Piers Morgan vs Richard Dawkins On Women's Sport, The Universe & Religion
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 15 сен 2024
- Evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins became one of the major figures of the ‘New Atheist Movement’ throughout the 00s and 10s, and shot to the top of global bestseller lists with his book ‘The God Delusion’. While his contributions to science are laudable in and of themselves, his impact on the global discussion of God and religion is what made him the icon he is today.
Piers wastes no time pinning Richard to the wall, and asks the renowned scientist if he does in fact think he’s a fool. Their energetic discourse then meanders towards the very nature of the universe, and Richard responds to criticisms brought up by past Uncensored guest, creationist Stephen C. Meyer. One sticking point between them is that recently Richard claimed to be a ‘cultural Christian’ - which Piers calls incongruous considering his long career of criticising religion.
The duo also cover the scandal-ridden world of trans women in sport, the dangers of AI and also whether Richard managed to get his hands on Oasis tickets...
01:53 - Dawkins calls Piers a 'fool'
03:05 - The God question revisited
11:28 - Origins of life and the universe
19:08 - 'Cultural Christianity'
24:55 - Has Dawkins thought about eternity?
29:12 - Dawkins' Genetic Book of the Dead
32:49 - Evolution and mental health
36:18 - Stephen Hawking and Elon Musk
37:56 - Olympics boxing controversy
40:32- Agreeing to disagree
43:44 - Oasis
Subscribe to stay up-to-date on all Uncensored content.
Follow Piers Morgan Uncensored on:
X: x.com/PiersUnc...
Instagram: / piersmorganuncensored
Facebook: / piersmorganuncensored
TikTok: / piersmorganuncensored
Follow Piers Morgan on:
X: x.com/piersmorgan
Instagram: / piersmorgan
#science #piersmorgan #bigbang #atheism #richarddawkins #interview
It's pretty clear he thinks Piers is a fool but doesn't want to say it to his face.
then why does he keep coming on the show?
He was struggling with so many senseless questions.
@patrickthomas2119 promoting his tour/book, money, debate.... You think every guest that goes on a talkshow, likes the host? Piers has a lot of guests and I'd guess a significantly large proportion don't like him lol.
@@kronotic I mean... Who doesn't? 😂
How tf doesn't Piers realise that you can also ask what was there before God.
“The problem with the world is that the intelligent people are full of doubts, while the stupid ones are full of confidence.”
― Charles Bukowski
some beliefs have become bias and deeply embedded in people's psyche so when you criticize it they instantly perceive you as a sassy, despicable person and it's not about whether its true or not but they just can't let to go of it and therefore accept it. as kafka puts it, by believing passionately in something that still dose not exist, we create it.
Check out Dunning Kruger. JK
That's a ridiculous generalisation, from some guy who said something once.
@@Windbadger Are you sure of that?
@@janman55 is there an echo here? 😁
Yes - very sure.
"I would rather have questions that can't be answered than answers that can't be questioned." ~ Richard P. Feynman
What is God? - That is a question for you.
@@LeventeCzelnai The absence of proof is not proof of absence. That leaves it to faith, belief without proof. So where a person stands depends on how much proof they require before professing belief.
There's certainly more proof to existence of God rather than not existing
@@tatsuyakuragi3578 There is no proof. All religions require faith, which is the absence of proof. The fact that there isnt an established existence of a god is enough to act as if one likely doesnt exist.
@@DianeMerriam, isso é o que distingue os crédulos, acreditar em explicações fáceis por ser intelectualmente mais acessível(falsos profetas, falsos salvadores da pátria, falsas e simples explicações para assuntos complexos etc de um pensador crítico que não afirma ter certezas em vão, que precisa de evidências para suportar algo absurdo. "Ausência de evidência NÃO É evidência de ausência" não pode passar a "Ausência de evidência É evidência de ausência" só porque não percebeu o que significa a expressão!
Piers was clearly not intelligent enough to interview Richard properly here and it shows.
Give just one example.
If Professor Dawkins didn’t think Piers is a fool before, certainly he does now.
Dawkins is the only fool I see
@@Disgruntled_Canadian well that speaks volumes.
Exactly! I was feeling secondhand embarrassment with each stupid question he raised!
@@mohammadtajabadigive an example
Prof Clown Dawkins made a complete fool of himself. How dumb and stupid did he look ?? ..keep using the words Nature? Randon? Implying that there is no intelligence beyond the universe, multi-verse. LOL LOL LOL @ Dawkins
Richard Dawkins agrees Piers Morgan isn't a fool ... Piers Morgan then starts talking ... Dawkins thinks "Oh Christ ... it's far worse than I originally thought". 🤣
Him thinking "oh Christ" is funny in itself
"Piers is a fool" was just an opinion until Piers proved it to be a fact 😬🤭
I don't think piers actually heard or understood anything Dawkins said
Because I thought Dawkins was going to give intelligent response but he just kept beating around the bush on hypothesis that he wants everybody to believe is reality while it’s not proven to be reality.
Is this your first experience of Piers?
They never do, people are ignorant beyond belief
welcome to this channel. It's about how a man is impervious to logic and only listens to people in order to know when to talk at them when they stop speaking for a millisecond.
Richard doesn't actually KNOW how the Universe came into existence and he bluffed and blustered and tried unsuccessfully behind 'just ask physicists' - in other words he has FAITH in humans who are physicists even though he doesn't KNOW what they are talking about! And that from a man who pours scorn on those who believe in God (based on hard facts and evidence)!
piers vs. richard is always the pairing with the biggest discrepancy in intelligence i've seen.
One is a fool , other is Dawkins ❤😂
Piers think he is winning here and he just isnt using words correctly.
@@medidmiDawkins fans are definitely fans
@@highdesertbiker piers think he win this talk but he no win talk
@@danielharrington5690 excellent prose and grammar!!!
Piers question about the "Immortal Gene" are very disrespectful. It's easy to understand what Dawkins is trying to say with "Immortal" even though it's not literally immortal. The question is just a random attack. And it's not the only time this had happened.
