Paradoxically, when Feddie asked about the possibility of religious belief leading to more flourishing societies, Dawkins said he puts truth above that, yet when asked about covid, he said it's ok for politicians to present false certanties instead of truth for the sake of social stability. Glaring contradiciton.
Maybe paradox or conundrum, but probably not contradictory, certainly not glaring. They are different questions in different spheres of reality to me anyway.
I really enjoyed that Freddie, but I think you let Dawkins off too lightly for that tweet. He claims that truth is his highest value, but he threw it out the window during Covid and led the baying mob in vilifying skeptics
Dawkins wanted the world to have faith in the vaccine because of a shortage of time to look at the facts, science was irrelevant in that moment to him. What he demanded was that we find faith in the big pharma religion! That said he may have illustrated an earlier point - that religion may have evolved from the need for children to unquestioningly trust adults to survive. That faith was something Dawkins adopted as an adult like any other priest by ushering in medical fascism of unproven claims not dissimilar to other religious medical fascism eg Circumcision etc.
Freddie should keep doing cat stuck in the tree stories in my opinion.. sorry but l didn't think any questions had much depth at all. Even covid was after the facts question..were all wiser after the facts..many many things were done wrong during covid but you can hardly blame the people who were trying to find a cure.. again it just proves freddie didn't like the idea of lockdown..l never thought it was about the individual.
@user-hm5zb1qn6g why, musk will never ever get to mars in his lifetime..it's a total joke..oneway ticket to death. What do you do when you get there, who built the infrastructure, who payed for it..at this time and with our technology why is it even taken seriously.. and who the hell wants to live on a dead planet, never ever able to leave the confines of a bubble.. totally bonkers.
Weird how he cares so much about the truth over outcomes when it comes to religion but doesn't mind noble lies when they're coming from medical establishment.
Great to hear Dawkins, but yes his covid responses were fairly horrific for someone of his intellect. He had not been bothered to look under the hood. Huh -? Seems he couldn’t be bothered with this matter . . . depressing to hear, thanks for the persistent questions Freddie.
"With hindsight, they should have said ... we are uncertain". No, that is not with hindsight. That is always the case. Where does one derive such logic?
Because the outcome is known now. It means with the information we have now whitch was not available at the time we should have said we are uncertain. It means it could have been the right decision otherwise, but in hindsight we know it was not. The fact is the what we lived with covid was a real world Pascal wager.
@@english3082The first lockdown may have been okayish but the following ones and many other restrictions were not and there were plenty of well educated people who said so from the start. They were right all along.
Anyone who realises that scientists aren’t some rare altruistic crowd, but are subject to the same corruption and vices as the rest of us, and therefore are not to be trusted unless proved otherwise.
They weren't soft answers. 1) Dawkins does not accept that the scientific community is to blame for the Covid-19 pandemic, he is right to say that the vaccines were made very quickly, Freddy Sayers tries to make believe that science or scientists are to blame, many and I was aware of what was happening in the world, and many people were opposed to getting vaccinated, many of them religious fanatics, if you look for news of religious leaders who preached against the use of face masks, there are many people who even preached against the existence of the coronavirus. If we did not have the scientific community, the Covid-19 disease would continue to kill millions of people and prayers to the gods would be useless. In Islamic countries there were also masses of people who did not want to avoid congregating at religious events and what they caused was a massive contagion. 1) The New York Times: White Evangelical Resistance Is Obstacle in Vaccination Effort.- www.nytimes.com/2021/04/05/us/covid-vaccine-evangelicals.html
Great interview Freddie. Not a Dawkins fan ,but an interesting interview. His vaccine views dont seem to align with his "truth trumps all' views. We were lied to. We were bullied. I think possibly more will come out as time passes.
We can't blame new atheism for everything. My past teenage years of Dawkins and Hitchens are exactly WHY I reject wokeism, to me it is purely religion.
If a V works, then the unV are zero threat. There is no one that can not get their own V if they wish unless they are so sick they are not safe mingling in the general population.
34:00 He more or less says it's better to lie than say 'we dont know'...Which is often what they did. He thinks it is glorious how fast they made something that, even after 6 doses, doesn't do anything as advertised...But can't admit it. It seems many are captured and must remain true to the lies.
Mass vaccination and herd immunity is an accepted theory in offering the human race a better chance of surviving potentially deadly viruses...the fact that science cannot bring a definitive solution to the corona virus dilemma is the same as science advising us to ingest vitamins and minerals in order to prolong our lives - yet we'll all die of old age.
Freddie says that he´s half Swedish. And he claims that being religious is better for human flourishing. Let me point out that Sweden is one of the most secular nations in the world. It is also one of the most flourishing societies in the world. The same is true for the other scandinavian countries. Compare that to countries like Afghanistan, Somalia, or Mauritania, where nearly 100 percent of the population is deeply religious. Would you call these nations flourishing?
24:06 - Reminds me of this quote, which is part of the thinking Freddie is demonstrating here: “The fact that a believer is happier than a sceptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one. The happiness of credulity is a cheap and dangerous quality of happiness, and by no means a necessity of life.” ― George Bernard Shaw
" Einstein had a notion of a non-personal God which created the universe and that Man would somehow understand the Plan on which it was created". - Prof David Bohm, colleague and protege of Einstein in a talk with David Suzuki.
@@marcusaurelius9123 Dawkins has lived in an elitist bubble all of his life. He promoted the dangerous RussiaGate hoax for 5 years and shamefully condemned Julian Assange.
"When the facts change, I change my mind "...this irritates me so much! The facts did not change! How did Sweden manage to get it right? Did they have different facts?! Those who pushed for lockdown, an extreme and obviously damaging course of action, should have had exceptional evidence to show it worked and would not accrue net harms. Its quite obvious from his casual dismissal of the topic that Dawkins didn't suffer because of lockdowns personally but amazing to see the lack of empathy for those that did.
Richard Dawkins should have listened to Brett & Heather Weinstein - he would have learned a lot, before having to vilify those of us who WERE doing research early on, resulting in hesitancy.
The fact that religious needs in humans have moved and attached to new religious fads doesn't by default mean that previous religions were good or even better - or that these "secular" people are atheists. True atheists still adhere to science and critical thinking - by definition an atheist doesn't adhere to religion - either the conventional or new versions-Richard is absolutely correct on this. I get his fascination with the technologies of the vaccines - despite their rather modest performance in the end, what he doesn't do is get much beyond that to the applications and policies - they probably didn't affect him that much. Freddie is spot on with that line of discussion.
Listening Dr Dawkins is always a true feast, such an inspiring man! So glad when the interviews are conducted in such thoughtful and thought -provoking way. Thank you!
this interview showed me that being a journalist can be quite challenging.. it just seems to me that it's extremely difficult not to insult some of the guests. class act, Freddie for always keeping it civil.
