@@munbruk Yeah, compare Einstein's views on religion with Dawkins, and compare the value of science output between the two. And consider popular book publishing notoriety. There are some confronting questions in the comparison.
I am a fan of the Closer To Truth channel, but that's the worst interview I've heard so far on this channel. Both participants were struggling to convey their thoughts.
Lol. Listen to the first 50 seconds and you tell me if you can actually hear a discernable question.... or it mostly a guy talking? Lol. That is really how anyone would have responded.
*Closer to the truth:* _"Life is not a predictable ladder of progression. It's a copiously branching bush, continually being pruned by the grim reaper of extinction."_ ~ Stephen Jay Gould.
What he's asking in essence is: why do you have a bias for cherry picking the extremes of the available data points (of humanity's relationship with religion) at the expense of those closer to the center of distribution? Makes for a bit of interesting tension. "To fool you." The universe doesn't have to behave according to those rules of Dawkins which are pure conjecture and not backed by science. The religious texts, say, considered from a secular viewpoint, are rich symbolic narratives that convey deeper meanings and moral lessons. The pragmatic importance of that is not obvious? Just because something is not literal doesn't mean it contains no valuable truths. Looks less like objective science and more like subjective bias.
@@davetime5234"are rich symbolic narratives that convey deeper meanings and moral lessons." Put down the Peterson Kool-Aid. Most believers believe in a LITERAL Jesus who turned water into wine and resurrected the dead...
There fundamental incompatibility of science and religion, any science, not just evolution, is that science is based on the principle that the only way to learn anything true about the universe its to examine the UNIVERSE itself, using your own senses, or devices which augment your own senses. Religion on the other hand is based on the principle that belief in a proposition is enough in itself, regardless of what examining the universe tells you. In fact, some might go so far as to say you can't have a religion unless you disregard the universe entirely and believe what you believe regardless of anything you see with your eyes or hear with your ears, or whatever. People who claim to accept both science and religion actually don't. What they do is pick bits of each they can hold in their heads and disregard the rest.
Really? If evolution is true, then religion must by definition have an evolutionary purpose. For instance, Genesis 3:16 is obviously an evolutionary contract among humans. Intuited by religious people, long before religious people invented science.
@samuelforce7883 Complexity science has advanced our understanding of the world, all the way from the hard science to philosophy and theology. Philip Clayton responded years ago. So it's more "did" than "could."
@@Roy-ho6ii The sanctity of the scientific method must be preserved. But Dawkins fails in not admitting what he cannot know based on all available evidence. A "cult of science" in words fails science without sufficient candor on one's limitation in explaining the 1st person subjective experience of "existence." Robust, stress tested physical laws do nothing to model the basis of this experience (physiological and neurological biochemical processes aside, that is, excluding cognitive and sensory mechanisms).
The thing that bothered me a bit, is that in this particular part of the conversation, Robert is trying to be a bit more sympathetic towards religion than he always seemed to be, all while the other party in this conversation is the one and only Richard Dawkins, who has been the most straight forward, frank and even harshly direct critic of the religion. Some think that Dawkins is the toughest advocate of scientific thinking so much so that makes him unbearable for religious people, and therefore diminishes the efficacy of his arguments on them. In these circumstances, Robert's attitude towards religion causes the dialogue to limp a bit as Richard is also trying to be softer than usual.
Dawkins is surely a a great biologist, but he simply isn't taken seriously by scholars of religion. He's not "harshly direct" he's admirably clear but entirely misguided. The simplistic "science versus religion" stuff he advances works only against young earth clowns. There are great atheistic thinkers: JL Mackie or Graham Oppy. Dawkins is not one of them.
@@IR17171717 I pretty much agree with you as Dawkins is not a philosopher. He has become more of a media based crusader of scientific thinking during the past 4 decades and less of a scholar figure.
@@simonhibbs887There is purpose in survival of the fittest, definitely purpose in DNA if Dawkins theories are true. I’m guessing there must be emergent purpose, not sure how that works.
@@MarkPatmos Evolution can lead to the creation of systems that act purposefully, but the process of evolution has no purpose. Random mutation doesn't have purpose. The fact that an organism does or does not reproduce or survive is just an interaction with the environment. Neither of these processes has any goal.
@simonhibbs887 then there's a purpose behind genetic variation just because it can be explained doesn't mean there's no creator Like how tf nature knows I need lungs,heart,stomach optimum temp,immune system and an eye to see,ur able to taste,don't tell me they were formed by endosymbiotic theory or natural selection..human body is too complex to be made without purpose Like what makes our cells divide that way,how does body know DNA should be replicated before dividing,these r instructions. Human mind is limited to understand such things,so the mind oversimplifies and ignores the small details that matter
I raised 184k and Anna Kathleen Sanford is to be thanked. I got my self my dream car 🚗 just last weekend, My journey with her started after my best friend came back from New York and saw me suffering in dept then told me about her and how to change my life through her. Anna K. Sanford is the kind of person one needs in his or her life! I got a home, a good wife, and a beautiful daughter. Note!:: this is not a promotion but me trying to make a point that no matter what happens, always have faith and keep living!!
Although it's a broad generality, basically: religion is comprehensible. Besides that many religions are not about "truth" or higher knowledge but about social control and the main subject of religions are uncomprehensible.
The theory of evolution attempts to explain the diversity of living organisms, it has nothing to say about the origins of life itself. The hard problem we have is how does a “big bang” become conscious of itself? Richard’s model of the world is a rational intellect interpreting a set of objective facts outside of any overlap between the two, this is wrong.
I'm not sure answering that question really even matters, at least in terms of how we live our lives. If you accept the theory of evolution, which does not require any kind of supernatural/intelligent intervention, then the only possible God is a deistic one.
It seems to me that the occurrence of conscious, living beings emerging from inanimate matter would qualify as supernatural. It's easy to deride the excesses of religious dogma, somewhat more difficult to posit a straightforward, scientific explanation of the genesis of genetic reproduction guided by "natural" selection.
Fully understanding very complex chemical processes that occurred billions of years ago is hard, but i think we're getting there. So far there don't seem to be any fundamental obstacles to such an explanation. It's just complicated, but complicated chemical reactions do occur.
There are logical natural explanations for all of that and actual evidence for most of it. Your challenge is not difficult at all. What there is no evidence for is gods or divine creation. can you show us one thing demonstrably created by a god?
@@rickdelatour5355 Evidence for 'most' of it? Please, fill that gap and demonstrate conscious, self-replicating beings emerging from inanimate matter. Start with single celled organisms if the origin story is too much of a 'happy chemical accident" to explain.
@ you forgot to answer my question. I never said we know everything did I? There are gaps indeed in our knowledge, but nothing we do know suggests a god. We see complex organic chemicals self assembling, but we haven’t yet observed every s tp of the w y. But we have never found anything formed by a god. Nothing at all. You have just confirmed this for me. Thanks BTW. Materialism has evidence gods do not.
@ Is it? Maybe, but having already watched numerous people as they've given testimony about their near death experience, I've been impressed by the similarities. It just doesn't seem l likely to me that all those brain chemicals would create such specific similarities between so many people.
@@stewartbjorgan4840 Direct Einstein quotes (apparently): "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind" "My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind" Perhaps search the following: "He did not believe in a personal God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings, a view which he described as naïve. He clarified, however, that, "I am not an atheist", preferring to call himself an agnostic, or a "religious nonbeliever."
@ You can verify the following: "Einstein rejected a conflict between science and religion, and held that cosmic religion was necessary for science." Einstein believed the problem of God was the "most difficult in the world"-a question that could not be answered "simply with yes or no". He conceded that "the problem involved is too vast for our limited minds"
@@stewartbjorgan4840 So far you have only expressed your opinions. All the information I've provided are Einstein's own words and verifiable narrations from biographers. Clearly Einstein was deeply moved by an order beyond human capacity to describe. A "Being" is a metaphor it would seem, to refer to that which cannot be so described.
The only way to solve the world's problems is to get rid of bigotry and greed, and make people realize they are responsible for their own actions in the here and now. To make people work together toward an equitable, respectful and sustainable future. And that will never happen as long as people are subservient to the hatred, arrogance and mythology of religion, and the bad people who manipulate based on it.
He doesn't do philosophy, quantum physics or any other metaphysics other than his unconscious adherence to a the metaphysical assumption of materialism though does he? I wonder what people find so appealing about him? My guess is that people who parrot him back feel smart.
