Richard Dawkins & Francis Collins: Biology, Belief and Covid
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 25 ส.ค. 2024
- The Big Conversation - Episode 1 | Season 4
Richard Dawkins is emeritus Professor of the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University and author of the best-selling atheist book 'The God Delusion'. Francis Collins is the former head of the Human Genome Project and National Institutes of Health, currently serving as Science Advisor to the President and author of 'The Language of God: A scientist presents evidence for belief'.
They discuss their journeys towards and away from faith, Covid, genetics, evolution, the origin of the universe, evil, morality and God in a wide ranging conversation with Justin Brierley.
For an additional bonus clip from the show, updates and more conversations sign up at www.thebigconve...
Take our survey: survey-star.ne...
For Francis Collins: biologos.org
For Richard Dawkins: richarddawkins...
The Big Conversation is a video series from Premier Unbelievable? featuring world-class thinkers across the religious and non-religious community. Exploring science, faith, philosophy and what it means to be human. The Big Conversation is produced by Premier in partnership with John Templeton Foundation.
• More shows, free eBook & newsletter: premierunbelie...
• For live events: www.unbelievabl...
• For online learning: www.premierunb...
• Support us in the USA: www.premierinsi...
• Support us in the rest of the world: www.premierunb...
![ทางเดินชีวิต - ธีเดช ทองอภิชาติ x อ.ไข่ มาลีฮวนน่า [Official MV]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/1f3wcG16dd4/mqdefault.jpg)
We hope you enjoy the show! For the bonus clip, and to keep updated on the latest episodes, sign up to our newsletter at: www.thebigconversation.show/
Sorry but both of these guests make me ill.
I thought this episode was sick but in a good way. Like “this episode was siq yo
Justin, please try to arrange a talk between Francis Collins and Stephen Meyer. Two men of faith who seem to be saying conflicting things about evolution and I for one would love to hear them hash it out.
33:00 35:40 39:00 Over the millennia, connotations of the word "God" have become so deteriorated. The terms Consciousness / Mind / Intelligence seem more scientifically relevant for these types of discussions. It seems that the concept of God is not scientifically testable. 44:30 However, evidence for the effects of Consciousness / Mind / Intelligence are scientifically demonstrable.
26:30 28:44 35:00 40:40 All of Darwinian evolution is based on un-directed random chance. Quantum Physics has shown that Reality is based on Probabilities.
A statistical impossibility is defined as *_“a probability that is so low as to not be worthy of mentioning. Sometimes it is quoted as 1/10^50 although the cutoff is inherently arbitrary. Although not truly impossible the probability is low enough so as to not bear mention in a Rational, Reasonable argument."_* The probability of finding one particular atom out of all of the atoms in the universe has been estimated to be 1/10^80. The probability of a functional 150 amino acid protein chain forming by chance is 1/10^164. It has been calculated that the probability of DNA forming by chance is 1/10^119,000. The probability of random chance protein-protein linkages in a cell is 1/10^79,000,000,000. Based on just these three cellular components, it would be far more *Rational and Reasonable* to conclude that the cell was not formed by undirected random natural processes. Note: Abiogenesis Hypothesis posits that un-directed random natural processes, i.e. random chance formation, of molecules led to living organisms. Natural selection has no effect on individual atoms and molecules on the micro scale in a prebiotic environment. (*For reference, peptides/proteins can vary in size from 3 amino acid chains to 34,000 amino acid chains. Some scientists consider 300-400 amino acid protein chains to be the average size. There are 42,000,000 protein molecules in just one (1) simple cell, each protein requiring precise assembly. There are approx. 30,000,000,000,000 cells in the human body.) Furthermore, of all the physical laws and constants, just the Cosmological Constant alone is tuned to a level of 1/10^120; not to mention the fine-tuning of the Mass-Energy distribution of early universe which is 1/ 10^10^123. Therefore, in the fine-tuning argument, it would be more *Rational and Reasonable* to conclude that the multi-verse is not the correct answer while trying to determine the origin of the universe.
48:30 A "Miracle" is considered to be an event with a probability of occurrence of 1/10^6. Abiogenesis, RNA World Hypothesis, and Multiverse would all far, far, far exceed any "Miracle". 40:00 Yet, these extremely *Irrational and Unreasonable* hypotheses are what many of the world’s top scientists _‘must’_ believe in and promote because of a prior commitment to a strictly arbitrary, subjective, biased, narrow, limiting, materialistic ideology / worldview.
Every idea, number, concept, thought, theory, mathematical equation, abstraction, qualia, Information, etc. existing within and expressed by anyone is "Immaterial" or "Non-material". The very idea or concept of "Materialism" is an immaterial entity and by it's own definition does not exist. Modern science seems to be stuck in archaic, subjective, biased ideologies that have inadequately attempted to define the "nature of reality" or the "reality of nature" for millenia. A Paradigm Shift in ‘Science’ is needed for humanity to advance. A major part of this Science Paradigm Shift would be the formal acknowledgment by the scientific community of the existence of "Immaterial" or "Non-material" entities as verified and confirmed by discoveries in Quantum Physics.
Justin is perhaps the best moderators on popular media currently. Extremely effective, polite and very knowledgeable. He has this amazing quality of steering conversation without upsetting the participants. I am a big fan of this channel.
I agree, yes, it's a pleasure watching him maneuver the conversations into directions that would yield better, clearer points of view from both the parties.
I agreed with you on this.
He needs to cut out some of the waffle and he needs to be more concise in his questions. As Dawkins pointed out at the beginning, the conversation needed to start immediately with the science, not with Hitchens or with the history of Covid, or the political ramifications of it.
