Without the Internet, it wouldn't be possible, unless attending a major university, for us to hear an exposition of ideas of this clarity and originality. Professor Dawkins has recently been very ill and it isn't clear at present if he will ever again be able to give a talk like this. Think yourself lucky to be alive at a time when you can hear this level of intellectual discourse.
sure, sure. the comment section is riddled with bots like you. "this level of intellectual discourse" my janitor speaks more substance than the scammer in the vid.
I hope other viewers of this video realize that at the beginning and end, you are being shown three separate auditoriums where this talk was given and that all three are full of people who are thirsty for, eager and delighted with the information presented. That many many more places like these are also just as well attended in the U.S. is heartening and brings hope for our nation to progress against the anti-intellectualism of the party of the religious conservatives that would enslave our minds with laws based on their tyrannical dogma and ancient middle-eastern mythology.
Well said RhondaH! I do have hope that someday we can shed the idiocy that is religion. After that, maybe we can rid ourselves of the tyranny of Money. (One can dream, yes?)
For the record I'm from Michigan and in my biology class in high school during the evolution part of the course, this kid asked the teacher, what about intelligent design? My teacher chuckled and said we're all a little too old to be believing fairy tales, don't be silly. Everyone busted out laughing, the point is Michigan may have the intelligent design legislation, but for the record 'We the people don't actually entertain that stupid shit up here'
"thank the universe for a man like this!!" Richard Dumbass Dawkins believes the universe came from "literally nothing". So thank "literally nothing" for the universe to thank.
@@2fast2block 'the universe came from nothing' is not a common argument from an atheist. It's much more often a strawman fallacy from religious people. The real answer most atheists give you is "I don't know". Guess what? You don't know either. So don't pretend.
@@FreedomFROMReligionID how a dumbass explains how we got creation out of literally nothing.... "Therefore humans invented god(s)." Braindead is all you are. A waste of life.
Yes, I can listen to Professor Dawkins for hours as well. It is so refreshing to listen to an brilliant, iconic man who is clearly in search of evidence and truth. Long live Professor Dawkins!
As a high school physics and astronomy teacher I quickly noticed that it was very rare to fine a high school or middle school science teacher that did not choose religion over science. Hence, the explanation of all the misconceptions that Americans have about science.
lol if it wasn't so serious to fake an anti religious crusade that used its models to shut down all free speech ( not just religions ) you dawkins fans would be amusing. Its not the first time but the statements and style used by dawkins in this video is so dark ugly and monstrous it should have been a clue.
Unlike a religious lecture, I feel like I've actually learned something new when I listen to Richard Dawkins. I knew as a child on my own what felt wrong or right without being commanded. I also knew that the first four of the ten commandments is all about how to be superstitious with nothing to do with living well with others.
10 лет назад+4
Totally agree. "Moral" behaviour is nothing else than favouring the survival of our species, it's an innate behaviour pattern.
***** You could look up the definition of religion so you can avoid coming across as a fool yourself next time to someone else. Yes I consider you an uneducated fool with a childish sense of humor.
Joseph Nordenbrock "Coming across"? so you are a very basic human. I aint give a fuck how I come across, I only care not to be fooled by pastor Dawkins. Just let me tell you. I am researching Ignorance, that is what I'm doing here. Yes I study people that come from religion, like you, and then fall into the traps of atheists. Of course is tempting to get a better explanation, and coming from catholicism anything will look better but the problem with atheism is that is even a lower level of ignorance and this pastors will make it very difficult for you to get a right answer, that is if they don't judge your questions as worthy of an answer. I personally prefer scientific explanations by real scientists. But if Dawkins is your cup of tea, well, that is your prerogative. Dawkins here has convinced you that a better explanation is everything is random and everything comes from nothing and nothing has purpose. Wow, only desperate people as you, can swallow that stupidity but I suppose it looks better that Adam and Eve. Going against the obvious is the lowest of ignorances, like caring for what other people thinks about you. That is just low. And atheism is a religion. Is a stand in life about god and about how things work. The most stupid of all. Even catholic stand is better. Obviously you can't compare those two with real religions. Real religions are schools that teach you the rules of this game so you can fulfill your purpose. Yes, you have a purpose, you didn't born just to eat and shit, you have a very beautiful purpose. The problem with your level of ignorance is that you listen to Dawkins and say, well, there is a lot of people applauding. (fake applause by the way) and there is a lot of people telling you this is real and you have no way to tell, so you go for it. You are stuck between the impossibility layd out by a fake religion like Catholicism and the impossibility layd out by fake scientist. Very difficult place to be. In one side you have a bearded "God" that is angry, judging everything and asking you the impossible faith, also angels, the devil, heaven and hell. All that is of course crap. In the other side you have a black abyss of lack of purpose, lack of design, lack of origin. All that impossible also, not only impossible but contrary of what your own eyes see. You see design in everything, purpose in everything and an obvious divine origin. So how do you get to a better conclusion? If you believe in god you have to believe in the devil, if you believe in dawkins you have to disbelieve your own eyes. So whatcha gonna do? I don't think that you are bad, just ignorant. I listen to this lecture and feel like kicking this bastard in the balls because word by word he got it wrong. How can you know the difference between an atheist pastor passing for a scientist and a real scientist? Real scientists don't wear make up. Real scientist make experiments. Real scientists don't ask for you for money. Real scientist are not trying to prove a religious postures Real scientist use current information, not antique literature. Real scientists are always trying to answer the question Why because it is the most important question. Real scientists don't speak about the bible. I feel for you and your pain, it's a little hard for me speaking to people like you, all confused and trying to make sense of things. Faking to be a christian on christmas because in your level people care a lot of what others say. That is something I would never do, never so low. I understand you, I passed for that level too, when I was 12, except of the faking. When I was 12 I said, this makes no sense, I refuse to be called Catholic no more and started my research. Yes I started my research at 12. The advantages of being really intelligent. I'm on my way to publishing my PhD paper with all my research. Part of that investigation are the people stuck in the middle of religious postures, like you. You will be able to tell the difference once you found real scientist speaking about their experiments and their results. You will never hear that from little Richard because celebrities and best seller writers don't make experiments. They just write to sell books to gather more people in their churches, I mean foundations. Dawkins books have the same scientific rigor as if written by Paris Hilton and the same publicity. If you have the mental ability to formulate a question of how is Dawkins wrong, I will gladly answer that. That goes for anyone reading this.
21:55 "It's a nice example of the fact that evolution can be a predictive science..." I love that sentence. It shows how knowing something that is indeed true leads to better decisions, because better decisions require the ability to predict outcomes. And that in my opinion is the purpose of human's curiosity in the first place. If we didn't want to know things, we could've died out by now. This is also the reason for why religion must be stopped. Religion is made to block questioning. It substitutes answers with fake ones and corrupts our basic tool for survival and comfortable life.
It is a very clever use of the word "Predictive" to confuse the ill informed, like you. In case your vision is clouded by Dawkins fame, he just cheated you.
***** You've simply assumed Dawkins wrong and claimed that he's convincing because he's clever and not because he's right. How would you know it's not the other way around? How do YOU know when someone is a good liar and when is it they are right?
