Richard Dawkins & Alan Lightman on Science & Religion
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 24 ก.ย. 2018
- What's inside a black hole? Is consciousness something we can measure? Where did life itself come from? How To Academy Science is a new channel from How To Academy. Subscribe today: / @howtoacademyscience
Alan Lightman and Richard Dawkins in conversation. Moderated by Matthew d’Ancona.
The encounter between science and religion has received an unprecedented public airing over the last decade. Join us for a head-to-head between two scientific sceptics who find themselves on different platforms, but waiting for the same train: would it be possible to prove or disprove the existence of an intelligent and purposeful creator - and, if so, how?
Don't forget to Subscribe.
Filming by: Driftwood Pictures - www.driftwoodpictures.net
See more of Richard here: th-cam.com/play/PLFIigLLitqDlT00WkmkFP_y626lLrUIdb.html
Richard needs to be knighted for his lifelong work in progressing science and understanding and debunking flawed empty claims. Thank you for your service good sir.
In addition to being the head of state, The King of England is the "Defender of the Faith and Supreme Governor of the Church of England”. For Dawkins to accept a knighthood from the king would be an acceptance of, or at least acquiescence to, this and therefore a dishonest action. I'm pretty sure he doesn't want one and I'm pretty sure he'll never be offered one!
@@joelonsdale I didn't know about tchurch ties. I think you get what I meant though . He should have more accolades.
@@captainzappbrannagan I completely agree, but check out his Wikipedia entry - he has accolades coming out of his ears! Many people have turned down these kind of honours including Stephen Hawking and John Cleese!
@@joelonsdale Knighthoods are awards made by the state, not the King. The King just performs the ceremony as head of state.
@@joelonsdale Bullshit! Richard really represents English education, culture, and class. And the British head of state definitely endorses our scientific fundamentals. ISAAC NEWTON was a knighted. And he is the father of modern physics. I will also bet good money you're a poser and not even 0.0000000001% English so you really have 0 right to say anything. I however am 100000% Ængliscynn so I know what I am talking about. He will become SIR Richard Dawkins, you just wait!!!
Alan's opening statement basically just means "If you feel like god exists, god must exist"
Well put. The religious and their feelings being in the center of their "logic" is a pretty pathetic sight that you observe over and over again. _"Look at the treeeees!"_
Nice.. I believe it's cause we would very much like there to be a God... Or something!! Si o no?
Lol alan lightman wrote one of the central texts of modern astrophysics. He is the one you should be listening to. Dawkins does not bring much to this discussion he just dissents to whatever Alan says
@ Ben Rosenwasser
If the subject were Astrophysics then he would be an “authority”. In this instance he is just another guy with with an imaginary friend; specifically the Eurocentric rip off of the deity of Judaism he calls “God”.
@@peterpyramid
Oh, so you must know that his published scientific works demonstrate the existence of god? Which papers specifically?
You don't know of any such result? Neither do I. So IT DOESN'T MATTER that Lightman is a scientist, if his work has no bearing on the subject in question.
Congratulations. You've just committed a glaringly obvious Appeal to Authority Fallacy.
So lovely to see Richard back debating. These are precious occasions, folks!
I am so thankful to see this! no doubt mr 81Mace
81Mace, you wrote, "So lovely to see Richard back debating. These are precious occasions, folks!"
Have you ever read any of his books, 81Mace? Dawkins is a scientific illiterate! His only claim to fame is his pretense of being an atheist, and he is even lying about that! He is what normal, intelligent people call, "a fair-weather atheist".
Dan
Agree with you 81 Mace!
There are two heavens. One for the believer and one for the atheist. How to explain to an atheist that they were good all their lives for nothing ! All the homeless people and people in long-term prison facilities need God, but He hears them not. Heaven is having tenure to the school of life. Some succeed and some fail. Heaven is either known or not known, forever. Darwin preaches that nature mirrors personality. "Oh, if I show my pretty feathers in such and such a way, I will succeed in finding a mate !" --- rubbish. Rapists go to prison despite whether their semen reaches the egg of the victim. Enough of this "survival of the fittest." We all die. That is not even provable or disprovable. Maybe we are already dead? Maybe we are in one level of heaven in an endless Moebius strip of existence? It's all about heaven, and having clout in our wallets while we partake in the foolish games of life on this particular planet.. It's all about YOU, dear readers. It's all about YOU !!!
@Christ is king piss of trolling your bullshit here you damn liar.
It's not unusual for people to have feelings of being "connected" to the universe. That's the way the human mind works. However, what you "feel" has no bearing whatsoever on how the universe actually works. When it was discovered that these feelings can be induced at any time through TMS treatments, it made this phenomenon a bit easier to understand.
As the great Douglas Adams wrote:
"Isn’t it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?"
There's basically only (invalid) point of apologists, coming in a huge amount of variaties. "We don't know exactly, therefore God." That's all, they have!
Exactly, the argument from ignorance is one of the most common forms of fallacious thinking that humans commit, right up there with confirmation bias and the sunk-cost fallacy, the unholy trinity of human error.
I think it's more an argument from personal incredulity - I don't know what else to make of it so...God.
Or when human were stilling living in tribal societies, you rely on the elders to answer and solve your problems, for the really tough ones, the elders would go ask the higher ups, there has to be an wiser elder living in thin air!
We're still living in tribal societies.
Why do you assert that "there has to be an (imagined) wiser elder living in thin air"?
How is that different than 'there has to be a Santa Claus or Easter Bunny'
Exactly what I meant, that imagined wiser elder is the same as Santa Claus or Easter bunny. And very true that we're still living in tribal societies especially with the most powerful nation in the world governed by two main tribes!
Richard Dawkins showed brilliance and great patience!
He's simply a loser for losers.
Richard Dawkins teaches the universe came from "literally nothing."
Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it.
We can't get anything from "literally nothing." We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God.
God is the reason for us and all we have.
th-cam.com/video/JiMqzN_YSXU/w-d-xo.html
“However improbable the origin of life might be, we know it happened on Earth because we are here.” -Richard Dawkins.