What’s ‘unbelievable’ is how fantastic this video is and how generally wonderful this host is with his myriad other videos on fascinating and essential subjects. It’s so rare to see such things discussed so fully, dispassionately and with integrity and candour. And these two are giants of guests. Wonderful.
It was brilliant to see Dr Francis Collins laugh amiably all the way through this conversation at Richard Dawkins scepticism. It’s good to talk. Dawkins was definitely in awe of Dr Collins and there was mutual respect. Good quotes from Francis Collins from Polkhorne as well and that performance at the end on the guitar was as heart warming as an episode of Bag Puss!! Many thanks to you and all your staff!! All the best!!
“Friendship is unnecessary, like philosophy, like art.... It has no survival value; rather it is one of those things which give value to survival”
(CS Lewis).
❤️
Applauds for both and Justin for putting on such a great conversation that demonstrates the glory of trying to understand each other and showing care about the point of view across the aisle instead of dismissing everything the other person says.
Yea this was a good one.
Thank YOU Justin for your courage in starting the Unbelievable series which I found with joy way back at the start. There had never been anything like it before and this is the absolute best. So well done 👏 !
What a wonderful discussion. I am so thankful for Francis Collins brilliant marriage of faith and science. He is uniquely prepared to give "a reason for the hope we have in Christ." That he came to faith at age 27 after a diligent search bolstered my faith. I was blessed by watching the conversation.
Quite a coup for Unbelievable to get these two on together.
It is. I think Dawkins agreed to this meeting 1) on the commonality that they both believe in evolution and 2) Collins is not an aggressive person unlike Dawkins who can be outright hostile.
@@bryanphillips6529 Collins is fun and intelligent
Dawkins does not come across as aggressive, oh yeah if the person does not agree with you they are aggressive
Dawkins is a bit persona non grata lately because of his horrible bigotry against LGBTQ of late so he's not able to be so picky on his public events
@@davidbradley834 that comment probably says more about how you feel about people who disagree with you!
It was wonderful seeing the respect that Dawkins appeared to have for Collins and how Collins made Dawkins smile and laugh
It truly was. Respectful disagreement. Dawkins is usually rude to his opponents, but not this time.
Hmmm. Wonder why that is??? Maybe because they are on the same team, eh?
@@HeritageWealthPlanning what do you mean? What team do you think they might both be on?
@@ProfYaffle I was thinking the same thing😂 What on earth is he talking about?
Probably the “those who agree about Covid and evolution are evil godless heathens who don’t accept the plain truth of the Bible” sort.
It was really refreshing to see Dawkins be so respectful in this Christian dominant discussion. Respect
Respect is earned and not freely given !
No body can stand head to head with Richard as Francis can, what a delight to listen to both. Thanx Justin .
Really. John Lennox destroyed him as did Rowan Williams in their 3 on 3 debate at Cambridge. William Lane Craig would have done the same but Dick ran away.
@Donkey Kong Odd. The Cambridge debate with Williams gave it 324 votes to 136 in favour of Rowan's side. Dawkins ran to the Guardian after multiple atheist groups pressed Dawkins to face Craig. John Lennox just schooled him.
@@TBOTSS Oh dear. You are representing the ignorant religious helmets perfectly here.
Kameel Farag. Oh really? I saw him get owned by a young Muslim girl: "This is how young Muslim girls embarrassed a big Atheist Richard Dawkins" (TH-cam). Also, he refuses to debate. Bible-believing fundamentalist on the grounds that they are not worth his time. That's his excuse anyway.
I've lost two friends in their 50's (that had no underlying conditions) due to this vaccine they praise so much. They were both very fit and had zero problems or symtoms before they took the shot only to develop symtoms in the months after. Both developed heart-failure like symtoms and died within a year. So it's not as a rosy picture as these two gentlemen are trying to paint. I get provoced every time I hear this kind of smooth talking and almost praising when it comes to this russian roulette "vaccine". Other friends of mine who also took it survived but have had like 10 flu's, virusinfections and other colds in the years that followed their vaccine, like ten times more often sick than they used to be. It's almost ike they ruined their immune system.
I never took any of these shots, neither did I take the swine-flu shot and I'm fine. During covid I did keep my distance from others, washed my hands often (still do) and took vitamine-D supplements daily.
@Unbelievable? this has been brilliant. A classic. Thank you so much. So sad that it has to end. It would be great if you could invite them back after they have had time to think about everything they have discussed
You have to be a long time Dawkins fan to fully appreciate Collins making him smile.
Yes!
Haha...exactly.
I felt that when Collins highlighted that Dawkins just converted to deist, well the Collin guy's face was flat serious.
Richard Dawkins said this was the best debate he's been in and promoted it on Twitter
What an excellent conversation. It is remarkable to see how both speakers, and the host, treat each other with respect and intellectual admiration for each other's position. This is usually missing in this type of debates. Great job
So you got respect and trusting entertainment purposes only and not to be trusted like usual. You personally Saw these people being confronted with others in operations. or any one educated talented smart person can bring in the masses with the same out look in other words for years wile what has ever gained in it all way's Failed. the only thing God ever involves us in is Faith but only to believe it prevents te incinorator witch makes us saved suckers really. These people knew you would come up with this possitive responce because they know your expectations and had controled you be for you even thought how nice this is. I LOVE ENTERTAINMENT THE FAKE ART OF GATHERING RESPECT. But only on screen is the best place for an operator of my gladness. Finding later i need to Click to find it as it last as long as my eyes can see it on screen . REALITY is just a bad delusion. Walk back out the door finding life not quite like this ends up more a downer for the soul fool not food for thought but yet an other created word by Man as we speak controling the Masses. seems every one has a some what point of view just like they keep you . no one will ever have a power of thier own because its no longer a single understood created meaning .God does not by mans idea to make simple robots to relate to Said. but if we just look at it we see that is exactly what we have been ever when this mass of control began. love is control till it kills you. Love causes more suffering in the simple minded trusting every step they or we make.
