to you.
"1.) it is a theory, because it is confirmed already 2.) and? of course bananas and elephants have a common ancestor......about 3 Billion years ago .......sooooo? It makes sense because that is what we found in nature. We do not Need to believe it, we just accept it because of the evidence"
-wrong Not confirmed. Why? because the only evidence they have on that is similarities. You're more than welcome to believe such things that are completely unscientific. Here let me give you yet another example: you can use the same evidence of similarities and adaptions to argue for a common and intelligent designer. Which one is right? Well you can't observe either conclusion therefore the evolution hypothesis is yet to be observed.
"What else then MULTIPLE.......CROSSCONFIRMING EWVIDENCE!!!! from various fields of science can there be???? I mentioned the different fields: genetics, biology, paleaontology"
-Be more specific you're giving lots of general statements that proves nothing. And of course this confirms that they use similarities of genetics and biology to conclude the evolution hypothesis to be a fact when clearly it has not been observed.
Please if you are going to be cursing and getting emotional about your beliefs then it's no use to discuss this unless you are willing to be respectful.
I finally found a scientist who think like I do. I thought all scientists learned from people Galileo, and to think critically even against things we believe to be true. Is that not science? People think challenging a religion is such a step forward, but that religion was not understood as some of our physical law. Galileo figured out that everything falls at the same speed. It's easy to challenge or accept the possibility of something we don't understand. For example my sincerity in a claim where I tell you, "I'm wearing a green shirt". Or ask a child,"'how many fingers am I holding?". This string theory sounds cool. I wonder what his thoughts are on occultism. Let me ask you people something. Is meditation a science?
+Treant Beca Meditation is spiritual/psychic/mental phenomenon. Yes, it falls under religion, and a number of other of the humanities, i.e. premeditation (murder) jurisprudence.
berlinski is not a scientist and never has been.
mcmanustony Militant "atheists" who are also "scientists" are arguing outside of their field of expertise.
TrustInJesus111 is there a point you are trying to make?
Berlinski is not a scientist therefore science is something in which he lacks expertise experience and training
TrustInJesus111 what the fuck is a militant atheist? Is it like a fundamentalist not stamp collector?
"Berlinski describes himself as a secular Jew." Judaism blinds people from being saved by faith alone in Christ alone.
These are some of the issues with "The Devil's Delusion" from 2009:
page 169: Tap One: The mind is the brain.
* Incorrect. This is a reduction to the point that the statement has lost meaning. Similar claims would be that computes are just transistors, that complex organisms are just cells, that engines are just nuts and bolts, that brains are just neurons, and that math is just numbers. You can clearly see the error if you consider other applications. Not everything with a transistor is a computer. Not everything with cells is multi-cellular; bacteria are also made of cells. You can have nuts and bolts without having anything like an engine. Neurons run all through the body but a nerve in the arm is not a brain. Math uses numbers but numbers can be used without using math. Likewise, not everything with a brain has a mind.
page 170: Tap Two: The brain is a computer.
* This is a theory called the Computing Theory of Mind. It is not much more than an extension of the Church-Turing thesis which is mentioned informally by Berlinski:
page 170: "Known now as a Turing machine, the device has at its disposal a tape divided into squares, and a reading head mounted over the tape".
* This device is in fact the basis of Computational Theory. It has been proven that anything that is computable can be ran on this machine. This is a fact. And as Berlinski mentions:
page 173: "If the brain is a computer, then the very same thesis about the human mind should be in force whether we describe the human mind as a digital computer or whether we describe the human mind in terms of a device that is logically identical to a digital computer-an abacus, say.
* This would be true if and only if the Computing Theory of Mind were true. However, it is merely speculated that the brain is a computational device; this has not been proven.
There is a new theory which gives a comprehensive explanation of consciousness. The book on this theory has the working title of "Sapiens-Class Cognition, Its Evolution, Description, and Replication". This book includes a detailed disproof of the Computing Theory of Mind. We could refer to this theory with the acronym, SCC.
page 178: "Successful evolutionary theory of the human mind would, after all, annihilate any claim we might make on behalf of human freedom".
* Incorrect. He is giving the same arguments that were made more robustly by Sam Harris who was also wrong on this point. SCC has no trouble explaining free will.
page 179: "We do not have a serious scientific theory explaining the powers and properties of the human mind".
* Incorrect. It is true that we didn't have such a theory in 2009 when he wrote this book, but we do have one now.
page 179: "The claim that the human mind is the product of evolution is not unassailable fact. It is barely coherent".
* Incorrect. SCC is entirely based on evolutionary theory. It explains in detail how minds, brains, and consciousness evolved from roundworms to fish to mammals to humans.
This guy has an interesting perspective and is obviously an intellectual, but I resent his remark about the late and even greater Christopher Hitchens!
A cheap shot and in very poor taste..
RIP Christopher Hitchens