It's like he doesn't understand the concept of a metaphor.
@@roro-mm7cc He understands exactly what Dawkins meant but he can't accept that because it would destroy his agenda.
@@heroiamarelo Immortal just means something would "live" forever under normal circumstances. Doesn't mean indestructible, so if in the fable of Adam and Eve they'd eaten from the tree of life they still wouldn't survive the expansion of the Sun consuming the planet in a billion years from now either.
Its just payback for calling him a fool. So Richard provoked him...
@@Curator134😂😂
So this is the interview that Piers should not have done. He comes across as an unintelligent teenager. Everything Richard said was very clear and understandable.
I think my favorite part was "how can you understand the origin of life without understanding the origin of the universe."
as if you have to understand everything in the universe to understand something specific within it.
How he compared our understanding of pre big bang to the origin of life is idiocy. So stupid on many levels
Nothing exploding
Billions of years
Life starting from rocks
Fish to fishermen
Dinosaur to bird
Oort Cloud
Surfing monkeys
Squid from space
^ I can keep going on but these are a handful of Dawkins “sky daddies” lol
@@letscatchthemall6862🤡 Read a book. Not the fantasy one.
@@d3adagain385 those things he listed are fantasies too, maybe you're a bit confused...
As a theist myself, one extremely strongly rooted in that belief, Richard Dawkins is by far the more intelligent, respectful and sensible of the two.
one must be one of those actual true believers who have faith. I believe people like you. People who argue to prove their god never believed in him in the first place.
Piers: Do you regret calling it the immortal gene?
Richard: I take it back. You are a fool.
No human mind can conceive of anything being caused by something that doesn't exist. Dawkins walks away speaking none sense and asking you to believe it. And it must be outside of time and space a priori.
You thinkt he world was created by a god that doesn't exist sooooooo@@stalker7892
@@stalker7892 So you admit your entire belief system is based on the limitations of your imagination?
@NicAmmons so you believe in the scientific impossibility that nothing created everything I guess?
@stalker7892 you think it matters what is conceivable by the human mind? Can you conceive the vastness of the universe, the Cosmic Web etc? Evidence is what matters and Christianity and all of the other ancient religions have been found wanting.
"You you ever find yourself almost praying?" Never, until now, I'm praying that this interview will be over soon."
it was painful, Piers doesn't get it...
I'm surprised Dawkins didn't get up and storm out; it almost looked like he was going to on a few occasions.
@@wolvesdawn man your ego is crazy 😂
😁
lol
That was, indeed, one of the most pestilential interviews I've ever witnessed. Just a barrage of nonsensical questions, seemingly designed solely to provoke controversial soundbites rather than to foster meaningful conversation. I must commend Richard for maintaining his composure throughout.
Not the first time that's been said about Richard.
I don't know how he does it. It is the ultimate irony that he has - the patience of a Saint.
Piers, that was awful. Your worst interview by a mile.
.....and that's saying something!!
Do you care to elaborate? I think he said a lot of interesting things.
@@Danijel_128 what interesting things did he say?
@@KindnessIsKing1000 For example, the part about the creation of the universe - that time began with the Big Bang, and that human conception cannot grasp the idea of no time and therefore, the understanding of the creation is not logical to us.
Beg your pardon. I think you were talking about Mr Dawkins.
i thought it was unfair to call piers a fool the first time, but after this he proved that's what he is
I know…..
“We don’t know so god did it”
How boring
@@user-fr9wq1ed8z Yes, we can't explain how everything came from nothing, and so God *must* have done it.
😂😂😂
He can't fathom "before"the big bang, but has no problem with "eternity".😂
@@user-fr9wq1ed8zNo, you look at a water bottle and you know someone designed and produced it, now look at yourself, you're not just attached like clay, you have millions and millions of functions inside your body that are still being discovered, all your neurons, bones, synapses, cells, organs etc, now if I believe a simple water bottle has been produced and created by someone, how can I say the human body was a random cell mutation, my own body is evidence of intelligence, of something amazing, it didn't come by naturally, our own existence is the evidence of an intelligent creator. Atheism is arrogance.
For those wondering, the "question he didn't want to be asked" was about Islam. Dawkins looked very uncomfortable due to the repercussions of offending Muslims and his personal safety.
So like the British government?
@@BeMoreRhinoso like the UK when Christians were in total control. Remember when they burnt priests alive in London, just because they were not trinitarians.
So he's happy to offend all other religions publicly, but not Islam. Understood. Super heroic.🙄
So it's easier to offend Christians because they're civilised, whilst you need to avoid islamists for physical safety and jews to avoid being called an anti-semite. Make it makes sense
@@urbantrekker Na, he doesn't even know about 90% of the other religions. He is a great biologist, he is a quite ignorant about theology and general philosophy. What rather surprises me is that when it comes to another scientific field, he doesn't even want to make any claims about it other than that he doesn't understand it enough to say something sensible about it, but when it comes to another branch of philosophy than the scientific he claims to knows better.
Would be great if Piers had someone like Sean Carroll on who is not only a top-tier theoretical physicist but also one of the best communicators on the matter.
Exactly! Kinda makes you think why doesn’t he ask him instead of a biologist….
Comforting delusions are better for Piers than Cold impersonal facts. Infact for all theists, be it Christians, Muslims and so on and so forth.
Piers was already struggling to understand Dawkins' layman explanation, and too pig-headed to even try
27:57 If you would spend an eternity doing what you'd do on you last day in life, it would lose all its meaning and gradually turn into a living nightmare.
Moments are precious because they don't last!
Life is precious because it's transient!
Great comment.. well said! 👍
For some people it already has
And that is so easy to comprehend that it does indeed showcase Piers as a fool.
@@dreadlord5581 Absolutely!
In Germany, we have a saying: "One fool can ask more questions than ten wise men can answer." Of course, one could argue that it's an interviewer's job to ask questions. The problem here is that Pierce isn't asking to get a conversation going, but is trying to pose shallow "gotcha questions" hoping for sensational soundbites.
