Lawrence Krauss and Richard Dawkins Discuss Evolution, Religion, and More
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 7 сен 2024
- I first encountered Lawrence Krauss sometime in the early 2000s at a conference. I had just given my lecture and was answering questions when a rather small man with a loud voice and a highly articulate manner stood up and began berating me in what I initially thought was an aggressive manner. It turned out he wasn’t being aggressive; rather, his clear and direct way of speaking seemed forceful compared to the usual, more roundabout way people talk. Intrigued, I sought him out in the bar afterward, and we had a good discussion. This man was, of course, the distinguished physicist and public intellectual Lawrence Krauss. Shortly afterward, we continued our friendly disagreement in the pages of Scientific American, back when the publication still focused on science. Since then, I’ve interacted with Lawrence on stage more often than with anyone else. The following recording was made at Stanford University around 2007 and exemplifies how two people can have a fruitful public discussion without a chairman and outside of a debate format. The nature of our initial disagreement forms a good part of the discussion itself, so I won’t spoil it here. I hope you enjoy it.
--------------
I will be on tour of North America, UK & EU talking about my latest book, religion, life on earth and beyond. I will be joined on stage by a range of friends and foes on stage. The events will include a Q&A and a limited meet-and-greet. You can get your tickets here: richarddawkins...
--------------
Join Substack:
richarddawkins...
Subscribe to Poetry of Reality Channel:
/ @poetryofreality
Follow:
Instagram: / the.poetry.of.reality
Twitter: / richarddawkins
Facebook: / richarddawkinsbooks
Reddit: / thepoetryofreality
"I was the bad cop until Christopher Hitchens came along". hahaaha
The dominant question about evolution is? How can something exist from nothing? And what is the spirit that evolution was possible? The idea, the energy and the endless power in a process of life. We know nothing about the nature of elements, their existence
and what they are. Water, minerals,
air are unknown phenomena. Science describes in terms, but the secret of all existence is furthermore behind human consciousness.
@@berndvonfrankenberg5094Who are you talking to?
@@berndvonfrankenberg5094life can easily exist from what you call nothing, because it is not nothing. Just the fact there something means life COULD exist somewhere, the world is unimaginably big and likely somewhere else is also life separate from ours, we will never be able to travel 40 million light years away but we can confirm that the universe is at very least many billions of years old. Humans are made of elements, no different than other animals so why oh why can we not be made out of "nothing" as you call it.
@@berndvonfrankenberg5094You clearly don’t understand evolution, at it’s foundation. Fundamentally,
evolution explains the diversity of life, not it’s origin. We don’t know there ever was a ‘nothing’.
If you’re asking from a cosmological perspective, we don’t know that the Big Bang, was an example of ‘something’ coming from ‘nothing’. All we know is what the evidence suggests, none of which asserts there was ‘nothing’ prior to t=1.
Edit: If you want to focus on the question of the origin of life, look up the Miller-Yuri experiment.
@@berndvonfrankenberg5094
The origin of life and evolution are two different topics.
So your question is fundamentally wrong.
I was a devout Christian growing up until I discovered Richard Dawkins and Cristopher Hitchens. Being young, the minute I began to question my faith the answers I found from scientists and journalists were so much more convincing than those my own church leaders gave me. You absolutely create atheists by challenging these ideas.
Seek Christ not religion
@@purepeter4737 the story of Christ simply wasn’t fulfilling nor a good explanation for our purpose in the cosmos. The message Jesus carried was too small and too outdated to feel comforting in a world of changing beliefs and ideals. Jesus said to slaves to be good slaves and treat their masters well. Our heroes told slaves to rebel and be unruly to their evil captors, I chose to listen to those who freed slaves.
@@purepeter4737you are really trying to have it both way huh?
I’ve always been curious to know what that’s like, to believe in god devoutly. I was like Hitchens, he never really bought it and neither did I. Even as a kid it just couldn’t stick.
@@ThomasAbeyta-np9kt
You said, *"You absolutely create atheists by challenging these ideas."*
But did you or do you ever challenge any of the atheist ideas.
You were convinced by Hitch?
As a Christian I love(d) him. I loved that he was so able to befriend Christians he thought were sincere. But, no doubt part of the love is due to the ineptness of everything or nearly everything he said against the existence of God. Even atheist admirers of Hitch could see this. Have you ever heard of CosmicSkeptic? He claims Hitch to have had a greater influence upon him than anyone else, and yet he made a video titled "The Sophistry of Christopher Hitchens" You should give it a watch.
I also loved his memoir "Hitch-22". Have you read it?