@@MMAoracle "May" have been the wrong approach? That's understatement. It's almost as though Dawkins was unaware of a century's worth of legitimate science and public health efforts regarding pandemics and epidemics. Let's be honest here. Dawkins was part of a fanatical mob that called for (and imposed) restrictions and bodily trans- (there's that prefix again) -gressions on others based on a stack of assumptions, fantasies and lies, and then demonized anyone who refused to get in line. He got rich peddling books (which are stimulating, interesting, thought-provoking, contradictory and a whole lot of other things) that examine and criticize those very same things (when wrapped up in religious branding). He's either deluded, bought or a world-class prevaricator. Although he's still an interesting author, he can't be taken seriously on matters of science at this point.
Some matauranga maori IS science. How our ancestors observed where whitebait hatched, how eels move up streams at certain nights in correspondence with our moon calendar, how to build highly efficient wiers and fishing traps from flax. How native plants were used to make medicine, how the ecosystem of a forest remained in balance. This information was often disseminated using the method of storytelling, because maori is an oral tradition - so the personification of some elements made it easier to memorize. We charted terriroties the same way. In the 1908 tohunga suppresion act it became illegal to teach these subjects. So when the suppression was lifted, everything maori was lumped into one subject and sidelined: matauranga maori. I do think matauranga maori has valuable information that is unique to our environment that could benefit science, but it needs to be taught as a mythology for context only and dissected for scientific fact.
Beautiful interview Freddie! You did cover a wide variety of topics with thoughtful and challenging questions, presented in a non-aggressive manner. One of the highlights: An interesting discussion on the influence of politics in scientific research. This influence will certainly affect the outcome of experiments and therefore truths derived from these tests. Mr. Dawkins spoke about the younger generations being not religious but that doesn't mean they are not spiritual. More people are viewing the concept of God in a non-dualistic way and that God is the consciousness that permeates through the entire tapestry of life. Out of that consciousness, form/matter is manifested. Perhaps for a future time, you can invite Mr. Dawkins back and ask Rupert Spira to come on as well. Mr. Spira is intellectual and has a non-dualistic approach. A discussion with them would be very intriguing. I can't think of their names at the moment but there is a German physicist and an American scientist, both highly regarded in their fields but they firmly believe that consciousness precedes matter. They will also be great to have on your show. Last but not least, you brought up a very important fact about growth of tribalism in recent times. This, surely can't be an evolutionary progression but more likely a digression. Thank you Freddie, I can't wait for next week's discussion!
I couldn’t agree with you more! I think it could even be more intertaining if Dawkins were to be debating with Bernardo Kastrup explaining his Analytical Idealism, but I’m not sure if Bernardo would be up for “wasting time” on rigid Dawkins 😄
@@johncarroll772 I just feel very disappointed in Dawkins. He used to be someone I admired. I've read several of his books. Am I making a mistake, John, not to listen?
Dawkins a Romantic? In reply to a question 'on the suffering of desperate people who have a belief in a God, who are clinging to life so perilously', he said, "Who cares what comforts them, who cares what helps them sleep at night, what matters is what's true". ( Q&A Something from Nothing with Lawrence Krauss 1hr 39m).
Wow, I didn't know Dawkins was such an apologist for the greatest scandal of the century. He comes off as helplessly naïve to the blatant corruption of scientific and regulatory institutions.
As a financially secure elderly person with a nice house and garden, he may simply not have cared, not have paid attention, or just found the whole ordeal to have been not that bad on account of his privileged subjective experience of it, like so many people. For the most part, it’s the people who were actually affected by Covidian maximalism who ever cared to question it.
It's really a question of dealing with unknowns, we didn't know how effective vaccines would be at the time, we had to believe that vaccines would be very effective at stopping transmission of the virus as vaccines have proven so effective in the erradication of other plagues. Human life was on the line, and conformity to vaccination would be a necessary condition to limit deaths:have you all forgotten?
@@tomholloway7164 I don't think this excuse holds. When facing uncertainty the last thing you'd want to do is increase uncertainty by experimenting with new treatments and strategies. There were proven principles and strategies in place based on dealing with other similar viruses, but these were disregarded and substituted by new radical approaches like population-wide mandated vaccination with modified RNA, lockdowns and masking. This was done in defiance of recommendations by many experts in relevant fields and without reliable data showing that it was preferable to proven strategies. Moreover, research and discussion about alternatives were actively suppressed. Suppression of data and discussion is also the last thing you'd want when facing uncertainty.
You think he would have checked the data before tweeting out insults at those who were actually acting like scientists and patiently researching and awaiting full unbiased data before deciding.
@@user-hm5zb1qn6g While some governments around the world flip floped and blatantly lied and some scienctist argued over over certain issues the vaccine is as safe as any other. It was tested properly and under safe condition. what's more regardless of effectiveness, it's better than nothing did help. It did ease suffering save lifes and release strain on health care. To deny that is to be in the same camp as ant mmr etc. That's fact!
What an honour and a privilege it is to listen to Richard being interviewed by Freddie. Very difficult questions being answered so succinctly and with honesty and humility.
He admits to being a hard materialist. Yet science can't observe, measure or explain consciousness, something that can only be experienced. And everyone does experience it. He should be more open minded to the idea that consciousness could come before matter.
Why be open minded to a nonsense? Consciousness is well understood by those willing to learn. It's just being self aware and being alive, the process by how we navigate survival. If unconscious your valuable or dead.
@@softcolly8753 Wrong! I work within the science's (not a scienctist) and it's just as I said in my layman's terms. I understand it! You've just been brainwashed to believe otherwise.
@@jameswright... you have no clue and are arrogant enough to think that you do. Can scientists measure consciousness? No. (Electrical activity in the brain yes, consciousness, no). Can they observe it? No? So how the hell can they claim to understand it?
@@softcolly8753 It's you with no clue! There's nothing to measure, it's not actual thing. Can you tell if someone is alive? That's conscious! Can you tell if someone is dead? That's ??? Go on guess ??? That electric energy is our consciousness but it's not just a brain thing,it's in certain cells and nerve ends etc. All life has it, even life including some animals with no brain no nerve system no heart as it. It's a survival tool that's been over exaggerated by religious nonsense to mean more than it is. More harm taught and done by religious uneducaction.
In my discourses with a variety of different type of people, I have found that the covid topic is one that's most contentious and one that's most avoided. This is taking into account some of the most contentious issues of our day. I find that even the most intellectual people of all statures and of all arenas will not have a coinciding intellectual argument worthy of the dramatic experience of the covid experience. Mr Dawkins is no exception. What is closest to home is least avoided.
He's smart enough to know, but if he tells the truth he's no longer going to be invited to all conferences on the continent, is he? He wants to remain part of The Club. It's safer to pretend he doesn't know.
Thank you for taking this interview, Freddy. I disagree with Dawkins extremely sharply on some things, and agree with him on others. Nevertheless, I appreciated the interview.
Okay, I can't help myself. Dawkins doesn't even know what a "vaccine" is, and clearly hasn't read the clinical trials closely. He also is clearly willing to discard truth if it's "expected" for someone to be unequivocal.
What about equity of outcome for the poor white native inhabitants of this country, who are currently the most disadvantaged. The interviewer, just by asking this question in the way he did, singles him out as elitist, over-educated and woke-edged
A fallback to nationalism and tribalism could also be a temporary reaction to exploitation. It might not be a fallback to human nature, and once we remove exploitation from globalism, we might return to being one humanity.