@@trafficjon400 What?
The problem is that two opposing ideas are treated as though they are equally worthy of respect, and this is demonstrably not the case. If a prominent scientist can do no better than to offer the most common - and distinctly poor - arguments, no more evidence or reason-based than the average believer, there is no comparison between the positions. Dawkins has the distinct advantage, in that there is no convincing case for gods being anything other than the ancient invention of ignorant humans.
@@chikkipop What is the word?
@@chikkipop Why they all way's put ENTERTAINING PURPOSES ONLY ! You tube fucking up a lot of minds including i better take a long break if i though it would be so Necessary . What is today
I always disliked Dawkins. This interview/debate changed my mind. He is very gracious in this discussion, and I have new respect for him, as well as his worldview.
Yes I agree. It is so good they had the conversation rather than the debate. Dawkins seemed so unsmiling talking to John Lennox, until the end.
I think Collins' happy smiling persona brought out the best in him
Yes, as a Christian I completely disagree with him, but he comes across well here: I think, partly because he obviously really respects Francis Collins.
@@matt76716 me too but I found that respect for Collins was shining through today. I prayed for him today to have a revelation. I don't think I have ever seen the point before.
I think if they had dinner and a few whiskys and chatted for hours, Collins might find some chinks in the armour
Watch him deal with Wendy Wright
Dawkins is a fuvkin Saint
@@ProfYaffle Yes, maybe the fact they had a common friend in Christopher Hitchens also helped to keep this conversation more amenable than some of the debates that Richard Dawkins has had with christians. I love John Lennox, and you would think Richard Dawkins would respect his credentials, but I don't feel that he does. Anyway, just wanted to thank you for praying for Richard Dawkins, and not giving up on him, that is a good example to the rest of us: I haven't been, but I will start to do the same. We shouldn't give up on anyone.
Dawkins seems to listen better when it is a well-respected scientist who believes in God vs a philosopher or theologian.
Until the guy showed how dumb he was when talking about resurrection and believing in magic that happened 2k years ago without any evidence, at that point I thought Dawkins was going to have a stroke at the stupidity, but he kept it together lol
@@OArchivesX I hear atheists and non Christians say this all the time. It's not an argument based in fact. Of course there is historical evidence for the resurrection. A little research shows this. You may disagree with the conclusions of Christians but to say there is no evidence isn't a serious claim. Your statement says more about yourself than reality - a bias based on your own philosophical presuppositions through which you evaluate all supernatural claims. It's not an argument. It's a pronouncement of your own authority.
That was one of the best episodes I've seen. Well done!
Two renowned scientists with a knack for communicating with the general public. A real treat to watch them spar.
One a brilliant genius (Dawkins) and the other a flawed smart guy!
Hello from Mozambique 🤗. What a wonderful conversation. We'd like to see more of these debates Justin! Thank you for being such an amazing moderator.
I love Dawkins because he's so real, he just wants to really understand life. He doesn't mince his words. God bless him
I dont agree that RD is " so real" He doesnt want to accept debating W L Craig because he knows that he wont win.
They did debate. Try using search. Looks like he won just fine.
@@luisrodriguezvera5935 no one "wins" in these debates. Both debaters pump out the soundbites that their loyal supporters want to hear. As a result, both sides come away feeling like their spokesman won. Case in point, the logic and wit that Christopher Hitchens employed in all of his debates, I feel like he comfortably won hands down against all of his religious adversaries. Yet I converse with believers all the time that think the opposite.
@@noneyourbusiness9668
Dawkins has never debated Craig one on one. He's made it a point to avoid him.
The time you're likely referring to was a group panel.
@@luisrodriguezvera5935 he doesn't have to . And there's a reason he won't. And Craig's a liar
What happens when an irresistible force meets an immovable object ? Brilliant conversation. Congratulations to all involved.
Irre- force meets immovable object. wecome to our how simple it sounds is because it is meaning by second guess useless. irresistible needs to move just by a micro- to be noticed with out mans words .
I wouldn't call Francis Collin's feeble arguments either an irresistible force or an immovable object .........
@@retromograph3893 definitely, he could not stand up to any moderate thinker or Bible teacher.
A truly really remarkable video discussion, thank you all who made it possible. A special thank you to TH-cam. Cheers SBM.
I have watched just about all of the God no God debates on TH-cam. This one was by FAR the best. Justin did a magnificent job of steering the discussion, a discussion between two true giants. I was pleasantly surprised to see that Dawkins was not his usual acerbic self. Clearly his respect for Collin's scientific credentials played a part in that. Perhaps age is mellowing Dawkins. Great job Justin.
My thoughts exactly. I think Collins' personality contributed to Dawkins' pleasantness too. I did not know he could smile and laugh so much.
I love the WLCraig Roger Penrose chat on unbelievable cos Penrose is so humble and intelligent.
I also love the Jon Lennox vs Dawkins chat too, but there is no lightness or humour or smiling until right at the end with Dawkins.
Which is your favourite apart from this?
Dawkins is at his weakest when discussing religion and at his best when discussing science.