Unbeginner He is convincing because he thinks he is right, he is not lying. And because people are ignorant. I know he is wrong because I am a researcher. I've been a researcher for more than 20 years. That means I've read Dawkins books and other hundreds of books of reals scientist. Dawkins is a religious activist, not a scientist. Sometimes he cheats people but I don't think he is doing it on purpose. He says phrases like "evolution is a predictive science". He is vague and imprecise. obviously evolution is not a science but no one in the audience seems to notice, or you. I notice because I am trained and I pick all his contradictions, vagueness, rumors taken as facts, hypotheses taken as theories, like his stupid hypothesis of the selfish gene, what a bunch of crap. he think he is right but how can he notice if he is or isn't with all that people cheering? I can assure you with all my heart, every word he says in this lecture is wrong, contrary to logic and basically impossible. A universe without a purpose is impossible, evolution without a purpose is impossible.
***** "He is convincing because he thinks he is right, he is not lying." That is again an argument I can simply use on you. Claiming that people are ignorant can ALSO be just as easily turned against you. And claiming to be a "researcher" also doesn't make everything you say and more true or false. I also don't think Dawkins is vague. I've seen him say some very direct and specific things. Eg. when he was saying Koran is immoral by providing an example that punishing someone with apostasy is not moral. Further on you continue with claiming the same things over and over again. Basically argument of incredulity, ad hominem and claiming yourself to be an authority on the topic and than proceeding with the appeal to authority logical fallacy. Also, claiming to be convinced very much that you are right makes no difference. We all think we are right, don't we? Otherwise, why would be argue? Sorry, but purpose is subjective meaning. A human brain attributes a purpose to just about anything. That's because it's useful to know the use of things to survive. But in truth nothing has purpose.
Unbeginner In truth nothing exists without a purpose. I know it's almost illogical to think that some dude in youtube claims to know more than your hero but among my peers Dawkins is a joke, a celebrity or like Paris Hilton. Go and find some real scientists to follow. If you haven't find anything higher, well, stick with it. If you are no researcher like me, you are just fine believing whatever the fuck you want. I have the obligation to find the truth and be able to explain it, in that quest i found Dawkins and his bullshit. He is a religious zealot passing as scientist because he went to oxford to study animals, now he is an expert in theology. How that happened? I am here in my research, I study what people believe to know how to tackle specific questions, how can I explain the existence of "god" to an atheist. That is very easy, atheists are very ignorant people, ever more ignorant that christians or catholics. Atheist can swallow basically anything, like things have no purpose, everything comes from nothing, random mutations caused this plethora of diversity, evolution is the prove that god doesn't exist, the designs we see everyday in nature are not designs, everything is unconscious, god doesn't exist. All that is not only illogical, it's impossible. I have study how come this people believe such imbecilities. I have studied why Dawkins came to that stupid conclusions. I know exactly how things work and they are so amazingly complicated, and incredibly different than this stupid point of view. People, as Dawkins says in this lecture, are simply not qualified to assess this matters or mostly nothing a little bit deep. People believe what the tv says, the tv will always push forward everything that makes people ignorant, that is the reason Dawkins is famous, because he honestly promotes something really stupid. Why I only criticism and not really propose anything? Because the explanations are too extensive to fit here. Do you want to see a real scientist speaking about how things work? Watch some Tom Campbell's videos about his TOE. Read Michael Behe's books. Find Hameroff and Penrose. Upgrade yourself. If you don't find Dawkins vague is because he knows more than you, that is not the case with me. All the time he has spent making money I've been researching and he is wrong. Yes, I know more than Dawkins in some specific issues, of course he know more than me in many things but not in this subject, I am a fucking master in this. One of my dreams is to debate him and put him in shame. If you can be fooled to believe nothing has a purpose, something SO FUCKING OBVIOUS, then you deserve to be a poor atheist.
Sure it does: "God did it." Explain a complicated question with a being unfathomably complicated that raises innumerable questions, the most obvious one being "Where is your evidence?"
Christians believe the supernatural God of the bible created the universe. Dawkins believes the universe came from "literally nothing". Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. Now, give your science that "literally nothing" created the universe. In other words, shove your stupid statement up your dumb ass.
2fast2block I agree with you. Basic science does indicate there is a creator for this universe, but absolutely not the Abrahamic God of the Bible or the Quran and certainly not any other man-made deity. The nature of the creator is beyond our understanding because we will always try to explain in in the natural world with brains made in and for this world.
@Jesus is God KAG I am not, Christianity is another fairy tale, just like Islam and all the other so-called religions. Having said that, all myths have roots in something, so I suspect that a man called Jesus once walked the earth. I would say he sounds like a charismatic political rabble-rouser and perhaps the worlds first published Communist. I also suspect he spoke out for homosexual rights and having 12 male disciples probably took part in male homosexual orgies. We know that Mohammed was a child rapist so it is no wonder that the "people of the book" seem to be hung up about sexuality!
Thanks for the video! I got my copy of The Greatest Show on Earth signed by him when it came out, back in 2009, when he came to Indiana University to speak. Later that year, when I was driving back to college, my car caught on fire (a shortage in the cruise control) and after the firefighters hosed it down my backback containing this book and my laptop was the only thing that didn't get scorched. It took a little water damage (my laptop ended up needing to be replaced) but I still have that book to this day and it always cracks me up because I think of the stories where people say a bedside bible was the only thing to survive a house fire and how it was a miracle, etc.
love Richard Dawkins and the late Christopher Hitchens,Sam Harris,and all the rest of the educating folks who I found over the internet. I am so thankful they came into my life. Peace, understanding and knowledge they give us from the vine of truth and reason.TY RD VM.
Dawkins helped design the London bus advert, "There's probably no god. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life". And you say that you found peace. I don't understand how believing there is no god stops our worries and gives peace.
That was an awesome video! I rarely watch videos this long however this was definitely worth the investment of time. Plus our cable is out which is turning out to be not as bad a thing as I thought. I love this guy!
Solomon Cobb Why would that be a joke. Human's have been artificially selecting animals, fruits, and vegetables to produce the desired 'thing' for an uncountable time. Surely since the very beginning of settled, agricultural communities. The banana is one example of that.
imbecilik Your ability to choose a banana does not prove evolution, but it does show that you have free will to choose to eat what you want rather than what is good for you, which is actually disproving of evolution.
From your comment, I have to deduce that you don't understand what you were commenting on (the idea of selective breeding). Breeders, farmers, whatever, select the traits desirable to them, and over several generations the difference is shown. In the case of the domestic banana it is seen in the small seeds, but one obvious to all has to be domestic dogs and cats. Could you think they were all created that way? No, of course not! They were selectively bred for size, strength, appearance, temperament, etc. And if that's not good enough, look at the other canine animals, such as foxes, the wolves, and coyotes.
I don't consider Dawkins to be a great debater (possibly because he is to honest and nice to realize the shit that his opponents will pull) and not even the best spokesman for atheism. But if you can watch a lecture by this man and not feel some level of awe at his intellect, you should be removed from the human gene pool.