We only get life from life...the law of biogenesis. We can't get anything without God.
The odds are NOT there.
th-cam.com/video/W1_KEVaCyaA/w-d-xo.html
th-cam.com/video/yW9gawzZLsk/w-d-xo.html
th-cam.com/video/ddaqSutt5aw/w-d-xo.html
No, the eye did not evolve into various eyes. Your mere chance mutations are absurd.
th-cam.com/video/X7h2HWcTwa4/w-d-xo.html
Even Dawkins admits we can't know what is true because of natural selection...
The God Delusion, “Since we are creatures of natural selection, we cannot totally trust our senses. Evolution only passes on traits that help a species survive, and not with preserving traits that tell a species what is actually true about life.”
It is very brilliant of Darwinian evangelist, atheist Dawkins to present darwinism as scientific concept. here some quotes by the propagandist of the modern creationist cult that are exposing the farfetched natures of the pseudo-scientific hogwash.
"Natural selection is the blind watchmaker, blind because it does not see ahead, does not plan consequences, has no purpose in view. Yet the living results of natural selection overwhelmingly impress us with the appearance of design as if by a master watchmaker, impress us with the illusion of design and planning. “Darwinist evangelist Atheist Dawkins
“It is grindingly, creakingly, crashingly obvious that, if Darwinism were really a theory of chance, it couldn't work. You don't need to be a mathematician or physicist to calculate that an eye or a haemoglobin molecule would take from here to infinity to self-assemble by sheer higgledy-piggledy luck. Far from being a difficulty peculiar to Darwinism, the astronomic improbability of eyes and knees, enzymes and elbow joints and all the other living wonders is precisely the problem that any theory of life must solve, and that Darwinism uniquely does solve. It solves it by breaking the improbability up into small, manageable parts, smearing out the luck needed, going round the back of Mount Improbable and crawling up the gentle slopes, inch by million-year inch." Darwinist evangelist atheist Dawkins
Religion was the 1st attempt at explaining the world and existence but has been passed at a prodigious speed by modern science!!
Religion was not the first attempt at explaining the world! Religion is the result of not being able to explain nothing.
Dawkins is clearly one of the biggest thinkers today. This, combined with a ability to explain the most complicated matters in a clear easy way, is very rare. Dawkins can do it.
Actually, he's just a typical loser.
Richard Dawkins teaches the universe came from "literally nothing."
Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it.
We can't get anything from "literally nothing." We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God.
God is the reason for us and all we have.
th-cam.com/video/JiMqzN_YSXU/w-d-xo.html
“However improbable the origin of life might be, we know it happened on Earth because we are here.” -Richard Dawkins.
We only get life from life...the law of biogenesis. We can't get anything without God.
The odds are NOT there.
th-cam.com/video/W1_KEVaCyaA/w-d-xo.html
th-cam.com/video/yW9gawzZLsk/w-d-xo.html
th-cam.com/video/ddaqSutt5aw/w-d-xo.html
No, the eye did not evolve into various eyes. Your mere chance mutations are absurd.
th-cam.com/video/X7h2HWcTwa4/w-d-xo.html
Even Dawkins admits we can't know what is true because of natural selection...
The God Delusion, “Since we are creatures of natural selection, we cannot totally trust our senses. Evolution only passes on traits that help a species survive, and not with preserving traits that tell a species what is actually true about life.”
Exactly
Its not so much that he is a Big Thinkers but rather believers are small thinkers, its lazy to believe without examination, and believing in a personnel God is just that, the God you believe in could be a rock, but believing is not knowing.
@@donaldsmith7824 as I showed, he's a dolt.
@@edwardcopeland5069 says you the doofus that can't get around what I gave.
I have been a shepherd since I was child in a mountain (with my family) and seen stars every night.
Once we had a trip to Tokyo, seen all those colorful flashing lights on buildings and roads was a
transcendental experience.
Does religion and science contradict one another?
Can religion and science coexist?
The collapse (death) of the Ψ-wave Schrödinger function forces physicists to use the mathematical "renormalization method" to revive the situation. . . .
Isn't the "method of renormalization" similar to the "method of reincarnation"? . . .
Mathematicians use the "method of renormalization". . .
Religious believers use the "method of reincarnation". . .
Both believe . . . death is not the end of existence
Richard Dawkins is one of the most inspirational people I have ever listened to
You are really inspired by Richard Dawkins, who by his own admission is not intelligently designed!? You need to start thinking for yourself. Don't be DECEIVED by men who the Bible describes as; thinking themselves wise they became fools. Anyone who believes that everything came from nothing is seriously delusional. Read the Bible for yourself to know the truth. Science is only a tool to enable mankind to understand God's creation. Science does nothing, but Scientists can tell lies. The scientific method came from the Bible; put everything to the test and hold fast to that which is good. In other words, follow where the evidence leads. Darwinian Evolution is scientifically and mathematically impossible. Darwin solved nothing, but Dawkins has convinced himself that he has. Nobody knows how life began. Scientists are clueless about how life began. DNA is information and information only comes from intelligent mind. There is no other source. The latest spacetime theorems state that any universe like ours must have a causal agent outside of energy, matter, space and time. The Bible stated that thousands of years ago. It also stated that everything that is detectable is made from that which is undetectable! Not nothing. Now think for yourself. The big bang has been proved to be false just this month by the images sent back from the latest space telescope showing galaxies that are the same as our own where there shouldn't be if the big bang ever happened. The Bible is 27% prophecy which came to pass exactly as prophesied. Only God, not a divine spook knows the end from the beginning. Maranatha
Agreed
Then you need to get out more.
Blind faith versus well researched fact based science. You choose.
@@johnmoore9862 Rather, here's a lesson for you today ....
The term "blind faith" is an oxymoron. Faith consists of evidence. If it doesn't, it's not faith. Ok?
Very happy to see Prof. Dawkins in a debate after a break.
I love Richard Dawkins talks
Why? He's just a lying loser.
Richard Dawkins teaches the universe came from "literally nothing."
Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it.
We can't get anything from "literally nothing." We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God.
God is the reason for us and all we have.
th-cam.com/video/JiMqzN_YSXU/w-d-xo.html
“However improbable the origin of life might be, we know it happened on Earth because we are here.” -Richard Dawkins.
We only get life from life...the law of biogenesis. We can't get anything without God.
The odds are NOT there.
th-cam.com/video/W1_KEVaCyaA/w-d-xo.html
th-cam.com/video/yW9gawzZLsk/w-d-xo.html
th-cam.com/video/ddaqSutt5aw/w-d-xo.html
No, the eye did not evolve into various eyes. Your mere chance mutations are absurd.
th-cam.com/video/X7h2HWcTwa4/w-d-xo.html
Even Dawkins admits we can't know what is true because of natural selection...
The God Delusion, “Since we are creatures of natural selection, we cannot totally trust our senses. Evolution only passes on traits that help a species survive, and not with preserving traits that tell a species what is actually true about life.”
So do I, he is a quite erudite speaker, especially when he stays within his field of expertise. What I love even more are his intervieuws since he is not only erudite but also very well mannered in one to one conversations. Where he goes off rail is in public debate forum formats. Not a fault of Dawkins, but rather a fault of the organizers of these formats.
I am not crazy about science fiction. Light sensitive cells do not grow into eyeballs as preached by the darwinist priest
What an amazing conversation with respect and jokes are. Thanks, both of the speakers.
Exactly!!!! British sense of humour always
I miss Christopher Hitchens.
yes, he would have also destroyed this guy in the video. i can just imagine it.
Always. He is my mentor in life
mentuemhet
, you wrote, "I miss Christopher Hitchens."
Me, too! Christopher was dumber than a box of rocks, but he was honest, like Forrest Gump.
Dan
@@BibleResearchTools Says the uneducated Christian hahaha
@marduk Morality that your preferred Religion owns I assume... Bullshit. How can a man made cult of pedophiles and liars own morality. Or should I start with the great morality of Muhammed and his "stone em all" handbook? You do not need an indoctrinated fairy tale to have moral values. Only those arrogant like you Bible Thumpers would be arrogant enough to state something so pathetically. I never once in my life been anything then an atheist and do you believe I run around raping women and killing people... It doesn't take a God to have common sense... My experience: Religion kills common sense - enough videos out there showing the pathetic behavior of holy rollers and thousands of examples of preachers turning meth addicted, child abusing, fraud commiting straight disgusting evil piece of shits. While Religion itself doesn't bother me it is the followers that completely abuse it with supreme ignorance, cult behavior, bigotry, racism and hypocritical behavior.
I own hundreds of Science books and now I know why I never considered buying one from Lightman.
Because you are a smug internet atheist pop scientism simpleton ??
Does religion and science contradict one another?
Can religion and science coexist?
The collapse (death) of the Ψ-wave Schrödinger function forces physicists to use the mathematical "renormalization method" to revive the situation. . . .
Isn't the "method of renormalization" similar to the "method of reincarnation"? . . .
Mathematicians use the "method of renormalization". . .
Religious believers use the "method of reincarnation". . .
Both believe . . . death is not the end of existence
Science: "We don't know... let's keep looking for the answer"
Religion: "We don't know... therefore God"
That's it in a nutshell way 👍
I agree in a nutshell 👍
Good post.
I feel in awe when looking up at the stars therefore god is also a weak argument.
This seems to be Lightmans argument.
@The Neo AntiZodiac Vandals And Science actually works, don't for get that part. You are using it to post.
@@pinball1970 Some of it works, but not all of it. When it does, it's provable and demonstrable (eg the technology I'm using to post this); when it doesn't work, ie. not provable or demonstrable -- it's called "science fiction". Please don't conflate science and science fiction.
I admire Richard Dawkins so much, and this interview only strengthens that, but I must digress and comment positively upon Dr. Dawkins's appearance. Hardly a wrinkle at his age! Impressive.
And he was recovering from a recent stroke here, but only mentions it as an amusing rhyme at the start of his talk.
Dawkins is an antisemite
Viktor Tandofsky Do you have a quote? I have never as much as heard anything resembling antisemitism from him
Me too i love Dawkins. He's my mentor
Too bad his brain shriveled up, but that's so obvious.
Richard Dawkins teaches the universe came from "literally nothing."
Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it.
We can't get anything from "literally nothing." We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God.
God is the reason for us and all we have.
th-cam.com/video/JiMqzN_YSXU/w-d-xo.html
“However improbable the origin of life might be, we know it happened on Earth because we are here.” -Richard Dawkins.
We only get life from life...the law of biogenesis. We can't get anything without God.
The odds are NOT there.
th-cam.com/video/W1_KEVaCyaA/w-d-xo.html
th-cam.com/video/yW9gawzZLsk/w-d-xo.html
th-cam.com/video/ddaqSutt5aw/w-d-xo.html
No, the eye did not evolve into various eyes. Your mere chance mutations are absurd.
th-cam.com/video/X7h2HWcTwa4/w-d-xo.html
Even Dawkins admits we can't know what is true because of natural selection...
The God Delusion, “Since we are creatures of natural selection, we cannot totally trust our senses. Evolution only passes on traits that help a species survive, and not with preserving traits that tell a species what is actually true about life.”
Thank you Prof. Dawkins, for a coherent, meaningful presentation.
Yeah, you losers just eat up his lies.
Richard Dawkins teaches the universe came from "literally nothing."
Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it.
We can't get anything from "literally nothing." We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God.
God is the reason for us and all we have.
th-cam.com/video/JiMqzN_YSXU/w-d-xo.html
“However improbable the origin of life might be, we know it happened on Earth because we are here.” -Richard Dawkins.
We only get life from life...the law of biogenesis. We can't get anything without God.
The odds are NOT there.
th-cam.com/video/W1_KEVaCyaA/w-d-xo.html
th-cam.com/video/yW9gawzZLsk/w-d-xo.html
th-cam.com/video/ddaqSutt5aw/w-d-xo.html
No, the eye did not evolve into various eyes. Your mere chance mutations are absurd.
th-cam.com/video/X7h2HWcTwa4/w-d-xo.html
Even Dawkins admits we can't know what is true because of natural selection...