@@waynecrich7731 I find people like Ken Ham really bad at science too. Why they think they can tell us more about evolution than say Francis Collins is beyond me
@@ProfYaffle everyone knows that Ham is a scammer
@@ProfYaffle there are more options than materialist evolutionary theory and YEC. Even evolutionary biologists admit that natural selection can only select something that is already there. It does not create anything new. How new organs and body plans developed is still a scientific debate. Plus, evolutionary theory does not explain life, it depends on it. Look up chemist James Tour as well as palaeontologist and former atheist Günter Bechly.
Thank you, Justin, for this formidable debate. It's a great pleasure to watch this two gentlemen exchange their arguments on science and religion. And although on a Christian channel, the whole discussion is enormously fair and unbiased. To say it short: It's a real pleasure.
It was my first Dawkins discussion I've watched, so I was surprised to see him so good mannered, even humorous. But in that regard he was outperformed by Collins who so understandingly laughed or shaked his head.
As a non scientist I was happy to get to know a bunch of new insights. But as a Christian and theologian questions remain that weren't settled by the talk actually. Anyway, UNBELIEVABLE, and especially The Big Conversation is one of the utmost interesting channels for debate that I've come upon. And to a great degree its success depends on Justin's incredible gift to moderate. Keep on! I'm looking forward to even more of these brilliant videos.
To me Dawkins outperformed collins 🤷♂️
Collins outperformed Dawkins? You're letting your spiritual biases get in the way of your logic pal. Not the first time it's happened to a Christian, I suppose!
I would say that Dawkins outperformed Collins in this discussion not, as you suggest, the other way around. I could accept Collins for becoming a deist, but not for believing in Christ, the cross, the sermon on the mount etc. That would seem like god let natue roll on for billions of years then suddenly appeared 2000 years ago in the form of christ, performed a few acts contrary to science and then disappeared again ? Also, Collins would seem to have rejected much of the bible which is conflicts with what Collins himself has accepted with regards to the formation of the earth and evolution. How has he rationalised that away ?
Sounds like your part of the understandings policy.
As I write this, I'm about halfway through, and I don't think one outperformed the other. I think Collins articulated his ideas a little better, and made some good arguments, but I think his argument still came down to the argument from ignorance. Granted, Dawkins' argument "there's no evidence," but the burden of proof was on Collins.
Fascinating, stimulating and respectful - thanks to everyone involved in bringing these two together
Sir Dawkins from first day u r my friend and I believe in you , thank you my respect all 3 of you
A particularly good discussion because Richard and Francis were not speaking past each other, and each was listening to the other and engaging with their comments.
You can see the disappointment Richard has in Francis at times. I really liked that these two were just allowed to talk to each other
This is definitely one to keep and watch again, just so much to take in. I thoroughly enjoy watching any conversation/debate with Dawkins, and benefit from his rational views. Really enjoyed this, can we have some more please.
I don’t want to make overwhelmed sir Dawkins , let me repeat , from the first day sir Dawkins is my friend, whatever he believes in me or not, its ok bcoz he is my friend And I believe in him
Such a great interaction! Everyone remains kind and in good spirits, which is a joy to watch.
37:35 Dawkins' objection to presenting God as a being outside of time is interesting. He supposes that the timeless property of God is a modern contrivance to solve the origin problem, however, the 4,000yr old biblical description of God is "I AM THAT I AM" (or "I will be what I will be"), a name which has timelessness built right into it (Exodus 3:14). We also have Jesus's statement from 2,000 years ago, "before Abraham was, I am." (John 8:58).
That's some impressive forward thinking for the biblical authors to write a description of God with the property of being outside of time, such that their description remains compatible with future scientific discovery. Of course we know now that time is a thing that did not always exist, that it is dependant on the existence of the universe and has properties that vary under different relativistic conditions. Time being a finite thing necessitates any God capable of creating it to exist outside of it, and besides the Abrahamic/Christian God I'm unaware of any other religion that was so lucky as to record a description of deity that remains scientifically compatible on this issue.
The objection to God both creating natural order and performing miracles is strange also. The very existence of a natural order is what causes a miracle to stand out as something extraordinary. If God wants to make a point by causing a miracle they necessarily have to be uncommon amidst the common. The concept of something being "extraordinary" doesn't make sense without an "ordinary". Jesus performing miracles as proof that he is the prophesied messiah wouldn't make headlines if they happened all the time.
" miracles " are a part of all religions. They exist in order to try and persuade people to believe in that particular one.
I'm thankful that i dismiss them all as pure nonsense.
@@holdontoyourwig That's fine, but your comment is not related to the specific assertion of Dawkins that I am addressing.
@@Nighthawkinlight Yeah. The fact we know now that time itself, let alone space and matter, had a beginning, obviously debunks materialism as there must exists a transcendent or “supernatural” realm outside of nature that caused its existence. The timelessness of God also gets rid of that old atheists dogma: “who created God?”
Timelessness by nature is eternal, infinite, and un caused.
@@holdontoyourwig Everybody believes something. The natural sciences cannot answer the question whether matter + energy is all there is. Your free will alone shows: The self that is looking through your marvellous eyes cannot be reduced to physics and chemistry. "This... strongly reinforces our belief in the human soul and in its miraculous origin in a divine creation." John Eccles, neuroscientist and Nobel laureate
You are not an accident, but a masterpiece. And loved, more than you can imagine.
Dawkin's objection to a god existing outside of conventional space & time does not rest on whether this supposedly timeless/spaceless property is a contrivance of modern,medieval or ancient vintage. The point was one of logic in relation to Darwinian evolution, whereby the baseless supposition of a complex creative intelligence conveniently located outside of spacetime by the human imagination is a betrayal of the evolutionary processes which allowed complexity to emerge from simplicity in the first instance. That one can imagine such a being , invest it with all kinds of powers of intelligence, install it outside perceivable time and have it be the catalyst of the laws of physics is one thing,whether it is true is another. the human imagination is not in itself proof positive of its miscreants however divine.