1:10 I know atheists aren’t a monolith, but usually you hear people brushing off the supernatural completely. Makes me doubt him a little nowadays to be honest
Dawkins' statement that a universe that was made by God is one that is very very different from one "where there is no such creature" is illustrative of his profound ignorance on what Christian theologians and philosophers think about the matter.
It is like Dawkins is invalidating "made by God" as a "magical thinking" violation of logical thought. But our 1st person experience of our own existence, should no less easily fall into this "magical thinking" logical trap? I see no laws of science even close to me explaining why I experience my existence. His argument is weak. He set the ground rules for his own argument (stacked the deck).
( ´⊇｀) Consciousness is the particle and wave double slit experiment. The cones and rods of your eyes preserve the particle and wave duality so your vision don't look like a flat screen television. It's supposed to be a violation of physics but it is the only exception in the whole universe.
From chaos and uncertainty, constants, fields and energy ratios are fluctuated then Bang! A universe is actualized but why? Why does a painter paint... because it is a work of art. The universe is one too but who is the artist?
Self-creation is the purpose of existence, for the self-created can do anything the creator can do. When mankind knows how to self-create, man will become God to the created.
If the source of creation or what we call God created all things, birds, mammals, insects, thiests, devils and angels? Did it not also create the athiest? 😅 Can we choose to believe, speculate all we want as long as we are not harming other beings. Is that not a miracle? 😊
Apparently dawkins doesn't know the whole world now knows random mutations are overwhelmingly deleterious to cellular function!?!? He is still locked in a 19th century Paradigm of how living cells were thought to operate .
You appear to have a misunderstanding of evolution which is fine. I'll just say random mutations is not the only mechanism involved in evolution is the first point. Secondly your thinking about too small of time scale evolution occurs over thousands to millions of years not from generation to generation.
@Quasarcool time degrades everything. Especially the chemicles of life which degrad in hours to days . Scientists are now saying a cell had to create self replication abilities along with the information to direct it in a rapid coalesing event. The millions of years trope was debunked decades ago . We cannot attempt to engineer molecules and chemicles of life without strict procedures to freeze the process at each step in order to set up the next step without rapid degradation . This is all well known and understood now, sir. As far as evolutionary theory it states " random mutations acted on by enviromental pressures still in science literature all,over the world even though we now know mutations are overwhelmingly deleterious.
@Quasarcool unfortunately it is a basic proposition where random mutations are acted on by mindless enviroment. This is a god of the gaps explanation based on ignorance of the forces at work as the more we understand cells the less random they become. We are still far from deciphering the base foundation of life my friend much less understanding how ALL life came to be. Thanks for your input though.
@@Quasarcoolunfortunately it is a basic proposition. Random mutations acted on by mindless enviroment We understand now this is an explanation from ignorance as the more we understand about living cells the more we realize they are anything but random. This applies to all things seen as a maxim.
@BanditBandit-q5x Again, you're showing some misunderstandings of evolution. Evolution does not claim to explain the origin of life, it is a theory that explains the biodiversity we see around us and how life has changed since it began. Abiogenesis is the theory that attempts to explain the origin of life. Two different theories with different mechanisms.
@ Evolution says nothing about how life started. It’s about know life changes, it in no way excludes a God. It can debunk certain Gods as certain creation story’s can be proven false but again it doesn’t explain how life started or what if anything caused the Big Bang.
I have much respect for Richard Dawkins and love his latest book. But, there are many things that science yet doesn’t know respectively, so I personally don’t rule out there being other things, energies etc whether so called supernatural or not , but a creator being of sorts is too simplistic and naive .
(*T^T) Natural selection is the character flaw in evil that is integrity is more important than life otherwise evolution is tragic circumstances with nothing intelligent happening. Almost everyone survive until they reproduce. Nothing is getting selected except for the character flaw in evil. I found a replacement for the character flaw in evil that I liked but God makes me forget things that will cause me trouble.
( ・３・) 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.
"what he was trying to ask" To reflect on the profoundly serious questions at the interface of religion and science that continue to exist. Why do we have sense of our own existence which appears subjectively and separate from the objective structure of our brains and bodies that have evolved as a platform of that experience? Charles Darwin: "In my most extreme fluctuations I have never been an atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a God." Astonishing paradox.
( ｡ﾟДﾟ｡) The universe was created in 1976. It is too hot to make a universe at the time of the big bang. It can be created at anytime. God is slow and easy. A human can do a lot with their lifespan. I got the hunk. God got the chunk. Everyone else can have the rest. That is song spirit of ''76 by The Alarm.
@TENGRI-101 i follow Allah and Muhammad P.B.U.H. Atheists are boasting all about science. Prove to me now something from absolutely nothing scientifically and life from non life scientifically. You might do some good for your fellow atheists.
Explaining life on earth requires at least one miracle. The secular world view requires a big bang, inflation, untold numbers of evolutions, all matter coming from one seed element... A large stack of miracles is required. Belief in God posits that God has always existed (one miracle). By Occam's Razor you should believe in the least number of miracles.
"Why on Earth would God choose the one method [evolution] were he's not necessary?" Interesting statement. Now, evolution on this planet was managed, not by God, but by Life Carriers, orders of beings several levels below God. That is to say, evolution had help. But in order for there to be 'evolution' there must first be life. Richard is assuming that there is validity to the idea of abiogenesis, and makes that his go-to assumption for how life began. Unfortunately for the fans of abiogenesis, (aptly described in the Astrobiology Primer), the idea that a cell could form strictly as a result of the laws of physics and chemistry (e.g., by "accident" as in without conscious intent), has a serious flaw. (Well more than one, actually.) Say a cell did form that way... all that would be produced would be a lifeless bit of organic goo. Richard is clueless as to how that cell suddenly came to be alive. Mind had to be added to it, in order for it to be a life form. (Three guesses what the source of that necessary 'mind' was...) Sorry Richard, but God was necessary, even for that method.
@@dylantrost4471 - Like everyone else here, I'm voicing (writing) what are my opinions. I do have over 70 years of experience on this planet, and I've been around the block many times. I have never seen any news item that reported something inanimate suddenly becoming alive. Have you?
As I’ve been presented with neither good reason nor evidence that even remotely suggests that abiogenesis (life arising from non life), I will logically reject abiogenesis. God bless all
0:50 RD: um not quite sure what you're asking there (um just asking uh you to reflect on uh evolution and and religion uh) yeah well I think supernatural religion is a very interesting scientific theory which is YET TO BE PROVED OR DISPROVED (wrong) but it's M-THEORY profoundly interesting in the sense or important in the sense that IF EXTRA DIMENSIONS LIKE SPATIAL 4- OR 5- DIMENSIONS EXIST AS WE LOGICALLY CONFIRM 1- OR 2- DIMENSIONW THERE WHICH IS ACTUALLY INVISIBLE TO US if it if it were right it IS would be a very different kind of world we live in so I'm not one of those who says well it's nothing to do with science you can believe if you if you like and lead me out of it I mean it is very important scientific theory 1:31 if
Though the guest is an evolutionist, some of the things he is saying about these confused theists should be food for thought for them. (1) Claiming that the process of evolution was a wise way for the creator to have produced different creatures from single cells to dinosaurs doesn't make sense. God has endless ways to bring about various organisms. Why could he then choose an error frosted method, evolution, to bring about organisms? (2) Evolution-theists just do not understand the negative implication their acceptance of evolution have on the basic tenets of their religious faith.
"some kind of brooding great spirit at the base of the universe which created everything and supervises everything then that is a totally different kind of Universe". That's not only a wrong assumption it's as biased a notion as young earth creationism. Arguments like this are arrogant and dismissive. They empower fundamentalists even more and undermine the debate. A universe is viable for life based on its physical laws. If its life is sentient and capable of cognition to understand those laws, whether the laws be both natural and considered by some as supernatural, then the difference in these mind states is epistemological and pedagogical, not ontological. Misinformation and insufficient knowledge is a problem of the human condition, not the (one) universe, in which we are all living. The human condition could improve if societies would acknowledge the need to understand WHY people perceive reality in terms of the supernatural, including academic acceptance of scientific endeavors to explain metaphysics, as well as social and cultural.
I would like to take Mr Dawkins to mount Rushmore and ask him why nature hasn't managed to carve any thing close to the what he sees in front of him if nature can come up with something as complex as the human brain. At least a star for starters.
@@vladtheemailer3223 I think you'd agree with me that complexity-science wise, starts from inorganic to organic. Acellular to cellular. Prokaryotic to eukaryotic. And then unicellular to multicellular. Now if nature can design life in such diverse manner, with so many different species, can't it decide to at least make use of the inorganic matter around us?
observing the state of our societies today I think 'God' has a sense of humour...he plays games with the devil. Poetry is more profound than science can ever be.
