Dr. David Berlinski: Human Nature
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 23 ม.ค. 2023
- A conversation between David Berlinski and Socrates in the City host Eric Metaxas regarding Dr. Berlinski's recent book "Human Nature."
David Berlinski received his Ph.D. in philosophy from Princeton University and was later a postdoctoral fellow in mathematics and molecular biology at Columbia University. He has authored works on systems analysis, differential topology, theoretical biology, analytic philosophy, and the philosophy of mathematics, and three novels. He has taught philosophy, mathematics and English at Stanford, Rutgers, the City University of New York and the Université de Paris. David is the author of many books including the bestselling book The Devil’s Delusion: Atheism and Its Scientific Pretensions. Dr. Berlinski lives in Paris, France.
This event took place at the Union League Club in New York City in November 2022. Learn more about Socrates in the City at socratesinthecity.com. - บันเทิง
I can't get enough of David! Thank you SITC for having him on again!!
Agree
Not me. He was so passive in the discussion and shared almost nothing from his book on Human Nature. He spent most of the time criticizing Mr Metaxas' arguments. I watch almost all of the SITC events and find this one of the worst.
Have you ever tried listening to people who actually know what they're talking about?
@@mcmanustony have you ever tried not being ghey?
Read his “The Devil’s Delusion” book, outstanding
Berlinski’s mind is truly impressive. Thank you for sharing his thoughts in this magnificent forum
Especially impressive given that he is 81 years old, and seemingly as sharp as ever.
@@viktordoe1636 sharp enough to confuse actor Donald Sutherland with Donald Sunderland, whoever the hell that is, while trying and failing to refer to PROFESSOR JOHN SUTHERLAND FRS. Despite failing to get his name right TWICE, Berlinski would like to believe the ludicrous idea that he’s in a position to rate SUTHERLAND as a synthetic chemist.
Berlinski raises one question only: how does this preening, pretentious fraud get away with it?
@@viktordoe1636 he’d like you to believe he is also a world class mathematician. His one attempt to discuss advanced mathematics on YT is a comedic train wreck.
A clueless, pompous buffoon and nothing more.
@@viktordoe1636 when was he ever sharp? In what subject?
@@mcmanustony
Hey Berlinski fanboy!
Berlinski has the most eloquent way of saying "I don't know and neither does anyone else. "
He's usually wrong about the second bit.
@@mcmanustony
True, Muslims know!
@@rcmysm9123 Muslims know what?
@@mcmanustony
What David doesn't know and the truth about what he's wrong about anyone else knowing.
Basically what you said.
Eric tries hard with Berlinski toward the end, to get him to put forth his worldview, and I have wondered the very same thing about him. Berlinski has always referred to himself as a secular Jew. He has basically argued for ID and against materialism for most of his career, but has never found "compelling evidence" that would demand he adopt at least a philosophical commitment to a designing intelligence. I find that odd as well. I can't help but think that's simply a choice Berlinski has made. That Metaxas is respectfully frustrated by that is a feeling I share as well. Very delicate job of exploring that, Eric. Your visits are wonderful, and I hope to be in the audience one day.
I didn't know he was a secular Jew but I had a strong feeling that he was, after viewing this. They have some of the most hardened hearts toward any notion of a Creator than any other group of people I have ever seen. Perhaps due to things like the Holocaust.
Yes, Berlinski is obviously brilliant and sometimes eloquent, but he does seem kind of like a dilettante----a man who likes to play with ideas as though they were toys, without ever being willing to really take a stand or make a commitment.
Can’t wait. He’s great. Agnostic who doubts Darwin. I pray he comes to Jesus soon. 🙏🏼🙏🏼🙏🏼
As I also do.
He's SOOO close.
Berlinski believes me thinks more than he admits..just a thought
@@jdgarnant I fear his pride would prevent him from admitting it
AHA!!! Eric calling David out on his "coyness" about God!
I love David Berlinski's intelligence and dry sense of humour. It's always a good interview, but I wonder if you can be so intelligent that you miss the simple truth
I think humans can be so complicated, they can also miss the simplest & the basic.
Critical thinking without critical conclusions.
What exactly is he any good at?
As much as I like him, I can't tell if he just doesn't like Eric, or feels a mild contempt for Eric's effort to steer him toward something. He seems overly argumentative, like he's bored and wants to lord it over someone who's not so clever, just because he can.
@@jameseverett4976 What is Berlinski any good at?
His academic "career" was a disaster and he's published nothing in the professional literature of any branch of any science at any time..