Great questions from Freddie. It’s a shame they all fell so flat. How can Dawkins have no opinion on the calamity that was Covid ? In the 2000s he was a legend with the outrageous brilliance of The God Delusion.
Not your finest moment, Freddie. Why keep pestering the man about religion and insisting he is in some way religious himself, and must respect religion ‘because Darwinian evolution’? He’s been perfectly clear on this in his writing and speaking for many, many years.
Fair play for retracting his vitriolic anti-anti-vax tweets but to say that the speed of the development of the vaccines was a glorious victory for science is mad.
Really well done Freddie, you grasped the nettle and tactfully made Mr Dawkins answer for some of the extreme views he held during Covid as well as his irrational views about God.
Good interview, however I would say that the fact that some people are inclined toward religiosity, well, others are not. So I don't think you could make any claim that it is a selected and inherited trait from a natural selection perspective. One thing that is true is people will go along with the flock, and more will than not. Religion was well organised and effectively forced on everyone for centuries, and lack of knowledge prevented effective questioning and investigation for much of that time. We are seeing the effect of wide education and liberation from tyrannical religious control in some parts of the world, and the ones that are still in the grip of this way of life, I would contest are not ones that are flourishing or welcoming, or ones where the inhabitants seem to be massively satisfied with their situations... see Iran or Afghanistan for example
@@ashleybennett4418 Fair. I should have added “these days” to my original comment. Thankfully they are not able to impose such beliefs on others any more.
Really? I remember he was part of the ‘remain” campaign…. What he said about people who voted for brexit, ( people who dared to have a different point of view to him)was absolutely hateful. How does a ‘true human’ be so bloody rude and patronising to over half the population of U.K.? As a result I think he’s incredibly arrogant, with an oversized ego of always thinking he’s right.
Because, what I experience, is that the reality is much richer. There is a lot of "material world" that we can not perceive with our cognitive senses, which doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. Also, subjectiveness of reality is as important as objectiveness of reality, because it gives you your experience and meaning of the world. Of course it's not quantitatively comparable to other subjective realities, but it's necessary if you want to live.
@@marcusaurelius9123 Here's some rationality for your consideration. We have observable scientific evidence for only one universe with the inherent Physical Constants. That's fine-tuning....unless you have evidence to the contrary?
Have any RCTs been carried out to see whether sacrificing goats on the full moon has any effect on crops? If not, isn't Dawkins being unscientific when he rules it out? 😂😂😂
If you are reading this and you were born in London, New York or Sao Paulo, I bet you can relate to his point at 51:00 about life springing up elsewhere in the universe many times.
Freddie should have pushed Dawkins much harder. Dawkins' worldview is very shallow and inconsistent....Sayers could have easily dismantled Dawkins fallacious ideas.
Fred, give it a miss..Never listened to you and no doubt your a clever boy but alot of your questions were about religious faith in one way or another.. which obviously means you have a religious faith. Didn't come here to here your fairytales..l wish l still had religious faith as it's easier world to believe in..not a better world but easier.. The truth is much harder to prove and that's his point..
Sorry but this interview was useless. His arguments were weak and not once did a sense He was willing to debate, to consider pros and cons or even acknowledge that was done was questionable. His scientific mind was abcent and his opinions ruled his thoughts. Overall not very interesting despite his status.
As an admirer of Dawkins and his work (because of my interest and degree in Biology, but not his admonishing interactions with the general public) I have come to think that he is a deeply religious person, whether he realises or not. And this has been a pleasant surprise for me. Whereas before I regarded him as a dispassionate, coldly rational and tyrannical science advocate, lately I've seen his human side. It is ironic yet beautiful and relieving to see his right hemisphere (in McGilchrist's terms and materialistically speaking) cry out poetry, beauty and transcendence when his left brain tries to bring everything into the orthodoxy of the measurable world like an inquisitor. He has unshakable faith in truth, in objective reality, in matter and in the universe. Well, aren't those man-made concepts (except maybe The Truth) or even "golden calves" when they become an end in themselves, i.e. worshipped? Can anyone prove "there's nothing beyond matter"? Any action or endeavour requires faith in a certain set of axioms or values that are intuitively true, yet objectively unprovable. These values and rules and ideals and principles that he has that don't exist in the realm of matter, helped him and mankind until now. He knows this and tries to fight back against their dissolution. He can actually fill most of the gap between God and man, but can't take the ultimate step towards God. Yet the ground of being was God and when we "killed" God as Nietzsche said, the rest became vulnerable. And we've paid and are paying through catastrophes that befell us in the last centuries and the enormous sacrifices we made feeding and building the giants and monstrosities of the past or today, be they engorged states or governments or swollen companies or individuals or even technologies hastily deployed and got out of hand.
So sick of this covid derangement. Imagine if the government did nothing and it killed like a million people in the UK. The same people who are crying about lockdown would be bitching about why the government didn't do more. Richard is right, we should have more sympathy for people in difficult situations like that. If you were an MP would you just let it rip and see what comes? That's a pretty big gamble in my opinion.
This is not a new direction for Dawkins - see his earlier book 'Unweaving the Rainbow' which counteracts Keats's claim that science had removed all the poetry and beauty from nature - the new book seems to be an extension of that theme. A+ for Dawkins, D- for Sayers.
Thank you for destroying Dawkins Freedie. Arrogant souls who are also so minformed need to get the call. Thank you so much again for your work over all this years.
When you advocate the heavy hand of authoritarianism and coersion you don't get to say later "we didn't have all the facts" or "we didn't know". They are not excuses. Honestly there is none
Freddie guilty of the naturalistic fallacy? Surely not. And was it as obvious to anyone else as it was to me that despite Freddie saying toward the end “now we’ll get into politics” that every question up to that point had a political hue. Lastly, peer review has issues, yes, and I agree with Dawkins one can’t just criticise it without suggesting what alternative could replace it - no one blames the failure of peer review during the pandemic who understood what was happening: information was being shared globally via “preprint” studies, ie studies not peer reviewed. Information sharing in a fast moving changing phenomena such as the pandemic would have been impossible if peer review had been forced upon the researched changes & effects of the virus & the effects of the vaccine rollout beyond that observed to get initial approval, which was peer reviewed. Every preprint included a statement that it hadn’t been peer reviewed & the attendant cautions as a result should be factored in. Hindsight bias is a convenient thing for critics to use but anyone who thinks about it with any depth understands that it could have been otherwise - critics who may have occasionally been shown to be correct after the fact could have been shown to be catastrophically wrong. Anyone who understands the scientific method & fallacious reasoning knows this, including doctors now crowing they were right, when it could have been otherwise. Shame on them for their point scoring with a public when they know better.
Its very brave of professor Dawkins to state obvious facts. People in his position are no longer allowed to do this. I do think he is not really fair about the government during covid. I suspects, it is because of his own stance. But still, he is one of the few people I can forgive this.