Alan McDougall I suspect that many religious idiots see it that way. That's probably why creationists waste their time quoting (or often quote-mining) Darwin. They care more about who says things (such as Jesus) than whether or not it is true. But science and skepticism are not authority driven. I know more about evolution than Darwin did, and I don't even have a degree in biology. A man like Dawkins or Ken Miller knows way more than Darwin. Because we don't consider anyone infallible, we can learn and improve - something very difficult for the religious.
Alan McDougall While I think that people believing delusional things is always bad, I would be happy to never contradict their ideas except for one thing - such people historically have never been able to resist trying to make everyone live by their beliefs, because they think they know the right way to live according to their god. That leaves little room for discussion or compromise. People act on their beliefs if they are real beliefs. If those beliefs make no sense, their actions often will not either, and may well have negative effects on me. Also, why is it wrong for atheists to disagree publicly with theists, but not the other way around?
+Alan McDougall I think Richard Dawkins speaks a lot of sense, but it's all pretty obvious stuff. Yes, we all know about evolution, Darwin discovered that ages ago, but does he have to write endless books about it? He's a bit of a 'know all' isn't he.
Indeed. I can't get enough of this. It wonderfully explains a lot of questions I did not even know how to formulate them. For me, his explanations are a huge stress relief.
This is an inspiring presentation. Just as relevant today as when it was originally delivered. Credit to Josh Timonen for his excellent editing skills.
@ Xavier Arriaga, Any arguments that you put forward? Besides the petty insults? This man has own awards from top notch universities, Berkeley Oxford, Sanford..and so on. He is regarded has one of the preeminent scientists in his field. In 1977 when he wrote the selfish gene, the virus and gene transmission description he gave were all validated in the next 10 to 20 years. Not even one scientist , his peers, have repudiate his works. He is only attacked by religious people that feel offended ...like you apparently...so yes he is widely attacked for his positions about religion. The academic reputation of this man is intact. You get offended because he offended you imaginary friend. Anyone with the ability of reasoning can get to the same conclusions. Evolution theory is has true has the heliocentric theory....or do you disagree also that the earth revolves around the sun. Calling names is what you do best....arguments, not your strong feature huh?
I am a scientific researcher. I study the leading edge of knowledge. Richard Dawkins writes religious based fiction. You are going to tell me that atheism is not a religion. The idea of Gene centered genetics is an exploration of the imagination, not science. Things ain't work like that. First of all, everything is imaginary. This is a virtual reality composed by imaginary things. Imagine that Clooney calls for a press conference ands states that he found evidence for the evolution of Scooby do. We understand that Scooby do is a fictional character and it's a drawing, we understand that the evolution of this character happened in the mind of its creators. Not by a random magical process. Nature is just that way. What you see is a render of a complex flow of information. We are characters in a virtual reality. All evolution happened in the level of information, not in the rendering.
Xavier Lopez de Arriga Candiani Watching the RUclips wacko zone doesn't make you a scientific researcher, it makes you a conspiracy theorist who doesn't understand the science. Simulation theory is not a theory, it's a hypothesis at best. It is unsupported by evidence and doesn't qualify as knowledge. Until it can be shown through evidence to be correct, it's belly button fluff.
+@@stephenwhiddett Now, now, be kind, they permit him out of his room occasionally and leave him to play on the computer from which we are blessed with his 'deep' insights and rantings.
Don't you get bored with spewing hate, circus? If you think Dawkins is wrong about "purpose" (remember, the video you are trolling?), why not prove him wrong. Tell us about this magical being that gives you your purpose, and commands you to slander the non-believer.
I was somewhat disappointed with this video based on the title. I thought Dawkins might offer something in the way of there being a purpose to life. He didn't. Evolution is not a purpose but a mere process. If the universe has no purpose, why is there anything? If there is no purpose to the universe, and it's all a mere process, we need to place those cards on the table.
Purpose to life? I think each individual has to find that for themselves. Everyone has a purpose to life. Mine is to breathe, eat and explore as much knowledge and places as I can.
Our thinking is actually pretty close. However, when I think of the term "purpose," I sort of associate it as an anthropomorphic term. I agree with you that as human beings, we have to create our own purpose. I also agree that replication seems to be the key factor in living organisms. Evolution suggests that replication involves mutation, which of course it does. I suppose my initial assumptions about what I'd uncover in the video can be traced to an expectation that I might hear some new perspective/insight on the philosophical question about whether the creation of the universe and the eventual rise of life had any underlying meaning/significance. But, this was stupid of me because the lecture never attempts to mix philosophy and science. I can accept that everything that has happened -- and will happen -- since the Big Bang is just a meaningless series of events (a long process), but it's also rather heart-breaking. I think Stephen Hawking wrote something similar in one of his books. Science can answer a lot of the "how" questions but does not even creep into the "why" territory. It may very well be that asking "why" is a non-question. From the perspective of science, it seems so.
Tuberias Caesar Speaking only about atheists, some of them wax rhapsodies about the majesty, the quixotic beauty of symmetry mixed with total chaos, its complexity and yet simplicity. I hold within me the capability of being enthralled with the beauty and destructiveness of nature, but at its most fundamental, quantum level, I'm not exactly elevated by the theory of quivering strings at the sub-microscopic level nor multi-universes at the macroscopic level. On one episode of "The Simpsons'" from several years ago, Homer was posed some question about the universe. His response was something like, "Uh, it's all just a bunch of stuff that happens." And this is certainly what it feels like. As you pointed out, even though we may create our individual moral codes through which to get by in this level of existence, it's hard not to think that such thoughts (like religion) are just different ways of placating our sense of purposelessness. Astrophysists and cosmologists like to point out that we are made out of "star stuff." I see this as an interesting scientific artifact but it doesn't negate an overriding and sad feeling that our consciousness doesn't amount to a hill of beans. It's this awareness of being inserted into a purposeless, meaningless and quite probably arbitrary universe that seems like a slap in the face or a kick in the groin. We are able to conceive that we may be nothing more than a rare happenstance of nature -- some kind of "intelligence" emerging from basic atomic structures. It's kind of cool that we can map out the probability of our evolution from the molecular level. But, all this does is underscore our cleverness ... and this is vastly different from feeling a sense of solace. Like wolves, even buttressed with physics, we are still really lonely primates howling our anguish into a night that has nothing to say in return. So, as you suggest, we are left to just watch a clock and wait for our atoms to rejoin the universe. What a prize, eh?
Tuberias Caesar My guess is that consciousness has more positive aspects for the continuation of our species than negative ones. It certainly has given us a big edge over any of our competitors. Though consciousness may have some big drawbacks, apparently they have not proven sufficient to make the trait recessive. While we suffer incalculable amounts of psychological pain by being self-aware, the trait has led us to be the dominate species on the planet. -- despite the significant handicap. Putting myself forth as an example, I consider myself a depressed individual (and so does my psychologist of some seven years). Nevertheless, I have fathered two daughters. My depression (though considered severe) did not stop me from passing my flawed genetic material onto another generation. However, I do think there is an influence/impact in being depressed and the impact that plays in passing on traits that may be embedded within DNA. Many young people commit suicide out of depression -- thus eliminating their chances of advancing the depression gene (if it is that) forward. So, will this ultimately result in the elimination of a gene that may cause us too much introspection and unhappiness? I don't have the credentials to begin to answer that question. Neuroscientists, chemists, and psychotherapists have been examining the causes of depression in human beings. They SEEM to be getting closer to better answers -- besides the simple serotonin reuptake inhibitor avenue. They may finally come up with a pill that puts Prozac to shame (hopefully). Meanwhile, if and until this discovery is ever made, many of us are left to gaze upon our limited knowledge of the cosmos and finding nothingness staring us back in the face. The perception may be perfectly accurate, although depressing. Maybe "happy pills" will just make the whole sad awareness disappear.