I was on the path of losing my belief in God and Christianity for many years, but it was in reading The Greatest Story Ever Told by Dawkns that really opened my mind to a full understanding of evolution and what a wonderous point of view it gave to life. I realized that I could shed God, which seemed so provincial at that point, for a much grander way of seeing the world we live in and my place (and connectedness) in it.
It comes and goes with me, when I was younger I definitely just left the idea of God behind. As I got older I realise some things will probably never be answered/known and the idea of a god creating the laws of physics/nature will never be ruled out. You don't need an organised religion for that.
@@ThatGuyXX7God of the gaps nonsense, just accept there are things we don't know yet, no need to ascribe fairytales to it.
@@shanephillips4011 you also need to accept that some things won't have answers.
@@shanephillips4011 God of the gaps? What do you mean by that? I always find this statement laughable because it shows a gross lack of understanding about the Christian God. But I'll let you make yourself clear before I address it further.
@@swansonz3534 Well, for me personally, belief in a god has the same value as belief in a flat earth. There is no evidence for either, just allegations, but believers feel attacked when you show them how irrational their belief is. Maybe people will start to question why they believe in the Christian god and not in Allah or Zeus. I think education is extremely important, as is the willingness to question things instead of filling in the gaps in knowledge with faith. It is no coincidence that more intelligent people are more likely to become atheists than less intelligent people.
Words cannot express the amount of gratitude to that man, he is a real prophet... a prophet of science & reason. Salute from Egypt
@@sherifaljeddawy2467 source of this information
Richard you are a hero amongst us and a true leader. I thank you.
Lol...worshipping Dawkins is both stoopid & desperate. :)
Grow up!
@@ShuggieEdvaldsonsays the troll
@@GuardianSoulkeeper Yeah, i'm a troll, Dawkins is god and anyone who dares to disagree is guilty of heresay...okay, Gotcha! :)
Thing is, he's only a lil pawn in a much bigger game, did you not know that....yet, here you are, flogging said dead horse so to speak!
How rational is that? :)
What happened to my previous comment btw?
So the truth is offensive to you, is that it, you fear the truth more than anything else, even more than you fear harmless traditions, right? :)
Pfffttt...grow up Goalkeeper, er sorry, soul keeper! :P
@@ShuggieEdvaldson Thanks for proving my point.
@@GuardianSoulkeeper
Sorry, but i don't do these Infinite regressions into pantomime, i'll leave that sorta madness to you, Trollio.
Me?
I'm away tae fly ma kite, wee guy! :P
Oh and mind give my regards to, 'St Richard of Simonyi', if yer passing!' :)
I am in the UK. I had no idea about this lack of understanding of science, evolution etc. until I started to listen to RUclips videos. My plan was to learn more about physics, quantum physics, astronomy etc. Many of these videos are from the US. Only then did I come across these issues that seem so prevalent in the US to do with lack of understanding of science and belief of
creationism. I also listen to a bit of true crime, which tends be be US cases, and I see so many comments about God and praying that have absolutely nothing to do with the crime and evidence being discussed. I was and am completely gob snacked by such ideas and way of thinking. I had never come across such thinking in my life (67 years) and upbringing in the UK.
I find I difficult to comprehend that creationism is actually taught as fact in some schools. I was confused because I wanted to learn more science and religion kept cropping up. I started listening to Lawrence early on and have read many of Richard’s books. I read The God Delusion first and was so relieved that it wasn’t just me that had such views. I love listening to him speak. The two of them talking together is a real treat. I had also read Christopher Hitchins book about Mother Theresa before I knew who he was.
I should mention I am not from a religious back ground. I took religion with a pinch of salt, especially when aged 5-6 at school the teacher telling us bible stories it just seemed very wrong to me even then.
What annoys me the most about those true crime cases is when they are talking about a suspect and describe him as “a good honest Christian”. In a way like it is unlikely such a person could commit a crime
Hi I’m from the U.S.
The amount that evolution and the Big Bang was not touched on in my small town public school is almost criminal. I was extremely unprepared when I went to college and was taught real biology. The indoctrination is deep, few of us got a real scientific education and I’m certain that it was deliberate to keep us all stupid and complacent to a heavily religious system. They don’t want us to be able to think critically.
@@ritchie6162 interesting to read your experience.
The evolution theory is catastrophic. Says I
To be honest, whilst annoying, I like the idea of these science attacking theistic sites. Theists are forced to lie about everything they say and every piece of evidence they offer which leaves, especially fence sitters, an open door to the truth on true scientific sites. It is inevitable that theism is going to undermine itself by proving they are all untrustworthy and all liars.