The God Delusion, “Since we are creatures of natural selection, we cannot totally trust our senses. Evolution only passes on traits that help a species survive, and not with preserving traits that tell a species what is actually true about life.”
Richard Dawkins is good at holding on to that truthful and scientific mind
@Verum Est Mundum, Reason isn't a straw man.
@@verumestmundum4006 You appear to need no reason to behave in an unreasonable and somewhat delusional fashion...
No, he's the same at being a lying loser.
Richard Dawkins teaches the universe came from "literally nothing."
Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it.
We can't get anything from "literally nothing." We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God.
God is the reason for us and all we have.
th-cam.com/video/JiMqzN_YSXU/w-d-xo.html
“However improbable the origin of life might be, we know it happened on Earth because we are here.” -Richard Dawkins.
We only get life from life...the law of biogenesis. We can't get anything without God.
The odds are NOT there.
th-cam.com/video/W1_KEVaCyaA/w-d-xo.html
th-cam.com/video/yW9gawzZLsk/w-d-xo.html
th-cam.com/video/ddaqSutt5aw/w-d-xo.html
No, the eye did not evolve into various eyes. Your mere chance mutations are absurd.
th-cam.com/video/X7h2HWcTwa4/w-d-xo.html
Even Dawkins admits we can't know what is true because of natural selection...
The God Delusion, “Since we are creatures of natural selection, we cannot totally trust our senses. Evolution only passes on traits that help a species survive, and not with preserving traits that tell a species what is actually true about life.”
It's both his strong point as well as his weak spot. It's his strong point when it comes to science, it's his weak spot when it comes to topics outside the realm of science as is the case in this conversation. It's a characteristic that is quite common among many with a specific expertise requiring that much dedication, time and effort to master the expertise to that degree.
When you look through a telescope see the stars, listen to music which gets to you. Doesn't mean I'm connected to anything is just that feeling of Wow that's awesome. Nothing to do with god.
Love how the moderator changed that subject straight away
Every professor in America needs to take a lesson from Richard Dawkins.
And there are many loser professors that would take loser Dawkins seriously.
Richard Dawkins teaches the universe came from "literally nothing."
Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it.
We can't get anything from "literally nothing." We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God.
God is the reason for us and all we have.
th-cam.com/video/JiMqzN_YSXU/w-d-xo.html
“However improbable the origin of life might be, we know it happened on Earth because we are here.” -Richard Dawkins.
We only get life from life...the law of biogenesis. We can't get anything without God.
The odds are NOT there.
th-cam.com/video/W1_KEVaCyaA/w-d-xo.html
th-cam.com/video/yW9gawzZLsk/w-d-xo.html
th-cam.com/video/ddaqSutt5aw/w-d-xo.html
No, the eye did not evolve into various eyes. Your mere chance mutations are absurd.
th-cam.com/video/X7h2HWcTwa4/w-d-xo.html
Even Dawkins admits we can't know what is true because of natural selection...
The God Delusion, “Since we are creatures of natural selection, we cannot totally trust our senses. Evolution only passes on traits that help a species survive, and not with preserving traits that tell a species what is actually true about life.”
@@2fast2block yeah, but
@@semerendocr you sure don't think much and it clearly shows. Of course the laws of nature deal with the natural. I already made that clear. What you sure missed is that the natural laws prove that creation could not have happened naturally. Naturally lost 100%, we only have one choice left, therefore it had to be supernatural. Now, to slow thinkers like you, such a clear point is hard for you to grasp because you have a set agenda and will make ANY lame excuse to keep that agenda.
He has nothing to teach me; his arrogance and deliberate ignorance of the FACTS. He is vitriolic towards a God he says he does not believe in. He is rude and disrespectful towards those who have a different religion than him. He worships at the Darwinian shrine; evolution is his idol: chemicals came together and formed living cells, this is pure fantasy and imagination based of a false premise. He believes in something he has never witnessed. They have been trying for decades to create life in test tubes from chemical interactions for without success. If they had succeeded, it would be across the news media around the world. I wonder how many people feel suicidal after listening to Dawkins, because they are addicted to alcohol and drugs etc. Richard Dawkins preaches in a round about way when you are dead, you are truly dead, he does not know that. Ask any body who has been truly demonically possessed, whether they think there is a spiritual dimension after death! People today have demons cast out of them in the only way possible and that is through the name of Jesus. The devils fear and tremble at the mention of that name and they have to come out!!! Kind Regards Norman
Thank you very much Richard, you are doing a great thing for humanity. This superficial superstitious nonsense has got to stop
I agree that is nonsense but as Lightman said, by other words, it has not got to stop. Wanting there to be more ions than cations or vice versa is another thing, but as you know, it all depends on the ionization energy and electron affinity.
@@MariaSilva-xz6yg haha yes, you're right Maria 😂
It thrives in con-artists.
The bullshit parasitic scams will never cease, as long as there are stupid under-educated folk.
Glad to see Mr. Dawkins still rocks.
What's so "unspecial" about matter, anyway? Matter being defined as "dead" mass, which is energy in the long run...What's so "unspecial" about energy, anyway? Energy being defined as a force, potential or kinetic in the long run...What is so "unspecial" about math, which gives number to the energy? Math being created by mind. Intelligence is transcendental in the long run. In the long run we will all be graced by the transcendent, sooner or later. Why deny anything "special?"
Dawkins is an antisemite
@@viktortandofsky6914 Based on what, the fact that he is an atheist?
@@viktortandofsky6914 guess you'll never back your baseless assertion with any evidence. Much like every other bitter theist
@@poozer1986 Religion is faith, not fact, jackass.
Thank you very much for sharing this. It's much appreciated.
I can listen to Richard all day. Hes got that intellectual mojo.
Richard Dawkins is considered an intellectual laughingstock by Christian philosophers and atheist philosophers as like. You need to do more research.