Why do conservatives drone on and on and on about how clever he is? He can't even distinguish actor Donald Sutherland....and the completely imaginary Donald Sunderland....from British chemist and origins researcher JOHN SUTHERLAND FRS.
I hope he is well and in good health. Clear thinking defeats all nonsense.
What is he any good at?
@@mcmanustony Puncturing the shell of pride that surrounds academia and that, as a result, makes the truth so hard to find.
... and can often give rise to riotous laughter, we're a ridiculous bunch, humans 🖐️🤣
@@mcmanustonyHe's excellent at living.
If I could ask David Berlinski one question it would be in response to something he said at *The Hoover Institution* in one of many interviews he's done with Peter Robinson over the years in which he quoted Blaise Pascal's assertion that there is a God (Jesus) shaped vacuum in the heart of anyone and said that his vacuum must be small because he doesn't feel the void.
My question is this: "Sociopaths lack empathy and feeling but intellectually they understand and recognize what is true and what is right. So surely it is not a compelling argument to say you don't feel the void? Because intellectually you do in fact recognize that chaos and randomness and accidents cannot account for the origin of the universe or for the origin of life and it's grandeur and complexity."
You've only spent your entire life talking about the impossibility of darwinian evolution functioning "as is", as well as the human condition being more than ultimately procreation and survival, and you have recognized the catastrophic consequences of secularism on the world in the 20th and 21st century. Surely it is self-evident to you and if it is indeed self-evident to you then sir you are not an agnostic. You have made a move from your position and need to acknowledge that.
Jesus Christ Almighty God bless you all
Believing in God the creator is in my opinion rational, due in part to the irrationality of the Darwinian evolution theory.
Believing that Jesus is God or Messiah is completely absurd.....
@@scout2469 I can see not believing it, but why is it 'absurd'?
While I don't believe in Leprechauns, I don't see the idea as absurd. Mainly because the internet was 'absurd' as recently as the 70s.
And photography was absurd in the 1700's. A 'square circle' would be absurd, but if you use such a word for anything you think is just not walking around presently, it's like using the word "awesome" when your kid makes a mediocre drawing.
@@jameseverett4976 I used the word absurd to describe it as being illogical.
Perhaps I was exaggerating.
I value Dr. Berlinski’s bringing into relief the egregious fallacy of scientistic folk (like Steven Weinberg) faulting religion as the source of good people doing evil. Need more bullies like Berlinski.
Looking forward. I like how Eric has a varied and broad range of guests.
What on earth are you talking about? He has almost exclusively conservative and religious guests. Berlinski is not religious- I'd bet my house he's an atheist- but playing the part for ignorant American Christians keeps him in nice suits....
I would love to see Berlinski and John Lennox discuss the origins of life.
Try to raise your standards. Here's the great "intellectual" on one of the leading researchers in Origin of Life
Berlinski- "James Tour thinks Donald Sutherland is a great synthetic chemist"
Metaxas- "Who?"
Berlinski- "Donald Sunderland"
Metaxas- "I thought you said Donald Sutherland"- [he did say Donald Sutherland]
Berlinski - "Donald Sunderland"
He is trying, and failing, to refer to JOHN SUTHERLAND FRS who has established plausible prebiotic synthesis of RNA nucleotides.
What would two glorified maths teachers know about the origin of life?
@@derhafia mathematical probability of molecules self assembly.
I knoooww😂....it would be mind blowing
Trolls everywhere😅
Berlinski is a true intellectual! I don’t always agree with what he thinks but I always listen with great pleasure and interest! A truly intelligent person!
What is he any good at?
"A truly intelligent person!"- he's a pretentious poseur and nothing more.
@@mcmanustony He ought to be right up your alley, then.
@@timducote5713 Based on what? Your inability to address the facts about Berlinski's pretension?
Grow up.
@@mcmanustony I think "pretentious poseur" is an adequate description of your remarks that you deem necessary to include on nearly everyone's post. I've read a couple of Berlinski's books and have walked away with something to think about. Your comments? Not so much.
So glad to see David Berlinski again on Socrates in the city.
Why?
Just to annoy you
“All metaphors are false; all similes are true.”
I was hoping he would elaborate on that. I couldn’t quite discern his epistemic point but I really wish I were able to.
Wow. DAVID Berlinski. Long time since I've heard him!
When you have someone of Berlinski’s stature on, you should be prudent enough to shut up and let him have the floor, and ask small questions and allow him to expound.