My admiration for Dawkins did not change by this interview. He is an intelectual educated scientist who uses logics and rationality to make his point. I am grateful that he has the courage to advocate for scientific knowledge and atheism. The people who are so critical about him are the same who use smartphones, takes medicines, drive cars,etc.... all products from scientific implementations. Thanks Dawkins for being who you are and for what you stands for. Unbelievable how much hate against him!!! People who try to diminish Darwins opinions have probably never read his books... I know him personally, he is inteligent, humble and polite. A lot of science-deniers are here in this chat... Very sad. I hope, this is not the typical UnHerd follower profile. Dawkins is a great scientist. Arrogantes are the ones who put others down for their views, accomplishments and fame
I'm agnostic yet never liked this guy. I've found him annoying for years. I don't relish being proved right so flagrantly, with that "snake release" tweet. What a truly despicable man. Notice how he invokes ALTRUISM! He cloaks himself in it, when he is just an old man inordinately afraid of death. These are the manipulators, who try to shame others and to moralize, simply to get others to do what they think is best for themselves. In a global emergency, no one's life is more precious than anyone else's, no matter what they have done in the past. The life of someone in their 80's is certainly not worth one vaccine-induced myocarditis in a 12-year-old child. (I say that being much closer to 80 than 12, and no, I do not have teenaged children, or any young relatives for that matter.) I'm proof that an agnostic can have morals. 😊
This conversation becomes remarkably easy when you exchange the word truth for factual. If you stop conflating these words then you eliminate the confusion about what is factual about the universe and what is true about the universe. The difference between objective and subjective.
Dawkins is such a disappointment. What happens when you carry out a mass vaccination with a non-sterilising vaccine during a pandemic? I would have expected an evolutionary biologist to work this out.
The small pox vaccine was non sterile. What was the results of that? Dawkins clearly knows more than you. For it's issues the covid vaccine was is safe and worked still working.
23:00 Being a parent myself, I am stupified by this argument. Makes me wonder if he has actually been exposed to children of the human race before? Besides that, surely Richard must be aware of all the different strategies with regards to offspring management exist among the animal kingdom, where many do not involve interaction between parent and offspring at all. And I would not be surprised to hear Richard claim (but I will do it for him) that disobedience/curiousity also has positive effect on survivability of the gene, so where is the distinction?
Just say biology. Even morals and "race" derivate from biology. Even in-group bias is an egoistic device that is used until it benefits the individual "selfish" genes. Same for "women and children first", absolutely an moral derivate of the selfish genes to perpetuate the kin.
Bit of a tiresome interview in places really, this Freddie person made Dawkins put up with a lot of nonsense. Sacrificing a goat could lead to wisdom? How I would like to know. It wasn't terrible, but it was rather silly in a lot of places.
Disappointed with his answers on the vaccines and covid. Great questions though Freddie.
Yes - for someone obsessed with scientific truth he seems blithely unaware of the details 😅
To be expected from frightened elderly atheists
Dawkins is in the "Club"....
I'm confused, he took back comments he made on twitter. But that's not enough?
@@MasalaMan the damage is done
Love Richard Dawkins, he states what he thinks unapologetically. Very refreshing. Science and logic first perspective.
More like political science
The speed of science. The vaccine preceeded the virus.
Paradoxically, when Feddie asked about the possibility of religious belief leading to more flourishing societies, Dawkins said he puts truth above that, yet when asked about covid, he said it's ok for politicians to present false certanties instead of truth for the sake of social stability. Glaring contradiciton.
Maybe paradox or conundrum, but probably not contradictory, certainly not glaring. They are different questions in different spheres of reality to me anyway.
Just another selfish, frightened, elderly atheist.
I agree, clearly he doesn't actually believe in science or the truth.
@@justgivemethetruth I'd love for you to be more specific
@@lightowl4345I think he does believe on both, but his opinions aren't nearly as thought through as he seems to think they are.
I really enjoyed that Freddie, but I think you let Dawkins off too lightly for that tweet. He claims that truth is his highest value, but he threw it out the window during Covid and led the baying mob in vilifying skeptics
Dawkins wanted the world to have faith in the vaccine because of a shortage of time to look at the facts, science was irrelevant in that moment to him. What he demanded was that we find faith in the big pharma religion! That said he may have illustrated an earlier point - that religion may have evolved from the need for children to unquestioningly trust adults to survive. That faith was something Dawkins adopted as an adult like any other priest by ushering in medical fascism of unproven claims not dissimilar to other religious medical fascism eg Circumcision etc.
Freddie is absolutely the best of journalism, hands down nobody comes close to asking difficult questions as casually as Mr Sayer 🙌
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
The way he concludes with the Mission to Mars question was masterful.
Freddie should keep doing cat stuck in the tree stories in my opinion.. sorry but l didn't think any questions had much depth at all. Even covid was after the facts question..were all wiser after the facts..many many things were done wrong during covid but you can hardly blame the people who were trying to find a cure.. again it just proves freddie didn't like the idea of lockdown..l never thought it was about the individual.
@user-hm5zb1qn6g why, musk will never ever get to mars in his lifetime..it's a total joke..oneway ticket to death. What do you do when you get there, who built the infrastructure, who payed for it..at this time and with our technology why is it even taken seriously.. and who the hell wants to live on a dead planet, never ever able to leave the confines of a bubble.. totally bonkers.
Weird how he cares so much about the truth over outcomes when it comes to religion but doesn't mind noble lies when they're coming from medical establishment.
It is called dishonesty
Well said
@@NC-dw3tkTrump deserves the malign.
Is this a TH-cam channel for conspiracist religious RWNJs?
This guys response to covid has me feeling like his dedication to truth is complete BS. What a joke.
Great to hear Dawkins, but yes his covid responses were fairly horrific for someone of his intellect. He had not been bothered to look under the hood. Huh -?
Seems he couldn’t be bothered with this matter . . . depressing to hear, thanks for the persistent questions Freddie.
"With hindsight, they should have said ... we are uncertain". No, that is not with hindsight. That is always the case. Where does one derive such logic?
Because the outcome is known now. It means with the information we have now whitch was not available at the time we should have said we are uncertain. It means it could have been the right decision otherwise, but in hindsight we know it was not. The fact is the what we lived with covid was a real world Pascal wager.
@@english3082The first lockdown may have been okayish but the following ones and many other restrictions were not and there were plenty of well educated people who said so from the start. They were right all along.
Who would have thought that the person who wrote a book like Selfish gene can have such insipid answers on the whole question of Covid
Yes, astonishing how pathetic his ideas/comments are/were. Incongruent with the rest of his thinking and work.
Anyone who realises that scientists aren’t some rare altruistic crowd, but are subject to the same corruption and vices as the rest of us, and therefore are not to be trusted unless proved otherwise.
Science has become corrupted. This interview is the evidence.
They weren't soft answers. 1) Dawkins does not accept that the scientific community is to blame for the Covid-19 pandemic, he is right to say that the vaccines were made very quickly, Freddy Sayers tries to make believe that science or scientists are to blame, many and I was aware of what was happening in the world, and many people were opposed to getting vaccinated, many of them religious fanatics, if you look for news of religious leaders who preached against the use of face masks, there are many people who even preached against the existence of the coronavirus. If we did not have the scientific community, the Covid-19 disease would continue to kill millions of people and prayers to the gods would be useless. In Islamic countries there were also masses of people who did not want to avoid congregating at religious events and what they caused was a massive contagion. 1) The New York Times: White Evangelical Resistance Is Obstacle in Vaccination Effort.- www.nytimes.com/2021/04/05/us/covid-vaccine-evangelicals.html
@@pohutukawa2346 How are his ideas/comments incongruent with the rest of his thinking and work?