If I had not listened to lectures of Mr. Dawkins, I would completely miss the essence of Darwins theory and be completely unaware of the most important development in science in understanding life
@DCT0000 joy to my ears my friend, I never tire of hearing people say the word "former". Pauline McGlynn has a really good way of saying it, "once a catholic, not anymore". Delighted for you.
im proud of the states and universities that did approve of letting dawkins speak, i know we got a lot of problems in our country but lets not forget our ability to progress and do better in the world
Dear professor Dawkins I always, respected you as a brave scientist, who’s cared about freedom of speech, and support the true and humanity, I wish you long life full of happiness and health , in your 80’s birthday.thanks, mehdi
Classic Dawkins. If I believed in God, I would thank him for Richard Dawkins. But there's nobody to really thank, so I'll just BE thankful that we have among us such an eloquent spokesman for science & reasoning!
Subversion due to drug addiction is another one. Being a former addict I've seen first hand how it eventually turns your priorities upside-down. They change from breathing, eating/drinking, shelter, to breathing then drugs while all rest are pushed aside.
Though the material Richard shares provides us with a glimpse of the unwarranted challenges that the populace of the United States faces, I love how he includes quite a bit of satire to lessen the weight of what he is sharing. Friedrich Nietzsche - “When we are tired, we are attacked by ideas we conquered long ago.” Thank you for sharing this vid.
The past of subversion of purpose was particularly interesting and somewhat enlightening. It sheds a very interesting light on human psychology . Thumbs up for that !
what is annoying is that everytime i randomly click on a richard dawkins video, it seems to come from richarddawkinsdotnet but when i click on the producer, i cant find any richard dawkins videos among all the others!
The coconut's purpose is not for human consumption. It's purpose is to float in the ocean until it arrives on a beach, and then sprout a root to become a tree. The hardness is to keep the seawater out while it floats in the ocean. It's size and weight keep it from rolling or blowing around when it arrives on shore. The coconut apologizes for its inconvenience.
No, yo just liked my response so much--it cut to the quick so succinctly that you decided to co opt it instead of coming up with anything new to say. Its the sincerest form of flattery. Thank you. Militant god slobberer.
Without the Internet, it wouldn't be possible, unless attending a major university, for us to hear an exposition of ideas of this clarity and originality. Professor Dawkins has recently been very ill and it isn't clear at present if he will ever again be able to give a talk like this. Think yourself lucky to be alive at a time when you can hear this level of intellectual discourse.
sure, sure. the comment section is riddled with bots like you. "this level of intellectual discourse" my janitor speaks more substance than the scammer in the vid.
Is his name Albert? Does he have frizzy white hair maybe?
Hes better now!
@@brasspipes2548, yep, Richard the Dumbass Dawkins is great in hooking the dumbass fishes to support him.
@@brasspipes2548 OH the irony of you calling others 'bots', you simple minded, incompetent moron.
A man I can listen to for hours and hours. He oozes common sense.
Indeed Antonio! it is like beautiful and soothing music to my ears...
You don't get the contradictions? You are blinded by his fame? wtf?
***** You really are an aggressively, criminally stupid man. All your pompous hand waving and shouting are poorly disguised theist death throes.
Lee C "Criminally stupid man" you are a poet of the trolling.
*****
The best theological apologia is parsimonious. Elaborate claims are too easily falsified. Go back to seminary.
I've been watching Richard Dawkins videos for the last week just nonstop just to hear his wisdom.
Keep it up
I hope other viewers of this video realize that at the beginning and end, you are being shown three separate auditoriums where this talk was given and that all three are full of people who are thirsty for, eager and delighted with the information presented. That many many more places like these are also just as well attended in the U.S. is heartening and brings hope for our nation to progress against the anti-intellectualism of the party of the religious conservatives that would enslave our minds with laws based on their tyrannical dogma and ancient middle-eastern mythology.
Well said RhondaH! I do have hope that someday we can shed the idiocy that is religion. After that, maybe we can rid ourselves of the tyranny of Money. (One can dream, yes?)
Why hope?
@@michaelgentles1859 can? One does...
the more of his lectures I hear, the more I admire this man. THANK YOU for posting!
I want to thank the editor as well, it was a work of art.
Oldie but goodie!
Thank you Mr Dawkins
This is my favorite one. Helped me in many conversations with fundi-theist over the past few years. Thank you.
adoption i believe was more Darwinian than natural birth , because people can choosing their children better than natural birth ...
*We all have to live and die, so the truth about it concerns us all --> go to www·TruthContest·com and read "The Present".*
The Present teaches how to take the next step in evolution.
he is one of my atheist hero yet along side with rip christopher hitchens,hope Dawkins will live long and goes with is path to educate people
When the stupid ass dies the world will be a better place with one less dumbass.
@@2fast2block You're a truly hateful person, aren't you? Go grovel to your invisible god.
@@2fast2block Religious people are the laughing stock of the world😂😂😂
@@SandyPete448 You are terribly misguided. Really
For the record I'm from Michigan and in my biology class in high school during the evolution part of the course, this kid asked the teacher, what about intelligent design? My teacher chuckled and said we're all a little too old to be believing fairy tales, don't be silly. Everyone busted out laughing, the point is Michigan may have the intelligent design legislation, but for the record 'We the people don't actually entertain that stupid shit up here'
Good for you
You are a great asset and I love listening to you.
Even though I was dead against all you say initially.
Thank you
A person who can change his mind is a splendid person!
Good on you Mo
one of my favorite presentations from Mr. Dawkins
Listening to this in 2019 USA... breaking My heart. How could we have swung back so far to the right?
It's a disgrace, isn't it? I am mortified for our country.
@@CathyS_Bx Do what you can to get people to vote. High turnout seems to work against the status quo.
Youve changed my life Dr. Dawkins
"Youve changed my life Dr. Dawkins"
Wow, so whatever you were before, you changed for the dumber.
@@2fast2block well he’s a long way to go before he gets as dumb as you ! if indeed that is possible
yes thank you dr dawkins for making me understand genetic causes of my poopypants
For the whole broadness of topics, this may be Dr. Dawkins' best speech to date.
thank the universe for a man like this!!
Indeed
"thank the universe for a man like this!!"
Richard Dumbass Dawkins believes the universe came from "literally nothing". So thank "literally nothing" for the universe to thank.
@@2fast2block Therefore humans invented god(s).
@@2fast2block 'the universe came from nothing' is not a common argument from an atheist. It's much more often a strawman fallacy from religious people. The real answer most atheists give you is "I don't know". Guess what? You don't know either. So don't pretend.