Wow man! Such a privilege to have had the chance of watching folks like this talk. One of greatest pleasures of my life!
It's a very good side of RUclips. This kind of "agreeable" discussion conveys a lot of information. Adversarial debates on the other hand tend to lead the participants to point-scoring. But they are also extremely valuable.
these two men, in different ways, have given me lots of knowledge, and confidence to say what i say, at least in public, when necessary
The easy way I can dismiss another person's religion as false, teaches me to suspect that mine also may be wrong. --Mark Twain
Since atheism became a religion, then look inside not outside 😂
@@J040PL7Are you that dull?
@@kawag6356 are you that dull?
Wow.
"no child left behind" LOLhe was brutal! RIP C.H.
"no childs behind left" that's why its funny 😂
2007... No one knew how these science talks will become popular on RUclips :o
These were popular till 2016 before Taylor Swift came on the scene
It’s not just about debating evolution -most people are focused on their basic needs. But when science proves something like evolution, it can threaten a belief system that’s been part of someone’s life for decades, and that’s not easy to let go of. Instead of diving into complex topics right away, we can show kids simple science, like how dropping a stone in a bucket displaces the same volume of water every time. That’s science too, and it’s a tool we use to understand the world. Once you grasp the tool, more complex ideas start to make sense.
It’s such a treat to watch this two incredibly interesting men have such a fascinating conversation. 👍👍
Both men hate William Lane Craig. Krauss was exposed by Craig and Dawkins ran away.
@@TBOTSS
lol 😂 you’re funny. Wrong but funny 🤣
William Lane Craig is an embarrassment to anyone’s intelligence.
@@TBOTSSyou're a very silly entity. Wlc is a total lying idiot. Dr Krause would smash him. He has before if I'm not mistaken
I met a flatearther the other day. He said you take your measurement app on your phone line it up to the sun, it’s shows it’s 27 miles away. I said are you serious? He said yup and then carried on about density incorrectly I might add. And said gravity wasn’t real. I tried but when someone has emotionally convinced themselves of something it seems impossible to logic them out of it… lol I’ll keep trying, because I think Hitch was right. We gotta save these peoples minds rip the atheist saint!
excellent discussion and RIP Hitchens
Hitchens died?when?😢
@@MD10559 You didn't know? Really? So you must be new in town :D
He died in 2011.
@@clorofilaazul wtf 😶
@@MD10559 yep :( Christopher died in 2011. His brother, Peter is still alive.
Let’s not forget that Giordano Bruno was burnt because the idea of infinity and others worlds. This big vision can be very weird for the religious understanding, even more fearful than the evolution and animal thing. And the same today. Cosmophysics is pure terror for some people. Impossible to see God in the sky after Copernico, Bruno, Galileo.
You have been watching 'Cosmos'. Very little of that show is historically accurate.
Nicolaus Copernicus, Giordano Bruno, and Galileo Galilei were all theists.
@TBOTSS it's true go do your research he was a cosmologist one of the first he was burned at the stake by the inquisition.
@@TBOTSSpsshh. Who TF are you to disrespect the geniuses behind cosmos? You simpleton you. Go learn something.
"Impossible to see God in the sky after Copernico, Bruno, Galileo." Copernicus, Bruno, and Galileo were all theists.
My first real introduction to evolution was neil degrass tysons episode of cosmos- some of the things that molecules do. My high school never taught it. The first time i seen it, it made so much sense to me, and blew my mind the same way it did when I first learned about pulsars and magnetars. Most ordinary people dont seek out this knowledge after high school which is why everyone is so confused out here.
What kind of school did you go to if they left out such important topics? Did you go to a religious school? If so, I feel sorry for you.
@@AcidGubba nope. Completly normal public school in michigan. Wasnt from a religious family either. Evolution was just completly skipped.
@@Reds-Card-Case This is definitely not a normal school. Are you sure it is not a school with religious financial backers? Have you looked into who is responsible for the school? The NGSS sets the standards that should be taught. And skipping biology is not a good school.
@@AcidGubba i believe its just your typical state run school. Biology teacher probley just skipped over it for his or hers own reasons, or due to being afraid of backlash or whatever. This was 2007 by the way.
My geography teacher travelled the world. Her classes were facinating 100% A passes.
Lawrence, your skepticism isn't a badge of intellectual prowess-it's a defense mechanism. You've witnessed strange, unexplainable things over the years, but instead of confronting them, you've buried them deep because they threaten the tidy, materialistic world you've constructed. The truth is, you're terrified of being ontologically shocked, of realizing that your understanding of reality is not only limited but fundamentally flawed. This constant repression of what you know deep down, coupled with your fear of the unknown, is the real source of your unhappiness. You're not just skeptical-you're scared of facing the possibility that everything you believe is woefully small and in error.
