UC Berkeley Q&A (1/2) - Richard Dawkins
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 18 ส.ค. 2008
- RichardDawkins.net - see more videos like this
On Saturday, March 8th, 2008, Richard Dawkins gave a lecture on The God Delusion during his US Tour. The event took place on the UC Berkeley campus in Wheeler Auditorium, and was completely sold out. A line of hopeful attendees stretched around the side of the building, waiting to see if there would be any 'no-show' tickets at the last minute! This is the Q&A session after the lecture.
Produced by The Richard Dawkins Foundation and R. Elisabeth Cornwell
Camera by Josh Timonen and Wayne Marsala
Edited by Josh Timonen - วิทยาศาสตร์และเทคโนโลยี
![[LIVE] : ONE ลุมพินี 72 วันนี้!! คู่เอก "ก้องศึก vs โจอาคิม"](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/hT1EOSsRPac/mqdefault.jpg)
![เบิ้ล ปทุมราช - อ้ายกินดอง น้องลาบงัว ft. สแน็ก อัจฉรีย์ [OFFICIAL MV]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/-OK--KaSPcI/mqdefault.jpg)
The lecture itself was great. The Q&A was great. Nice one RD.
Thankyou, I'll look for that. I like the meme analysis, its very interesting, and explains a lot as far as beliefs and traditions go.
Hammer, nail head - brilliant observation.
sorry to dig up your post here but i was just wondering, which basis do you use to support this guarantee? if you can say for 100 percent certain that jesus will come back, there must be something the rest of us are all missing
Yes, thanks for venting someone else's opinion ATBINTC, can you please provide a point.
Examples please.
My first paragraph is a reference to a comment I made two months ago. If you go back a page and look at it, you will find my name, but the comment is unreadable because it received 7 "thumbs down." Of those 7, only one articulated a response...an erroneous response.
You have equated motives and opinions with physical interacting parts. Surely you see the invalidity.
@spotlitkiss sometimes i believe his charm comes from his britishness.. then again liam gallagher is also british :P
i guess it's a mixture of his dedicated appearance and the high brow humour he often employs
@tharemedybeats No worship involved, just admiration.
Like Guts said before sending the fanatical priest Mozgus into oblivion; "if you see your god; tell him to leave me the hell alone!" (Berserk - Conviction Arc ^^)
Speculation is what sums up Dawkins beliefs. To assume an intelligent Designer/Creator/God cannot know what we are doing is complete nonsense. The Universe alone shows how great and powerful the Creator is. The fact that the Creator made such a vast variety of life on earth shows that He is intimately acquainted with our physical realm and our existence. Don't think for a moment that the Creator made things and just let them go do whatever they wanted without His knowledge.
He forgives us when we repent and turn away from our sinful activities. And that is after punishment has been dispensed. BTW, Is me speaking up considered indefensibly obscene behavior? Just a question.
Yup, i'd be all "12-year-old-girl-meeting-Orlando-Bloom" on him. Or maybe id be like "Hihihihi you're Richard Dawkins! I like fish!"
Can i buy your hand? You know, if you're not using it..
I want to meet Dawkins so badly -_-
Dawkins was simply letting people know that it was his personal impression as a non-American that religious indoctrination was the main reason for home schooling. He asked the American audience to explain what other possibilities there were. Given that the answers did not contain enough depth to impart understanding, he submitted that he could not answer the question with such limited understanding from a foreigner's viewpoint. :/
"What makes you think that Human being will even be around in 4 billion years?"
Yeah, given life's track record here on Earth (which is a damn nice place to live, but I'm pretty biased), all species go extinct eventually.
The universe is a pretty violent place.
I've just realized my comment has been rated out of existence. Apparently no room for dissent in the church of atheism. I didn't realize I was commenting on such hallowed ground.
Anyway kyagh, the issue I was raising is that when scientists point out that things develop from simple to complex, they are necessarily working with a definition of complex that God does not fit. By Dawkin's very own definition, God is irreducibly simple.
I'm using HIS definition, sir. Take it up with Richy.
"haha if god is simple...hes equal to a plant "
I don't think he said, "plant." Sounded like "Plank's Constant"
So how then can you draw a conclusion based on our comparatively small knowledge base that God doesn't exist? it's like asking a Dog to explain his master(a human). The dog walks on four legs...all his dog friends walk on four legs, so therefore according to Dog-logic their must be no way a two-legged being can exist. If you can accept the idea that humans are flawed and dont know everything about the world then how can you conclude that it wasn't created by someone more powerful than you?