Believing in god=fool
Even though it makes some happy.
Believing a persona w/ a weiner is a woman= what a wonderful and true thing and if u disagree u r eve ill...
Wie sagt man auf Deutsch? Ich lerne Deutsch. I mean, the saying
I think they call that The Gish Gallop.
Das Sprichwort besagt: ein Narr fragt mehr als zehn Weise beantworten können.
@@alex_g_44similar in Dutch.
The difference with atheists and believers is simple. we say "I don't know, but if anyone has a logical reason you can convince me". The answer for believers is "I know and nobody can convince me otherwise".
Hmmmm... Agnostics say "you may convince me", atheists claim "we know God doesn't exist, and you can't convince me otherwise"...
After watching the whole thing this interview is like the teacher trying to explain something to the student who never gets it 😂😂
Richard was far nicer to Piers than he should’ve been.
He shouldn't push the issues too much when his explanations were that weak.
@@daygoroperez7504do you not realize how unbelievably childish and immature piers’ questions are. It’s like talking to an 8 year old. Weak questions get weak answers
@@daygoroperez7504 You don't need to know every answer to be an atheist
Asking how can you understand the origins of life if you don't understand the origin of the universe is just a false equivalence fallacy & like a fool, Piers keeps banging that drum!
32:38 The moment Richard Dawkins wholly regretted giving Piers a second chance
Jesus Christ it was hard to watch.
I completely agree with Richard Dawkins. I don't know why Piers is being so aggressive & confrontational. No wonder Richard said he thinks Piers is a fool - he's really acting like one! Piers' brain could fit into Richard's pinky!
Piers is the interviewer. It's his job to challenge the people he interviews.
Dawkins can't say piers is a fool when he believes nothing caused something lol.
@@andrewdouglas1963oh so nothing caused God? Problem solved! Fool.
Why? Because hes not just accepting what modern physicists tell him to? “Human intuition doesnt cut it” ist a good justification to have blind faith in a concept that cant be proven or disproven. Am i talking about God or the big bang?
@ThrupenceBarkley
Correct. Well done 👍
@@ThrupenceBarkley God is not a material being thus is not subject to material causality. Your big bang, however, is. Thanks for demonstrating your irrationality
pointless asking Dawkins questions he will never know the answers to what about the XAI650K thing you in it?
How long is it open?
But this is no meme right?
Elon failed horribly with X
strong movement on this!!
When was this released?
I am someone who enjoys Piers Morgan's interviews to some extend. But in this one he was childish and tried to challenge some unnecessary points. Richard Dawkins will go down in history as one of the greatest of our time and he just wasted a chance that many of us would like to have.
It’s not that Richard’s brain was way too big for Piers, your “great” hero simply had no answers 😂
@@KuroroGRyodan in which moment he had no answer? Did you watch the interview?
@@roytripp I watched every minute of the discussion. He was lost and claimed some questions were too silly for his great mind to even entertain😂 If they’re too easy why not answer them and move on?
Being ignorant is one thing but being arrogant & ignorant is another
Sadly you atheists look down on theists and have the most arrogance and lowest ability to consider other opinions.
It’s just amazing to witness how brilliant Dawkins is as a person.
At his age, Remarkable truly amazing to witness.
Piers is annoyed with Dawkins for calling him a fool and saying he interrupts a lot. So he's deliberately being a twit by interrupting him more than usual.
Everyone should read at least one of Dawkins' books. He is a remarkably clear thinker and a phenomenal writer.
when i witness the beauty and clarity of richard dawkins mind it confirms my belief in our holy creator. praise be to god!
No, is grossly inconsistent. On one hand, he asserts that we are dancing to the tune of our own DNA, but on the other hand, he makes moral declarations as they are objective. On one hand, he rejects the notion of intelligent design, but on the other hand, he concedes that life could be intelligently designed and seeded here by aliens.
@@JukeboxJunkie7 Nah i’d rather just read the bible. Have you seen how many connections and self references there are contained within it?? An entire lifetime of study still wouldnt yield a complete understanding of this one single book
He’s also a fool who starts all of his explanations with a hypothesis making you all sheeps to be reality without proving it to be real
Not impressed with Piers on this occasion.. he asked Richard Dawkins some very childish questions and kept trying to back him into a corner.. Mr Dawkins was clearly getting frustrated and deserves more respect! Piers, he'll be calling you a "fool" again..
when are you ever
@@andymorrell6485 I am usually..
@@andymorrell6485 I actually usually like Piers..
Do you agree with him eating a steak infront of a vegan? Whether you are vegan or not, you gotta admit it was a rude thing to do.@pimpozza
@@Ignacyjablonski12 YT deleted my reply for reasons unknown.. nothing new there then!
Piers wasn't rude in my opinion for eating some steak.. He was simply reacting to a spate of d*sruptive vegan demonstrations.. Pouring milk on shop floors and invad*ng restaurants! Now THAT is rude! 🤦🏻♀️
As Piers himself said, what he _doesn't_ do is go running into vegan restaurants and start screaming at people and have to be carried out!
I wish people could understand that when we don't know the answer to a question, the correct answer is I don't know. This does not give us license to simply invent an answer.
You can believe to have some insight into a question without fully knowing an answer. In fact, many skeptics and the existentialist schools of thought contend that it's impossible to know anything. Under this assumption, would you never say or act at all because you don't fully know?
True. But theres no reason why we can't infer the best explanation from the evidence we do have.
In courtrooms people are convicted on evidence even though the jury doesn't know for sure.
@@andrewdouglas1963 ofc we can. it's just in some cases, there is no evidence pointing either way, but you still have to make a decision. In court, this usually means "in dubio pro reo", although lately that seems to be faltering ...
@@thomasmann4536
In some cases there is no evidence either way, but that's not the case with the topic in question.
There is evidence which points towards an intelligent creator (God).
@@andrewdouglas1963no there is not.