I think as a Christian it is great to hear from scholars like Dawkins to question and make counter-argument against Christian faith. It really help us to engage and seek wisdom instead of just blindly pretend that we know the faith. I like the Dawkins’ argument why there is evils, diseases, and all organisms trying to propagate through competition. I think God sometimes intervenes and sometimes doesn’t because for God, he ultimately sees it from a more of the eternity perspective. I noticed there just isn’t a way to explain God from a natural, biological world point of view…because understanding God requires putting constant variable that God is good and his intention (purpose) is love even beyond the lifetime- this obviously would keep depart from the scientific arguments.
Nearly had a heart attack, around 50 min I was walking through my dark house turning lights off as I listened to Justin say we will be right back. Then the music of those drums SLAMMED into my headphones. I stoped in my tracks just completely started by the abrupt sound.
Love your show, just wanted to share a funny moment
If ever there’s anything outside space and time, it is Not God but our consciousness. It is this unexplained phenomenon in our head that gives us the ability to begin in the first place to think of a supreme being that lies outside and beyond our universe.
That would be the other way around, our head inside consciousness.
As would "God" be inside the mind of God, the I-mind that AM.
Justin, thank you for providing consistently intelligent and respectful programs on religious topics.
Wonderful discussion. I've never been much a fan of Dawkins - I've always appreciated Hitchens much more, if for no other reason than his sense of humor - but here I think he's a bit more humble and open. Maybe it's because he's a bit older and is in conversation with someone he respects as a world-class scientist who also is kind and humble, himself, in his claims. Thank you, Unbelievable, for continuing to provide reasonable conversations in the spirit of forthright kindness.
christianity is a cancer on society
Actually hes akways been like this when speaking to or debating respectful beiliers see his debate with Rowan Williams. Its just hes usually debating creationists. Hes very polite to believers just not fundermentalist ones who deny science.
I am not particularly a fan of Dawkins but he has my respect for being honest about his finite knowledge of certain things. He never profess to know a lot in terms of things he never really having the expertise which is putting me in admiration, always. For some other intellectual who are showered by constant praise of being too smart and knowledgeable, they sometimes go into details without wit because they know to themselves that they know not the thing they are allegedly knowledgeable about. So in this respect, I am admiring the both of them and the moderator. I've learned a lot. Thanks for this channel and thank more so to God. God bless you all!
This was an assignment at first to answer questions on this debate, but I then became keen to watch the entire video as such a conversation among three people with peace and respect for one another is so rare to witness. These men are brilliant and deserve more attention than they get.
Brilliant conversation. Your content is just the best.
I loved the clarity of dawkins, and the lines he draws..this was challenging for F C, he made many assertions that were unverifiable..i loved the respect they both showed..well done.
You like the respect of fake entertainment that is not but entertainment to control you but not you controling any thing. why reallity stay's the same with wish wash.
The assertions made about the mind of god cd be made about the 38mil gods in the hindu pantheon etc etc..all unverifiable..
@@johnno6183 What's crazy about your assumptions is that there is books on about the different fundamentals between what you proclaim. There is evidence out there but the question is, would you go down that route? 🤔
@@MultiBigAndy which books about which assumption?
@@MultiBigAndy How can Johnno go down that route if you don't say which books to read?
Richard Dawkins: "There is a strong illusion of design in the universe." As an agnostic person is investigating life to find ultimate truth and understand reality, this comment by Richard Dawkins nudges me to actually be open to believing that God / the gods may very well exist. It is sort of ironic that some of Dawkins' main arguments lead me to see the possibility and need for the existence of some type of Cosmic Creator - or whatever one wants to call God / the gods. Thank you Justin Brierley for such amazing shows! Unbelievable? is a fantastic show!!! Francis Collins presents interesting arguments in support of having faith in God. So many things to consider. *SALUTE!*
Infinity is God. The ultimate origin of everything
How does that comment make you open to believing god? Thats a terrible reason.
Was impressed with the graciousness of both debaters to be honest.
This was very well articulated by both panel members. It is difficult to speak about such technical subjects in a manner most people can understand or at least follow the conversation.
Now that what I call unbelievable debate well done justin for bringing these to together
When Dawkins meets a theist that he knows his faith has not hindered his science. Hopefully this challenges his narrative that faith hinders science. Thank you Dr. Collins for representing faith and science so well to the world.
Dr. Collins manufactures whatever he needs to manufacture to defend his narrative, just like anyone else attempting to explain and support a case for religion. I
@@mikeregan7034 Science and all religions are completely incompatible. So they just turn to Philosophy and they found Empiricism. Religions are not welcome in the Philosophy of Explanatory Realism. where Empiricism is also unwelcome.
@@mikeregan7034 Agreed, but at least he’s one of the more honest theist scientists who knows to check his irrational beliefs at the lab door, and see where the actual evidence which manifests in reality leads.
I thank God for CS Lewis. His heart, his writings touch my life deeply and profoundly. His impact in drawing people to Jesus through his books keeps on growing. What a beautiful soul and incredible legacy!
Same. I ♡ crush on his writings ... He and Joy were blessed to find each other.
CS Lewis was a Gnostic. 🙂
Seeing their contrasting facial affect at the start after introductions was quite telling..
Great show guys. Really enjoyed it. Open discussion is the way forward
That sense of appreciation of beauty, is just another of nature’s tricks to keep us going in this game that has no purpose whatsoever.