@@FreedomFROMReligionID how a dumbass explains how we got creation out of literally nothing....
"Therefore humans invented god(s)."
Braindead is all you are. A waste of life.
He is simply brilliant . He qualifies for the Nobel not only as a scientist, but also for his literary skills.
And for hoaxing anti religion so that all free speech could be closed down is that ?
I just love the way this man talks
So good I can hardly find words! Thank you Richard!
If you adore Dawkins is not very hard to understand that you can't find words or anything.
***** Can't find words to describe how good it is*** Be pessimistic all you like.
SickMetalAddict I can be anything but pessimistic.
Yes, I can listen to Professor Dawkins for hours as well. It is so refreshing to listen to an brilliant, iconic man who is clearly in search of evidence and truth. Long live Professor Dawkins!
As a high school physics and astronomy teacher I quickly noticed that it was very rare to fine a high school or middle school science teacher that did not choose religion over science. Hence, the explanation of all the misconceptions that Americans have about science.
Dawkins rules!!!!!!!!!
He is amazing. A credit to the species!
Yes, the species of dumbasses that follow him, like you.
@@2fast2block spread that Christian love 👍🥴
lol if it wasn't so serious to fake an anti religious crusade that used its models to shut down all free speech ( not just religions ) you dawkins fans would be amusing.
Its not the first time but the statements and style used by dawkins in this video is so dark ugly and monstrous it should have been a clue.
Unlike a religious lecture, I feel like I've actually learned something new when I listen to Richard Dawkins. I knew as a child on my own what felt wrong or right without being commanded. I also knew that the first four of the ten commandments is all about how to be superstitious with nothing to do with living well with others.
Totally agree. "Moral" behaviour is nothing else than favouring the survival of our species, it's an innate behaviour pattern.
Very funny that you say that after hearing a religious lecture. Yes this is a religious lecture passed as science. You've been fooled.
***** yawn
***** You could look up the definition of religion so you can avoid coming across as a fool yourself next time to someone else. Yes I consider you an uneducated fool with a childish sense of humor.
Joseph Nordenbrock "Coming across"? so you are a very basic human. I aint give a fuck how I come across, I only care not to be fooled by pastor Dawkins.
Just let me tell you. I am researching Ignorance, that is what I'm doing here. Yes I study people that come from religion, like you, and then fall into the traps of atheists.
Of course is tempting to get a better explanation, and coming from catholicism anything will look better but the problem with atheism is that is even a lower level of ignorance and this pastors will make it very difficult for you to get a right answer, that is if they don't judge your questions as worthy of an answer.
I personally prefer scientific explanations by real scientists. But if Dawkins is your cup of tea, well, that is your prerogative.
Dawkins here has convinced you that a better explanation is everything is random and everything comes from nothing and nothing has purpose. Wow, only desperate people as you, can swallow that stupidity but I suppose it looks better that Adam and Eve.
Going against the obvious is the lowest of ignorances, like caring for what other people thinks about you. That is just low.
And atheism is a religion. Is a stand in life about god and about how things work. The most stupid of all. Even catholic stand is better. Obviously you can't compare those two with real religions. Real religions are schools that teach you the rules of this game so you can fulfill your purpose. Yes, you have a purpose, you didn't born just to eat and shit, you have a very beautiful purpose.
The problem with your level of ignorance is that you listen to Dawkins and say, well, there is a lot of people applauding. (fake applause by the way) and there is a lot of people telling you this is real and you have no way to tell, so you go for it.
You are stuck between the impossibility layd out by a fake religion like Catholicism and the impossibility layd out by fake scientist. Very difficult place to be.
In one side you have a bearded "God" that is angry, judging everything and asking you the impossible faith, also angels, the devil, heaven and hell. All that is of course crap.
In the other side you have a black abyss of lack of purpose, lack of design, lack of origin. All that impossible also, not only impossible but contrary of what your own eyes see. You see design in everything, purpose in everything and an obvious divine origin.
So how do you get to a better conclusion?
If you believe in god you have to believe in the devil, if you believe in dawkins you have to disbelieve your own eyes.
So whatcha gonna do?
I don't think that you are bad, just ignorant.
I listen to this lecture and feel like kicking this bastard in the balls because word by word he got it wrong.
How can you know the difference between an atheist pastor passing for a scientist and a real scientist?
Real scientists don't wear make up.
Real scientist make experiments.
Real scientists don't ask for you for money.
Real scientist are not trying to prove a religious postures
Real scientist use current information, not antique literature.
Real scientists are always trying to answer the question Why because it is the most important question.
Real scientists don't speak about the bible.
I feel for you and your pain, it's a little hard for me speaking to people like you, all confused and trying to make sense of things. Faking to be a christian on christmas because in your level people care a lot of what others say. That is something I would never do, never so low.
I understand you, I passed for that level too, when I was 12, except of the faking. When I was 12 I said, this makes no sense, I refuse to be called Catholic no more and started my research. Yes I started my research at 12. The advantages of being really intelligent. I'm on my way to publishing my PhD paper with all my research. Part of that investigation are the people stuck in the middle of religious postures, like you.
You will be able to tell the difference once you found real scientist speaking about their experiments and their results. You will never hear that from little Richard because celebrities and best seller writers don't make experiments. They just write to sell books to gather more people in their churches, I mean foundations. Dawkins books have the same scientific rigor as if written by Paris Hilton and the same publicity.
If you have the mental ability to formulate a question of how is Dawkins wrong, I will gladly answer that. That goes for anyone reading this.
21:55 "It's a nice example of the fact that evolution can be a predictive science..."
I love that sentence. It shows how knowing something that is indeed true leads to better decisions, because better decisions require the ability to predict outcomes.
And that in my opinion is the purpose of human's curiosity in the first place. If we didn't want to know things, we could've died out by now.
This is also the reason for why religion must be stopped. Religion is made to block questioning. It substitutes answers with fake ones and corrupts our basic tool for survival and comfortable life.
It is a very clever use of the word "Predictive" to confuse the ill informed, like you. In case your vision is clouded by Dawkins fame, he just cheated you.
***** You've simply assumed Dawkins wrong and claimed that he's convincing because he's clever and not because he's right.
How would you know it's not the other way around? How do YOU know when someone is a good liar and when is it they are right?
Unbeginner He is convincing because he thinks he is right, he is not lying.
And because people are ignorant. I know he is wrong because I am a researcher. I've been a researcher for more than 20 years. That means I've read Dawkins books and other hundreds of books of reals scientist. Dawkins is a religious activist, not a scientist.
Sometimes he cheats people but I don't think he is doing it on purpose. He says phrases like "evolution is a predictive science". He is vague and imprecise. obviously evolution is not a science but no one in the audience seems to notice, or you. I notice because I am trained and I pick all his contradictions, vagueness, rumors taken as facts, hypotheses taken as theories, like his stupid hypothesis of the selfish gene, what a bunch of crap. he think he is right but how can he notice if he is or isn't with all that people cheering?
I can assure you with all my heart, every word he says in this lecture is wrong, contrary to logic and basically impossible.