Yeah, the whole thing was so frustrating to watch. What a waste
@@Melkor3001 I even feel sorry for that guy, he shouldn’t even be on stage with Berlinski. But he got him on, just be prudent and let him talk, and ask a few general questions, and let the audience have questions.
" someone of Berlinski’s stature "- a failed academic who pays the bills lying about scientists and sneering for money.
@@mcmanustony it seems you could apply your quote to yourself by simply removing the 'for money' part
@@lukesturgess8190 Regarding your other, possibly wisely deleted, comment.
Mathematics? Berlinski?? He has contributed precisely nothing to any branch of any science at any time. That includes mathematics. He has a basic bachelors degree and nothing more- some pretentious, godawful pop books, riddled with errors, that have two things in common: they are full of pompous prose where Berlinski tries to show off rather than illuminate, and they are all out of print.
There is one video on TY where he tries to discuss advanced mathematics (The Riemann Hypothesis) and it's a train wreck of hysterical proportions: he waffles about the nature of "conjecture" missing entirely the significance of "HYPOTHESIS", misidentifies the branch of mathematics involved (number theory), drops the painfully cultured and irrelevant nugget that poor tragic Riemann died at the same age as poor tragic Schubert (they didn't 31=/=39), totally mangles the statement of the RH, throws around technical terms the actual meaning of which he's long forgotten if he ever knew, drops some utter nonsense about proofs being submitted and not agreed upon (this is 100% false)....and then offers his weighty opinion that the RH is true. He can't even state the thing but he thinks it's true!! So, no- mathematics isn't it.
Logic? You can't be serious.....
Philosophy: he wrote a thesis on Wittgenstein 50 odd years ago. It has has ZERO impact on scholarship on poor tragic Ludwig. He failed to find an academic job as a philosopher and his peer reviewed output seems to consist of one short note 50 years ago on WVO Quine. So, he's as significant in philosophy as he is in Swedish Death Metal.
If you are genuinely curious about what I'm good at all you have to do is click your mouse. I've been a professional musician for 30 years. My career has not depended on posturing and lying about my betters, unlike Berlinski's. I don't need to lie about associations with more famous peers, as Berlinski does. I continue to teach at several universities around the world and have never been fired- unlike Berlinski.
Before making a living in music I was doing research in mathematics. I've worked in the subject at a far higher level than DB- unlike him I can actually point to original work in pure mathematics- and can therefore spot a mile off that he's a pretentious fraud with an ego visible from space.
Try to raise your standards.
David Berlinski is always provocative and often interesting. In this interview, he leaned heavily toward the former. Rare that I dial out Socrates 1/3 of the way in, but I did tonight.
Felt the same
Same here
Jousting that keeps flipping into convoluted resistance and flexing. A wrestling match where Berlinski uses illegal holds. Frustrating.
Same
You are dead on. He was not the intellect in this interview that I came to respect after reading his books and listening to past lectures. I witnessed a mind in decline. So sad.
Metaxas & Berlinski... I hit like and then watch and then wish I could hit like again.
To anyone complaining about the argument towards the ends where Metaxas (admirably) attempts to compel Berlinski into the faith- mourn the result, and learn from the process.
@@adamsmith-wi3qg Metaxas reminded me of this:
Hannibal Lecter: Ah, yes, Dr. Chilton. Gruesome, isn't he? Fumbles at your head like a freshman at a panty girdle.
What is Berlinski any good at?
@@mcmanustony his CV would indicate that he's good at writing, teaching and speaking about mathematics, philosophy and religion.
@@mcmanustony Annoying you?
5:01 "Devil's Delusion" : I lent this book to a school teacher, who never returned it to me. I miss that book.
Very, very good to see David in public again.
Why?
I hope Eric entertains us with another extended, hilarious introduction!
Very elated these are being made again
I told berlinski what you said and got a response: "who tha fooq is that guy?"
@@brandonmacey964 DAAAANNAAAAA!
Funny to see Eric get a bit uncomfortable
“As long as people believe in government, wars will never end.”
― Larken Rose
“We started off trying to set up a small anarchist community, but people wouldn't obey the rules.” ― Alan Bennett
There will always be wars.
David Berlinski is truly one of the most talented writers alive today. I have listened to his audiobook The devil's delusion about four times and I've read it cover to cover twice it is one of my favorite books of all time it is so so good and this new book I bought also on the Kindle version I was hoping they would have an audiobook version also of this book I will buy it if they would put it out.