I was in hurry to make a coment without listening Collins' song, but after listening I can say this conversation is the best conversation I have ever heard between a theist and atheist.
Dawkins had me over here dying😂. "Smuggled in God, magick-ed away problem away, a dishonest way of smuggling in What You Really Want"
Highly effective moderation as usual. Good conversation
My highest respect all 3 of you have a great night sir
I think it's clear to anyone paying attention that Justin is one of the best interviewers in the world. He always manages to get the most interesting answers from his guests. And I say this as a non-believer.
As a Christian and born again believer I’m actually looking forward to Richard Dawkins defending real biology and common sense. That’s how far we come in this country
Unless he’s just taken the lefts narrative completely like Neil degrasse Tyson
What do you mean
@@tripp8833 there are people in this country who have abandoned all common sense. People like Richard Dawkins…who I disagree with completely on his views of god, will at least be reasonable in his arguments even though I disagree.
Francis Collins is an even better biologist though you realise
I see you're probably refering to the genders thing in America and a question of what is a woman and such lol
Thanks, Justin. A fantastic one!
Outstanding discussion. Need to get them both back.
So good listening to these amazing guys.
Has Science Buried God, Creation & Belief? I wanna see Dr. John Lennox & Hugh Ross PHD debate Dr. Richard Dawkins & Dr. Peter Atkins on Unbelievable Channel
YES PLEASE
Dawkins is also a Dr. as well btw
@@johnhenrysguitar Yes!
Boss battle!
geeze that would be insane
very nice debate! respekt for you, Justin!
i'm actually (more) a theist , but i really like the humility of Richard Dawkins! I have therefore the feeling that Richard is closer to God than many theologians! Greetings from Germany!
Have you seen him before? The humility is new and a complete surprise. But really lovely to behold. He may be melting
@@ProfYaffle yes, I have seen him for years. And I think he was always humble, even if he seems to be a bit "aggressive"! I like his honesty!
@@p.p.6133 ok. I have only seen him a few times, so I concede that I have insufficient data.
I like frankness and I guess if it is completely bizarre and ridiculous to him that any of us believe in God, he maybe gets very frustrated. That is understandable
Fantastic debate which I applaud Unbelievable for organising. Shocking though is Dr Collins' lapse of reason when proclaiming his belief in the biblical narrative of miracles 1:03:32
Thank you for inviting Professor Richard Dawkins to your program. I really enjoyed listening to his talk.
Great interview.
I don't agree with Richard Dawkins anymore about God, but I was delighted by his graceful and generous attitude here. I think perhaps its difficult to be angry with Francis Collins, his quizzical expressions are too endearing.
Watch his video with Wendy Wright. Dawkins is a Saint
Such a great blessing to know people like Prof. Francis Colins, Prof. Jim Tour, Prof. John Lennox.... great scientists and devout followers of Jesus.
Yes, Christians twist their nipples at the thought of a scientist saying they believe in god. They see it as a “aha! If god doesn’t exist why are there scientists that believe. You can’t refute a scientist “ the notion that “because a scientists has a personal belief “ therefore true
@@rodzalez3549 yeah crazy how they manage to ignore the scientific consensus while putting a handful of them the cornerstone of their argument.
@@rodzalez3549 boy... No one is arguing here that because great scientists believe in Jesus, therefore it must be true. Look that the rational evidences they are putting forward. The conclusions are logical and inescapable... 👍
@@thebiblepiano1866 What are you talking about hahahahaha you melt
@@thebiblepiano1866 “the conclusions are rational and inescapable “? What? Which evidence? Who won the Pulitzer Prize for this evidence. Where is the peer review?
Praise The Lord for such great men on the same platform. Parents we have this great gift for our Children b4 they get out there in Colleges. God bless the family of Dr. FC more
Imagine these two sitting on a porch, sipping whiskey, debating this into the night. That would be great.
Richard was giving Francis plausible explanations for his concerns about the origin of beauty, good and evil, but Francis simply disliked his responses on a personal level, and was attempting to make it seem like Richard was failing to answer them.
I’m just gob smacked you managed to get Richard Dawkins on the show.
Wow what a truly incredible discussion
When he says “god not interested in this , god out space-time ….” This mean you give definition for god and you knows him , this very big clam
This debate was awesome, great dialogue, great topics and great speakers
Thanks for bringing these two together Justin. Two brilliant minds with two very different worldviews. Always interesting.
not really. Collins is an idiot. God kicked us out of Eden and into this world as punishment not so that we can go on some wonderous journey or whatever.
For theists, this life is about learning and discovery. Learning and discovery of the ultimate reality that is "God". Presence of good and evil, therefore, is necessary. If there were no bad outcomes, no suffering, a paradise rather, then that would be the only possibility. A world without death or hardship, would take away the importance of life and goodness. No regrets, no fear, no need for learning, no need to think about the unknown, including God....
This is so enjoyable! Smart people discussing the existence of god.
What an amazing debate. I came into it on the fence and still am. They both made amazing points. I probably lean a little on there being some sort of creator or intelligent designer but not into any religions.
Well, you might not want to stop there...seek and you shall find! After all, if there is God , don't you think He would've left plenty of evidence for His existence? To adopt a theistic position and not to dig deeper isn't going to do you any good..God bless you 💖🙏💖🙏 you might want to watch Dr. Tours videos
I can remember being a child under 5, I had a puppy, I was carrying it and running, and I fell down on top of the poor thing. Of course the puppy cried loudly...I felt horrible because he was only little and "I" had hurt him. That taught me to be more careful. My concern came naturally, I had never even heard of God...so God has nothing to do with learning how to be a good human. That was 50 years ago... and I never forgot it. I was alone in the shed, nobody saw me, nobody told me it was bad to hurt the puppy, I just knew. No God needed thank you.