A universe without a purpose is impossible, evolution without a purpose is impossible.
***** "He is convincing because he thinks he is right, he is not lying." That is again an argument I can simply use on you.
Claiming that people are ignorant can ALSO be just as easily turned against you.
And claiming to be a "researcher" also doesn't make everything you say and more true or false.
I also don't think Dawkins is vague. I've seen him say some very direct and specific things. Eg. when he was saying Koran is immoral by providing an example that punishing someone with apostasy is not moral.
Further on you continue with claiming the same things over and over again. Basically argument of incredulity, ad hominem and claiming yourself to be an authority on the topic and than proceeding with the appeal to authority logical fallacy.
Also, claiming to be convinced very much that you are right makes no difference. We all think we are right, don't we? Otherwise, why would be argue?
Sorry, but purpose is subjective meaning. A human brain attributes a purpose to just about anything. That's because it's useful to know the use of things to survive. But in truth nothing has purpose.
Unbeginner In truth nothing exists without a purpose.
I know it's almost illogical to think that some dude in youtube claims to know more than your hero but among my peers Dawkins is a joke, a celebrity or like Paris Hilton. Go and find some real scientists to follow.
If you haven't find anything higher, well, stick with it. If you are no researcher like me, you are just fine believing whatever the fuck you want. I have the obligation to find the truth and be able to explain it, in that quest i found Dawkins and his bullshit. He is a religious zealot passing as scientist because he went to oxford to study animals, now he is an expert in theology. How that happened?
I am here in my research, I study what people believe to know how to tackle specific questions, how can I explain the existence of "god" to an atheist. That is very easy, atheists are very ignorant people, ever more ignorant that christians or catholics. Atheist can swallow basically anything, like things have no purpose, everything comes from nothing, random mutations caused this plethora of diversity, evolution is the prove that god doesn't exist, the designs we see everyday in nature are not designs, everything is unconscious, god doesn't exist. All that is not only illogical, it's impossible.
I have study how come this people believe such imbecilities. I have studied why Dawkins came to that stupid conclusions. I know exactly how things work and they are so amazingly complicated, and incredibly different than this stupid point of view.
People, as Dawkins says in this lecture, are simply not qualified to assess this matters or mostly nothing a little bit deep. People believe what the tv says, the tv will always push forward everything that makes people ignorant, that is the reason Dawkins is famous, because he honestly promotes something really stupid.
Why I only criticism and not really propose anything? Because the explanations are too extensive to fit here.
Do you want to see a real scientist speaking about how things work? Watch some Tom Campbell's videos about his TOE. Read Michael Behe's books. Find Hameroff and Penrose. Upgrade yourself.
If you don't find Dawkins vague is because he knows more than you, that is not the case with me. All the time he has spent making money I've been researching and he is wrong. Yes, I know more than Dawkins in some specific issues, of course he know more than me in many things but not in this subject, I am a fucking master in this. One of my dreams is to debate him and put him in shame.
If you can be fooled to believe nothing has a purpose, something SO FUCKING OBVIOUS, then you deserve to be a poor atheist.
I could sit for an eternity listening to this man.
Awesome. Please ,carry on enlightening us.
Christianity doesn't account for 99.999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% of the universe.
Sure it does:
"God did it."
Explain a complicated question with a being unfathomably complicated that raises innumerable questions, the most obvious one being "Where is your evidence?"
You missed a 9, or 200 9s
Christians believe the supernatural God of the bible created the universe. Dawkins believes the universe came from "literally nothing".
Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it.
Now, give your science that "literally nothing" created the universe. In other words, shove your stupid statement up your dumb ass.
2fast2block
I agree with you. Basic science does indicate there is a creator for this universe, but absolutely not the Abrahamic God of the Bible or the Quran and certainly not any other man-made deity.
The nature of the creator is beyond our understanding because we will always try to explain in in the natural world with brains made in and for this world.
@Jesus is God KAG I am not, Christianity is another fairy tale, just like Islam and all the other so-called religions. Having said that, all myths have roots in something, so I suspect that a man called Jesus once walked the earth. I would say he sounds like a charismatic political rabble-rouser and perhaps the worlds first published Communist. I also suspect he spoke out for homosexual rights and having 12 male disciples probably took part in male homosexual orgies. We know that Mohammed was a child rapist so it is no wonder that the "people of the book" seem to be hung up about sexuality!
Thanks Mr. Dawkins
Thanks for the video! I got my copy of The Greatest Show on Earth signed by him when it came out, back in 2009, when he came to Indiana University to speak. Later that year, when I was driving back to college, my car caught on fire (a shortage in the cruise control) and after the firefighters hosed it down my backback containing this book and my laptop was the only thing that didn't get scorched. It took a little water damage (my laptop ended up needing to be replaced) but I still have that book to this day and it always cracks me up because I think of the stories where people say a bedside bible was the only thing to survive a house fire and how it was a miracle, etc.
Lol😂
love Richard Dawkins and the late Christopher Hitchens,Sam Harris,and all the rest of the educating folks who I found over the internet. I am so thankful they came into my life. Peace, understanding and knowledge they give us from the vine of truth and reason.TY RD VM.
Dawkins helped design the London bus advert, "There's probably no god. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life". And you say that you found peace. I don't understand how believing there is no god stops our worries and gives peace.
His discussions and talks got me into evolutionary biology. Thank you, Dawkins.
I am so loading this on my portable hard drive!
That was an awesome video! I rarely watch videos this long however this was definitely worth the investment of time. Plus our cable is out which is turning out to be not as bad a thing as I thought. I love this guy!
Professor Dawkins has a great sharp mind. We should cherish him and all his work that he has done through the years.
Richard doesn't seem to be showing signs of aging.Seriously he looks quite youthful,despite his hair colour.
If you were stoned, this hall with Dawkins speaking would be like dare I say it........Heaven
Dee Stroyer USA is doomed if they are unable to contain the evangelicals.
The banana is an excellent example of artificial selection; which in turn proves evolution.
You are joking right?
Solomon Cobb Why would that be a joke. Human's have been artificially selecting animals, fruits, and vegetables to produce the desired 'thing' for an uncountable time. Surely since the very beginning of settled, agricultural communities. The banana is one example of that.
imbecilik Your ability to choose a banana does not prove evolution, but it does show that you have free will to choose to eat what you want rather than what is good for you, which is actually disproving of evolution.
From your comment, I have to deduce that you don't understand what you were commenting on (the idea of selective breeding). Breeders, farmers, whatever, select the traits desirable to them, and over several generations the difference is shown. In the case of the domestic banana it is seen in the small seeds, but one obvious to all has to be domestic dogs and cats. Could you think they were all created that way? No, of course not! They were selectively bred for size, strength, appearance, temperament, etc. And if that's not good enough, look at the other canine animals, such as foxes, the wolves, and coyotes.
imbecilik The existence of selective breeding by man proves what? How about the existence of nonselective breeding by man? What does it prove?
"Discovery Institute...ill-named" classic Dawkins :)
Dawkins will always find a way to trick people into giving him money.
***** please upload a link to some of your published research.
Dontbethatguy You are too ignorant, thinking that what I am saying is elevated stuff.