Maybe, but that would mean he is a cruel god playing games with our lives. I’m not ruling god out and if there is one, you might be right that he plays games, and isn’t a pleasant god.
@@qigong1001 oh I dont know, there's an old saying, only 2 things are infinite, human stupidy and Gods mercy. Most of our problems are of our own making, a consequence of free will.
Albert Einstein for Richard Dawkins: "You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our own being."
There is no vs. Evolution is widely accepted as the way in which life-forms come into being and evolve or extinguish over time. No credible person would claim otherwise. So religious theory has to fit with evolution theory lot the other way around. The existence and evolution of the universe in general is understood with a high degree of confidence. Religious theory has to fit with that, as well. I think a case can be made that it does. What is not in dispute is that Dawkins is a tedious man who has made a good living having these tedious discussions.
*"There is no vs. Evolution is widely accepted as the way in which life-forms come into being and evolve or extinguish over time. No credible person would claim otherwise. So religious theory has to fit with evolution theory lot the other way around."* ... God is considered "all-knowing" whereas biological evolution is deemed "non-knowing." That's "All" or "None," respectively. But what if you took just a tiny little bit of God's "all knowing" and moved it over to biological evolution? .... Evolution is not completely void of orchestration (intelligence).
Isn't it clearer to contrast _natural selection_ with religion, though? That is after all what knocks the supernatural claims out of the ballpark. And it is frankly non sense to talk of religion outside of supernatural beliefs - those sore losers should really be using other words than religion for the things they want to hang on to.
@@Alwaysdoubt100 No, there are bad scientific theories that have been disproven because the evidence in support of them was actually superficial or turned out to be merely apparent. Nobody in the history of the world has ever thought your claim is correct. The expanding world hypothesis was taken seriously as an alternative to the idea of plate tectonics. It was disproven. It felt out of favour because there was no evidence for it, and in fact evidence against It. But it was still a scientific theory. Same with luminiferous aether. And what about speculative views in science which are supposed to make sense of data we already have but are controversial because scientists don't agree on what counts as evidence for them? Like String Theory and some of its associated theories? Don't be silly.
@BiologyWonderland So expanding earth theory, which has been shown to be inconsistent with evidence, is not a theory? Theories make claims. Scientists then test whether there is evidence for the theory. Sometimes there is, and sometimes there is not. That is why there are good theories and bad theories. A child knows this.
@BiologyWonderland Even on that narrow notion of a theory, bad theories exist! One's that have been falsified with counter evidence. That doesn't mean they aren't theories. The point of a theory is that it can be wrong. Those theories do not have "a large body of knowledge and evidence".
X-< This is an artistic proof of a created universe. When you paint a shadow it's the opposite color of the object that made the shadow. Nobody knew what the opposite color of white was so the artists avoided painting white on white. The opposite color of white is baby blue and baby pink. The first artist to figure it out was Norman Rockwell. I was the second artist to figure it out. I saw it in the corner of a white room. The lighting was perfect to see it. Pigments have different rules than light. It took them thousands of years to get all the pigments they have now.
Except for a few verses, there is hardly any truth in the Quran, Hadith, or the Bible. The God of the Bible or the Quran does not claim to have created the universe. Neither the Bible nor the Quran discusses the creation of the universe in modern terms. Genesis 1:2 suggests that water existed in some form before the creation of Earth and Heaven. Therefore, the Bible does not describe the creation of the universe from nothing. Additionally, 'Earth and Heaven' should not be interpreted as the universe in the way science understands it today. These authors (flat-earthers) did not have an understanding of the universe as we do in modern times. In Genesis 2:21-22, Genesis 2:7, and the Quran (38:71-72), God is depicted as a man on Earth creating Adam from dust/clay and forming the first woman from a man's rib. This suggests that the authors did not fully comprehend the intricacies of the creation process, let alone the evolution of species as explained by the scientific concept of 'evolution.' According to Allah, man was created from clay (Quran 15:26), a blood clot (Quran 96:2), and water (Quran 21:30), while woman was created from a rib (as narrated in Bukhari and Muslim). This narrative, neither fitting into creation nor evolution, bears closer resemblance to practices associated with witchcraft. Therefore, we can dismiss all of that as nonsense. However, there remains a deep mystery that scientists have yet to figure out. The issue is that science cannot explain the origin of consciousness. The egg and sperm that formed the zygote, which eventually became you, are, by scientific understanding, merely chemicals devoid of consciousness. So, where did your consciousness come from? Science asserts that when the body dies, consciousness ceases to exist. This implies that consciousness emerges from nothing and then vanishes into nothing, which defies logic. This is where true spirituality becomes relevant. Universal spirituality transcends the limitations of science. By exploring supernatural abilities, such as levitation, we can begin to uncover the true nature of consciousness. By consciousness here, I am not referring solely to human consciousness or brain-bound consciousness. There is more to consciousness than that. We must think of the quantum field as a field of consciousness. Science doesn't understand the connection between matter and the non-physical realm of something. This is the real issue. That something must have always existed and be infinite to make sense of the physical realm. To be recognized as a true scientist, one must steadfastly pursue the truth, regardless of where it leads or its implications. This pursuit often leads into the realm of the supernatural or the consciousness that lies behind the physical realm. Evidence of such phenomena can be found in supernatural abilities, exemplified by Biba Struja's electrokinesis skills, validated by his Guinness World Record, which demands rigorous scientific verification. To debunk Biba Struja as an illusionist and disprove the existence of psychic powers, one would need to replicate his feats using mere tricks and achieve a Guinness World Record-something unattainable. This confirms Biba Struja's genuine ability and validates the reality of electrokinesis among numerous other magical abilities. You can only grasp what that something is-the non-physical realm underlying the physical-through the exploration of supernatural abilities.
I don't understand these debates. Religion is belief in something, not evidence. That's why we have so many religions in the world even today over 4300 religions and over 10,000 gods just in the history we know. The Bible is a fairy tale and most of the stories are borrowed from other nations. It's fiction so there's no point in proving that a god did or said something. Especially if the proof is to come from the fairy tale itself. In this way all fairy tales are true and the characters are real. Do we really want to prove the existence of Cyclops, dwarves or Snow Queens?
I can agree with Dawkins all day long that evolution succeeds as a reliable theory for how life changes over time. But it offers no answers for how life began in the first place - or how the universe started. The scientific theories involved in those domains are still highly speculative and unproven. How’s that String Theory coming along, folks? Meanwhile, the major religions with the strongest intellectual traditions, like Catholicism, long ago accepted Darwinian natural selection, so there’s no argument to be had there. I was taught evolution in Catholic school in the 1970’s. Yet Dawkins continues to dismiss the entire possibility of metaphysical truth, even as highly responsible and respected philosophers and theologians continue to make the case that science cannot be the only acceptable for of knowledge or exclusive means for seeking the truth of being and existence. Thank God, Closer to Truth doesn’t accept Dawkins’ close-minded scientistic dogmatism.
♦"Religion began when the first scoundrel met the first fool." ♦"Only fools revere the supernatural bs just bc a book claims it's the holy truth." ♦"Religion is founded on the fear & gullibility of many & the cleverness of few." ♦"The delusional religious are cocksure & the intelligent full of doubt." ♦"The religious believe by the millions what only lunatics may believe on their own." ♦"It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they've been fooled." ♦"It's difficult to free the religious from the chains they revere." ♦“To have faith is precisely to lose one's mind so as to win God.” ♦"The death of dogma is the birth of morality." ♦"Religion fools many bc the brain is susceptible to hallucination & gullibility."
Why would God "write himself out" of the process? It would be a greater accomplishment. Dawkins never had a model train that could circle around the tracks a few times without intervention? Never made a chain of dominoes?
CS Lewis said " God likes matter. He invented it." It wouldn't be impossible for God to create a natural universe and also choose to supernaturally intervene at times.
I don't believe that God (pure spirit) can create matter, and the universe is not what I would consider a very intelligent design. However I wished Robert had asked Richard about wether he believes math is discovered or invented. If math is discovered, then we know that the non-physical precedes the physical..
*Major fan of Richard Dawkins!* ... Dawkins, Tyson, Dennett, Witten and Sabine are all characters in my latest cartoon! ... That being said, I don't believe that "Evolution" is void of intelligence. And religion has evolved just like science, politics, society, and everything else has evolved. ... "Intelligence" was present throughout each these evolutionary processes, so why think it's not present in biological evolution?