Great interview Freddie. Not a Dawkins fan ,but an interesting interview. His vaccine views dont seem to align with his "truth trumps all' views. We were lied to. We were bullied. I think possibly more will come out as time passes.
But his side was doing the "bullying", so I guess its ok 🙂
You obviously have no idea who Dawkins' benefactors were.
Or perhaps he just doesn’t agree with your view of the vaccines
No. His view is the truth. You are too dumb to get what he is saying.
See Dawkins dance when he tries to justify science authorities' response to Corona virus.
The information on covid did not change. The information was enough for lots of intelligent people to avoid the jab.
We can't blame new atheism for everything. My past teenage years of Dawkins and Hitchens are exactly WHY I reject wokeism, to me it is purely religion.
Concur. Why would you even blame 'new' atheism for anything at all?
Great interview! Actually pressed him on issues but remained respectful. Rare to see these days!
Dawkins has decent instincts but he's too cowardly to say much that might be controversial. Good job Freddie for pushing him hard.
If a V works, then the unV are zero threat. There is no one that can not get their own V if they wish unless they are so sick they are not safe mingling in the general population.
34:00 He more or less says it's better to lie than say 'we dont know'...Which is often what they did.
He thinks it is glorious how fast they made something that, even after 6 doses, doesn't do anything as advertised...But can't admit it.
It seems many are captured and must remain true to the lies.
Mass vaccination and herd immunity is an accepted theory in offering the human race a better chance of surviving potentially deadly viruses...the fact that science cannot bring a definitive solution to the corona virus dilemma is the same as science advising us to ingest vitamins and minerals in order to prolong our lives - yet we'll all die of old age.
Fred is a superb interviewer and capable of pushing the guest without pathetic theatrics. Prof Dawkins was a wonderful treat. Thanks!
Freddie says that he´s half Swedish. And he claims that being religious is better for human flourishing. Let me point out that Sweden is one of the most secular nations in the world. It is also one of the most flourishing societies in the world. The same is true for the other scandinavian countries. Compare that to countries like Afghanistan, Somalia, or Mauritania, where nearly 100 percent of the population is deeply religious. Would you call these nations flourishing?
Thanks Professor do enlighten us.
Yes, religions, like creepy UK invasive type C of E, just make an already constipated and blinkered population..... more.... constipated and blinkered
24:06 - Reminds me of this quote, which is part of the thinking Freddie is demonstrating here: “The fact that a believer is happier than a sceptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one. The happiness of credulity is a cheap and dangerous quality of happiness, and by no means a necessity of life.”
― George Bernard Shaw
" Einstein had a notion of a non-personal God which created the universe and that Man would somehow understand the Plan on which it was created". - Prof David Bohm, colleague and protege of Einstein in a talk with David Suzuki.
Dawkins is living under a rock. Surprising for a man who professes truth evidence and science.
As evidenced by....easy to make conclusory statements without a single example
@@marcusaurelius9123That white men are victims of racism. There's a rock he's under right there.
@@marcusaurelius9123 Dawkins has lived in an elitist bubble all of his life. He promoted the dangerous RussiaGate hoax for 5 years and shamefully condemned Julian Assange.
"When the facts change, I change my mind "...this irritates me so much! The facts did not change! How did Sweden manage to get it right? Did they have different facts?!
Those who pushed for lockdown, an extreme and obviously damaging course of action, should have had exceptional evidence to show it worked and would not accrue net harms.
Its quite obvious from his casual dismissal of the topic that Dawkins didn't suffer because of lockdowns personally but amazing to see the lack of empathy for those that did.
Freddie seems to be struggling with the concept that people can appreciate art, not be woke, hold conservative views and still be an atheist
That’s a relatively small and shrinking group in fairness
Thats me
@@CobraQuotes1 me too
Well done Freddie for holding Dawkins to account and showing his own biases and dogmas. I much prefer Kingsnorth.
Richard Dawkins should have listened to Brett & Heather Weinstein - he would have learned a lot, before having to vilify those of us who WERE doing research early on, resulting in hesitancy.
The fact that religious needs in humans have moved and attached to new religious fads doesn't by default mean that previous religions were good or even better - or that these "secular" people are atheists. True atheists still adhere to science and critical thinking - by definition an atheist doesn't adhere to religion - either the conventional or new versions-Richard is absolutely correct on this. I get his fascination with the technologies of the vaccines - despite their rather modest performance in the end, what he doesn't do is get much beyond that to the applications and policies - they probably didn't affect him that much. Freddie is spot on with that line of discussion.
Listening Dr Dawkins is always a true feast, such an inspiring man! So glad when the interviews are conducted in such thoughtful and thought -provoking way. Thank you!
Freddie is such a legend
in his own lunchtime!
whoop whoop go Freddie! :))
He totally is
Ty. Good to see Dawkins again.
Another great interview with perfect technique. Awesome job Freddie.
Did he really just say if scientists don't know its understandable to give a yes or no answer. Based on what? Empirical evidence or funding?
this interview showed me that being a journalist can be quite challenging.. it just seems to me that it's extremely difficult not to insult some of the guests. class act, Freddie for always keeping it civil.
Well said. Freddie does not come across in an attacking way.
Freddie did a fantastic job of respecting his views without agreeing to them. I hope Dr. Dawkins watches this interview and sees the Truth he pursues.
@@Gr88tful What 'truth' was he missing?
Love both of these guys. Very happy that Dawkins has understood wokeism for the religion that it is.
Too bad he didn't understand the Fauci Flu Panic as the same thing.
@@user-hm5zb1qn6g I think he did, to some extent. Agreed that he would take back his tweet and that lockdowns may have been the wrong approach.
@@MMAoracle "May" have been the wrong approach? That's understatement. It's almost as though Dawkins was unaware of a century's worth of legitimate science and public health efforts regarding pandemics and epidemics. Let's be honest here. Dawkins was part of a fanatical mob that called for (and imposed) restrictions and bodily trans- (there's that prefix again) -gressions on others based on a stack of assumptions, fantasies and lies, and then demonized anyone who refused to get in line. He got rich peddling books (which are stimulating, interesting, thought-provoking, contradictory and a whole lot of other things) that examine and criticize those very same things (when wrapped up in religious branding). He's either deluded, bought or a world-class prevaricator. Although he's still an interesting author, he can't be taken seriously on matters of science at this point.
@@user-hm5zb1qn6gWhy are you Yankeedoodles so self-centred? It's like you think Fauci made COVID up. The rest of the world exists, y'know.