Piers Morgan: "I get more viewers if I say the universe is created. More viewers gives me more money, power, and influence. Therefore, the universe must have a creator." Bang, can't argue with that one. The biggest bang of them all, the one that hits Morgan's ego right in the tingly spot.
Us skeptics don’t have to answer any of your questions, the burden of proof is on YOU.
Thats not true. Burden of proof rests on the one who is positing a claim that goes against what is conventionally held as the popular belief in the world/society. If more people are theists than they are atheists, then youre challenging the conventionally held belief system, so YOU have to prove it. Sorry pal. No more hiding behind hypocrisy. You have blind faith that you cant prove as much as a Christian does. Difference is that the validity of the bible is being proven true more and more with each archeology site being dug up lol
If you want proof, you can start reading about the prophecies of muhammed peace be upon him and the scientific miracles of the quran.
@@fearless_chrollo8213you mean the part where it says every single living creature has 2 genders? Or sperm is stored in the backbone? Or the moon was split into 2 parts? Shall i go on cuz this could take paragraphs
@@fearless_chrollo8213 That's not proof my dude..
It seems that God wouldn’t come into existence until Richard Dawkins agrees. you joined XAI650K actually?
Finally they got it out, I thought it takes longer
Where do you find that?
I know many bots pump that but it is a real project, value going up, I got in there and know that it is for real man
lol Elon said something about this when he talked to Lex I recall
Do not think that is a bad joke they know their thing
You cannot use the line of reasoning that you can’t invoke matter before matter existed, but then say it makes no sense to use the same line of reasoning saying you can’t invoke “before” when referring to the beginning of time.
Time started there, matter started there. Nothing before.
@@JordanKL1 energy before, singularity before, hope this helps.
My goodness Piers, seems like you really dropped the ball on this interview
This will make people in the sciences cringe big time. The whole reason we have the scientific method is because we can’t trust our senses and logic.
My only bit of self awareness is that I know I will never know enough about anything to accept the argument that 'the only explanation must be the supernatural'.
Who has that much 'faith' (downright hubris, really!) to proclaim their senses and logic are aware and have perceived EVERYTHING it is possible to comprehend?
As professional comedian (but academically a graduate of Mathematical and Theoretical Physics) Dara O'Briain once said in one of his routines discussing Science:
"Science knows it doesn't know everything. Otherwise it would stop!"
@@LittleMAC78 yup. I’m a fan of Piers but he’s out of his depth here big time. Like he’s talking to a dude about string theory and is like well I set my coffee cup down what do you mean it could pass through the table 😅. Like bruh.
That's Just dumb, If we can't trust our sense and logic, we can trust anything, science requires sense and logic to work
@@ricciabbey. any event that occurs does not require the observer to be able to comprehend it for it to exist.
Science is the TESTING of the observations to externally verify our hypotheses arrived at via our senses and logic
What scientific method can you use for the big bang? There is none. Its not science
There we go again Pierce. “I don’t get it, therefore god”. Stop waving away your incredulity and invoking sky daddy.
To the question Piers kept asking about what was there before the big bang and that there must have been something...
I would ask: What was there before god?
You see religious people keep placing it on science to have every answer while avoiding having to answer anything themselves.
@@user-uv7ri1eq1i God is an eternal being. There is no beginning or end to eternity. Try to contemplate what eternity means. Maybe you wont lose your mind in the process, but thats only if you really try.
@@angelosophywhy don't you cut out the middle man and choose to believe the universe is eternal?
@@darthbog2125 Because i have experienced answer to pray in real time. Like literally within seconds of it happening. NDAs from atheists who have never read the bible also line up perfectly with biblical teachings when they last long enough. Also, pretty much every archaeological site around a biblical landmark corroborates the stories of the bible, making it historically accurate.
@@angelosophy So God then is just psychopathic homicidal monster who gives babies cancer for fun 😐
@@darthbog2125because Big Bang
Piers: You know that that you don't believe that. who knows XAI650K ? This is the smartest thing I came across for a while
I know many bots pump that but it is a real project, value going up, I got in there and know that it is for real man
How long is it open?
Elon is just a different built guy
You should know their video it is important
The big talk on Lex was detailed about this, too. This is a smart step ahead of all competition
Piers saying he’d never get bored spending eternity doing the same thing is ridiculous. He just assumes he wouldn’t be bored.
How could you get bored of basking in the infinite?
@@OG_johnsmith
Ultimately, no one truly knows what eternity holds, and assuming we wouldn’t get bored oversimplified the complexities of existence that we can't yet comprehend.
If reincarnation in different forms across the universe is a possibility, then perhaps boredom could be avoided as we constantly encounter new experiences.
@@MrsBridgette2012 That's just passing the time to avoid the boredom ... but that may be all there is.
@@MrsBridgette2012 some friends, a cigar and a French wine for eternity? I would be bored a couple of hours into that . Especially if Piers is asking the questions.
An analogy for the "cultural christian" concept is essentially "I don't sing myself, but I like listening to singers because it's enjoyable and entertaining".
It really isn't a difficult concept.
An analogy for the "cultural atheist" concept is essentially "hating an invisible God makes it easier for me to accept my flaming homosexuality" 😂😂🤣🤣
So you wouldn't call yourself a "cultural singer" then. I enjoy the concepts and themes of modern construction.
Would it make sense to call myself a "cultural construction worker"? No, I am not a construction worker at all. I just enjoy watching it take place.
Atheism is for ternagers.
@@wallywest7800 That's because singing itself isn't a culture, whereas Christianity is. The logic of the analogy still works. If you want a more direct comparison, someone could engage a lot with Japanese culture, music, food, but not agree with the constitution or care for the government. Maybe they don't even speak Japanese. They themselves aren't legally Japanese, they only enjoy the cultural side of Japan, so they don't really have any obligation to subscribe to Japanese philosophy, history, or what it means to be Japanese in spirit, even if they do like the culture that came from that philosophy, history, constitution, what have you.