"David Berlinski is truly one of the most talented writers alive today"- odd that his books are almost entirely out of print.
@@mcmanustony you may be right, I should rather have said I'm a fan of his work and in particular his style of skepticism, which is very unique. His writing dialed right in to me, it resonated powerfully. I'm a fan, that's all.
@@EricJohnsa He’s a failed academic with bills to pay. He does this by pandering to the Christian right in the US who will lap up his nonsense regarding evolution and his repulsive sneering at scientists. This isn’t scepticism.
@@EricJohnsa
on the existence of god: I’m an agnostic.
On the theory of evolution: I’m a agnostic (though his “critique would embarrass a child)
On intelligent design: I’m an agnostic- though he rather likes the welfare cheques from the “Discovery Institute “
On whether Wahhabism is preferable to atheism: it is not a question of compelling urgency - he’s an agnostic. Actually he was skewered by the question posed by Hitchens
On any question where he’d have to articulate and defend a position: I’m agnostic …..
He’s working up to taking a firm position on what day of the week it is, but for now he’s agnostic.
Not a form of scepticism I recognize.
@@mcmanustony thank you DawkinsBot 101. You seem to follow me everywhere on the internet where I leave a comment about this writer, lol. He is right to point out that the desperate adherents to the religion of atheism are quick to cling to something that answers to the name of science.
Rare interview, love this dude
What is he any good at?
Berlinski- "James Tour thinks Donald Sutherland is a great synthetic chemist"
Metaxas- "Who?"
Berlinski- "Donald Sunderland"
Metaxas- "I thought you said Donald Sutherland"- [he did]
Berlinski - "Donald Sunderland"
He is trying, and failing, to refer to JOHN SUTHERLAND FRS who has established plausible prebiotic synthesis of RNA nucleotides.
How in the name of sanity does anyone become convinced that that pompous, vacuous fraud Berlinski is some class of intellectual?
This conversation is a good example of the enigma of human nature.
I love David Berlinski, but at some point it just becomes obvious, he doesn't _want_ to believe in God.
Romans 1:22 KJV
[22] Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
1 Corinthians 3:18-19 KJV
[18] Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you seemeth to be wise in this world, let him become a fool, that he may be wise. [19] For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness.
Very sadly, I can only conclude that Berlinski is not included in the elect. So, no amount of persuasion can change his hardened heart towards the gospel.
Even the obvious isn’t acceptable to him.
Romans 1:20 KJV
[20] For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
He's taken the cowerds road!!!!!yet I have some limited respect for him!!!!! Jesus is lord and that will never change!!!
I'm also a pretty big fan of Jesus Claus.@@WilliamMartinez-vq2bn
It's like he has half the gift of discernment. Able to see and critique bad science and unattenable theories, yet unable (or unwilling) to go where things like intelligent design.seem to lead to..a creator.
Both Eric and David are brilliantly funny. Thanks for this conversation, it has helped me.
What with?
I just randomly searched for him because I had an inkling that he has made a new interview and there he is
Dr. David’s wisdom, clarity and courage effortlessly purges nonsense and preserves truth for all eternity.
What courage is involved in a failed academic sneering at scientists working in fields he's never studied?
@@mcmanustony Failed academic? This from a guy who bombed out of grad school.
@@Jim-mn7yq Here’s a comprehensive list of all academic institutions from which I’ve been fired.
1.
Dr. David Berlinski is always a super fun listen.
If I could have any superpower, I would pick Berlinski’s sarcasm…
I have read one of Berlinski's books and I have listened to several hours of his interviews and I agreed with much of what he wrote and said and I have a quite respectable IQ but for the life of me I cannot remember ONE THING from all that.
A living legend. ✨🕊
In what sense? He’s contributed nothing to any of the areas of scholarship where he feigns authority and outside of the right wing Christian circuit in the US he’s totally unknown.
What is he any good at?
Working backwards, he obviously lives in your head rent free!!!
It seems to me that the "premise to the argument" Eric stumbled over (1:03) and failed to provide Dr. Berlinski's now philosophically theological question is recognizing and appreciating the historical distinctions and nuances between "Divine Revelation vs. Paganism" moving into discussions of God-revealed religion versus man-made religions including man's failures to live up to revealed morality.
First-time viewer, so thanks for the great interview.
"I don't see the merit of the compulsion" - 'tis quite a stunning line
Without God to begin with, nothing can be defined, only insanity and confusion.
I am praying for his salvation.