Desperately diagnosing others, in an attempt to not honestly scrutinize one's own views..
It's a common symptom among those who entertain the supernatural..
But I got my bases covered, I'm an apatheist..
I don't give a chit either way, as neither position affects my life in any shape or form..
Unmatched erudition and enlightenment. Two of the finest exponents of scientific thought and temper.
There is no God. The evidence is overwhelming. The proposal is laughable.
You can say that all you want but it's not going to convince thiests that it's true.
@@steven6666600000 -- As long as it continues to be so useful to the rich and powerful, religion will continue to be promoted, and weak minds will continue to be led. Whatever one thinks of Mr. Trump, he would not exist in politics without this truism.
Overwhelming evidence for God. OMG! You'll find out sooner or later fellow mortal 😉
Atheist can easily turn this back to you, my fellow mortal.
The mind will grasp on to whatever description of reality that it finds most comfortable. That may be God or science. The problem lies in once it grasps that framework it is most difficult to convince it of anything otherwise regardless of evidence or facts.
I teach class when this is scheduled to start but man wish I could hear it live!
You’re not missing anything I believe he said this took place in 2007 or 2008. But it was very informative.
@@simonsj15 I have heard it before but I still enjoyed listening again.
@@alisonauchterlonie8212 Yes, Richard and Lawrence are two of my favorites.
I've been following your discussions for a long time now and the question of whether someone believes in god or not and the answers given have no meaning except to the extent that one attitude or the other produces positive or negative events in our society and if these events contribute or not to the development, progress, increase in degrees of freedom, well-being as well as self-realization of human beings.
(And something about your book When I first read about the "selfish gene" about 30 years ago I had a strong desire to have many children)
Teaching physics first is just a brilliant idea. Revolutionary! It will allow minds to cope with biological evolution and the processes associated with it. I hope we can strive for this I think it will absolutely help our young be a lot more open to the wonder of evolution. Great idea, just perfect!!!
evolution cannot be true because then there would be monkeys evolving into humans all the time, have you ever seen a monkey do this? No, exactly, this is proof that evolution doesnt exist, and that God made man and monkey and all the other animals separetly
Always eye-opening and on the verge of being mystical. You guys really inspire me to love science.
It gives me a sense of joy to, now and then, see a post by a South African reacting to these mind expanding discussions. A sense of kinship.
I am excited to see you in San Francisco in October!!! 😊
I much prefer to hear people argue one against the other. What`s the point in two pros tugging in the same direction ? I`d say the same as to listening to two Theists.
It would be great to see these two in discussion afresh now.
I'd love to hear if they think that they'd gotten anything wrong. They have each, separately engaged with CosmicSkeptic. I think they both appreciate him. I'd like to see them each respond to Alex's video, titled "The Sophistry of Christopher Hitchens"
The Genetic Book of the Dead and The Selfish Gene offer profound insights into the interplay between genetics and evolution. These influential works deepen our understanding of evolutionary biology and the role of genetic influence. How do you think these perspectives will influence future research in genetics and evolutionary theory?
3:17 amazing, the format of public debate is aimed at entertainment and not at getting a clearer understanding of the two sides nor getting closer to the truth of the matter. I think the common format of debate is indeed entertaining but does very little for achieving the aims of justice and truth which a verbal dispute might and should achieve.
I would like to suggest a rule of engagement that I have found to be tremendously supportive of these two aims which I believe are most important in a dispute, to repeat - that both sides get closer to each other and both of them to the truth of the matter at hand. I call this rule "attentive speaking" and what it means is that the speaker has to be attentive to his or her listener and allow or even invite any and every interruption from them. The observance of this rule even by only one side of the dispute keeps the discussion in a relative comfort zone without any content constraints. It also makes sure that the discussion is always about the points of disagreement.
44:54 very well articulated. I was an atheist with such a need and Dawkins' book made me much more confident, he brought me from an strong agnostic to a strong atheistic agnostic (I totally believe there is no god but open to the possibility that I might still be wrong).
I'm seeing you on tour soon! :D I'm so excited
That ought to be our human life motto , and that is , " expanding one's consciousness and realization of the universe we find ourselves in " , and the willingness to explore it's wonders that lay before us !
I always liked Niven and Pournelle’s “Think of it as Evolution in Action”
35:40 amazing, perfect! This is truly a problem oriented approach which will make it interesting and create trust in students which relate to both sides.