In spite of not agreeing and even being surprised by many of your guest opinions I find you extremely skilled in guiding the conversation
Some matauranga maori IS science. How our ancestors observed where whitebait hatched, how eels move up streams at certain nights in correspondence with our moon calendar, how to build highly efficient wiers and fishing traps from flax. How native plants were used to make medicine, how the ecosystem of a forest remained in balance. This information was often disseminated using the method of storytelling, because maori is an oral tradition - so the personification of some elements made it easier to memorize. We charted terriroties the same way. In the 1908 tohunga suppresion act it became illegal to teach these subjects. So when the suppression was lifted, everything maori was lumped into one subject and sidelined: matauranga maori. I do think matauranga maori has valuable information that is unique to our environment that could benefit science, but it needs to be taught as a mythology for context only and dissected for scientific fact.
Fascinating! Thanks for sharing.
Beautiful interview Freddie! You did cover a wide variety of topics with thoughtful and challenging questions, presented in a non-aggressive manner. One of the highlights: An interesting discussion on the influence of politics in scientific research. This influence will certainly affect the outcome of experiments and therefore truths derived from these tests.
Mr. Dawkins spoke about the younger generations being not religious but that doesn't mean they are not spiritual. More people are viewing the concept of God in a non-dualistic way and that God is the consciousness that permeates through the entire tapestry of life. Out of that consciousness, form/matter is manifested. Perhaps for a future time, you can invite Mr. Dawkins back and ask Rupert Spira to come on as well. Mr. Spira is intellectual and has a non-dualistic approach. A discussion with them would be very intriguing. I can't think of their names at the moment but there is a German physicist and an American scientist, both highly regarded in their fields but they firmly believe that consciousness precedes matter. They will also be great to have on your show.
Last but not least, you brought up a very important fact about growth of tribalism in recent times. This, surely can't be an evolutionary progression but more likely a digression. Thank you Freddie, I can't wait for next week's discussion!
I couldn’t agree with you more! I think it could even be more intertaining if Dawkins were to be debating with Bernardo Kastrup explaining his Analytical Idealism, but I’m not sure if Bernardo would be up for “wasting time” on rigid Dawkins 😄
I cannot even listen to this after hearing the excerpt video with him and Freddie about COVID
Bye then
@@johncarroll772 I just feel very disappointed in Dawkins. He used to be someone I admired. I've read several of his books.
Am I making a mistake, John, not to listen?
@@deeteeemmsixtwotwo It's actually worthwhile to listen to the entire interview. But the section on Fauci Flu is maddening, I agree.
@@user-hm5zb1qn6g thanks! İ will give it a try
My favourite book growing up was Dawkin’s Unweaving the Rainbow. Anyone who has read that would know that Dawkins has always been a Romantic.
@alexandra grace 💯agree!
Especially towards unvaccinated! Pure romance.
Dawkins a Romantic? In reply to a question 'on the suffering of desperate people who have a belief in a God, who are clinging to life so perilously', he said, "Who cares what comforts them, who cares what helps them sleep at night, what matters is what's true". ( Q&A Something from Nothing with Lawrence Krauss 1hr 39m).
Strange he can be so sure that there is no God - he should surely be saying that he does not know - given science is still in its infancy.
Exactly. Just because he doesn't believe in something does not make it so..
He wrote a section called “The Poverty of agnosticism” that deals with that question in The God Delusion.
@@grannyannie2948 He keeps talking about 'truth' but is about as far away from the truth as is possible.
@@LettyK He sees truth as a stagnant absolute when I feel truth is like life itself always in motion.
The existence of God (or fairies) isn't a scientific question
Wow, I didn't know Dawkins was such an apologist for the greatest scandal of the century. He comes off as helplessly naïve to the blatant corruption of scientific and regulatory institutions.
As a financially secure elderly person with a nice house and garden, he may simply not have cared, not have paid attention, or just found the whole ordeal to have been not that bad on account of his privileged subjective experience of it, like so many people. For the most part, it’s the people who were actually affected by Covidian maximalism who ever cared to question it.
Just another elderly atheist willing to risk heart attacks in the young to save his sorry arse.
Blind faith in science and scientific institutions is required for his worldview, is it not?
It's really a question of dealing with unknowns, we didn't know how effective vaccines would be at the time, we had to believe that vaccines would be very effective at stopping transmission of the virus as vaccines have proven so effective in the erradication of other plagues. Human life was on the line, and conformity to vaccination would be a necessary condition to limit deaths:have you all forgotten?
@@tomholloway7164 I don't think this excuse holds. When facing uncertainty the last thing you'd want to do is increase uncertainty by experimenting with new treatments and strategies. There were proven principles and strategies in place based on dealing with other similar viruses, but these were disregarded and substituted by new radical approaches like population-wide mandated vaccination with modified RNA, lockdowns and masking. This was done in defiance of recommendations by many experts in relevant fields and without reliable data showing that it was preferable to proven strategies. Moreover, research and discussion about alternatives were actively suppressed. Suppression of data and discussion is also the last thing you'd want when facing uncertainty.
You think he would have checked the data before tweeting out insults at those who were actually acting like scientists and patiently researching and awaiting full unbiased data before deciding.
Have you checked it?
He went with what I did, the best we were given and the fact is the vaccine was safe and worked.
@@jameswright... Those are most definitely not the ''facts," unless you define "facts" differently.
@@user-hm5zb1qn6g
While some governments around the world flip floped and blatantly lied and some scienctist argued over over certain issues the vaccine is as safe as any other.
It was tested properly and under safe condition. what's more regardless of effectiveness, it's better than nothing did help.
It did ease suffering save lifes and release strain on health care.
To deny that is to be in the same camp as ant mmr etc.
That's fact!
What an honour and a privilege it is to listen to Richard being interviewed by Freddie. Very difficult questions being answered so succinctly and with honesty and humility.
He admits to being a hard materialist. Yet science can't observe, measure or explain consciousness, something that can only be experienced. And everyone does experience it. He should be more open minded to the idea that consciousness could come before matter.
Why be open minded to a nonsense?
Consciousness is well understood by those willing to learn.
It's just being self aware and being alive, the process by how we navigate survival.
If unconscious your valuable or dead.
@@jameswright... it isn't understood by scientists in the slightest.
@@softcolly8753
Wrong!
I work within the science's (not a scienctist) and it's just as I said in my layman's terms.
I understand it!
You've just been brainwashed to believe otherwise.
@@jameswright... you have no clue and are arrogant enough to think that you do.
Can scientists measure consciousness? No. (Electrical activity in the brain yes, consciousness, no). Can they observe it? No? So how the hell can they claim to understand it?
@@softcolly8753
It's you with no clue!
There's nothing to measure, it's not actual thing.
Can you tell if someone is alive?
That's conscious!
Can you tell if someone is dead?
That's ??? Go on guess ???
That electric energy is our consciousness but it's not just a brain thing,it's in certain cells and nerve ends etc.
All life has it, even life including some animals with no brain no nerve system no heart as it.
It's a survival tool that's been over exaggerated by religious nonsense to mean more than it is.
More harm taught and done by religious uneducaction.
In my discourses with a variety of different type of people, I have found that the covid topic is one that's most contentious and one that's most avoided. This is taking into account some of the most contentious issues of our day. I find that even the most intellectual people of all statures and of all arenas will not have a coinciding intellectual argument worthy of the dramatic experience of the covid experience. Mr Dawkins is no exception. What is closest to home is least avoided.