It makes me warm and fuzzy inside to see Berlinski force metaxas to confront his own internal bias, just because he can. Berlinksi is the greatest.
Mr. Metaxas found himself with an original mind on stage where his taken aback by answers he did not know what to do with surprises us once or twice until it becomes almost embarrassing and the interview stands as a lost opportunity.
Very well put. I kept wondering how to describe this.
Eric was not feeling well.
My brother is tops in his field,but as his lawyer told him,I have no business in your field,you have no business in mine.
Hugh Ross is tops in his field,David would be completely lost in his field,and the same would be true if Ross goes into David's field.
Any fool would know this.
"What a piece of work is man"
The lack of precision defining “species” within the theory of evolution has always bothered me. Grateful to hear I am not crazy and that Darwin concluded there really is no such thing if the theory is true.
I get the feeling at about minute 1:04:00 1:05:00 the word Eric Metaxas is failing to summon is Beauty.
Eric is really a sharp dresser. If he ever ceases to be an intellectual, he can be a fashion designer. Shallow comment I know.
Glad I was here to see Berlinski's last appearance on SITC.
I doubt it.
3:01 I say those kind of 'mixed up' things almost all the time; But, my family understands them all pretty well!
45:57 All the Laws of Heaven and Earth comment. Singularly fantastic.
This is great, but it ended just as it got real.
I hope you can have him back and continue this last subject of faith.
He says you haven’t compelled me……
Metaxas rightly asked/challenged David to clarify on transitional progression .. in essence macro or micro viable?
Puzzled but well worth the time.
It seems like Eric is talking more than David is, but it's not clear if it's Eric's fault.
Eric's at his best when he's the only one doing the talking. Thete's no struggle to be the center of attention. He's already there.
Eric's talks on Os Guinness's theory of the "Golden Triangle of Freedom", and on the related idea of American exceptualism, have greatly enhanced my understanding of the history of my country.
The question should have been asked of Dr Berlinski, "Do you consider your life a gift?" If so, "Where does that gift come from?"
I sadly have only recently started really to discovered who he actually was. I heard his name for years,.,. But wow, I cannot get enough of him now. He's absolutely brilliant and fascinating, .but also genuine, and realistic and has a great sense of humor. But i just kick myself for not knowing him way earlier in my life. I might have made the decision to go to college and study physics and geology.. and we've only got a few more years of him. And if you haven't seen it yet. The video i first saw him in.., , is called "Mathematical Challenges to Darwin’s Theory of Evolution" along David Galernter, and Dr. Steven Meyer.The whole discussion is fascinating and blows evolutionary theory that claims of long term radom or natural selection changing one species into a completely new species out o the water..
"Mathematical Challenges to Darwin’s Theory of Evolution" in which a non mathematician interviews three non mathematicians who present no mathematical challenges to anything- comments disabled of course.
Speciation has been observed repeatedly. The three non biologists are wrong.
So are you.
@@mcmanustony Of course, your a musician I presume, that probably didn't actually even watch 3 of the smartest scientists in their fields, completely destroy the mathematical probability of Darwins Theory.. Now if you've got some details that prove they're wrong and Darwins right... THE WORLD would really like to hear them.. Evolutionists especially..
@@scooteranthony6297 Its "you're".
Take a seat
Yes, I'm a professional musician. Prior to my current career I was doing research in mathematics at the University of Exeter after my masters at The University of Glasgow where I'm invited back to present a talk on mathematics and music. I'll send you the details.
Berlinski has lied that he has a PhD in mathematics. He has no such degree and doesn't remember much of the bachelors he actually has. He is not and never has been a mathematician.
I have heard him once try to discuss advanced mathematics. It was a comedic train wreck of cosmic proportions: pretentious drivel about the Riemann Hypothesis - where he waffled endlessly about the nature of "conjecture"- stuff that could have been said in one sentence. He failed to mention HYPOTHESIS: the crucial, relevant notion being that there is a HUGE body of work predicated on the RH being true- but unproven.
He then droned on and on about poor tragic Riemann dying at the same age as poor tragic Schubert- they didn't as 31=/= 39 but how painfully cultured he sounded. Irrelevant tripe.
"it is a problem in complex function theory"- WRONG it involves a complex function, the Riemann zeta function, but the RH has implications for the distribution of the primes- it is a problem in NUMBER THEORY.
He then talks about "the upper half plane"....misremembering some pop account of Wiles' proof of Fermat's Last Theorem- a TOTALLY different problem. Modular forms, involved in FLT, are defined on the upper half plane. The zeta function is defined on *C*\{1}.