Sometimes I only want to curl up and dye. Then I open RUclips and find this. Yeah, my proposals (from SA) never even got a reply; yeah, I’m a lone voice from deepest, darkest Africa; yeah, I will be gone without having made an impact nearly as much as I wanted to. This might have kept me alive for a few days longer.
Keep on. Even if 1 has been changed by you, it's already been worthwhile. It's very very difficult to touch someone in the sense you are trying to. But I'm sure you already did. So: keep on!
Keep writing and have faith in cheeses.
@@VaughanMcCue "blessed are the cheese makers "
@@MrPeterschmit
Remembering the aqueduct builders and Henry Wensleydale's cheese shop. Purveyor of fine cheese to the gentry and ~poverty stricken too~
The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference. -Richard Dawkins in River Out of Eden, 1995....... 3 kids murdered today in England but no evil exists, how depressing.!?
Yeah. We define what evil is. Nature doesn't.
@@GuardianSoulkeeper Sorry I did not realise we are not part of nature, do you mean we are above, below or outside of nature?
29:43 I wish to propose again what I believe is the best approach to education and to the question where we should begin and that is through problems, we should begin with what the students find problematic and develop things from there. This will keep them constantly interested because problems like heroic stories are very compelling.
Oh yea... those were the golden years. Unfortunately we already lost Hitchens, Dennet and Randi.
Today I stumbled over a YT video from SmarterEveryDay about the rotating flagellum of certain single-cell organisms. It's a quite impressive research, but what I found most astonishing:
In the final conclusion the question of 'complexity' or 'design' was put on the table. Of course SED is a science channel and puts the question in the right corner.
It's an expression of the same awe and wonder that can be heard from Dawkins and Krauss. Well done guys, keep defending this curiosity.
BTW I am as old as the Voyager probes, so I got a life-long realtime update abo of our universe for free ;) Isn't that gorgeous?
Even from the preface, I could not agree more. For lack of a better word, you're based as hell.
12:05 by the way, I believe there is a way to combine the two options for interesting people, it is the problem oriented Popperian approach which shows both the beauty and a kind of utility in the way of understanding and solving a problem.
Richard's book 'The Ancestors Tale' frequently uses the words: probably, possibly, perhaps, plausibly and presumably. How does this point to evolution as a fact?
NICE dialog boys. i enjoy Lawrence as a Proud Catholic he is worth a listen. OPEN MIND ALLOW THE UNIVERSE TO FEED YOU KNOWLEDGE
Observations are key. Especially in biology, in tandem with notetaking and recording data.
As for the Greeks, let us never forget that Socrates suggested that he did not write down his thoughts, because then he could forget about them…
The issue I have with these types of discussions is that it relies on subjective experience vs. perceived objectivity. even with objectivity there is a personal subjectivity that supports your claim due to the various sensory modalities that only you can experience for yourself. If we’ve never seen the bones of a dragon, does it mean dragons never existed? Most likely, but we will never know because our senses are relegated to things that are within the (very limited) scope of our immediate vicinity. Also, the opportunity to be exposed to that has gone away as well and cannot be undone. Another example would be if you friend walks away from you and you turn your attention to something else, he absolutely could’ve walked through a portal to another dimension and there’s no way you would know that unless you experienced it. Due to previous subjective experiences though, he most likely just walked away. I guess what I’m trying to say, is that we operate within a level of certainty even though it can be disputed.
Please watch and share with others my five brief videos in which I present examples of scientific facts contained in the Bible, facts that the writers thousands of years ago could not have been aware of without divine knowledge given to them by Jesus Christ / The God of the Bible. And today's scientists agree with those facts!
The opening subject is education and how to interest or reach people and on that subject the words _"wonderful, amazing"_ and similar were used a number of times to describe the universe. Unfortunately what they and the audience are unware of is the implied meaning of such words. Ludwig Boltzmann finally explained the meaning of entropy in 1900 as a *measure of disorder* which contrary to naturalistic misinformation denying this has a mathematical equation equating disorder to the probability of a state of matter existing. So to the point:
Words like _"amazing, wonderful"_ etc. are actually expressions of surprise at seeing a highly *improbable* state of matter which is also an unusually low entropy state. By _"unusual"_ we mean *unexpected* and the opposite of disorder ie *order* given the known processes of the random motion of atoms. In other words we strongly suspect something else should have been at work to achieve this and it is the term *work* we now must unpack.