@@mmaphilosophytheologyscien4578Will any atheist then debate and argue against him? NO. Richard would wipe the floor with them.
@@mmaphilosophytheologyscien4578He has done more than you and in examining the nature things. Your an idiot compared.
@@thegroove2000 Richard Dawkins is scared to debate William Lane Craig. He’s such a coward.
@@mmaphilosophytheologyscien4578 Prove it.
On a the god in DNA question, one could have mentioned the idea of Daniel Dennett, who explains the predisposition of believing in imaginary things, by natural selection when an animal is scared by a noise rather than the view of the predator. Those who didn't have that behaviour of imagining a predator, ended up eaten more often.
And I would add that the first description of God is more scary than anything. So it's a belief in someone that can harm you.
And what does that prove? Apart from sod all.
WOW, one of Richard's best speech!!!
Science has shown us wonderful things that religion would keep hidden from us due to ignorance.
such as?
@@johanthornqvist5686 medical science period.
@@CRMcGee2 give me an example
@@johanthornqvist5686 my previous example was your example.
And I'll give you a personal example, my wife and I knew a woman who refused to get vaccinated and wear a mask, she said she believed Jesus was going to protect her from covid, she died of covid. Her religion killed her because it caused her to deny science and medicine.
@@johanthornqvist5686 (1) That a human or human-looking biological person who can live and be killed on a cross can't be a God or SoG or given birth to by a virgin woman or a woman without being artificially inseminated with a sperm from another biologically male human donor first. (2) That a virgin woman or a woman without being artificially inseminated with a sperm from another biologically male human donor first cannot give birth to another human or human-looking biological person. Religion hides these facts. Cheers! 🤣
Kudos to RD ! Impressive come back from health problems. 👏
My respect to the professor Dawkins, he's absolutely brilliant here.
My disgust for that loser who pretends to care about science.
Richard Dawkins teaches the universe came from "literally nothing."
Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it.
We can't get anything from "literally nothing." We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God.
God is the reason for us and all we have.
th-cam.com/video/JiMqzN_YSXU/w-d-xo.html
“However improbable the origin of life might be, we know it happened on Earth because we are here.” -Richard Dawkins.
We only get life from life...the law of biogenesis. We can't get anything without God.
The odds are NOT there.
th-cam.com/video/W1_KEVaCyaA/w-d-xo.html
th-cam.com/video/yW9gawzZLsk/w-d-xo.html
th-cam.com/video/ddaqSutt5aw/w-d-xo.html
No, the eye did not evolve into various eyes. Your mere chance mutations are absurd.
th-cam.com/video/X7h2HWcTwa4/w-d-xo.html
Even Dawkins admits we can't know what is true because of natural selection...
The God Delusion, “Since we are creatures of natural selection, we cannot totally trust our senses. Evolution only passes on traits that help a species survive, and not with preserving traits that tell a species what is actually true about life.”
No one is brilliant that does not honor God...atheist are not very bright ...look up and see the wonders of the LORD...
@@saintmichael9736 You are misinformed. Some of the greatest minds ever were not religious or did not believe in a personal god.
Marie Curie, Einstein, Bohr , Paul Dirac, Richard Feynman, Steven Weinberg, Roger Penrose to name a few just from the physics community.
The RS is over 90% non religious same stats with national academy of sciences.
So what you posted is either a blatant lie or just plain ignorant.
@@pinball1970 I can see NOTHING brilliant about Dawkins, except for his blown out of proportions fame and popularity. His book on the delusion of God is delusional, ignorant and written in bad style. I laughed a lot while reading it and my husband on hearing some quotations asked me what moron/ignorant wrote it.
Comparing my national brilliant Marie Skłodowska Curie who is the ONLY woman with a DOUBLE Nobel for her achievements in science and STILL affects humanity with IT, whereas Dawkins does NOT seem to have given the world ANYTHING but God denial, something that even a child is capable of. I know. I was 8, Curie was 11 embracing atheism on our own.
Brilliance is sth we MAY BE born with. We can only develop what IS already there. NO ACHIEVEMENT being just brilliant by nature. Marie ADDED ON to her brilliance, but the fact that she had been brought up in a society (occupied Poland) that CHERISHED God, science, languages, hard work and at that time our patriotism DEMANDED of our people to reach up, to strive, to WORK HARD on our gifts from God, to inspire others, produced the results such as Chopin, Curie, Lukasiewicz, Kosciuszko, Ernest Malinowski, and a host of others, including today's great innovators such as Dr Karwowski, St Lasarus Foundation.
They were brilliant BECAUSE they were brought up in a God and national focused community to USE and DEVELOP their natural talents. Even if some of them ended up as atheists, their scholarly roots were inspired by the love of God instilled in them in their childhood.
Show me atheists born of atheists, that have never had anything to do with faith in God and then claim their brilliance, but first prove brilliant minds are not gifts of God instilled in creation and guarded from excess mutation by laws of nature, life and death. In every species there are gradations of instinct and cleverness. Some animals stand out, bit we cannot claim their brilliance if they do not go beyond the limitations of their species, and operate within the limitations of the species. And only humans seem capable of that. They defy their limitations and fly, dive, drive, communicate around the globe without the need to move, cook. But, then again, you cannot be sure this ability to soar above and beyond is not a gift, not a natural development. If it were, we could see examples of natural limitations brpken by nature in other lower species. We could work out brilliance in schools like muscles in a gym. We cannot create Einstein at will by tutoring. I do not mean design babies. This is another issue where again we work on sth that is already there.
So appreciating scholarly geniuses is just another version of beauty pageants or contests. People cheer over sth they have not had any choice about. If you are bright/beautiful/silly by nature, why should this make you gain extra appreciation? Curie understood this, like many Poles. Our national God-fearing Slavic culture taught us that these gifts are no reason for pride, but only a God given task, a talent we get to contribute to the wellbeing of others.
Dawkins is NOT bright. He is average. And has been abusing his position for no good. Atheists are not very bright if they cannot see that and applaud the men that are parasites on the society. The average Joes have paid for Dawkins' salary as professor and what they get in return is THIS?