I am a Muslim from Pakistan.I firmly believe in God and also in Dawkins.Great talks.
what you mean you believe in Dawkins do you mean Dawkins is god 😂
It is certainly entertaining to hear rational but respectful conversations on such important but seemingly unsolvable topics. More, more, more please.
I wish Richard Dawkins debated WLC.
I think Dawkins will forever be remembered for ducking that encounter
He chickened out and he would never dare to debate a philosopher who's an expert on the arguments for the existence of God.
@@thuunder9573 seems to be the case
@@thuunder9573 seems to be the case
This might be the closest we will see Dawkins move towards theism; acknowledging that fine tuning is a strong argument and allowing for the possibility of deism.
Yes,agreed. It seems to me that he doesn't like the idea of there being a God. It mucks up, for him, the beauty of his own beliefs in evolution.
yes that was interesting
He's saying that the fine-tuning argument is the strongest argument a theist can currently come up with, in the face of our scientific ignorance of the universe. What you characterized is utterly different lol, but feel free to believe whatever.
Deism and theism are in many ways mutually exclusive.
Deism = universe was created 13.8 billion years ago. Nowhere does that imply the creator still exists today (theism).
A great conversation. Thank you
This has been much anticipated
Loved listening to this discussion. Dawkins said he doesn’t NEED God in the explanation of how humans and other life forms came about, but the ultimate question of why there was the initial ‘force’ that made life even possible he did not and cannot address if there is no God. To me, it’s not just the one argument (like the fine-tuning that Dawkins likes) that tells me there’s a God, it ALL the explanations/evidences that come together that my brain can assess and come to a ‘beyond unreasonable doubt’ reasoning: the moral ability of humans, the objective Truth as explained by CS Lewis, , the beginning of life, the fine- tuning of the universe, the ability of humans to appreciate love and beauty in nature, music, family, human relationships etc, the unreasonable nobility of forgiveness and radical altruism, the sense that there’s something bigger (as Francis pointed out towards the end), miracles as experienced by many and the list goes on. It’s hard to say there is no God, just randomness in the universe, when these are real things that we see and experience in our daily lives. If ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ is good enough for the court system, it should be good enough for us. One could just keep on chasing and searching and never coming to a conclusion, then one day your life stopped and it’s too late to find out. Hope Dawkins will come to this conclusion one day. Thanks Justin, for hosting this conversation.
I wish you'd have someone like James Tour or Gunter Bechly on with Dawkins.
Honestly, I don’t agree with all of what Francis Collins says
James tour is a force to be reckoned with though, or Stephen c Meyer
Why?
@@nadeemshaikh7863 he believes in Darwinian evolution which is a bit iffy. Don’t get me wrong I believe in micro evolution but macro evolution as in we used to be monkeys nah. 😂😂
I’ve heard Richard say he only will debate “religious leaders” like bishops etc. He doesn’t want to “waste his time” with ID “creationists”. Francis Collins poses no threat I think, thus able to get him to agree to come on.
Pleasure and Pain. Pleasure is known to be good, and pain is known to be bad.
Thank you Francis Collins for helping treat and advise Christopher Hitchens.
Surely any Christian who “compromises” by accepting evolution, by default, compromises on Genesis chapters 1-11!!!
YES. At what age did you realised, Genesis 1-11 is a folklore
Great debate! My love for Richard Dawkins. Hope he finds what he wants. My prayers and love for him and also Mr. Collins from whom I have learned a lot. May peace of Christ be upon all of us.
What is "peace of Christ" and why should it be upon anyone, whatever that means?
*"Hope he finds what he wants."* What reason do you have to assume he's looking for something?
Or may the cosmos roll the dice in your favour ✌️
@@chikkipop So he is not looking for anything? Peace? Love? Friendship? What about truth? What about knowledge? What about you?
You do not want peace?
Being someone who can write English and in the internet (I am talking about you) and came to watch this debate may no need any explanation about who "CHRIST" is. Jesus Christ is the most famous person in the history of humanity. Read the Bible and find out what Peace of Christ is. Don't waste my time and your time.
@@cartesiancircle It did. I am born and found out who God is.
@@zakariyarazi8247 Why should I read an ancient book? What is "peace of Christ"? Are you telling me that you can't explain? It doesn't sound like something I'd want, but maybe you could clarify.
The topic of forgiveness is a good one. I think that forgiveness happens all the time. We could also call it "looking past" grievances we have. If you always grouse about something that someone did to you at some point, it takes up cognitive energy apart from anything else, whereas if you let it slide you can move on with your life. However, to forgive is not to forget and if people keep doing things which upset or disturb us, eventually we cut ties with them, and this is perfectly normal.
God bathed us in His love when He allowed us scientifically (like an intellectual game of sorts) to discover how amazing, awesome and loving He, through scientific discovery. Some do not recognize love when they see, feel or meet It - Even when God made it as easy as believing... ♡ Faith as the first step, makes ALL the difference. ♡ We are fearfully & wonderfully made, regardless of the lies the enemy of our soul whispers.
Not gonna lie, I’ve lost a lot of respect for Dr Collins after covid. Stephen Meyer would be a better interlocutor for Prof Dawkins.
Stephen Meyer doesn’t have a background in biology or chemistry though, plus intelligent design is pseudoscience.