***** yup I'd be very ignorant if I thought that you said anything elevated.
***** go make another creepvideo lol
I could sit and listen to Dawkins all day! Why couldn't my teachers in school have been this good?
Great production values, thank you. What a great opportunity for you to be able to travel around with the big guy.
LoVe It !!
THANK GOD FOR DAWKINS!!!
42:31 and wait for Dawk's joke: Made my day!
Thanks Richard, this is a keeper : )
I love the depth and beauty of this talk, then looking at the pettiness of the comments here. Brings that warm, fuzzy feeling to my heart.
One of Dawkins best speeches! Excellently articulated and very to the point, wonderful work!
Hello random person scrollling through the comments! :D
Hello, yourself👍
oh my God, i learned something new, I never opened a banana without my teeth
I don't consider Dawkins to be a great debater (possibly because he is to honest and nice to realize the shit that his opponents will pull) and not even the best spokesman for atheism. But if you can watch a lecture by this man and not feel some level of awe at his intellect, you should be removed from the human gene pool.
ShadeyBladey
Yes, sometimes the wit coming out in those soft, cultured tones can be quite biting.
Alan McDougall
I suspect that many religious idiots see it that way. That's probably why creationists waste their time quoting (or often quote-mining) Darwin. They care more about who says things (such as Jesus) than whether or not it is true.
But science and skepticism are not authority driven. I know more about evolution than Darwin did, and I don't even have a degree in biology. A man like Dawkins or Ken Miller knows way more than Darwin. Because we don't consider anyone infallible, we can learn and improve - something very difficult for the religious.
Alan McDougall
While I think that people believing delusional things is always bad, I would be happy to never contradict their ideas except for one thing - such people historically have never been able to resist trying to make everyone live by their beliefs, because they think they know the right way to live according to their god. That leaves little room for discussion or compromise.
People act on their beliefs if they are real beliefs. If those beliefs make no sense, their actions often will not either, and may well have negative effects on me.
Also, why is it wrong for atheists to disagree publicly with theists, but not the other way around?
+Alan McDougall I think Richard Dawkins speaks a lot of sense, but it's all pretty obvious stuff. Yes, we all know about evolution, Darwin discovered that ages ago, but does he have to write endless books about it? He's a bit of a 'know all' isn't he.
David Grigg
Considering how few people have even a basic understanding of evolution, I would say yes. We need more popular books on the subject.
Indeed. I can't get enough of this. It wonderfully explains a lot of questions I did not even know how to formulate them. For me, his explanations are a huge stress relief.
This is an inspiring presentation. Just as relevant today as when it was originally delivered.
Credit to Josh Timonen for his excellent editing skills.
@ Xavier Arriaga,
Any arguments that you put forward? Besides the petty insults?
This man has own awards from top notch universities, Berkeley Oxford, Sanford..and so on. He is regarded has one of the preeminent scientists in his field. In 1977 when he wrote the selfish gene, the virus and gene transmission description he gave were all validated in the next 10 to 20 years. Not even one scientist , his peers, have repudiate his works. He is only attacked by religious people that feel offended ...like you apparently...so yes he is widely attacked for his positions about religion. The academic reputation of this man is intact. You get offended because he offended you imaginary friend. Anyone with the ability of reasoning can get to the same conclusions. Evolution theory is has true has the heliocentric theory....or do you disagree also that the earth revolves around the sun. Calling names is what you do best....arguments, not your strong feature huh?
I am a scientific researcher. I study the leading edge of knowledge. Richard Dawkins writes religious based fiction. You are going to tell me that atheism is not a religion. The idea of Gene centered genetics is an exploration of the imagination, not science. Things ain't work like that. First of all, everything is imaginary. This is a virtual reality composed by imaginary things. Imagine that Clooney calls for a press conference ands states that he found evidence for the evolution of Scooby do. We understand that Scooby do is a fictional character and it's a drawing, we understand that the evolution of this character happened in the mind of its creators. Not by a random magical process.
Nature is just that way. What you see is a render of a complex flow of information. We are characters in a virtual reality. All evolution happened in the level of information, not in the rendering.
Scientific researcher of what? Clearly not evolution or anything biological, physical, chemical, medical.... Or do you just use one special book?
Xavier Lopez de Arriga Candiani Watching the RUclips wacko zone doesn't make you a scientific researcher, it makes you a conspiracy theorist who doesn't understand the science.
Simulation theory is not a theory, it's a hypothesis at best. It is unsupported by evidence and doesn't qualify as knowledge. Until it can be shown through evidence to be correct, it's belly button fluff.
+@@stephenwhiddett
Now, now, be kind, they permit him out of his room occasionally and leave him to play on the computer from which we are blessed with his 'deep' insights and rantings.
@@XavierLAC your a scientific researcher ?? my arse ! just a dick with a pretentious name
Dawkins in his prime.
Don't you get bored with spewing hate, circus?
If you think Dawkins is wrong about "purpose" (remember, the video you are trolling?), why not prove him wrong.
Tell us about this magical being that gives you your purpose, and commands you to slander the non-believer.
It is such a gift to be born in a generation brought up by those smartest people !
I've been thinking about this a lot lately (years). Richard Dawkins's speech was well written and he spoke very well.
a thousand years from now how many people will know jesus christ and how many people will remember richard dawkins?
Stick around and maybe you'll find out.
No one will "know" Jesus. As they don't know.
I'm guessing: You'll read about Jesus in history books, and the text books will contain references to Dawkins' work.
+goerizal1 And this proves....?
Jesus is the Sun so hopefully our star will keep on shining. 🌞🌞🌞. the Holy Trinity 😀
I was somewhat disappointed with this video based on the title. I thought Dawkins might offer something in the way of there being a purpose to life. He didn't. Evolution is not a purpose but a mere process. If the universe has no purpose, why is there anything? If there is no purpose to the universe, and it's all a mere process, we need to place those cards on the table.
Purpose to life? I think each individual has to find that for themselves. Everyone has a purpose to life. Mine is to breathe, eat and explore as much knowledge and places as I can.
Vincentthegamedude A better title would have been The Purpose of No Purpose... or The Purpose of an Unknowable Process.
Our thinking is actually pretty close. However, when I think of the term "purpose," I sort of associate it as an anthropomorphic term.
I agree with you that as human beings, we have to create our own purpose.
I also agree that replication seems to be the key factor in living organisms.
Evolution suggests that replication involves mutation, which of course it does.
I suppose my initial assumptions about what I'd uncover in the video can be traced to an expectation that I might hear some new perspective/insight on the philosophical question about whether the creation of the universe and the eventual rise of life had any underlying meaning/significance.
But, this was stupid of me because the lecture never attempts to mix philosophy and science. I can accept that everything that has happened -- and will happen -- since the Big Bang is just a meaningless series of events (a long process), but it's also rather heart-breaking. I think Stephen Hawking wrote something similar in one of his books.
Science can answer a lot of the "how" questions but does not even creep into the "why" territory. It may very well be that asking "why" is a non-question. From the perspective of science, it seems so.