In 1861 James Prescott Joule established the *mechanical equivalent of heat* which divided energy into HEAT and WORK and it was Boltzmann in 1900 that explained why heat always moves from hot to cold. In so doing heat can only create disorder as it is random energy and the more random the system the more disordered and the higher the entropy. So the only form of energy that can create order is work but work is not random it is the product of a generalised force and a generalised distance both of which are vectors. Therefore work is *directed energy* but that means a *choice has been made!*
*Hence whenever we see any highly ordered arrangement regardless of it size we know it could only have come from work which directly implies it can only be the result of a choice of a mind!* In regard to the order of stars and galaxies we are clearly dealing with a mind of infinite power and proportions and so logically we have the God of the Bible.
I don't think you have to seduce anyone to your side. A common behavioral characteristic of humans is that if we feel like we're not being heard we don't want to listen. But the average human is more focused on being heard than listening and even when listening we're listening from a certain point of view rather than just listening and genuinely hearing. We're not really listening in order to hear, we're listening in order to speak. How many times have you tried to converse with someone and feel like they're not genuinely listening to you or hearing you? They're hearing their own thoughts and opinions about you but they're not really hearing or even *seeing* you (eyes glazed over like they're in a trance).
I think about this kind of stuff because I'm a Meisner trained actor and our "repetition exercises" that we do teaches a whole different kind if listening that the average person doesn't have. A genuine; fully present kind of listening where you are really placing 100% of your focus on the person in front of you; get out of your own head & thoughts and just listen. So everything you do must be in *direct* response to what the other person actually said because you're *repeating* what they said but from your "pov".
I think a Meisner based acting class is something that could benefit anyone and should be taught in all schools because it teaches people how to listen and you can tell when you're speaking with a Meisner trained actor because you feel like they're *really* taking you in. They're not half focused on you and half focused on something else. They are laser-like focused on you. Conversing with a Method actor on the other hand can be like talking to a brick wall. They've already decided what they're going to say; how they're going to say it and that has absolutely nothing to do with you or what you say. Meisner is in the moment. Method means being all up in your head in a world of interpretation rather than fully in the moment and genuinely listening.
But anyway, that's *my* perspective.
I hear music...the song of Angels! :)
Peace & God bless!
That sounds interesting, and it makes sense that actors would be most motivated to really absorb people's personalities. However, doesn't an ulterior motive exist that's even more exaggerated? As in, to be an actor means to lie professionally, and to outcompete all the other actors for more attention, fame and glory.
I don't mean to say that it's wrong to do that, and I also wonder why Krauss and Dawkins want to seduce people into believing in evolution. Sure, it's a fact, but as they mentioned early on, there are many facts that people don't believe. Presumably they think that knowing the truth feels better, but the evidence is that lies and delusions rule the majority. Maybe being comfortable with lies-the actor's domain-actually makes you more receptive to others?
not only do you have a good radio face , but, you also have a great voice for print!! which is why i have several of your books in Audible , thank you for sharing your thoughts
Who will be joining you in Dallas? I already have my tickets. 😊
"i don't like the debate format." "i keep losing."
35:09 very important to criticise the debate format but at the same tume it is important to propose a different format with clear reasoning of why it is better (liberalism instead of anarchism and despotism).
20:55 What Laurence is talking about here was the basis of Richard Feynmans PhD thesis titled "The Principal of Least Effort in Quantum Mechanics". In a nutshell he took principles of classical physics and applied them to quantum physics but I'm not a physicist so I'm not sure I can explain it in a way that makes sense. I'm a screenwriter and the only reason I read Feynmans PhD thesis is because I'm writing a screenplay about him (which hopefully won't be as boring as the movie "Infinity", which pissed me off). I'm literally writing it out of anger, how could you make such a boring movie about the most interesting man that ever lived?
It’s true (depending how deeply one thinks about it) that science works without God being required, but it’s also true that conversations such as these work equally well (and could be persuasive to a larger audience) sans the condescending, elitist snobbery with which the participants debase themselves.
Heredity:
I once was a tadpole long and thin,
I then became a frog with my tail tucked in,
I then became a monkey hanging from a tree,
and now I am a professor with a PhD ! oh yes over millions of years of course.
I wonder why Dawkins was against the removal of Saddam or what he thinks Hitchens was wrong about concerning Iraq.
Actually, Plato touches on the nave principle of natural selection in his “Republic”. In it, Plato demonstrates how animals inherits different attributes from their parents. He notes, as does Darwin, that animal breeders utilize this fact to breed for animals with more desirable qualities.