@@jacob18310 I’m interested in what particular points in his books you found to be inaccurate concerning biology? I agree that ID wouldn’t be considered classical science by my standards. By that standard neither would evolution. It isn’t testable or provable. It is merited by its predictive and explanatory power. Within that realm ID serves as a legitimate process for critical analysis.
@@jacob18310 “Doesn’t have a background in x therefore their argument about x is false” is a fallacy. Even if that wasn’t the case, he did his PhD at Cambridge (hardly a fringe university) on origin of life research.
I guess it depends what one means by intelligent design. It seems to me fine-tuning arguments fit comfortably in that category, which even Prof Dawkins finds compelling. Also, all heterodox science is “pseudoscience” to begin with. And there are definitely different strains of ID. Not all iterations are created equal.
Meyer still seems to be one of the most credible advocates of a theistic-based approach to science - better than Collins. His recent conversation with Michael Shermer, I thought anyway, was very productive; whether or not one is atheist or theist in their disposition. They both provided strong counterpoints to each other’s positions.
Why?
I was shocked to see his name on this video.
The question of a god's existence is unavoidable once you acknowledge the scientific method as the most reliable way of understanding what is real, as well as the role of belief in determining behavior. The degree to which people make decisions based not on science or data, but rather on emotional hunches and tribal allegiance is immensely troubling. The god hypothesis is, at best, a hunch. NOMA is an obsolete peace-keeping strategy that collapses under the weight of modern scientific knowledge and understanding.
And yet we literally create operating systems like windows and ios. That's a digital version of a reality created by a 'god' or architect. How is that so hard to comprehend? We are living in an holographic construct, hence sine waves.
What is your hunch about this binary question:
Has SOMEthing always existed OR did SOME first thing arise from nothing at some point in the past?
I say SOMEthing has always existed.
@@20july1944 My hunch is also that something has always existed. Perhaps not in the form of matter or energy as we know it. Rather, I suspect the very concept of cause and effect and emergent properties are eternal principles. Many folks struggle with the idea of an eternal cosmos, but will simultaneously acknowledge that Pi is infinite expression of a finite length that converges on 3.14. Or that there are infinite points on a line segment...etc.
@@20july1944 Yes the maybe the universe always existed at least we can see it every night
@@nedleyolpal No, the universe can NOT have always existed because it would then be in heat death because that's where the universe is headed.
That's my point.
Fantastic video; needs more views.
I'm a Christian, but I was puzzled by Francis' argument that natural disasters and evil happen because God doesn't want to break his own laws. The New Creation will be a physical world where, the Bible says, animals won't harm one another, and there will be no weeping or evil. So God is able to stop evil in a physical world if he wishes. He is sovereign over evil as well as good. Although we don't fully understand the origins of evil, he allows evil to occur for divine purposes, not because "he simply cannot break his own natural laws".
I've read most of Lewis and continue to learn about him. It sometimes surprises me how some fans of Lewis don't know much about him. Lewis eventually gave up on the apologetics that Collins adheres to. Most of it was directed toward his friends and colleagues, which helps explain all the literary references in "Surprised by Joy." But he saw it wasn't working, and had even ticked off Tolkien, so he put those arguments aside and decided to write Narnia.
Meanwhile, Lewis, not in a bad way, is very different in A Grief Observed. I'd day more honest. Joy Davidman had greatly expanded his horizons.
I’m a big fan of Lewis & am surprised by your statement as well. Where can we read more about this?
@@zachhindt3408 Hi Zach, thanks for writing. Man, Lewis is an ongoing subject of interest to me, so over the years I've read many biographies and articles about him. I'm not sure which source to point you to.
It's part of my interest in the contrast between the UK, which is so secular today, and the U.S. which has a large, strong Christian base. But the trend amongst younger people has been to leave the churches. My wife is on the board of The American Bible Society and they are extremely concerned about this trend. They are struggling on how to address it.
Would love to know more about this. What do you mean by ‘gave up on the apologetics’? What did he adopt in place of it? Does it mean apologetics in general isn’t effective for most?
@@Loumo Perhaps a better way to express it was that he opted for Narnia as the more effective channel for the Gospel
In his circle, The Case for Christianity was not working with his peers and that was the group that mattered to him most
I do think his Narnia books are the ones that will continue to last, just like Tolkien.
@@michaelperkins485 So appealing to emotion rather than reason was found to be more effective. Maybe not surprising but still a bit disappointing as a scientist. Thanks for clarifying.
The difference between Collins and Dawkins on beauty, Beethoven, etc. is surely that while Dawkins doesn't "dismiss" our appreciation of these as evolutionary epiphenomena, he doesn't think that they reveal a higher and absolute truth beyond themselves. For Collins and Lewis, I think, the perceived beauty is a function of the revelations that they purport to give. They point beyond themselves.
It is 1105p CT on 5/22 -- it's a pity that I just found this debate out. Now I must decide between watching this one all the way and staying awake for the next hour and a half, or saving it to my "watch later" queue and stay awake while trying to catch some sleep.
I give Dawkins a points victory in this one, due to the fact that Collins had to resort to putting words in Dawkins mouth in order to make his argument. You cant say that someone has dismissed something just just because their view on it is different to yours, especially when they have just delivered an in-depth explanation of their reasoning on why something is how it is without having to invoke the existence of a god for whom there is no evidence .
There is no evidence for Collins' God but there is evidence for a creator. As Dawkins said, " the fine-tuning argument is a good argument".
One universe with the inherent Physical Constants are the best evidence we've ever had for a creator.
@@briansmith3791 and how did the creator come about ?
@@johnmartin9321 We don't know. My guess is that it came from Nothing and evolved. Same problem with any type of beginning.