"either the zeroes line up on a pole"....WHAAAAT??? A "pole" in complex analysis is a singularity, a POINT. Nothing lines up on a pole. The zeta function has a pole at 1 corresponding to the divergence of the harmonic series, the LINE involved is Re(z)=1/2 which he fails to mention- as he hasn't a fucking clue.
".....or they are all over the place..." illustrated with wild arm gestures. The fact is that ALL the nontrivial zeroes are known to lie within a tiny strip of Re(z)=1/2. The RH states that they are all ON the line.
We are then informed that a couple of proofs are being considered but not agreed on. This is rubbish. The last serious candidate was Atiyah's and a flaw was found quickly.
Pretentious, pompous horseshit....delivered with an ego fit for a mediaeval pope and all the arrogance of the true, polished fraud. His academic career was a disaster with him failing to find a full time job anywhere and being routinely fired from one temp assistant gig after another. He has published NOTHING in the research literature of any branch of any science at any time.
You should note: proving the Riemann Hypothesis is regarded as the biggest unsolved problem in pure mathematics.
The smartest scientists in this field would be: Terry Tao, Jacob Lurie, Peter Scholz.....not some narcissistic wanker with nice cufflinks.
Berlinski lacks the knowledge to have a mathematical objection to anything. Try to raise your standards.
You fail to address the fact that speciation has been observed repeatedly.
Have you ever considered the option of learning about biology by listening to ....y'know....BIOLOGISTS?
@@mcmanustony speciation within the same species is the only thing that is observable, which is not disputed because it STAYs the same species.. A bird, is still bird, a frog is still a frog.. a fish is still a fish... etc.. . there is not one shred of proof of changing from one species.to completely different and distinct species. . Say a dog to a cat.. or an Ape to a man.. And also, it has never been observed unless there's been someone around, maybe you,, for 100's of millions years to observe it. Just the ever narrowing window of the Cambrian explosion was enough for even Darwin to realized while he still alive (which was then thought to be only 70 million years) that the mathematical possibility of his theory was in deep trouble. Now that window has been narrowed to between 10 and 23 million years.. Which pretty much ends the debate as for as true Scientists are concerned.. like these.. Darwins Theory takes more faith than creation ever did..But it's blind faith.. .. The more true science that is done... The more God's creation is being revealed.. Oh and btw.. Speaking of Biologists.. Ask any Biologists now where life begins.. They'll tell now without hesitating.. At Conception.. The science proved God right again... Which is why the Pro-Abortion movement doesn't used that argument anymore... They use the right to privacy now..
cant think of a sharper funnier human public intellectual
What exactly is he any good at? His attempt at an academic career was a disaster and his book are out of print. What’s his field of expertise?
Still awaiting some indication of what this "intellectual" is good at....
Very bright and humble man!
David Berlinksi is a lot of things - and I have always enjoyed his interviews - but humble ain't one of them, haha.
@@magnuscroify Got you! But I think, deep inside he is in a good terms with reality, for the lack of a better term. Anyway, he gives “hope” to those “science disbelievers”.
But to be technical, the fossil record only can show us what forms existed at some point T. They can not speak to transitions. As we can not know if something actually transitioned to something else. We have only wishful speculations, which have been shown to be very wrong with many proposed transition time-lines. I am not even sure DNA could tell you this 100%. As we have no real way to sure about transition from one to the next.
Anyone have any idea where I can listen to that radio interview that they were discussing
Culture vs people. Eric, thanks for showing Berlinski his flaw in his logic. Well done.
What flaw?
@BugMateo The fact that he didn't separate people from culture. Culture has an historical development. People have a biological one.
So sharp at any age. But remarkable at 81.
So very very sharp.....as a brick.
"Berlinski- "James Tour thinks Donald Sutherland is a great synthetic chemist"
Metaxas- "Who?"
Berlinski- "Donald Sunderland"
Metaxas- "I thought you said Donald Sutherland"- [he did]
Berlinski - "Donald Sunderland"
He is trying, and failing, to refer to JOHN SUTHERLAND FRS who has established plausible prebiotic synthesis of RNA nucleotides.
How in the name of sanity does anyone become convinced that that pompous, vacuous fraud Berlinski is some class of intellectual?
He's 81. Everyone does that. Grandma called my brother uncle Marlowe
Keep your mind active this scientific Lent between Eric Metaxas in debate/discussion.❤😊 Thanks
As Stephen Mayer has put it once about Mr. Berlinski "the Jewish uncle I always wished"!