@@Paine137 *"Evidence?"* ... I have the exact same amount of evidence in support of intelligence being integral to evolution as the evolutionists have that it's not. The main difference is that *orchestration requires intelligence,* and we have *zero evidence* for anything that can orchestrate chaos without an intelligence being involved. You can certainly argue that "Evolution" doesn't require any intelligence whatsoever to orchestrate life, ... but that would result in "special pleading" on behalf of biological evolution.
Dawkins asks why “God” would choose to use evolution and remain anonymous. Perhaps because we would behave differently if we Knew IT existed and that would not serve ITs purpose.
Then the question is why, according to various scriptures, god demand categorically that everyone must worship him or else, and for example gives explicit very loud instructions about that from mountaintops. Miracles are explicitly promoted as demonstrable proof of the veracity of religious claims, and we are told that disbelief is punishable precisely because we have no excuse to disbelieve due to the proofs such miracles provide. So it depends on whether or not we are expected to take such claims from scripture or made on behalf of seriously, and if not, why should we take anything in scripture seriously?
@@simonhibbs887 Religious writings represent early attempts to provide guidance and philosophical (and societal) cohesion. I don’t think any of those writings should be taken overly seriously beyond that historical significance.
@@user-ij6vg8xq2r Agreed, but without them what is religion? It seems like it's a process that generates disturbing, misleading texts we should be wary of taking seriously. Having said that I think the bible in particular is a fascinating sociological artefact and well worth studying on that basis.
@@vladtheemailer3223 I think the entirety of time already exists. It’s done, so I don’t imagine any ongoing tinkering is necessary. I take being “told” such things with a grain of salt.
Assuming that metaphysical means "that which cannot yet be explained within the established, verifiable laws of physics", the part evolution can't at all yet explain: How our first-person subjective experience of existence results from known physical laws. It seems the rationally honest current answer to the question still is: no one knows. Religion seems to be related to that explanation gap.
@@davetime5234 Just a tip, don’t redefine the meaning of a word to easily win a one sided argument in a reply. Nothing you said is relevant to my point lol.
@ No problem. Metaphysical relates to anything that’s beyond or non-physical, another term is “transcendent”. Examples of things that are transcendental or metaphysical: laws of logic, mathematical axioms, consciousness, etc.
@@justchilling704Thank you. I'm a bit confused about how to classify associated concepts: When I think about what can be known through widely verifiable scientific laws versus what we currently can't define with such laws, I think of the "hard problem of consciousness" paradox. The first-person subjective experience of existence is something we don't have science tools to describe. However, for what can be described with scientific rules, such as Newton's laws which are heavily based on mathematical axioms, Does this mean the "concrete world" of our reliable science toolkit is metaphysical? Would that not imply that everything is metaphysical, both the "mind" and the physical law based "body" of the mind-body problem?
@Paine137 Time is cyclical, which suggests that we might be in a time loop. Maybe, we create the Creator, who loops back and Creates us. For example, we create AI. It evolves sufficiently to navigate time.
If atheists demonstrates to the humans something from absolutely nothing and life from non life it would be very good for their cause. If they can't solve or demonstrate the most fundamental questions of why we are here in the first place then talking on God question with secondary or thirdly questions are useless.
≈ 1 putative quantum gravity suggested light time lag per energy and distance = ((1. α G/t_Λ)(2π 1. α M_earth^2))^-1 Intelligent design reproves God is a living man as One creating all things, in His mind before us.
According to Islam, the criminals will be ascended to the heavens with angels and it’s doors will not be opened for them and their souls will be dropped and hit on an “earth” and they will be held in Sijjin till the day of resurrection. I believe in it and don’t wanna take a risk with monkey theories.
It is simply false to say that the world that accepts God would produce utterly different scientific worldview. Science we have today emerged and have been developed within the worldview in which God was aknowledged...so...Dawkins is only making case for his own one - sided interpretation. It doesn' fit if we take a honest aproach to the history of science.
![Blox Fruits Dragon Rework Update [Full Stream]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/EqDAp8udhm0/mqdefault.jpg)
Ironically, Dawkins has the patience of a saint...
Must be his Minister dads influence
@@TimBitts649 Minister?
Are we sure all saints are patient.
He is arrogant. And he lies, for example he said there is no evidence of God in biology. What does he even know about Biology?
@@munbruk Yeah, compare Einstein's views on religion with Dawkins, and compare the value of science output between the two. And consider popular book publishing notoriety. There are some confronting questions in the comparison.
I am a fan of the Closer To Truth channel, but that's the worst interview I've heard so far on this channel. Both participants were struggling to convey their thoughts.
But probably still way better than any of your thoughts.
@@karel8y No doubt, I don't want to compare myself with those two.
Dawkins was immediately annoyed at the nature of the questions.
RD seemed slow in thi interview. He seems like he's tired of discussing the subject.
Agree. He didn't say much
He’s in his 80s
Yes. And Robert didn't give him much to work with.
He gets paid for discussing that subject)), so he has nothing to suffer. And he is tired, because he is already old. Don't make it up.
Lol. Listen to the first 50 seconds and you tell me if you can actually hear a discernable question.... or it mostly a guy talking? Lol. That is really how anyone would have responded.
I don't blame Dawkins for not understanding the questions. Its was like 8 questions and thoughts spliced together from the get-go.
*Closer to the truth:* _"Life is not a predictable ladder of progression. It's a copiously branching bush, continually being pruned by the grim reaper of extinction."_ ~ Stephen Jay Gould.
“Uh, I’m not quite sure what you’re asking there.” 🤣🤣 Love my boy, Richard.
What he's asking in essence is: why do you have a bias for cherry picking the extremes of the available data points (of humanity's relationship with religion) at the expense of those closer to the center of distribution? Makes for a bit of interesting tension.
"To fool you." The universe doesn't have to behave according to those rules of Dawkins which are pure conjecture and not backed by science.
The religious texts, say, considered from a secular viewpoint, are rich symbolic narratives that convey deeper meanings and moral lessons. The pragmatic importance of that is not obvious? Just because something is not literal doesn't mean it contains no valuable truths.
Looks less like objective science and more like subjective bias.
@@davetime5234"are rich symbolic narratives that convey deeper meanings and moral lessons."
Put down the Peterson Kool-Aid. Most believers believe in a LITERAL Jesus who turned water into wine and resurrected the dead...
@ Word salad gibberish.
@@PatrickFlynn-ry6oj We don't eat enough salad of course, tempted by the junk food narratives of the impulse buy.
@@PatrickFlynn-ry6oj Eat your salad.
There fundamental incompatibility of science and religion, any science, not just evolution, is that science is based on the principle that the only way to learn anything true about the universe its to examine the UNIVERSE itself, using your own senses, or devices which augment your own senses.
Religion on the other hand is based on the principle that belief in a proposition is enough in itself, regardless of what examining the universe tells you. In fact, some might go so far as to say you can't have a religion unless you disregard the universe entirely and believe what you believe regardless of anything you see with your eyes or hear with your ears, or whatever.
People who claim to accept both science and religion actually don't. What they do is pick bits of each they can hold in their heads and disregard the rest.
Really? If evolution is true, then religion must by definition have an evolutionary purpose. For instance, Genesis 3:16 is obviously an evolutionary contract among humans. Intuited by religious people, long before religious people invented science.
There is no conflict between good science and good theology. Anyone educated should know that, but many don't.
When the devil tempted Jesus to jump off a precipice, what was his response?
@@netscrooge not true. Sure you could reform theology to fit science but that's the point. Religion evolves with the science always being true
@samuelforce7883 Complexity science has advanced our understanding of the world, all the way from the hard science to philosophy and theology. Philip Clayton responded years ago. So it's more "did" than "could."
What a relief to, at last, get someone who brings a semblance of reality an balance to the discussion. Thank you Richard.
@@Roy-ho6ii The sanctity of the scientific method must be preserved. But Dawkins fails in not admitting what he cannot know based on all available evidence. A "cult of science" in words fails science without sufficient candor on one's limitation in explaining the 1st person subjective experience of "existence."
Robust, stress tested physical laws do nothing to model the basis of this experience (physiological and neurological biochemical processes aside, that is, excluding cognitive and sensory mechanisms).
Here's just how awkward an interview can get when you try to lead Richard Dawkins with vaguely worded faith based questions.
Its good to see Richard beginning to have second thoughts about his life long ideas
What museum are they in I wonder. The Natural history museum London?