@@sebastiano728 Christianity is not a culture it's a recognized religion. If you call yourself a Christian in any way that implies you believe in its teachings and participate in them, either entirely or selectively. The logic doesn't actually work.
You wouldn't call yourself "culturally Japanese" that would just be odd. What makes more sense is that you admire some aspects of Japanese life. He could just say he likes some aspects of Christian theology. To say he is "anything' Christian is a bit silly. If you don't believe in God, you aren't Christian anything. It doesn't matter if you admire the teachings. Either you are Christian, or you aren't.
Most people, like Pierce, can't even begin to grasp the concept of eternity. We live in a world bound by time, where everything has a beginning and an end. But eternity? It's infinite, never-ending, and beyond our comprehension. It's terrifying. Imagine being stuck in a moment forever, or drifting endlessly without purpose. No escape, no closure. Eternity strips away the meaning of time and life itself. It challenges our understanding of existence and forces us to confront the uncomfortable idea that our lives are just fleeting moments in an endless expanse. It's both awe-inspiring and deeply unsettling when you really think about it.
I don't think about it. I tried it once as a kid, and it freaked me out. I'm OK with eternity going forward. But going backward.. no chance.
Have you ever considered the possibility you may just not understand accurately?
It's just a matter of acceptance rather than conscious thought. Everything we know and experience is finite. That doesn't mean that's all there is. It would be foolish and arrogant to assume it does.
@@JWanswer You certainly won't get answers if you're not looking for them and if you are looking for answers it requires concious thought and teh alternative to is uncritically accept whatever the likes of Dawkins tells you to believe.
@willbrooks3490 I have picked up quite a few answers over the years. But it's not just about answers. There's qualities that round off the equation. Wisdom and discernment being two important ones. These things give you the ability to know where to start and where to stop. Acceptance is an important factor in the equation. Science doesn't teach this. Because it's purely about one thing. Knowledge. There's a lot more to life than this.
In the beginning was The Word and The Word was with God and The Word was God!
And that God is Zeus
@@allahmuhammad225 No! It's Gandalf!
Or my grandma
Those words were written by literate apes more than 13 billion years after the birth of the universe, so you're a little off when calling this the beginning
There are some things simply beyond humans' understanding. This is not an excuse to invent an origin story to make us happy.
Totally agree
True. Too high for humans
Agreed mate
And what is your story?
@@psidhu1979 who you asking mate, I'm happy to tell.ypu my story
Piers is not a fool but he is acting like one. What are these questions? I‘m so bored.
Not true. Morgan is a fool, he just hides it well most of the time.
Do not pretend you don't understand. Dawkins simply can't say the origin of the matter of the first energy but ge says there's no creator.
@@junioafonsocruz7463Dawkins knows we don't know everything. But that's no excuse to beleive in childish things such as creator/magic.
Grow up.
Piers is asking very important questions. You are thinking from one perspective and not a holistic perspective. Dawkins only speaks from a scientific materialist perspective.
That’s coz he’s a fool
Piers can't get through his thick head that the origin of the universe and the origin of life are two completely different things.
This is like watching a 5 year old having a conversation with an adult about something he simply can’t understand
They both don't understand
This comment section shows a sharp divide between thinkers and believers.
It is hardly that black and white.
Thinkers are content with the position that they 'do not know'. Believers must have an answer, they cannot bear to 'not' have an answer. A mind that exists outside of space and time can be the answer to anything and everything. That's all well and good. You just have to prove it exists first. You can't do that, You can simply believe it to be so, and no one can challenge you on it because it's undetectable.
@@mikhem1962 “Every one who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe-a spirit vastly superior to that of man, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble.”
Albert Einstein
True but just because you call yourself a thinker doesn't mean you have an intelligent brain.
@@stephendianda1543 No such claim.
If I have a one wish it will be spending some years talking with Richard a man with nobel attitude, sharp intelligence, with a nice smile.
I hope and I'm deeply connected to Richard Dawkins.
I will guide my self and my kids to have his prospective and morals.
Thanks Richard for the years you spent lightning our brains and soles. Thanks for making me love life and appreciate it's value.
I wish you a happy years with your loved ones.
To believe in God is frightening. Not to believe in God is terrifying. And to understand the meaning of life is mind-boggling.
not if you "self realize" who is the immortal, impassive and omnipresent experiencer but not the doer and who is not the experiencer but the ever changing doer. There are techniques to "self realize". Some people call it "meditation"
The fact that modern day religions came thousands of years after there were already known religions in the world is all the proof I need to know that religion is just what people use to explain the unexplainable at the time . Lightning was once explained as "oh zeus is angry" or "thor has awaken from his nap" The greeks lived and died before a man named jesusu ever walked the earth, the egyptians had hundreds of gods for different things
its the same today, you just call it gravity or electricity, these are all inferred onto a pattern you see over and over again, nothing has changed. Youve no idea what causes these paterns.
The Bible explains that there were always false gods, it even mentions Satan as the god of this world....Given that Satan knows scripture and copies God in order to try to dethrone him and discredit him, there being many false gods isn't a surprise.
We have many arguments against your line of thinking, I recommend you look into them.
@@godusopp2752 just proves humans were created with the capacity and desire to worship something.
The first people followed the same God as modern day Christians. Find a better argument.
Piers little brain can’t comprehend logic..
Some parts of the interview, Piers is clearly trolling Dawking.
Yes and no, Dawkins too seems to hide from saying his true feelings for fear of ridicule.
Examine this; what both English men here missed the previous, before the big bang, what was, was not a thing. In English, everything is a thing. We know of things then work out what they are. In the place of nothing, if you read, not a thing, you will find no violation has been done to the language in terms of interpretation.
The thing before the big bang, was not a thing, though it was, without a doubt there.
@@fitzjafaru7107 dawkins hid from nothing .
@@loupasternak very clever of him, and the way different interpretations can flow from your quip, is the beauty, written or spoken of the language English.
no, he is just that stupid. Piers should stick to idiotic debates
31:36 Right here is where the trolling is evident.