That was stimulating.
More stimulating that listening to people who actually know what they're talking about?
Was that Marisa Tomei at 12.30sec?
Stats can always be manipulated, and they usually are.
I think a keen sense of it.
Time is not on Berlinski's side. He's a stones throw away and the God he evades will be as clear as the staff he waggles.
💯
Unfortunately, you're so very right.
Discussion about homicide rate, the middle ages, and the parameters, my idea is there were more wars, and barbarians in this age generally. Not sure if our current murder rate is lower even considering the population of the country. However, factor in the last 2 great wars, are those considered murder, or war crimes? Interesting to consider.
Design infers a designer. I think that is what you were trying to phrase to Dr. Berlinski
Berlinski is an honest thinker, a contented skeptic. He does not have that sick impatience for glory of dishonest thinkers to claim the Truth of all Truths! He is cool with letting big questions remain open to further examination. The other speaker cannot understand this skepticism, this way of "processing", of handling two alternatives with balance: Maybe the universe is a self-created thing, maybe there is a cosmic intelligence, Berlinski remains urgeless and honest, he does not discard either.
Yes, that’s a good observation, but it could be to his detriment if he stays this way as he breathes his last- he May fare no better than Christopher Hitchens
What is he any good at?
@@mcmanustony Hahaha I think I understand your point. Is it because he's just written popular scientific books? I think he is good at representing skepticism in the front of the battle of ideas between unphilosophical people. Take Hitchens or Dawkins or Steven Pinker. They are not pursuers of truth, they are not thinkers, they are merely authorities who represent cultural positions on philosophical questions. In which Berlinski is the representation of skepticism, which I like.
Shorter introductions please .
David is one of the most intelligent and most skeptical people I've ever listened to. He's the living definition of an agnostic it seems...
Intelligent enough to be fired from a succession of part time teaching assistant jobs at various colleges? Intelligent enough to pose as an authority on subjects he knows next to nothing about?
He’s not a sceptic. He’s a failed academic with bills to pay which he does pandering to the science denying religious right in the US.
Metaxas trying to pin down Berlinski’s beliefs reminded me of this Hannibal Lecter line:
Ah, yes, Dr. Chilton…. Gruesome, isn't he? Fumbles at your head like a freshman at a panty girdle.
Berlinski may have been suffering from jet lag, or indigestion
He's a powerful jew. Big brain. He needs that staff to hold up his balls.
great interview very stylish man
Shame about the lack of substance.
As much as I love Berlinksi, I found the host inadequate in holding a discussion in order get the best out of his guest.
But ordered complexity does suggest mind. Our options are limited here. If it can not be random, then some kind of mind sort of wins by default. At least if your placing probabilities. And we have to consider probabilities.
I find it curious that Mr Berlinski shies away from any argument advocating an intelligent source for the Universe. Then I realize he has status and standing with Orthodox scientists who would disown him for that.
Just a guess.
You just hit the nail on the head. He fears losing credibility because the bias in the so-called scientific community is ubiquitous. If you acknowledge the obvious signs of intelligence you are automatically designated a "creationist" and therefore have no "scientific "standing. The whole field is corrupt as the day is long.
Larry Taunton did quite well leveling Hitchens while becoming one of his true friends to the end...!
"The Lord can do nothing toward the recovery of man until, convinced of his own weakness, and stripped of all self-sufficiency, he yields himself to the control of God. From the soul that feels the need, nothing is withheld." EGW
The struggle of the interviewer from 1:00:00
Wonderful conversation
I appreciate Berlinski but could it be that he is caught up in worshipping his own great intellect instead of the one who gave it to him?
Yep, it's without doubt his pride.
28:34
"Letting those definitions slide and become elastic are we still prepared to say that the world that matters is the world of matter."
In a word of a layman, "We may discover new things about an orange, but does it mean that new information about an orange makes an orange no longer an orange."
The problem is caused by the failure to distinguish reality and its label.
1:00:00
This is the conclusion of his book sir, "The Human Nature", it mean humans are created to have sovereignty to decide whatever they want to decide, even if it is consequently to their harm and demise, like rejecting common sense, or God the creator.
What the Creator will is an invitation toward His creation that He created with the ability to accept or reject.
He'll keep those who accept and let go of those who reject the invitation.
Gin,
If we could clone Berlinski, he'd disagree with himself just for the sake of being a contrarian.
A terrific speaker ! Berlinski's not bad either.