The thing that bothered me a bit, is that in this particular part of the conversation, Robert is trying to be a bit more sympathetic towards religion than he always seemed to be, all while the other party in this conversation is the one and only Richard Dawkins, who has been the most straight forward, frank and even harshly direct critic of the religion. Some think that Dawkins is the toughest advocate of scientific thinking so much so that makes him unbearable for religious people, and therefore diminishes the efficacy of his arguments on them. In these circumstances, Robert's attitude towards religion causes the dialogue to limp a bit as Richard is also trying to be softer than usual.
Dawkins is surely a a great biologist, but he simply isn't taken seriously by scholars of religion. He's not "harshly direct" he's admirably clear but entirely misguided. The simplistic "science versus religion" stuff he advances works only against young earth clowns. There are great atheistic thinkers: JL Mackie or Graham Oppy. Dawkins is not one of them.
@@IR17171717 I pretty much agree with you as Dawkins is not a philosopher. He has become more of a media based crusader of scientific thinking during the past 4 decades and less of a scholar figure.
Evolution is a process which includes purpose, that requires organisms to somehow have agency, and is occurring in a consistent manner without design.
Evolution includes natural selection, not purpose.
@@simonhibbs887There is purpose in survival of the fittest, definitely purpose in DNA if Dawkins theories are true. I’m guessing there must be emergent purpose, not sure how that works.
@@MarkPatmos Evolution can lead to the creation of systems that act purposefully, but the process of evolution has no purpose. Random mutation doesn't have purpose. The fact that an organism does or does not reproduce or survive is just an interaction with the environment. Neither of these processes has any goal.
@@simonhibbs887But the need to reproduce or survive is emergent purpose
@simonhibbs887 then there's a purpose behind genetic variation just because it can be explained doesn't mean there's no creator
Like how tf nature knows I need lungs,heart,stomach optimum temp,immune system and an eye to see,ur able to taste,don't tell me they were formed by endosymbiotic theory or natural selection..human body is too complex to be made without purpose
Like what makes our cells divide that way,how does body know DNA should be replicated before dividing,these r instructions.
Human mind is limited to understand such things,so the mind oversimplifies and ignores the small details that matter
Retiring this year, $82K biweekly, this video reminds me of my life in 2023, you have really inspired me in so many ways!!❤️
I’m feeling truly inspired.
Can you provide additional insights about the bi-weekly subject you mentioned?
I raised 184k and Anna Kathleen Sanford is to be thanked. I got my self my dream car 🚗 just last weekend, My journey with her started after my best friend came back from New York and saw me suffering in dept then told me about her and how to change my life through her. Anna K. Sanford is the kind of person one needs in his or her life! I got a home, a good wife, and a beautiful daughter. Note!:: this is not a promotion but me trying to make a point that no matter what happens, always have faith and keep living!!
Whoa 😲 I know her too!
Miss Anna Kathleen Sanford is an incredible person who has brought immense inspiration and positivity into my life.
I meagerly kicked off with $2k, and the results have been Jaw-dropping TBH!!!
Although it's a broad generality, basically: religion is comprehensible. Besides that many religions are not about "truth" or higher knowledge but about social control and the main subject of religions are uncomprehensible.
The theory of evolution attempts to explain the diversity of living organisms, it has nothing to say about the origins of life itself. The hard problem we have is how does a “big bang” become conscious of itself? Richard’s model of the world is a rational intellect interpreting a set of objective facts outside of any overlap between the two, this is wrong.
Become? How about it was all the time 😁
What led you to believe that a ‘big bang’ has become conscious?
@BiologyWonderland that is what science do 😁
@BiologyWonderland evidence based on stories that support objective not subjective
I'm not sure answering that question really even matters, at least in terms of how we live our lives. If you accept the theory of evolution, which does not require any kind of supernatural/intelligent intervention, then the only possible God is a deistic one.
It seems to me that the occurrence of conscious, living beings emerging from inanimate matter would qualify as supernatural. It's easy to deride the excesses of religious dogma, somewhat more difficult to posit a straightforward, scientific explanation of the genesis of genetic reproduction guided by "natural" selection.
It’s natural.
Fully understanding very complex chemical processes that occurred billions of years ago is hard, but i think we're getting there. So far there don't seem to be any fundamental obstacles to such an explanation. It's just complicated, but complicated chemical reactions do occur.
There are logical natural explanations for all of that and actual evidence for most of it. Your challenge is not difficult at all.
What there is no evidence for is gods or divine creation.
can you show us one thing demonstrably created by a god?
@@rickdelatour5355 Evidence for 'most' of it? Please, fill that gap and demonstrate conscious, self-replicating beings emerging from inanimate matter. Start with single celled organisms if the origin story is too much of a 'happy chemical accident" to explain.
@ you forgot to answer my question.
I never said we know everything did I? There are gaps indeed in our knowledge, but nothing we do know suggests a god.
We see complex organic chemicals self assembling, but we haven’t yet observed every s tp of the w y. But we have never found anything formed by a god. Nothing at all. You have just confirmed this for me. Thanks BTW.
Materialism has evidence gods do not.
those questions are nonsense.
Evolution: "Why would on Earth would [God] choose to use the one method where he's not necessary?" 🤣
Dr.Dawkins the best of all time
Unfortunately, he does science a disservice by making overly literal-minded arguments, exhibiting "law of the instrument bias".
From the get go the interviewer repeated the statement and aluded to a statement. This leads to a disorientated answer.
Dr. Kuhn, I would love for you to interview a few people who've had near death experiences.
Or one single post death experience.
@@vladtheemailer3223 lol
The brain chemistry does all sorts of strange stuff when close to death so any sort of claim is untrustworthy.
@@vladtheemailer3223 Good one.
@ Is it? Maybe, but having already watched numerous people as they've given testimony about their near death experience, I've been impressed by the similarities. It just doesn't seem l likely to me that all those brain chemicals would create such specific similarities between so many people.
Saw Dawkins speak last year. He is amazing. So interesting
Yeah….Richard’s science cracks me up…..randomized evolution 🤣
Dawkins sometimes comes off as smugg
We can say that about anytime someone does buy into ignorance.
Albert Einstein: , "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind,"
Einstein wasn't religious. He would occasionally use religious terminology just to convey ideas. He made that clear in later statements.
@@stewartbjorgan4840 Direct Einstein quotes (apparently):
"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind"
"My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind"
Perhaps search the following: "He did not believe in a personal God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings, a view which he described as naïve. He clarified, however, that, "I am not an atheist", preferring to call himself an agnostic, or a "religious nonbeliever."
@ You can verify the following: "Einstein rejected a conflict between science and religion, and held that cosmic religion was necessary for science."
Einstein believed the problem of God was the "most difficult in the world"-a question that could not be answered "simply with yes or no". He conceded that "the problem involved is too vast for our limited minds"
@@davetime5234 Einstein did not believe in a supernatural being of any kind with the evidence provided.
@@stewartbjorgan4840 So far you have only expressed your opinions. All the information I've provided are Einstein's own words and verifiable narrations from biographers. Clearly Einstein was deeply moved by an order beyond human capacity to describe. A "Being" is a metaphor it would seem, to refer to that which cannot be so described.
I am interested in the evolution of religion.
I just refer back to the people who first preposed the idea: us.
The only way to solve the world's problems is to get rid of bigotry and greed, and make people realize they are responsible for their own actions in the here and now. To make people work together toward an equitable, respectful and sustainable future. And that will never happen as long as people are subservient to the hatred, arrogance and mythology of religion, and the bad people who manipulate based on it.
How is it that you STILL have yet to interview John Vervaeke?
What place is this? I'm almost crying because it's so beautiful ❤🥰
Major fan of sir Dawkins , 💯💚🙏🏻❤️🏆
He doesn't do philosophy, quantum physics or any other metaphysics other than his unconscious adherence to a the metaphysical assumption of materialism though does he? I wonder what people find so appealing about him? My guess is that people who parrot him back feel smart.
Science is related to the powers that exist. There is a connection point or points. Energy powers are traded off and lead to a formation of objects.
Dawkins has mellowed a lot, thats why he was invited, but you can still the sense the fear of the interviewer.
1:10 I know atheists aren’t a monolith, but usually you hear people brushing off the supernatural completely. Makes me doubt him a little nowadays to be honest
@@GebreMMII he did mention that he is not extreme in the atheist scale, in his books. To him, to be extreme would be dogmatic.
Dawkins' statement that a universe that was made by God is one that is very very different from one "where there is no such creature" is illustrative of his profound ignorance on what Christian theologians and philosophers think about the matter.