Seriously. It is hard to find thinking, honorable, brilliant people who do not ABUSE their natural gifts only for fame, profit, and a comfortable existence built on the working class people's backs. My conclusion is most (not all) scientists ARE at best brilliant parasites, (crypto) leftists, UNLESS they transform their natural gifts into something that the taxpayers that pay for their tenure CAN benefit from. OTHERWISE they are JUST parasites, possibly brilliant, at THAT.
@@saintmichael9736 ok I looked. Where is the magic sky daddy and what part of any of it needs creating?
Professor Dawkins’ explanations convert complex science into common sense.
I love the way that Dawkins says God is the the Jude’s-Christian God, it’s such a ‘cop out’. The material universe is done, consciousness is at the base of reality which is what most religions have always said or pointed to. Consciousnesses is God, it is fundamental it is a part of all of us and it created the material universe.
@@peachespage2923 Wow! This is the whole nine yards! We don’t know what consciousness is, so saying it is God is one gap filled. It created the material universe? ‘What we don’t know’ has an ability to create, not just a little bit but the whole universe. Is this what is meant by a “leap of faith”? And people wonder why I am an atheist!
@@kimlowe705 Start looking at what the physicist are doing and thinking. They did the double slit experiment in 1801. They looked again in the early 1900’s.
John Wheeler and Max Planck both made made very interesting statements about consciousness, basically saying that real progress in physics wouldn’t occur until it was understood.
You’ll find lots of people looking at consciousness as fundamental rather than matter being fundamental.
The real question is did esoteric Christian and Judaism as well as some of the early academic philosophy of Hinduism point to consciousness as God and consciousness preceding the material universe?
The ancient Greeks argued about materialism vs idealism. Plato believed in the universe arose from mind (or consciousness as we would say today).
As you can probably tell, I myself believe in idealism, and I can’t wait until our modern physicists prove it. Many already say consciousness is non local, and spacetime is not fundamental……. so what is?
@@peachespage2923 Do actually understand any Physics?
29:50 "I can see that the garden is beautiful without having to imagine fairies at the bottom of it." Not sure who this quote is attributed to but it's the one I always use in conversations like this. Why drag magic and the supernatural into it? Can't something be beautiful and wonderous on it's own merit.
Richard Dawkins is one of the most articulate people that I know.
Douglas Adams English author and essayist is attributed with this quote, which is profound as he was the author of The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy.
We can and do imagine every day of our lives.
I can imagine crossing a road and nothing extraordinary happening.
I can imagine crossing a road and it turns quickly into quicksand.
I can imagine crossing a road and wondering at its construction.
What I cannot imagine is that the road is indeed quicksand.
Religion is early man attempting to sweeten the bitter pill of life, because his life is being threatened with death, diseases and his evolving planet.
You don't understand - they don't really care about God - he is just their ticket to an eternal life of ease & comfort
Like how prostitutes, gigolos, leeches view the Rich Sugar Daddy their ticket to a life of comfort
They sing his praises, they tell him "they Love" him!
And what do these people do when asked what they DO in Heaven? Well, first of all the media knows that such questions make these religious people uncomfortable so the media is careful not to ask such questions. The media complicit in keeping these childish fantasies alive - so what if Atheists and Gays are killed around the world? Much blood on the hands of the media and the Educated
Anyway these people answer - we will be praising God! But of course!
You have this crazy scenario of billions of people just sitting about telling God - "you are so great sir, you are so wonderful sir"
And this is the Grand Plan of God?
In what bizarre world does this make any sense?
But it is in this world & these are the top religions of the day!
So much for all our education and intelligence & morality!
@@rickallen9167 "Religion is early man attempting to sweeten the bitter pill of life, because his life is being threatened with death, diseases and his evolving planet."
Pretty much this, imo. Humans are terrified of death and the unknown, and religion provides a sweet and easy pill to "solve" both of them. You never have to admit you don't know something (even if you do, you think your friend God knows whatever the real answer is), and you can believe you'll never die.
@@CausalityLoop Have to point out your wrong about people.
Some are indeed terrified of death and the unknown, but not all. Unfortunately, some beings are unable to link both these phenomena together.
If I'm in the African jungle I'm fearful of everything I know that can kill me.
What I'm not fearful about is death itself because I will no longer be self aware, and therefore death will be unknown to me.
What we do or don't know is linked by disparity between fact and fiction.
We didn't know about the universe, the earth orbiting our sun, the earth being round, or about biology... but we knew how to apply and attribute these with magisteria.
Life is indeed a bitter pill to swallow, but on the scale of wonder versus magisteria, I lean further to the universe rather than a burning bush.
Not without an observer to consider it to be beautiful and/or wonderous.
The point is that said garden is beautiful to both people speaking, irrelevant of what either of them imagines there to be at the bottom of it. To focus on the argument about the existence of fairies rather than to focus on the shared experience of the beauty and wonder is the shady other side of the coin that comes with the scientific endevour.
Actually *listen* to the conversation between these two intellectuals and you'd realize it's just that, a conversation. This isn't a debate, you don't have to take sides. All of the people knocking Dr. Lightman and his thoughts aren't actually listening to what he's saying. His demeanor may not be "exciting" enough for you, but his ideas are worth hearing.
I don’t hear any ideas put forward by Lightman several times he totally agrees with the intellectual stance taken by Dawkins . His only point is that we should be a bit more polite to theists - this is because he lives in the USA where the vast majority believe all sorts of bat shit crazy ideas. In the UK we do not take religion seriously
@@romnarz Christianity is not a religion.
@@lawrence1318 Huh?!?! Explain, or I’ll just copy and paste the definition of religion.
@@jackhartford521 Religion is marked by:
1. Voluntary humility
2, An effort to be good.
3. Repetition.
None of these play a part in the definition of Christianity.
No, his ideas are not worth hearing. It’s not a debate, it’s Richard talking sense, and the other guy talking nonsense. Might as well be debating Grimms fairy tales.