Wasn't the interview supposed to be about Dr. Berlinski's latest work on human nature? Metaxas was all over the map with questions about the atheist-science community, intelligent design and evolution. I got lost in all the different topic detours by Metaxas, and felt the conversation got derailed from the main subject of Berlinski's book on human nature. This was not a good interview of Dr. Berlinski and sadly a missed opportunity by SITC. I got the sense Metaxas was trying too hard and out of his depth. I would've preferred a lecture on human nature from Dr. Berlinski instead.
What about an open debate with Dawkins and David!
If "supernatural" is anything we can not test or have tools for, then by definition, Materialism is based at root in the supernatural. As all material is fundamental energy in a coherent spin. And as we can have no tools to directly observe this, all Materialist are in fact based in the woo-woo. Yet they do not realize it or admit it. Interesting.
At time 43:30. Boswell put the question (of original sin) to Johnson……
If you hadn’t before been knocked off your chair by Dr Johnson, the remainder of this quote ought to do it. Zowie!
The interesting piece starts at 07:44.
Berlinski can hold an audience. They look almost spell bound. I noticed it when i realised i was probably doing the same watching him.
But i think Berlinski's U-turn about darwinism happens because he feels boxed in, that eric wont let him talk about new areas his been thinking about. 'Like you brought me here just to reaffirm what you want to hear'. Eric recovers after realising he needed to stroke his ego a bit.
Its subtle but i think thats what happens during 1st half of interview. But i could be wrong though.
That's a pretty good take. I wasn't sure I wanted to keep listening, due to David being a bit argumentative, and too complicated for me.
49:50 Berlinski] "For all of us it ends the same way..." The yawning grave.
Always good content but too many ads.
Get TH-cam Red. It's worth the $10/mo and you'll never see an ad again.
Or just get an ad blocker. They're free [at least whatever I have is].
@19:50-20:24: The reptile and turtle kingdoms cannot stop laughing at man's stupidity with the "Trans" idea. God help us!
Someone said "if you want to test if something is a good idea, take it to its absurd limit".
The Dr.'s comment above is a great example proving that saying.
Great interview. Thank you both! 👏👏👏
I miss the music.
fundamentally what i heard from David in his statements from 1:09:51-1:10:49 is discussing the "...urging force compelling us to go beyond the facts...i don't see the merit of the compulsion." to me, this is the reprobate mind at work. you are compelled by the light to the sight, or by the dark to blindness. this is not a complicated conundrum, in my opinion. you can always see the light, but that's not what this world hinges upon. you must *choose* the light, or you will be in the dark as well as blind. Christianity is to face the reality that all evidence demands axiomatic/fundamental premise acceptance. your chosen axiom drives your conclusions. that which is true is true, regardless of your intellectual assent. "truth will out." i always find this particular impasse to be where Pascal shines. the light is there, but you must choose it, not reason it, in recognition that there is a counterweight of compulsion. Christians are OBSESSED with credibility, but always forget that if they're wrong, no amount of credibility of argument will have made them not so. when you stand at the edge of the abyss that is the reality you can not "know", hence "choose", as opposed to "reason", "this day whom you shall serve," you can only choose light and sight or darkness and blindness. no reason can bridge the gap.
Wow! What pompous tripe
@@mcmanustony compelling counter.
@@caleb.lindsay It's an accurate description. What it there to counter? Strip away the pretentious verbiage (maybe you're channeling Berlinski) and you're left with: I believe...and I like sneering at those who don't.
@@mcmanustony there is nothing to brag about in Christ except for what He’s accomplished. And if you think I’m bragging, I think you’re sorely mistaken. I blame no one for not believing. I think that lies are the fundamental root of all wickedness. They disarm you and cloud your ability to see. I lament that there is judgment and the promise of a mind given over to complete disunion from truth. CS Lewis stated it best, and I don’t blame you for disliking it or finding it objectionable but it’s wonderful if you can understand the axiomatic nature of it: “I believe in Christianity as I believe that the Sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.”
@@caleb.lindsay I don't know or care if you're "bragging". What I said, and will say again, is that your posts are pompous incoherent tripe.
This is _completely_ off topic, nevertheless I mention it because it is so obvious to me...and I am referring to the similarities between the sound, accent and cadence etc. ( _but not vocabulary_ ) of David Berlinsky's speaking and Paul Stanley's ( _of the rock band KISS_ ). To me they sound like they could be brothers. 😄
Wow, you’re right! 😂😂
cool