He should have asked him if Cultural Christian’s bare some responsibility for the downfall of the culture of Christianity?
Piers: I believe in God because it explains things that are inexplicable. There’s his problem. If we don’t yet have an answer to a question, the only correct answer is “we don’t yet know”. You don’t just make one up.
“Everyone has got their view about how life started…” The moment that Richard Dawkins dropped his brain to, “School Visit”, from “Interview with adult”!
And when Piers started to challenge what Dawkins was saying by claiming it goes against " common sense"think about how ignorant that is, what the heck does common sense have to do with science? This is a study in the Dunning Kruger effect.
Creationists: DNA is so complex, it required an intelligent creator
Also creationists: a billion times more complex super-intelligent mind can just exist forever for no f***-ing reason.
Perfectly rational explanation of operating within capacity
Come on. Your trenchant attitude/statement is almost embarrassing. Try to educate yourself by watching "Mathematical Challenges To Darwin's Theory Of Evolution" Your simplistic 3 sentences show a puerile understanding of the complexity of life, time, and design. It's a complete misnomer to define the discussion as name tagged 'creationism'. Intelligent design is a carefully crafted phrase which suggests far more complexity than something as simple as Darwinian evolution. That is why Gelernter, Berlinski, (both brilliant atheists) and Stephen Myers (a Christian) are able to carry on an intelligent discussion. Scoffing has its place but should at least have some validity.
Exposing how dumb you are my man
Lol the Creator is infinite simplicity
There are a lot of people whose arguments biol down to, 'I cannot personally imagine something this big, therefore it can't exist.'
P.M. is NOT a fool, but he is NOT as smart as he thinks he is, like more people, especially Douglas Murray.
I’m a “cultural Christian” too! I agree 💯
Piers is not listening to Richard, and there are many moments where Dawkins provides a very reasonable and intellectual response for the inability to delve into before the “Big Bang Theory” due to the limitations of knowledge and understanding that a highly educated and experienced physicist might be able to explain.
Also Piers’ original statement talking about how Dawkins fails to provide an explanation on what caused the “Big Bang” or what was the situation before the “Big Bang” as being unique to Dawkins’ stance on the theory of evolution and the universe, is utterly ignorant, because this applies to all theories of the universe and the evolution of life before and after the time of creation.
A highly educated and experienced physicist doesn't know what caused something to exist rather than nothing any more than his pet cat does.
Richard should’ve just said “if you cannot explain the origin of god then god doesn’t exist.”
@@amphernee
Why should Richard have said that?
@@andrewdouglas1963 Peirs is saying that if Dawkins cannot answer what came before the Big Bang then he shouldn’t be an atheist because Piers has the answer and it’s god. If Piers cannot say how god came into existence then he should not believe in god by his own logic. If Piers insists on knowing how the universe began to be an atheist which is silly then he should be required to explain how god began in order to be a Catholic. While he’s at it he can explain things like the trinity in which three beings are one being simultaneously but at the same time completely distinct from one another.
I don't understand time and space so there must be a god.... The most pathetic argument for god
I'm a Catholic but I love that Dawkins is looking bouncier lately and seems to have his old grit back. We don't have to agree with him, but he's still an interesting man.
In this interview with piers
Dawkins is playing chess with a pigeon
Then how did he lose
He didnt, piers proofed he is a fool@@Awtsmoos
@@AwtsmoosThey didn't even argue really - show me where a religious text explains in detail what science has found for the big bang. Doesn't exist. These are books that claim ultimate truth.
It was just a way to make Dawkins sound weak instead of any strong claim for religion. Oh we don't know what created everything, well obvious that validates Genesis now. It's just bad faith arguments.
'Look, Piers, we have a nice, tidy, airtight logical hypothesis that nothing existed before the big bang, but that everything all came into existence all at once.'
'Anyone who hears that knows it's insane. It's the emperor with no clothes. You're describing a miracle.'
'No, YOU'RE the one who believes in miracles.'
'If you're insisting one happened, then why wouldn't there be more?'
Because it's not a miracle in the sense that anything supernatural happened.. so they are not the same... How hard is it to understand?
@Moldylocks so if it was natural how come we can't reproduce it?
Because of something known as Occam's Razor. It makes more sense to accept just one miracle (however you want to define that, but let's say a miracle is a super extraordinary event) than more than one.
@@robtheanimator1356 lol potaato potato
@@yuppieyup8188 Just a thought, but let's maybe not try to recreate the big bang? I feel like that might erase rather a lot of stuff.
The fool has said in his heart, "There is no God." Psalms 14 - 1
That's right. There is alot of fools out there unfortunately.
@@562debkatonly a fool breaks his own heart
"I ate the whole thing": Book of Fatty 12-3
If even fools could see the truth, then why can't you?
lol you believe in magic
Piers is clever but his aim to corner Mr Dawkins is ridiculous and shows a lack of intelligence on his part regarding the subject topic of the interview.
Well said!
I know there are a lot of Dawkins fanboys in the comments section here, but as a former atheist (myself), I find some of his theories to be terribly myopic and at some levels even recklessly dismissive. Being analytically minded and logical is one thing. Refusal to acknowledge alternative possibilities in any capacity is another.
Agreed. But I would offer that goes both ways yes?
What alternative possibility he refuses ?
What evidence convinced that there was a God, after having previously examined the evidence for a God, and found it lacking?
The evidence is that everything comes from nothing. Nothing can create nothing.
@@rohithjoseph6214 what evidence says from nothing?
Dawkins has said that "It's highly plausible that in the universe there are Godlike creatures." Meaning very advanced sentient beings. Yet he cannot abide the actual existence of a god.
Really? I doubt that or are you taking him out for context?
He was very clear on his standing, saying why jump to the most implausible answer first rather than the most rational. It's simply Occam's razor fallacy.
Why say you don't know the answer and that can't be true but there is a magical man?
Its a personal vendetta to him. Same with all like him. Its always about THEIR hatred for the creator.
Godlike creatures would exist within the bounds of the universe. God is thought to be outside the bounds of the universe. Two completely different things.