"God is outside our ability to perceive him" Well that's convenient.
Always the theist's/deist's get out of jail free card
"And yet we somehow feel able to assign a gender to this god."
How is ANY of this distinguishable from mere wishful thinking? I mean, come on now. Which is more likely: (a) wishful thinking, or (b) something extremely influential over the entire universe, that can't be perceived, but that we somehow know about anyway, that we're quite certain is male.
He’s outside our ability to perceive him, but somehow they still know he’s out there. Must be magic.🤡
@@FourDeuce01 Well sure, he wrote a book.
@@poulthomas469 Yeah, I know. I have a first edition signed by the author.😜
Dreadful moderator. Every restatement of any question was in complete disregard of what was asked. Writing headlines indeed. This is precisely the sort of lazy tecninique that has done so much damage to the reputation, in general, of news media. Catchy is of greater import than relevant, leaving alone accurate. It would have been far more interesting to have heard answers to what was asked than to the cute little bites he concocted.
Given especially how smart the questions, the debaters and the audience deserved better.
Well said, absolutely dreadful.
Yes, rephrasing every question to something totally irrelevant, he had no ability to understand the subject, it's more than just being lazy, or should I say lazy thus dumb!
although he seemed well prepared and into about a topics of the debate, questions from public related to debaters he couldn't comprehend so profound as they can, so he didn't even try to. And there is some honest in it. Instead, he tried to make a few laughs and in a few moments it was funny. But I noticed few moments where his talk to those gentlemen was in appropriate way, like they all together are in the pub. I didn't expect from journalist to moderate the debate like he is a star himself. It was all about mr. Dawkins, mr. Lightman and their opinions, not about mr. Journalist.
Richard at his best, he speaks the truth
There's no such thing as truth in a universe of matter and energy only. So you're contradicting your own doctrine.
@@lawrence1318
Nonsense.
The most important issue that lightman seem not to appreciate is that it does not matter at all what they think as long as it does not block for or stop the expansion or development of progress of our understanding and exploration of where we are and what we are. Religious people are apparently not able to take responsibility for their own life , not so uncommon in the industry either. Actually this discussion seems so old and it is strange that this is still discussed in our time.
Alan Lightman is the most likeable and logical of the believers...i truly like the way he speaks. Im an agnostic atheist but in certain arguments i can see the point of the deist. The theist of Lightman however pervades human hope. And I would never wish that humans lose hope or belief or gut feeling only that they search for logic in it and admit defeat when it cannot be found - only then can we discover the beauty of the unknown.
Ideas don’t deserve respect; ideas always should be challenged. Just like this one.
When we finally do release our 1st true A.I. being, it should be modeled after Richard Dawkins.
I have proved in my top message, posted 2 days ago, that atheists are in error regarding the existence of God.
@@filmeseverin of course you have buddy. In truth, all you've proven is you're an indoctrinated, brainwashed moron who hasn't got a clue about anything
Nope. It should be modeled after (an imaginative hybrid of) Donald Trump, Vladimir Putin and Saddam Hussein. 🤣🤣
As of stone age times we ask a question you can not answers you say it was GOD, But with the knowledge we find answers so science will find the answers give us the time..Do not weaken your brain from studying by believing..
One of the very best discussions on “ god”, Science, Universe and Delusions !!
One of my most favorite Philosophers ,
Immanuel Kant said this :
“ Worldly experiences without theories are blind but theories without experiences are merely intellectual plays !!”
Any discussions of “ god” without evidences are mere delusions !! Cheers.
I love listening to Richard Dawkins' clear thinking, and the way he expresses it. I found that for Alan Lightman, speeding the playback to 1.5x helped me to stay focused on what he was saying. I found I was focusing on *nothingness* because he doesn't seem to be saying a damned thing - just "Ooh, Ah- I was in my stupid boat, looking at the stars! I was flabberdegasketed!"
In a nutshell, he believes due to his religious upbringing, that the emotional feelings of awe experienced within his brain, is god.
Thanks for the tip! I thought would have to either skip past Lightman’s drone or else risk slipping into a coma, but your 1.5 suggestion let me get through it.
Have now gone up to 2.0 with Lightman. Otherwise it’s like mainlining Morphium.
@@sciencereallyworks Except not as much fun.
It doesn't help that he looks like the imbecile car salesman in the movie Fargo. 😉
We love you Richard Dawkins
Alan Lightman is simply giving the same old same old tired stale apologetics.
"Ooh the mysterious, my feelings are the best thing in the cosmos and you can't deny how they trump everything else. Different truths in science and feelings. Science can't say anything about emotions, science is puny in front of my massive and important feelings that you can't reduce, dissect and explain and will never explain, therefore god. Also Einstein said this selective quote so that makes it true."
The egomania transcendent navel gazing experiences create in people is truly astounding.
bla bla
wonder fuller
Nathan's comment was better than yours.
My respinse to him..ive felt all those things...but its not a man made god or religion thats responsible for it its simply....HUMANITY.
@@studio-flash Exactly. I don't doubt he has those spiritual, transcendent feelings, but he chose to believe that those feelings must be a a supernatural connection. In these debates, the theist has yet to make a valid point, because in the end, they have no evidence to provide. Atheists can't disprove their god, but all religious people have done is made up a theory about how the universe started, and got other people to agree with them. Some believe it because it's written in an ancient book, and others because they think it makes the most sense to them that everything was created by a god. Either way, it's not a very good reason to believe in something.
Have you never had a transcendent experience?
A lovely comment from somebody. Thank you for the very well-thought-out opinion added to this content. I enjoyed reading it.
Lightman was outclassed.
Subjective experience is deeply personal. No need to invent an invisible sky-daddy just because you don't understand it.
Richard Dawkins WINS
Religion is certainly not up to contemporary criticism.Dawkins books are a masterpiece and a credit to his research .
"Awareness is known by awareness alone," is the sole irreducible axiom of reality. To put forth a syllable to refute it is but to concede.
Dawkins is awesome. That is all.
Dawkins is a loser and nothing more.