Tuberias Caesar Speaking only about atheists, some of them wax rhapsodies about the majesty, the quixotic beauty of symmetry mixed with total chaos, its complexity and yet simplicity. I hold within me the capability of being enthralled with the beauty and destructiveness of nature, but at its most fundamental, quantum level, I'm not exactly elevated by the theory of quivering strings at the sub-microscopic level nor multi-universes at the macroscopic level.
On one episode of "The Simpsons'" from several years ago, Homer was posed some question about the universe. His response was something like, "Uh, it's all just a bunch of stuff that happens."
And this is certainly what it feels like. As you pointed out, even though we may create our individual moral codes through which to get by in this level of existence, it's hard not to think that such thoughts (like religion) are just different ways of placating our sense of purposelessness.
Astrophysists and cosmologists like to point out that we are made out of "star stuff." I see this as an interesting scientific artifact but it doesn't negate an overriding and sad feeling that our consciousness doesn't amount to a hill of beans.
It's this awareness of being inserted into a purposeless, meaningless and quite probably arbitrary universe that seems like a slap in the face or a kick in the groin. We are able to conceive that we may be nothing more than a rare happenstance of nature -- some kind of "intelligence" emerging from basic atomic structures. It's kind of cool that we can map out the probability of our evolution from the molecular level. But, all this does is underscore our cleverness ... and this is vastly different from feeling a sense of solace.
Like wolves, even buttressed with physics, we are still really lonely primates howling our anguish into a night that has nothing to say in return.
So, as you suggest, we are left to just watch a clock and wait for our atoms to rejoin the universe. What a prize, eh?
Tuberias Caesar My guess is that consciousness has more positive aspects for the continuation of our species than negative ones. It certainly has given us a big edge over any of our competitors. Though consciousness may have some big drawbacks, apparently they have not proven sufficient to make the trait recessive. While we suffer incalculable amounts of psychological pain by being self-aware, the trait has led us to be the dominate species on the planet. -- despite the significant handicap.
Putting myself forth as an example, I consider myself a depressed individual (and so does my psychologist of some seven years). Nevertheless, I have fathered two daughters. My depression (though considered severe) did not stop me from passing my flawed genetic material onto another generation.
However, I do think there is an influence/impact in being depressed and the impact that plays in passing on traits that may be embedded within DNA. Many young people commit suicide out of depression -- thus eliminating their chances of advancing the depression gene (if it is that) forward.
So, will this ultimately result in the elimination of a gene that may cause us too much introspection and unhappiness? I don't have the credentials to begin to answer that question.
Neuroscientists, chemists, and psychotherapists have been examining the causes of depression in human beings. They SEEM to be getting closer to better answers -- besides the simple serotonin reuptake inhibitor avenue. They may finally come up with a pill that puts Prozac to shame (hopefully).
Meanwhile, if and until this discovery is ever made, many of us are left to gaze upon our limited knowledge of the cosmos and finding nothingness staring us back in the face. The perception may be perfectly accurate, although depressing. Maybe "happy pills" will just make the whole sad awareness disappear.
Splendid Lecture!...Thank you very much.
I advise you to regurgitate the evo-kool-aid.
If I had not listened to lectures of Mr. Dawkins, I would completely miss the essence of Darwins theory and be completely unaware of the most important development in science in understanding life
Brilliant as usual.
I stand in awe of men such as this.
I pray to God for more men like Richard Dawkins.
Richard Dawkins is god
@DCT0000 joy to my ears my friend, I never tire of hearing people say the word "former". Pauline McGlynn has a really good way of saying it, "once a catholic, not anymore". Delighted for you.
Brilliant lecture.
Dawkins is always so clear. I now know what clarity sounds like.
No, now you know what evo-kool-aid tastes like.
I've seen many amazing videos from Dawkins, but this must be one of the funniest! Thank you so much for posting it!
Thanks for the upload. Nice job on editing this as well!
im proud of the states and universities that did approve of letting dawkins speak, i know we got a lot of problems in our country but lets not forget our ability to progress and do better in the world
your the man richard! your always one of the few who open my mind to important philosophies. thank you.
Hail to Prof. Dawkins, especially for speaking to the most religious Western country in the world.
Dear professor Dawkins I always, respected you as a brave scientist, who’s cared about freedom of speech, and support the true and humanity, I wish you long life full of happiness and health , in your 80’s birthday.thanks, mehdi
2 years ago it was this video that forever changed the way I viewed the world.
Still changed, I presume?
Easily the best Dawkins speech I've seen.
Amazing quality for a 2009 video
Classic Dawkins. If I believed in God, I would thank him for Richard Dawkins. But there's nobody to really thank, so I'll just BE thankful that we have among us such an eloquent spokesman for science & reasoning!
Fantastic lecture, if we only had more people like him in this world.
Mr Dawkins, you sir are a gentleman, schoolar and the greatest defender of Science and Reason that I know.
We need more people like Richard Dawkins
Subversion due to drug addiction is another one. Being a former addict I've seen first hand how it eventually turns your priorities upside-down. They change from breathing, eating/drinking, shelter, to breathing then drugs while all rest are pushed aside.
Thank you!
Though the material Richard shares provides us with a glimpse of the unwarranted challenges that the populace of the United States faces, I love how he includes quite a bit of satire to lessen the weight of what he is sharing.
Friedrich Nietzsche -
“When we are tired, we are attacked by ideas we conquered long ago.”
Thank you for sharing this vid.
Alhamdulillah! Sheikh Dawkins is doing the Lord’s work!
Loved the example of “Bridge on the River Kwai”.
Dawkins in good form. What more could we want?
Scott Wallace This lecture was a while back but he’s always in good form so you are correct my friend...👍🏼🔥🤗
Scott Wallace ruclips.net/video/RKjiSu4zD5Y/видео.html
The past of subversion of purpose was particularly interesting and somewhat enlightening. It sheds a very interesting light on human psychology . Thumbs up for that !
However simple the lecture may be, it's a great one for it initiates thought in many of the students.
Such an underrated subject matter expert. Dark ages = Religious America 😢
Richard dawkins speaks so much truth and the only person I know of that speaks the truth about how and why!!
So, ultimately there is no purpose to life outside of our own subverted impulses. Splendid!
what is annoying is that everytime i randomly click on a richard dawkins video, it seems to come from richarddawkinsdotnet but when i click on the producer, i cant find any richard dawkins videos among all the others!
Intelligent falling... love it!
A breath of fresh air
Richard Dawkins is a genius!!!!
Where would we be without Dawkins?
Brilliant! He gets an A+!
2615- “braininess is attractive” - you can say that again Professor ❤️
Wha a lesson of knowledge and wisdom, on the service of truth!!!
The coconut's purpose is not for human consumption. It's purpose is to float in the ocean until it arrives on a beach, and then sprout a root to become a tree. The hardness is to keep the seawater out while it floats in the ocean. It's size and weight keep it from rolling or blowing around when it arrives on shore. The coconut apologizes for its inconvenience.
This man is a God-send. Wait...
No, yo just liked my response so much--it cut to the quick so succinctly that you decided to co opt it instead of coming up with anything new to say.
Its the sincerest form of flattery.
Thank you.
Militant god slobberer.