He still has zero insight into what the pandemic (and the measures!) really were.
He's smart enough to know, but if he tells the truth he's no longer going to be invited to all conferences on the continent, is he? He wants to remain part of The Club. It's safer to pretend he doesn't know.
Thank you for taking this interview, Freddy. I disagree with Dawkins extremely sharply on some things, and agree with him on others. Nevertheless, I appreciated the interview.
Okay, I can't help myself. Dawkins doesn't even know what a "vaccine" is, and clearly hasn't read the clinical trials closely. He also is clearly willing to discard truth if it's "expected" for someone to be unequivocal.
How did I know more about the vaccines than Dawkins when they first came out?
You didn't.
@@kiwigrunt330 : Oh. I knew someone would be able to enlighten me.
@@ManInTheBigHat My pleasure.
We don't need to inherit guilt; we are need to do better!
What about equity of outcome for the poor white native inhabitants of this country, who are currently the most disadvantaged. The interviewer, just by asking this question in the way he did, singles him out as elitist, over-educated and woke-edged
A fallback to nationalism and tribalism could also be a temporary reaction to exploitation. It might not be a fallback to human nature, and once we remove exploitation from globalism, we might return to being one humanity.
Why would anyone ask a man so lacking in joy or warmth to tell them about God?
He's not. Richard is talking about science & refuting God
@@marcusaurelius9123 a man trying to refute god with science is literal insanity, its like a wave trying to disprove the existence of the ocean
Great questions from Freddie. It’s a shame they all fell so flat. How can Dawkins have no opinion on the calamity that was Covid ? In the 2000s he was a legend with the outrageous brilliance of The God Delusion.
They didn't discuss his partner and muse Mrs. Garrison, or which group of atheists got it right (AAA, UAA, or UAL).
I say he is a selfish gene.
What's his evidence on romance? sounds like a delusion.
Not your finest moment, Freddie. Why keep pestering the man about religion and insisting he is in some way religious himself, and must respect religion ‘because Darwinian evolution’?
He’s been perfectly clear on this in his writing and speaking for many, many years.
Greatly enjoyed this interview. Not able to agree with Dawkins on all counts, but loved the conversation - many thanks!
Freddie emerges with greater intellect knowledge and perspective than Dawkins.
😂😂😂😂😂
More intellectual honesty, for sure. Dawkins doesn't even have the nutz to take back his ''religious faith" in the Fauci jab. Totally gutless.
Fair play for retracting his vitriolic anti-anti-vax tweets but to say that the speed of the development of the vaccines was a glorious victory for science is mad.
freddies questions are much smarter than dawkins answers.
Really well done Freddie, you grasped the nettle and tactfully made Mr Dawkins answer for some of the extreme views he held during Covid as well as his irrational views about God.
What is irrational about his views on God?
LOL, Sandra. You think that belief in a supernatural creator is rational. Bet you're American. Yeehaw.
Good interview, however I would say that the fact that some people are inclined toward religiosity, well, others are not. So I don't think you could make any claim that it is a selected and inherited trait from a natural selection perspective. One thing that is true is people will go along with the flock, and more will than not. Religion was well organised and effectively forced on everyone for centuries, and lack of knowledge prevented effective questioning and investigation for much of that time. We are seeing the effect of wide education and liberation from tyrannical religious control in some parts of the world, and the ones that are still in the grip of this way of life, I would contest are not ones that are flourishing or welcoming, or ones where the inhabitants seem to be massively satisfied with their situations... see Iran or Afghanistan for example
27:46 One important difference is that Catholics, by and large, don’t demand others to believe wine actually becomes blood
Apart from the centuries of terrorising people with the opinions
wrong opinions
@@ashleybennett4418 Fair. I should have added “these days” to my original comment.
Thankfully they are not able to impose such beliefs on others any more.
They do of members of their own faith. For them it is not an optional extra.
A true human.
Really? I remember he was part of the ‘remain” campaign…. What he said about people who voted for brexit, ( people who dared to have a different point of view to him)was absolutely hateful. How does a ‘true human’ be so bloody rude and patronising to over half the population of U.K.? As a result I think he’s incredibly arrogant, with an oversized ego of always thinking he’s right.
he seems more of a true simian to me. Monkey see monkey do. 😅
@@melmorrison1400aybe that's what they mean by "true human"~ full of contradictions and faults. 😊
ie...dumd...
@@melmorrison1400 Dawkins promoted the dangerous RussiaGate hoax for 5 years and condemned Julian Assange. Enough said.
DAWKINS IS RIGHT ❤
Poor man. He's really deeply locked down inside The Objective Material World 😢
What's poor about reality?
The material world is all we have.
Because, what I experience, is that the reality is much richer. There is a lot of "material world" that we can not perceive with our cognitive senses, which doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. Also, subjectiveness of reality is as important as objectiveness of reality, because it gives you your experience and meaning of the world. Of course it's not quantitatively comparable to other subjective realities, but it's necessary if you want to live.
Preferable to being off with the fairies believing in the supernatural (and by definition being irrational)
@@marcusaurelius9123 Here's some rationality for your consideration. We have observable scientific evidence for only one universe with the inherent Physical Constants. That's fine-tuning....unless you have evidence to the contrary?
Freddie must be the most skillful and astute interviewer.
Always nice to hear one of the greatest scientists and greatest minds of our era.
People will always find truth and those who seek it objectionable.
Dawkins cares only about scientism, no matter how many times he says ‘truth’.
Science is the process of finding the truth. Whether it succeeds or not on a particular occasion is another matter.
Proponents of scientism (like adherents of any ideology) conflate truth with ideology
Dawkins is always such a breath of fresh air, as brilliant as Meme theory is, his championing of sanity alone.. a kindness.
How cowardly & sad Dawkins won't condemn the ¢ovid mob & only condemns the low hanging fruit of the 🏳️⚧️ mob 😔
Imagine going through the last 3 years and still feeling like Christianity is the threat to truth, science and liberty.
Have any RCTs been carried out to see whether sacrificing goats on the full moon has any effect on crops? If not, isn't Dawkins being unscientific when he rules it out? 😂😂😂
That’s not how science works.
If you are reading this and you were born in London, New York or Sao Paulo, I bet you can relate to his point at 51:00 about life springing up elsewhere in the universe many times.
Thank you very much for this conversation!
Freddie should have pushed Dawkins much harder. Dawkins' worldview is very shallow and inconsistent....Sayers could have easily dismantled Dawkins fallacious ideas.
Fred, give it a miss..Never listened to you and no doubt your a clever boy but alot of your questions were about religious faith in one way or another.. which obviously means you have a religious faith. Didn't come here to here your fairytales..l wish l still had religious faith as it's easier world to believe in..not a better world but easier..
The truth is much harder to prove and that's his point..
Sorry but this interview was useless. His arguments were weak and not once did a sense
He was willing to debate, to consider pros and cons or even acknowledge that was done was questionable. His scientific mind was abcent and his opinions ruled his thoughts. Overall not very interesting despite his status.