The idea of the word supernatural is that it is above the natural order of things. it means that no matter what natural ideas or equations you use you can never define it. it's above your very thinking lvl! I apologize for my fellow christinas who have spoken stupidly or without thinking straight. I apologize for those christinas who won't speak up against this growing belief in a God-less World. I hope you learn that there is a God and that he created this very amazing place we call home.
you don't see atoms or evolving animals either but you believe those don't ya?
It really boils down to ppl not wanting to submit to a higher power...that maybe they aren't in control of their lives.
Funny how you asserted your belief without presenting any piece of evidence.
Me too, but I'm afraid I would go all stupid and girlie groupie on him! I'm not sure that's appropriate way to approach a professor...but aaaaah what the hell "SQUEEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAAAAAL!!!!!!!!!!!!"
Define nice? who's standard are you basing your niceness against? Our entire moral conscience comes from the fact that God created us and we will always be placed against him on judgment day. What you fail to understand is that people can never explain God. Never.You can try explaining him according to how we can explain other things (i.e. science) with mathematics and physics but we don't know everything right?
The same trolls who organize field trips to watch Ben Stein's creationist schlock, "Expelled."
NO - homeschooling is NOT just about religious indoctrination!
Do you want children to learn economics?
Do you want children to learn history?
Do you want children to learn reason?
By the way, the meme complex idea is a profound way to explain why stupid things go on for long periods of time.
3:00ff - "How could anybody seriously suggest that such a being...could possibly be simple?"
Mr Dawkin's definition of complex: "something that has parts that are arranged in a way that is unlikely to have arisen by chance alone." (BlindWatchMaker)
By your own definition, Mr. Dawkins, God is NOT complex. And yet you're the one asking how anyone could possibly think such a thing.
You, Mr. Dawkins, are so thoroughly gifted at knocking down strawmen. Just be careful for the ricochet.
Sure. I am selling it on ebay. Make a bid. :P
captyour:
It's Dawkins defintion of "complex" that I am using.
It is classical theism's definition of "god" that I am using.
Classical theism's understanding of "god" (which is what Dawkins is attacking) is irreducibly simple by Dawkin's definition of "complex."
Thus his diatribe at 2:25 is refuted by his own definition of complex. The only thing "utterly preposterous" is the number of people who claim to be so intelligent while so blindly lauding Dawkins for his good arguments.
captyour,
This is the issue has to do with you walking into the middle of a conversation, the beginning of which has been made unreadable by fundamentalist atheists who cannot tolerate dissent.
I gave Dawkin's defnition of complex from "The Blind Watchmaker" and pointed out how the classical theistic concept of God is irreducibly simple by the definition he offers in that book.
The definition of complex Dawkins is working with in the video is not the least bit scientific...(cont'd)
500$ or the equal in your currency! I would seriously pay that if you wanted to give off your hand :P
...it is simply him saying, "Well, if a being can do such things then he must be complex."
If Dawkins is working with his own personal, subjective, non-scientific defintion of complex, then there is no reason for us to think that his argument is anything more than his own personal subjective non-scientific musings on the subject. In which case, he could just as well be telling us whether or not he likes bananas.
If he's using a scientific definition of complex, then God is simple.
Funny that the moral sense with which Jehovah supposedly endowed me leaves me so profoundly disgusted with his indefensibly obscene behavior (have you read the old testament?).
I am I nice guy because I feel empathy; I feel empathy because when I see sentient beings suffer this triggers certain patterns of neuronal activity in my prefrontal cortext.
"This video has a low rating because it makes a fool out of Atheism."
3-and-a-half stars isn't *that* low.. I'm more inclined to believe it isn't higher because it's just boring.
I am pro-atheism, but I only gave it 4 stars..
Meme :)
Slightly off subject........Who was that Asian girl? She was hot!!
cool, 'selfish memes'
haha if god is simple...hes equal to a plant
ha christianity is a meme
Dawkins was simply letting people know that it was his personal impression as a non-American that religious indoctrination was the main reason for home schooling. He asked the American audience to explain what other possibilities there were. Given that the answers did not contain enough depth to impart understanding, he submitted that he could not answer the question with such limited understanding from a foreigner's viewpoint. :/