However, where Darwin then ponders that there must then be a natural selection occurring on its own under the principle of the survival of the fittest, Plato thinks we ought to use this principle to breed for the most desirable members of the various social classes that he sees in his “good state”.
Beautiful conversation, gentlemen. 👌🏽
Always a great discussion!
4:39 which says a lot about the current common judicial system and how wrong and unjust it is.
Thank god for scientists like Dawkins!
You've been dupped. Darth dawkins is more impressive
0:29 noice tie sir
Loved this!
How interesting and magical abiogenesis and evolution are: matter coverting to life forms, life form changing day by day for its better adaptability and sustainability. How can there be a better poetry than reality?
Science and technology has nothing to do with belief in God because it's doctrinal truth in all religion🙏🙏 from metaphor to Allegory to Algorithm was long march of humans still we have miles to go before we sleep said Robert Frost❤❤
When someone starts their video buy promoting their stuff for financial gain...that tells us a lot...no one is immune to the God of Money
You sound like a Charismatic Christian!!!
Here for the creationist comments.
I'm starting to be REALLY annoyed with Physicists not explaining the observer effect properly. I'm starting to think they all gathered together and decided they should make people feel special about themselves to get more funding...
THE REASON "THE OBSERVER" affects Quantum particles is because you have to interact with the particle to see it... That's it... but for some reason they play it differently and make people feel like BEING the observer is something special. Like gtfo bro, I barely understand the Quantum world but I understand how that part works... Why can't they treat people like they could understand that instead of playing everyone for a damn fool.
I love Dawkins but telling me I'm getting the content a week late then showing me a video from 2007 (almost certainly already on youtube)is just silly. This seems to be a regular thing too.
Refresher dose or reality.
At Harvard University they did an experiment on children They give them some food to eat and they don't tell them what to eat or what not to eat so every child eats what is good for him. Can parents do with their childrens and leave them on their own. I am not saying that they should not teach them essential things. But just essential things and let them go on their own. They don't need any religion and God which doesn't exist at all. What they need is awareness, alertness, meditation, understanding ,education , learning and I think they can do it very easily if parents, society, religion, politicians and even scientists just don't interfere with their lives. They can be far for better than what parents, society, religion, politicians, nations produce them. Just let them live on their own terms
Prisons around the world are full and overflowing with grown-up children who were allowed to live on their own terms.
In the Old Testament, it is mentioned that God created man on the sixth day, i.e. the last, so man in his evolution, homo sapiens, after some generations began to realize that he is different from the rest of the animal species without, of course, understanding the evolutionary course of living beings. This is how his uniqueness is recorded in his consciousness and remains as a memory, and that only a higher power, God, could create such a special being that differed from all the others because he had intelligence. This could not, according to him, be the result of an evolutionary process.
This memory is later recorded in the Old Testament texts.
So long as there's consciousness specially pure consciousness, you can't kill religion. It's the experience of mysticism. To think outside the science box sometimes to create a genesis story, or whatever is the course of religion.
Not only the question about the existence of god is scientific, but also the question regarding our consciousness. Unless we as a species can came up with a solid answer regarding the purpose ( if any ) for our selfawarness and our empathic ways, an answer that is different from the blunt we exist because we exist, than we cant really dream of cancelling religion worldwide. The good ghost will always be a better solution than a “we don’t know” type of attitude.
What we can cancel is the obvious falsities of religion like Genesis and the age of earth.
Atheism became a religion, so don't expect them to even consider any hypothesis outside their ways of belief.
Simple difference between Dawkins and the Americans is he doesn’t need to be polite to ignorance
he can never be sir. monarch is the head of the church of England
37:00 I totally disagree!
The difference between the two is that many people trust and believe in the creationist idea (will accepting that the stork story is a myth) so if you only try to teach them evolution they will not trust you and not listen to you. But if you shows them the different sides of the dispute and how evolution is much superior to creation and invite them to challenge you, you will have a much better chance of gaining their trust.
I really, really do enjoy and find everything this couple of Wizened-Gentlemen discuss: re Biology/Physics/Atheism--extraordinaire! I have been following them; reading them; and also watching them here for about five years. But where I part w/them is (in my humble-'opining'), it seems I never ever experience either of them bother to mention "Olden History"(c. 455,000-100,000 to 12,500 to 7,000 to 4,000BCE and such!) ::hummm, Perhaps I missed it somewhere:::. oh well. But I still do enjoy every [absolutely wonderful bio/phy/athe-thing they discuss. : )
_"Teaching creationism is child abuse"_
- Lawrence Krauss
Keep watch!
This was back in the day when Scientific American cared about science!!