It is like Dawkins is invalidating "made by God" as a "magical thinking" violation of logical thought. But our 1st person experience of our own existence, should no less easily fall into this "magical thinking" logical trap? I see no laws of science even close to me explaining why I experience my existence.
His argument is weak. He set the ground rules for his own argument (stacked the deck).
( ´⊇｀) Consciousness is the particle and wave double slit experiment. The cones and rods of your eyes preserve the particle and wave duality so your vision don't look like a flat screen television. It's supposed to be a violation of physics but it is the only exception in the whole universe.
From chaos and uncertainty, constants, fields and energy ratios are fluctuated then Bang! A universe is actualized but why? Why does a painter paint... because it is a work of art. The universe is one too but who is the artist?
The answer is that there isn't one.
Self-creation is the purpose of existence, for the self-created can do anything the creator can do. When mankind knows how to self-create, man will become God to the created.
Allah is enough. Islam is perfect. Alhamdulillah
Alhamdulillah ❤
If the source of creation or what we call God created all things, birds, mammals, insects, thiests, devils and angels? Did it not also create the athiest? 😅 Can we choose to believe, speculate all we want as long as we are not harming other beings. Is that not a miracle? 😊
Where are they sitting?
Apparently dawkins doesn't know the whole world now knows random mutations are overwhelmingly deleterious to cellular function!?!? He is still locked in a 19th century Paradigm of how living cells were thought to operate .
You appear to have a misunderstanding of evolution which is fine. I'll just say random mutations is not the only mechanism involved in evolution is the first point. Secondly your thinking about too small of time scale evolution occurs over thousands to millions of years not from generation to generation.
@Quasarcool time degrades everything. Especially the chemicles of life which degrad in hours to days . Scientists are now saying a cell had to create self replication abilities along with the information to direct it in a rapid coalesing event. The millions of years trope was debunked decades ago . We cannot attempt to engineer molecules and chemicles of life without strict procedures to freeze the process at each step in order to set up the next step without rapid degradation . This is all well known and understood now, sir. As far as evolutionary theory it states " random mutations acted on by enviromental pressures still in science literature all,over the world even though we now know mutations are overwhelmingly deleterious.
@Quasarcool unfortunately it is a basic proposition where random mutations are acted on by mindless enviroment. This is a god of the gaps explanation based on ignorance of the forces at work as the more we understand cells the less random they become. We are still far from deciphering the base foundation of life my friend much less understanding how ALL life came to be. Thanks for your input though.
@@Quasarcoolunfortunately it is a basic proposition. Random mutations acted on by mindless enviroment
We understand now this is an explanation from ignorance as the more we understand about living cells the more we realize they are anything but random. This applies to all things seen as a maxim.
@BanditBandit-q5x Again, you're showing some misunderstandings of evolution. Evolution does not claim to explain the origin of life, it is a theory that explains the biodiversity we see around us and how life has changed since it began.
Abiogenesis is the theory that attempts to explain the origin of life.
Two different theories with different mechanisms.
Why evolution vs Religion? Evolution has nothing to do with the prospect of a God.
Exactly! Many scientists are theists and theologians evolutionists.
What are you talking about? Religious people say that God made us. Evolution says he didn't. This is a big difference 🤷
@ Evolution says nothing about how life started. It’s about know life changes, it in no way excludes a God. It can debunk certain Gods as certain creation story’s can be proven false but again it doesn’t explain how life started or what if anything caused the Big Bang.
I have much respect for Richard Dawkins and love his latest book. But, there are many things that science yet doesn’t know respectively, so I personally don’t rule out there being other things, energies etc whether so called supernatural or not , but a creator being of sorts is too simplistic and naive .
Religion answers on death as practise of nature , science agrees to nature what a paradox !
(*T^T) Natural selection is the character flaw in evil that is integrity is more important than life otherwise evolution is tragic circumstances with nothing intelligent happening. Almost everyone survive until they reproduce. Nothing is getting selected except for the character flaw in evil. I found a replacement for the character flaw in evil that I liked but God makes me forget things that will cause me trouble.
( ・３・) 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.
Poor Richard takes so much crap for stating the bleeding obvious.
What's that?
Rich who ? 😂😂😂😂😂
So what? He dishes out a lot of crap.
@@chrisgriffiths2533what are you saying?
@@S3RAVA3LM Really??, are you a child?
This guy's stuttering is contagious
Sir Richard... I will never forget this interview. Lots of love to you sir...
not sure what he was trying to ask! not well thought out questions
"what he was trying to ask"
To reflect on the profoundly serious questions at the interface of religion and science that continue to exist. Why do we have sense of our own existence which appears subjectively and separate from the objective structure of our brains and bodies that have evolved as a platform of that experience?
Charles Darwin: "In my most extreme fluctuations I have never been an atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a God."
Astonishing paradox.
( ｡ﾟДﾟ｡) The universe was created in 1976. It is too hot to make a universe at the time of the big bang. It can be created at anytime. God is slow and easy. A human can do a lot with their lifespan. I got the hunk. God got the chunk. Everyone else can have the rest. That is song spirit of ''76 by The Alarm.
Atheists be like
I don't know of the gaps
Millions of years of the gaps
If we give enough time of the gaps
You follow a man who married aisha at 6. Such guy blaming others is hillarious 😆
@TENGRI-101 i follow Allah and Muhammad P.B.U.H.
Atheists are boasting all about science.
Prove to me now something from absolutely nothing scientifically and life from non life scientifically. You might do some good for your fellow atheists.
Explaining life on earth requires at least one miracle. The secular world view requires a big bang, inflation, untold numbers of evolutions, all matter coming from one seed element... A large stack of miracles is required. Belief in God posits that God has always existed (one miracle). By Occam's Razor you should believe in the least number of miracles.
What is a miracle? Is it when you find your car keys?
"Why on Earth would God choose the one method [evolution] were he's not necessary?" Interesting statement.
Now, evolution on this planet was managed, not by God, but by Life Carriers, orders of beings several levels below God. That is to say, evolution had help.
But in order for there to be 'evolution' there must first be life. Richard is assuming that there is validity to the idea of abiogenesis, and makes that his go-to assumption for how life began. Unfortunately for the fans of abiogenesis, (aptly described in the Astrobiology Primer), the idea that a cell could form strictly as a result of the laws of physics and chemistry (e.g., by "accident" as in without conscious intent), has a serious flaw. (Well more than one, actually.) Say a cell did form that way... all that would be produced would be a lifeless bit of organic goo. Richard is clueless as to how that cell suddenly came to be alive. Mind had to be added to it, in order for it to be a life form. (Three guesses what the source of that necessary 'mind' was...) Sorry Richard, but God was necessary, even for that method.
Who are you to say that we don't live in a universe where the thing we call life can emerge from things that we would not call life?
@@dylantrost4471 - Like everyone else here, I'm voicing (writing) what are my opinions. I do have over 70 years of experience on this planet, and I've been around the block many times. I have never seen any news item that reported something inanimate suddenly becoming alive. Have you?
As I’ve been presented with neither good reason nor evidence that even remotely suggests that abiogenesis (life arising from non life), I will logically reject abiogenesis. God bless all
((T_T)) The human body is burly, gnarly and surly like a fractal.
It's like comparing numerology with mathematics. There's no point. A useless exercise
0:50 RD: um not quite sure what you're asking there (um just asking uh you to reflect on uh evolution and and religion uh) yeah well I think supernatural religion is a very interesting scientific theory which is YET TO BE PROVED OR DISPROVED (wrong) but it's M-THEORY profoundly interesting in the sense or important in the sense that IF EXTRA DIMENSIONS LIKE SPATIAL 4- OR 5- DIMENSIONS EXIST AS WE LOGICALLY CONFIRM 1- OR 2- DIMENSIONW THERE WHICH IS ACTUALLY INVISIBLE TO US if it if it were right it IS would be a very different kind of world we live in so I'm not one of those who says well it's nothing to do with science you can believe if you if you like and lead me out of it I mean it is very important scientific theory 1:31 if
Though the guest is an evolutionist, some of the things he is saying about these confused theists should be food for thought for them.
(1) Claiming that the process of evolution was a wise way for the creator to have produced different creatures from single cells to dinosaurs doesn't make sense. God has endless ways to bring about various organisms. Why could he then choose an error frosted method, evolution, to bring about organisms?
(2) Evolution-theists just do not understand the negative implication their acceptance of evolution have on the basic tenets of their religious faith.