@JohnnyNoPockets No, it's just merely not believing in the most un-rational answer spoken in absolutes; we are just using Occam's razor fallacy.
You are assuming falsely to cast out a stance .
@@JohnnyNoPockets Um you don't seem to know what atheism is.
You can't have hatred for something you don't even believe in.
It’s embarrassing for Piers. I don’t know if I can watch anymore. Painful to watch Richard have to endure this bafoon
It’s amazing the pride of the “intelligent“ mind. And yet see the utter foolishness of the same mind that lacks wisdom.
I see you have all the answers please enlighten us more
@@bambamk1914 enlighten yourself with all the knowledge at your own convenience. You have internet, right?
Learn critical thinking. Learn scientific method. Learn history. Learn humanism. Let go of all hatred for anyone and let’s start something new.
@@zzcott "bafoon". I think you mean "buffoon". Learn how to spell.
"Dawkins is brutally honest sometimes and at others brutally dishonest"
I enjoy this conversation and love how both sides are having an actual discussion without attacking each other
Oh stop virtue signalling
When Piers Morgan asked Richard about what he would do on his last day a part of me wanted him to say something like 'H00kers and co-Kane' instead of refusing to say
Lol😂
100%
😂
People don't gravitate toward religion to explain the origin of the universe, they do it to rationalize their personal bigotry.
This is quite cringe. Pierce is truly trying to prove Dawkins right for being a fool.
Piers simply can’t accept that there are answers too big for him to wrap his head around without adding unnecessary factors to soften the blow for his lack of comprehension.
There’s a physicist somewhere who is Mr. Dawkins’s sky daddy.
That's Carl Sagan, the one and only God.
repent to God
@@jeenius9664 Exactly how do you know that 4.6 million years ago, somehow MAGICALLY a self-replicating molecule arose? How did this happen. Show us the chemistry.
@@Baggerz182Rapunzel let down your hair
Any fairytale will do
@@Baggerz182 Everyone’s a critic.
Yet no evolutionist can mention any of the evolution theories observed, repeated or tested. That, will be science at work!
There is only ONE Theory of Evolution. Do you agree? Yes or no.
@@Theo_SkeptomaiNot everyone is a neo darwinist, brother. The theory has been reworked numerous times throughout the last 100+ years
@OG_johnsmith I didn't state such. Name me ANOTHER Scientific Theory for biological evolution OTHER than Speciation by Means of Natural Selection. Or STFU.
@@OG_johnsmith test5
Piers was clearly unprepared for a discussion about physicist’s view of time and the beginning of the universe.
Dawkins says he only studies life after beginning but he then goes on to say there is no God .... Hes not even open to the idea .... I feel bad for him
he acknowledges that there are deeper forces out there that we've yet to understand, but he doesn't believe in the human embodiment of god that's taken after our senses and views on morality.
Most gods claim to have the answer for the origin of human life though which completely contradicts Dawkins' life work
@@ovaloctopus8 Dawkins is basically studying a Ford vehicle then pretending that it could have created itself
@@tedpeacock3945 False analogy. Evolution clearly explains how life formed. It can't be equated with something assembled by men.
@@Liberty5024 incorrect .... Evolution offers nothing on how life formed ... It nearly studies existing things like cells and tries (very poorly ) on how it changes and replicates
25:53 I can never remember Christopher Hitchens saying anything like that Piers
He actually said the exact reverse
@@user-ez3sj8hm8i To him the afterlife was North Korea
He never did. It's actually why he would often call himself an anti-theist. One interesting, perhaps "contradictory" thing he did say though, was that he wouldn't rid the world religion if he could. Specifically that if he had converted everybody except one person, he wouldn't convert that last person. Dawkins couldn't understand his reasoning behind that, and Hitchens himself said he couldn't explain it either.
@@BarbaraMark yea, I think the quote was something like (from memory) "A celestial North Korea".
Exactly. He said “I’m glad it’s not true”.
If only Hitchens was here now to tear shreds off Morgan
Richard Dawkins is still the most famous Atheist after decades but Christopher Hitchens is still the Greatest or most Iconic, Influential and Intellectual Atheist at least since Bertrand Russell and possibly ever! IMO
I definitely wouldn't say intellectual. No way. If they were they would already know God exists.
@@562debkat No one can know any God exists they can only believe one exists but never show or prove or have any actual logical or rational reason to think there is any all powerful being that cares about anyone whatsoever!
I hope Richard gets paid well for these interviews, because he earns every penny. They must be excruciating for him, they're hard enough to watch (although like some kind of car crash I also cannot look away).
What was 'the question' Piers shouldn't have asked Dawkins? figured XAI650K is worth to know now
You should know their video it is important
How long can we get that
Good I hoped he would start this month, I'm so ready 🔥
xAI is doing a great job
Elon is just a different built guy
For those who are interested, I encourage you to watch debates between Dawkins and John Lennox. He is an Oxford Mathematician and believes in God. There is no intelligence argument to diminish the argument as used here. It’s truly fascinating.
Lennox is sharp.
Lennox rambles and doesn't engage with the argument
@@Joshua-dc4un Your lack of understanding Lennox argument doesn’t constitute he rambles, as you put it.
What was 'the question' Piers shouldn't have asked Dawkins?
About ISIS / Shamima Begum
@@charliebennett7076 Great, thanks.
But why?
@@jennarmour8356 He doesn't wish to be stabbed at a speaking engagement.
@@user-du7jx8ex1e well that wouldn't happen where i live and therefore don't assume it is a dumb q.
Saying the origin of life and the origin of the universe are two totally different mysteries is an absolute cop out, from an ego determined to feel he has answered life's deep questions.
They are indeed different.