What does he say about, how to cope with suffering? Sorry, I’m not too familiar with Dawkins.
In the original video with the Q&A, in answer to a question on "the belief in God of those who are suffering, who have nothing, who are clinging onto life with their fingertips", Dawkins replied, " who cares what you feel like, who cares what feels good, who cares what makes you feel comforted, who cares what helps you sleep at night, what matters is what's true". ( 1hr 39min).
When referring to “science” in general terms, it encompasses the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experimentation. Science aims to build and organize knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe. they made it too complicated.
When I was an undergraduate in the early 90s, i was taught a bit about how science and religion ask different questions and how there's no real conflict between the two. The division between "How?" and "Why?" isn't a hard concept to understand. It seems that neither side is willing to give enough ground to accommodate the other these days, which is depressing. The extreme ends are working to tear the center apart in so many ways across the modern world. It was nice to see Krauss acknowledged this in his talk.
I should convert to something like ☪️ if not already and find your peace there if you can’t deal with progressive productive confusion
＼(^_^)／ We need to popularize the idea of getting God married. Getting God married is a good use of someone's time. You are supposed to make the environment intelligent so no God is needed. We fixed the video and audio for the best experience possible. Cameras are supernatural and all of them captured 3D that not a gimmick. The audio loud don't make violence so has depth. Nobody has to buy anything for it to work.
I’d love to sit with Dawkins and write the book.
What happened to those allegations of Krauss by some of his female students?
"Jeffrey has surrounded himself with beautiful women and young women but they’re not as young as the ones that were claimed. As a scientist I always judge things on empirical evidence and he always has women ages 19 to 23 around him, but I’ve never seen anything else, so as a scientist, my presumption is that whatever the problems were I would believe him over other people...I don’t feel tarnished in any way by my relationship with Jeffrey; I feel raised by it.”
- Krauss on his close relationship with convicted pedophile Jeffrey Epstein (2011)
All the imprecise thinking! Confusing the devotional with the philosophical aspects of religion. Reality is beyond the realm of physics, so we can only investigate it with metaphysics. Morality is a reality/divinity question, not physics. Also, from the philosophical perspective, evolution and creation can be logically consistent.
Richard is such a hero
Darwin's brilliance far outshines especially considering his theory was almost 200 years ago. Far advanced comprehension.
"In the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, a delusion is defined as: A false belief based on incorrect inference about external reality that is firmly sustained despite what almost everybody else believes and despite what constitutes incontrovertible and obvious proof or evidence to the contrary. The belief is not one ordinarily accepted by other members of the person’s culture or subculture (e.g. it is not an article of religious faith)." That's the main problem: If you claim it's religious you can be as delusional as you want and it's not a mental disorder. I'm from Germany and we've had some experience with mass delusions. You can be stupid and delusional in the name of religion, but not anywhere else, isn't a productive approach.
Looking out beyond the stars in our own galaxy , our " island universe " , and seeing other island universes out there like the andromeda galaxy , or
like NGC 6744 , and KNOWING what those objects are , these are privileges that we have by virtue of being born in a time when humankind have outgrown their collective daycare center and we are now forging ahead as we embrace learning new and exciting things . Superstition and the occult are things that I have never had any interest in . I count myself lucky , not only that I exist , but that I was born in a time such as now .
Y'all are awesome.
"This was back in the day when Scintific American cared about Science " 2:37 Scary!
i want to buy tickets to the san diego show but the dates arent up yet :((
Same here. Or LA if possible. I bought tickets to San Francisco just in case
@@milivanilli1979 Perhaps they should invite William Lane Craig.
Lawrence is right. If I say to a Christian that I believe evolution is correct, chances are they will ask why I'm attacking their belief in God.
If everyone talks nice regarding beliefs vs Evolution, who can assert the Truth 😢
As an aside, changing the name of the word THEORY (in the scientific sense) to another word, would help to avoid the confusion between the scientific understanding and the common understanding. Call scientificTHEORY = trueory, yesory, verity, truity, yesified, gottory, quantory, eurity, didity. didory, sureory, etc. As an example: The trueory of evolution
I'm sorry to say that your videos are too long for me to devote the time, despite enjoying your insights & analyses immensely. Is perhaps a parallel "syllabus" if 15 minutes videos a possibility?
Atheism is going to die out when these two dudes are gone.
Others can carry the flame. Will still be sad to see em go though.
Forest Valkai and Alex O’Connor both have millions of views. Forest is a brilliant, engaging evolutionary biologist, and Alex is a superb philosophic debater. Atheism will have some great voices for decades to come
Toronto 😢 not in the list