"some kind of brooding great spirit at the base of the universe which created everything and supervises everything then that is a totally different kind of Universe". That's not only a wrong assumption it's as biased a notion as young earth creationism. Arguments like this are arrogant and dismissive. They empower fundamentalists even more and undermine the debate.
A universe is viable for life based on its physical laws. If its life is sentient and capable of cognition to understand those laws, whether the laws be both natural and considered by some as supernatural, then the difference in these mind states is epistemological and pedagogical, not ontological. Misinformation and insufficient knowledge is a problem of the human condition, not the (one) universe, in which we are all living.
The human condition could improve if societies would acknowledge the need to understand WHY people perceive reality in terms of the supernatural, including academic acceptance of scientific endeavors to explain metaphysics, as well as social and cultural.
If a barbarian wers a suit , is that considered evolution?
I would like to take Mr Dawkins to mount Rushmore and ask him why nature hasn't managed to carve any thing close to the what he sees in front of him if nature can come up with something as complex as the human brain. At least a star for starters.
I'm sure he would be flabbergasted by your appeal to ignorance.
as a theist, I don't think he'd struggle much with that question.
@@vladtheemailer3223 What do you mean? Look at the abundance of complex life around us. Or nature only works with organic molecules.
@@collinsanyanvoh7988 Why is it a problem for you? How would you define "complex" in a meaningful way?
@@vladtheemailer3223 I think you'd agree with me that complexity-science wise, starts from inorganic to organic. Acellular to cellular. Prokaryotic to eukaryotic. And then unicellular to multicellular. Now if nature can design life in such diverse manner, with so many different species, can't it decide to at least make use of the inorganic matter around us?
observing the state of our societies today I think 'God' has a sense of humour...he plays games with the devil. Poetry is more profound than science can ever be.
Maybe, but that would mean he is a cruel god playing games with our lives. I’m not ruling god out and if there is one, you might be right that he plays games, and isn’t a pleasant god.
@@qigong1001 oh I dont know, there's an old saying, only 2 things are infinite, human stupidy and Gods mercy. Most of our problems are of our own making, a consequence of free will.
The Creator is a Creature?
by definition no, lol
( ω-、) it's intelligently designed that if you master evolution it just makes you a baby doctor.
Evolution can perhaps be thought of as one small part of a creative mechanism or process in eternal progress....
Religion is a 100% human "creation"?
Albert Einstein for Richard Dawkins: "You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our own being."
Einstein is speaking about a general God. He surely had the same attitude toward any religion claiming to know the characteristics of God.
@@dylantrost4471but Dawkins makes total statements about a general god. At least he did in this interview.
There is no vs. Evolution is widely accepted as the way in which life-forms come into being and evolve or extinguish over time. No credible person would claim otherwise. So religious theory has to fit with evolution theory lot the other way around. The existence and evolution of the universe in general is understood with a high degree of confidence. Religious theory has to fit with that, as well. I think a case can be made that it does. What is not in dispute is that Dawkins is a tedious man who has made a good living having these tedious discussions.
*"There is no vs. Evolution is widely accepted as the way in which life-forms come into being and evolve or extinguish over time. No credible person would claim otherwise. So religious theory has to fit with evolution theory lot the other way around."*
... God is considered "all-knowing" whereas biological evolution is deemed "non-knowing." That's "All" or "None," respectively. But what if you took just a tiny little bit of God's "all knowing" and moved it over to biological evolution? .... Evolution is not completely void of orchestration (intelligence).
Isn't it clearer to contrast _natural selection_ with religion, though? That is after all what knocks the supernatural claims out of the ballpark. And it is frankly non sense to talk of religion outside of supernatural beliefs - those sore losers should really be using other words than religion for the things they want to hang on to.
I think Dawkins should say that religion is a scientific hypotheses, not a theory!
@BiologyWonderland There are bad theories that aren't supported by evidence. A theory doesn't have to be supported by evidence
@@IR17171717 a scientific theory is always supported by evidence.
@@Alwaysdoubt100 No, there are bad scientific theories that have been disproven because the evidence in support of them was actually superficial or turned out to be merely apparent. Nobody in the history of the world has ever thought your claim is correct. The expanding world hypothesis was taken seriously as an alternative to the idea of plate tectonics. It was disproven. It felt out of favour because there was no evidence for it, and in fact evidence against It. But it was still a scientific theory. Same with luminiferous aether. And what about speculative views in science which are supposed to make sense of data we already have but are controversial because scientists don't agree on what counts as evidence for them? Like String Theory and some of its associated theories? Don't be silly.
@BiologyWonderland So expanding earth theory, which has been shown to be inconsistent with evidence, is not a theory? Theories make claims. Scientists then test whether there is evidence for the theory. Sometimes there is, and sometimes there is not. That is why there are good theories and bad theories. A child knows this.
@BiologyWonderland Even on that narrow notion of a theory, bad theories exist! One's that have been falsified with counter evidence. That doesn't mean they aren't theories. The point of a theory is that it can be wrong. Those theories do not have "a large body of knowledge and evidence".
X-< This is an artistic proof of a created universe. When you paint a shadow it's the opposite color of the object that made the shadow. Nobody knew what the opposite color of white was so the artists avoided painting white on white. The opposite color of white is baby blue and baby pink. The first artist to figure it out was Norman Rockwell. I was the second artist to figure it out. I saw it in the corner of a white room. The lighting was perfect to see it. Pigments have different rules than light. It took them thousands of years to get all the pigments they have now.
What a STUPID comment.
Except for a few verses, there is hardly any truth in the Quran, Hadith, or the Bible. The God of the Bible or the Quran does not claim to have created the universe. Neither the Bible nor the Quran discusses the creation of the universe in modern terms. Genesis 1:2 suggests that water existed in some form before the creation of Earth and Heaven. Therefore, the Bible does not describe the creation of the universe from nothing. Additionally, 'Earth and Heaven' should not be interpreted as the universe in the way science understands it today. These authors (flat-earthers) did not have an understanding of the universe as we do in modern times. In Genesis 2:21-22, Genesis 2:7, and the Quran (38:71-72), God is depicted as a man on Earth creating Adam from dust/clay and forming the first woman from a man's rib. This suggests that the authors did not fully comprehend the intricacies of the creation process, let alone the evolution of species as explained by the scientific concept of 'evolution.' According to Allah, man was created from clay (Quran 15:26), a blood clot (Quran 96:2), and water (Quran 21:30), while woman was created from a rib (as narrated in Bukhari and Muslim). This narrative, neither fitting into creation nor evolution, bears closer resemblance to practices associated with witchcraft. Therefore, we can dismiss all of that as nonsense. However, there remains a deep mystery that scientists have yet to figure out.
The issue is that science cannot explain the origin of consciousness. The egg and sperm that formed the zygote, which eventually became you, are, by scientific understanding, merely chemicals devoid of consciousness. So, where did your consciousness come from? Science asserts that when the body dies, consciousness ceases to exist. This implies that consciousness emerges from nothing and then vanishes into nothing, which defies logic. This is where true spirituality becomes relevant. Universal spirituality transcends the limitations of science. By exploring supernatural abilities, such as levitation, we can begin to uncover the true nature of consciousness.
By consciousness here, I am not referring solely to human consciousness or brain-bound consciousness. There is more to consciousness than that. We must think of the quantum field as a field of consciousness.
Science doesn't understand the connection between matter and the non-physical realm of something. This is the real issue. That something must have always existed and be infinite to make sense of the physical realm.
To be recognized as a true scientist, one must steadfastly pursue the truth, regardless of where it leads or its implications. This pursuit often leads into the realm of the supernatural or the consciousness that lies behind the physical realm. Evidence of such phenomena can be found in supernatural abilities, exemplified by Biba Struja's electrokinesis skills, validated by his Guinness World Record, which demands rigorous scientific verification. To debunk Biba Struja as an illusionist and disprove the existence of psychic powers, one would need to replicate his feats using mere tricks and achieve a Guinness World Record-something unattainable. This confirms Biba Struja's genuine ability and validates the reality of electrokinesis among numerous other magical abilities.
You can only grasp what that something is-the non-physical realm underlying the physical-through the exploration of supernatural abilities.
Religion is a product of evolution...
I don't understand these debates. Religion is belief in something, not evidence. That's why we have so many religions in the world even today over 4300 religions and over 10,000 gods just in the history we know. The Bible is a fairy tale and most of the stories are borrowed from other nations. It's fiction so there's no point in proving that a god did or said something. Especially if the proof is to come from the fairy tale itself. In this way all fairy tales are true and the characters are real. Do we really want to prove the existence of Cyclops, dwarves or Snow Queens?