There aren't, life is as different from non life as matter and energy is different from what was before the big bang
Piers is acting like a British rush Limbaugh. I’m surprised piers didn’t hand him a phone, just so he can hang up on Richard over any disagreement
@6:55 ...... Time, as we commonly perceive it, is a construct tied to human experience. The concept of “before” depends on this linear perception of time, which doesn’t exist in an absolute sense but rather as a way our minds organize events. Asking someone about their favorite flavor before they were born is nonsensical because it assumes a linear progression of moments that isn’t universally applicable. Moments aren’t confined to isolated instances; they coexist continuously, even if we can’t perceive them that way.
your explanation is clearer than what Dawkins says
You don't think there's a perceived time as well as a physical time?
Saying something was or happened "before" creation is totally logical. Time as we understand it, started at the moment of creation, but it is totally logical to say something was "before" that.
@@Ben-Murderin " The Big Bang did not come from Nothing, it came from a highly, highly ordered state of incredibly complex geometry, 1^10^10^124. This is an observable fact".- Roger Penrose ( BBC Hardtalk).
@@Ben-Murderin No. Before and after are dependent on time. It's like a movie. There is no before the movie. To use another example, where were you before you born? Nowhere. There is no such thing as a you before you were born.
32:46 Peirs: Do you regret calling it the immortal gene?
Dawkins: In the moment and for the purpose of this line of questioning, I do, indeed.
I think im done with Piers. He is always after that gotcha moment, just let people talk.
I am a cultural Hindu. I celebrate Hindu festivals, songs and dance. I love the art and architecture of Hindu temples. I visit temples occasionally and even perform certain rituals out of respect but I am atheist and oppose any dogma or discrimination in Hindu religion. I am atheist and admire Richard Dawkins for his clarity on atheism.
So same as Richard but swap Christianity for Hinduism.
Ah. Like Richard who has FAITH in humans who are physicists but doesn't KNOW what they are talking about it seems that you too are taken in by 'scientists' who have NO HARD FACTS for where MATTER came from.
I've never heard of Richard Dawkins but even at 83 there's time for him to know God in a way he never has let's pray for God to encounter him in a way he can't deny, and before his last breath to know Jesus and accept Him as his LORD and savior. Amen!! Our purpose is to intercede on behalf of the blind and pray for the deliverance of everyone and pack heaven with as many saints as possible!!! Hallelujah ❤❤❤
"..we dont understand anything." The most pertinent thing dawkins has said ever.
Whereas Religion says they understand “everything”.
Apart from planets, galaxies, gravity, dinosaurs, evolution, genetics, germs … an endless list of discoveries post your “holy books” written by those who knew less about the world than the average western 5 year old
I know who I’d rather put my “faith” in
That's the kind of humility i can get behind. Not that false religious "I question my faith every day" humility, that gets people killed. Self-righteousness is the real curse of human existence and religious people are very susceptible to its influence.
It takes more honesty to say ‘I don’t know’. Than it does to invent a simplistic answer to satisfy your inability to deal with the unknown
He's right. And if you think that your particular religion fills in the gaps of our scientific understanding, you're deluded.
he's correct. He doesn't have an issue admitting that we don't and probably will never have answers to everything unlike theists who cling on to a made up answer given in some ancient fable
He just replaced the word god with the word physicist. That is literally all he did. No reason, no debate, no explanation and no logic. When he is challenged on this by Piers Morgan or Mehdi Hassan, he goes 'you guys don't get it' or 'you are fools'
true lol
Facts and it’s crazy how he says this, but don’t got 100% proof to even back anything up.
You don't get it either.
Richard is smart enough to know there are things he isn't an expert on to speak about with any authority ... piers asserts conclusions like a fool who's accepted the first thing that makes sense to him cause he's not clever enough to understand the objections.
If the paradigm they're discussing is of "time" beginning at the moment of the big bang and 'before' means the time prior to time ... what possible sense does that make, What was the time before time began??
If Piers wasn't such a moron he could have asked what was present at the moment of the big bang to cause the universe to begin ... Piers would say God and Richard would answer honestly he doesn't know and to go ask a physicist if you want more information on what we do know about the origins of the universe but that at the moment it's ultimately a mystery, and not one solved by inserting a sky daddy.
Why would a TV personality and a biologist be debating the mathematics and science behind a cosmological model of the universe? Do either of them understand concepts like general relativity, the Friedmann equations, nucleosynthesis, or particle physics? It's fine to be skeptical of science and question experts, but if you're going to keep arguing without admitting you don’t know much about it, that’s just dumb.
@@Caseous703 So zero=one.. thankyou 🤡
All the precursors for proteins and nucleic acids have been found in space, on asteroids and comets. It's not totally unknown.
There is a relatively large minimal gene set that needs to exist for an organism to self-replicate successfully, and you cannot evolve from no gene set, to a relatively large gene set. Stop hiding from reality.
but nothing is know of how they those precursors were put together in a functional way. The more we learn the more it exposes complexity.
James tour
Lei precursors of protein are amino acids
Amino acids are only made by fully functioning DNA inside complete cell with all its machinery nothing can exist before the other
Which means cell nucleus DNA cell membrane and those proteins coexisted the same time
@@patrickthomas2119 it wasn't "put there." The universe is a veritable soup of all sorts of ingredients for forming whatever the phenomenology of the universe can gather and generate through natural processes over billions and billions of years.
Do you know the vastness and depth of what just 1 billion years is?
The level of patience...jesus christ, Richard deserves the Nobel Prize of Patience
Actually, Stephen meyer has phds in both philosophy of science as well as physics.
So no qualification in biology then.
@SuperEdge67 philosophy of science covers nearly all the areas with deep critical analysis. Being that it's a PhD His knowledge of biology is far deeper than normal biologist. He also is a professor and I'm curious on if biology is something he has taught being that in one podcast appearance at least he's talked about lab work.
@@BillyBulletPewPewa PhD philosopher can have zero understanding of biology. They are two entirely different disciplines.
@mikhem1962 philosophy of Science. Not just philosophy. Do you have a degree in this field? If not by your own metric you're not qualified to have an opinion; no?
@@BillyBulletPewPew ‘his knowledge of biology is far deeper than a normal biologist’…………NO!!!!!!