As an admirer of Dawkins and his work (because of my interest and degree in Biology, but not his admonishing interactions with the general public) I have come to think that he is a deeply religious person, whether he realises or not. And this has been a pleasant surprise for me. Whereas before I regarded him as a dispassionate, coldly rational and tyrannical science advocate, lately I've seen his human side. It is ironic yet beautiful and relieving to see his right hemisphere (in McGilchrist's terms and materialistically speaking) cry out poetry, beauty and transcendence when his left brain tries to bring everything into the orthodoxy of the measurable world like an inquisitor. He has unshakable faith in truth, in objective reality, in matter and in the universe. Well, aren't those man-made concepts (except maybe The Truth) or even "golden calves" when they become an end in themselves, i.e. worshipped? Can anyone prove "there's nothing beyond matter"? Any action or endeavour requires faith in a certain set of axioms or values that are intuitively true, yet objectively unprovable. These values and rules and ideals and principles that he has that don't exist in the realm of matter, helped him and mankind until now. He knows this and tries to fight back against their dissolution. He can actually fill most of the gap between God and man, but can't take the ultimate step towards God. Yet the ground of being was God and when we "killed" God as Nietzsche said, the rest became vulnerable. And we've paid and are paying through catastrophes that befell us in the last centuries and the enormous sacrifices we made feeding and building the giants and monstrosities of the past or today, be they engorged states or governments or swollen companies or individuals or even technologies hastily deployed and got out of hand.
Was anyone else amused by Freddie gleefully volunteering to ship Professor Dawkins off to Mars?
So sick of this covid derangement. Imagine if the government did nothing and it killed like a million people in the UK. The same people who are crying about lockdown would be bitching about why the government didn't do more. Richard is right, we should have more sympathy for people in difficult situations like that. If you were an MP would you just let it rip and see what comes? That's a pretty big gamble in my opinion.
Derangement is a good way to think of it. Unherd used to have something to say but COVID has really got into their brains and stayed there.
This is not a new direction for Dawkins - see his earlier book 'Unweaving the Rainbow' which counteracts Keats's claim that science had removed all the poetry and beauty from nature - the new book seems to be an extension of that theme.
A+ for Dawkins, D- for Sayers.
Thank you for destroying Dawkins Freedie. Arrogant souls who are also so minformed need to get the call. Thank you so much again for your work over all this years.
When you advocate the heavy hand of authoritarianism and coersion you don't get to say later "we didn't have all the facts" or "we didn't know". They are not excuses. Honestly there is none
Freddie guilty of the naturalistic fallacy? Surely not. And was it as obvious to anyone else as it was to me that despite Freddie saying toward the end “now we’ll get into politics” that every question up to that point had a political hue. Lastly, peer review has issues, yes, and I agree with Dawkins one can’t just criticise it without suggesting what alternative could replace it - no one blames the failure of peer review during the pandemic who understood what was happening: information was being shared globally via “preprint” studies, ie studies not peer reviewed. Information sharing in a fast moving changing phenomena such as the pandemic would have been impossible if peer review had been forced upon the researched changes & effects of the virus & the effects of the vaccine rollout beyond that observed to get initial approval, which was peer reviewed. Every preprint included a statement that it hadn’t been peer reviewed & the attendant cautions as a result should be factored in. Hindsight bias is a convenient thing for critics to use but anyone who thinks about it with any depth understands that it could have been otherwise - critics who may have occasionally been shown to be correct after the fact could have been shown to be catastrophically wrong. Anyone who understands the scientific method & fallacious reasoning knows this, including doctors now crowing they were right, when it could have been otherwise. Shame on them for their point scoring with a public when they know better.
The great truth seeker won't be critiquing Islam. Quite happy to denounce Christianity though.
Islam is a religion of terrorism
Thanks. YT decided I wasn't allowed to see your reply.
Its very brave of professor Dawkins to state obvious facts. People in his position are no longer allowed to do this.
I do think he is not really fair about the government during covid. I suspects, it is because of his own stance. But still, he is one of the few people I can forgive this.
My admiration for Dawkins did not change by this interview. He is an intelectual educated scientist who uses logics and rationality to make his point. I am grateful that he has the courage to advocate for scientific knowledge and atheism. The people who are so critical about him are the same who use smartphones, takes medicines, drive cars,etc.... all products from scientific implementations.
Thanks Dawkins for being who you are and for what you stands for.
Unbelievable how much hate against him!!! People who try to diminish Darwins opinions have probably never read his books... I know him personally, he is inteligent, humble and polite. A lot of science-deniers are here in this chat... Very sad. I hope, this is not the typical UnHerd follower profile. Dawkins is a great scientist. Arrogantes are the ones who put others down for their views, accomplishments and fame
I'm agnostic yet never liked this guy. I've found him annoying for years. I don't relish being proved right so flagrantly, with that "snake release" tweet. What a truly despicable man. Notice how he invokes ALTRUISM! He cloaks himself in it, when he is just an old man inordinately afraid of death. These are the manipulators, who try to shame others and to moralize, simply to get others to do what they think is best for themselves.
In a global emergency, no one's life is more precious than anyone else's, no matter what they have done in the past. The life of someone in their 80's is certainly not worth one vaccine-induced myocarditis in a 12-year-old child. (I say that being much closer to 80 than 12, and no, I do not have teenaged children, or any young relatives for that matter.)
I'm proof that an agnostic can have morals. 😊
P. S. I don't have a smart phone.
This conversation becomes remarkably easy when you exchange the word truth for factual. If you stop conflating these words then you eliminate the confusion about what is factual about the universe and what is true about the universe. The difference between objective and subjective.
I love Richard Dawkins. True legend.
Dawkins has always cared more about ego than truth
Dawkins is such a disappointment. What happens when you carry out a mass vaccination with a non-sterilising vaccine during a pandemic? I would have expected an evolutionary biologist to work this out.
The small pox vaccine was non sterile.
What was the results of that?
Dawkins clearly knows more than you.
For it's issues the covid vaccine was is safe and worked still working.
23:00 Being a parent myself, I am stupified by this argument. Makes me wonder if he has actually been exposed to children of the human race before? Besides that, surely Richard must be aware of all the different strategies with regards to offspring management exist among the animal kingdom, where many do not involve interaction between parent and offspring at all. And I would not be surprised to hear Richard claim (but I will do it for him) that disobedience/curiousity also has positive effect on survivability of the gene, so where is the distinction?
5:14 what happened in that cut? That was either a bad edit, or you censored Dawkins.
Incredible interview.
Culture is downstream from Race and ethnicity
Just say biology. Even morals and "race" derivate from biology. Even in-group bias is an egoistic device that is used until it benefits the individual "selfish" genes. Same for "women and children first", absolutely an moral derivate of the selfish genes to perpetuate the kin.
Bit of a tiresome interview in places really, this Freddie person made Dawkins put up with a lot of nonsense. Sacrificing a goat could lead to wisdom? How I would like to know. It wasn't terrible, but it was rather silly in a lot of places.
Harris and Dawkins both lost! Such a shame…
Thank you for a wonderful time