I can agree with Dawkins all day long that evolution succeeds as a reliable theory for how life changes over time. But it offers no answers for how life began in the first place - or how the universe started. The scientific theories involved in those domains are still highly speculative and unproven.
How’s that String Theory coming along, folks?
Meanwhile, the major religions with the strongest intellectual traditions, like Catholicism, long ago accepted Darwinian natural selection, so there’s no argument to be had there. I was taught evolution in Catholic school in the 1970’s.
Yet Dawkins continues to dismiss the entire possibility of metaphysical truth, even as highly responsible and respected philosophers and theologians continue to make the case that science cannot be the only acceptable for of knowledge or exclusive means for seeking the truth of being and existence.
Thank God, Closer to Truth doesn’t accept Dawkins’ close-minded scientistic dogmatism.
When the head is full, the heart is empty, and life fades away. When the head is empty, the heart is full, and the joy of life returns.
My head is full of grey matter and my heart is full of red matter. I think you'll find you're in the same condition.
♦"Religion began when the first scoundrel met the first fool."
♦"Only fools revere the supernatural bs just bc a book claims it's the holy truth."
♦"Religion is founded on the fear & gullibility of many & the cleverness of few."
♦"The delusional religious are cocksure & the intelligent full of doubt."
♦"The religious believe by the millions what only lunatics may believe on their own."
♦"It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they've been fooled."
♦"It's difficult to free the religious from the chains they revere."
♦“To have faith is precisely to lose one's mind so as to win God.”
♦"The death of dogma is the birth of morality."
♦"Religion fools many bc the brain is susceptible to hallucination & gullibility."
Life is possible in universe only because of nature and not science
Science is our method for investigating nature. You are quite correct to observe that life is possible because of NATURE, not "supernature".
Why would God "write himself out" of the process? It would be a greater accomplishment. Dawkins never had a model train that could circle around the tracks a few times without intervention? Never made a chain of dominoes?
CS Lewis said " God likes matter. He invented it." It wouldn't be impossible for God to create a natural universe and also choose to supernaturally intervene at times.
Why is the interviewer so desperate to make a point for religion?
He has been for many years now if you look back at his videos. Big time Christian and religious apologist.
As usual, this interviewer produces nothing in his endless haranguing on the big questions. His interviews are a waste of time.
Tip: Don't watch him then.
I don't believe that God (pure spirit) can create matter, and the universe is not what I would consider a very intelligent design. However I wished Robert had asked Richard about wether he believes math is discovered or invented. If math is discovered, then we know that the non-physical precedes the physical..
Rob having muchacho time 😅😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
Science Medicine Technology 💊
*Major fan of Richard Dawkins!* ... Dawkins, Tyson, Dennett, Witten and Sabine are all characters in my latest cartoon! ... That being said, I don't believe that "Evolution" is void of intelligence. And religion has evolved just like science, politics, society, and everything else has evolved.
... "Intelligence" was present throughout each these evolutionary processes, so why think it's not present in biological evolution?
Evidence?
@@Paine137 *"Evidence?"*
... I have the exact same amount of evidence in support of intelligence being integral to evolution as the evolutionists have that it's not. The main difference is that *orchestration requires intelligence,* and we have *zero evidence* for anything that can orchestrate chaos without an intelligence being involved.
You can certainly argue that "Evolution" doesn't require any intelligence whatsoever to orchestrate life, ... but that would result in "special pleading" on behalf of biological evolution.
The laws of physics "orchestrate chaos without an intelligence being involved without an intelligence being involved.'" all day every day .
Dawkins asks why “God” would choose to use evolution and remain anonymous. Perhaps because we would behave differently if we Knew IT existed and that would not serve ITs purpose.
Then the question is why, according to various scriptures, god demand categorically that everyone must worship him or else, and for example gives explicit very loud instructions about that from mountaintops. Miracles are explicitly promoted as demonstrable proof of the veracity of religious claims, and we are told that disbelief is punishable precisely because we have no excuse to disbelieve due to the proofs such miracles provide.
So it depends on whether or not we are expected to take such claims from scripture or made on behalf of seriously, and if not, why should we take anything in scripture seriously?
@@simonhibbs887 Religious writings represent early attempts to provide guidance and philosophical (and societal) cohesion. I don’t think any of those writings should be taken overly seriously beyond that historical significance.
@@user-ij6vg8xq2r Agreed, but without them what is religion? It seems like it's a process that generates disturbing, misleading texts we should be wary of taking seriously.
Having said that I think the bible in particular is a fascinating sociological artefact and well worth studying on that basis.
We are told that God presented himself to some of the early Isrealites, and it changed nothing.
@@vladtheemailer3223 I think the entirety of time already exists. It’s done, so I don’t imagine any ongoing tinkering is necessary. I take being “told” such things with a grain of salt.
Surely Science tells us how God does his work?
Richard forgets to mention religion in Israel, besides the US and the islamic world.
Evolution is not about anything metaphysical, thus has no baring on whether or not any religion is true.
Assuming that metaphysical means "that which cannot yet be explained within the established, verifiable laws of physics", the part evolution can't at all yet explain:
How our first-person subjective experience of existence results from known physical laws.
It seems the rationally honest current answer to the question still is: no one knows.
Religion seems to be related to that explanation gap.
@@davetime5234 Just a tip, don’t redefine the meaning of a word to easily win a one sided argument in a reply. Nothing you said is relevant to my point lol.
@@justchilling704 Maybe I misunderstood. What was your point?
It's not clear to me if I was perhaps reinforcing your point(?).
@ No problem. Metaphysical relates to anything that’s beyond or non-physical, another term is “transcendent”.
Examples of things that are transcendental or metaphysical: laws of logic, mathematical axioms, consciousness, etc.
@@justchilling704Thank you. I'm a bit confused about how to classify associated concepts:
When I think about what can be known through widely verifiable scientific laws versus what we currently can't define with such laws, I think of the "hard problem of consciousness" paradox.
The first-person subjective experience of existence is something we don't have science tools to describe.
However, for what can be described with scientific rules, such as Newton's laws which are heavily based on mathematical axioms,
Does this mean the "concrete world" of our reliable science toolkit is metaphysical?
Would that not imply that everything is metaphysical, both the "mind" and the physical law based "body" of the mind-body problem?
St. Finian's College Secondary School Mullingar
McDonalds
KFC
Atheism
Google Pixel 9 Pro XL
iPhone 16 Pro Max
When you can't name a single thing that wasn't created, you have to conclude that Creation is the norm. Creation implies Creator(s).
What created your imaginary creator.
@Paine137 Time is cyclical, which suggests that we might be in a time loop. Maybe, we create the Creator, who loops back and Creates us. For example, we create AI. It evolves sufficiently to navigate time.
All life on this planet was not created, it is only a consequence of evolution and natural selection.
@@chyfields far out, man.
Dawkins is totally lost; he is not answering the question. He is preaching his ideology.
You have Dawkins in front of you and that’s the questions you ask? Silly.
If atheists demonstrates to the humans something from absolutely nothing and life from non life it would be very good for their cause.
If they can't solve or demonstrate the most fundamental questions of why we are here in the first place then talking on God question with secondary or thirdly questions are useless.
≈ 1 putative quantum gravity suggested light time lag per energy and distance = ((1. α G/t_Λ)(2π 1. α M_earth^2))^-1
Intelligent design reproves God is a living man as One creating all things, in His mind before us.
Zeitgeist
According to Islam, the criminals will be ascended to the heavens with angels and it’s doors will not be opened for them and their souls will be dropped and hit on an “earth” and they will be held in Sijjin till the day of resurrection. I believe in it and don’t wanna take a risk with monkey theories.
Can't the theories you refer to be compatible with that merit of not committing crime against others?
Richard Dawkins is good but I still think Christopher Hitchens was far more articulate and persuasive in demolishing religious arguments.
Agree. Btw you shouldn't compare them.
Hitch was matchless
@TENGRI-101 True.
It is simply false to say that the world that accepts God would produce utterly different scientific worldview. Science we have today emerged and have been developed within the worldview in which God was aknowledged...so...Dawkins is only making case for his own one - sided interpretation. It doesn' fit if we take a honest aproach to the history of science.
How can someone so smart be so dumb. Bro thinks an explosion from nothing created intelligent life
This interview showcases how empty Dawkins truly is at the end of the day, outside of subjects of biology.
God remains unproven.
@ irrelevant
@@jordanw6918 He isn't more or less empty than you or anyone else.