Richard Dawkins teaches the universe came from "literally nothing."
Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it.
We can't get anything from "literally nothing." We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God.
God is the reason for us and all we have.
th-cam.com/video/JiMqzN_YSXU/w-d-xo.html
“However improbable the origin of life might be, we know it happened on Earth because we are here.” -Richard Dawkins.
We only get life from life...the law of biogenesis. We can't get anything without God.
The odds are NOT there.
th-cam.com/video/W1_KEVaCyaA/w-d-xo.html
th-cam.com/video/yW9gawzZLsk/w-d-xo.html
th-cam.com/video/ddaqSutt5aw/w-d-xo.html
No, the eye did not evolve into various eyes. Your mere chance mutations are absurd.
th-cam.com/video/X7h2HWcTwa4/w-d-xo.html
Even Dawkins admits we can't know what is true because of natural selection...
The God Delusion, “Since we are creatures of natural selection, we cannot totally trust our senses. Evolution only passes on traits that help a species survive, and not with preserving traits that tell a species what is actually true about life.”
@@2fast2block jeeze, your comments are do dull. We may not have a great explanation yet for many aspects of the universe. But the ones we have are infinitely better than dogma or faith. Because they can be tested and disproven.
@@nathandougherty7058 I need to inform your loser tiny brain that you gave nothing to prove me wrong as you are so afraid of it you totally ignored it. It's what ALL you losers do in your empty lives going nowhere but doom.
@@2fast2block You don't even have a high school diploma. Go copy paste your degree for us lmfao clown
@@2fast2block If you spam a page of nonsense in every comment reply people aren't going to reply to you as though you are an expert. They are going to ignore you because you're obviously handicapped and very religious.
The guy who held this debate was more concerned being a popular comedian than doing a good job as a host.
‘Dr Lightman you can’t out transcendent me’.
Thank you dr. Dawkins for mentioning Wallace. Many don't.
Richard Dawkins ! Brilliant. 👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻
Excellent opeing heart felt speech..ive looked up at the stars myself and listened to music with the same feelings...its not a man made god or religion...its called HUMANITY!
Haha
If more people understood psychology, and how charisma works then we wouldn’t be so easily swayed by charismatic social people. There’s an art to debating where you can win even if you know you’re wrong. All you have to do is be the first to make the audience clap. Think about it.
And there we have it in all its nakedness. "I want respect for my beliefs".
Wake up call every time!!
I would hear Richard Dawkins speak! The sound of reason and data! Thank you,you saved the conference for TH-cam video, Dr Dawkins.!! Not the first time and won't be the last. There's a lot of questionable people out there.not !! heartfelt.Thank you!
No, the sound of a loser.
Richard Dawkins teaches the universe came from "literally nothing."
Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it.
We can't get anything from "literally nothing." We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God.
God is the reason for us and all we have.
th-cam.com/video/JiMqzN_YSXU/w-d-xo.html
“However improbable the origin of life might be, we know it happened on Earth because we are here.” -Richard Dawkins.
We only get life from life...the law of biogenesis. We can't get anything without God.
The odds are NOT there.
th-cam.com/video/W1_KEVaCyaA/w-d-xo.html
th-cam.com/video/yW9gawzZLsk/w-d-xo.html
th-cam.com/video/ddaqSutt5aw/w-d-xo.html
No, the eye did not evolve into various eyes. Your mere chance mutations are absurd.
th-cam.com/video/X7h2HWcTwa4/w-d-xo.html
Even Dawkins admits we can't know what is true because of natural selection...
The God Delusion, “Since we are creatures of natural selection, we cannot totally trust our senses. Evolution only passes on traits that help a species survive, and not with preserving traits that tell a species what is actually true about life.”
Anyway Richard Dawkins is a very intelligent, wide thinking man 👍
Tacos + sour cream + pinto beans + tomato salsa + chilli jalapeño ---->
Transcendental Experience indeed ;)
Lots of incredulity in your opening speech, Mr. Lightman
Richard talks in a way that makes me glad to have become educated. It's more entertaining.to always be in school after high school .just for kicks.
Professor Dawkins should live forever!
Very happy to see him doing public conversations again!
He will live forever in heaven or hell hope he changes his mind about Jesus Christ or it will be in hell
@@chesterswortham5197 : No he won't.... You may not agrees with what he says, and even if he does it for ego, or other selfish reasons, he is still only reacting to his background and therefore there will be no retribution.... Hell or Heaven?
@@davidbanner6230 no, Dawkins will be judged by his Maker, shamed, and then thrown into the lake of fire to be no more, not even in memory. He chose to be a lying loser and will not receive the gift God made available to all to have a wonderful eternal life. So you losers just keep on lying; doom is your future.
Richard Dawkins teaches the universe came from "literally nothing."
Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it.
We can't get anything from "literally nothing." We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God.
God is the reason for us and all we have.
th-cam.com/video/JiMqzN_YSXU/w-d-xo.html
“However improbable the origin of life might be, we know it happened on Earth because we are here.” -Richard Dawkins.
We only get life from life...the law of biogenesis. We can't get anything without God.
The odds are NOT there.
th-cam.com/video/W1_KEVaCyaA/w-d-xo.html
th-cam.com/video/yW9gawzZLsk/w-d-xo.html
th-cam.com/video/ddaqSutt5aw/w-d-xo.html
No, the eye did not evolve into various eyes. Your mere chance mutations are absurd.
th-cam.com/video/X7h2HWcTwa4/w-d-xo.html
Even Dawkins admits we can't know what is true because of natural selection...
The God Delusion, “Since we are creatures of natural selection, we cannot totally trust our senses. Evolution only passes on traits that help a species survive, and not with preserving traits that tell a species what is actually true about life.”
Well said 👏 👌 👍 🙌
@@chesterswortham5197 Jesus did not think like that. He was a Jew and the heaven hell thing came after.
Alan Lightman has to be about the most boring speaker on the face of the planet. Even if I agreed with his views, which I don’t, his monotonous tone is enough to make even an avid follower tune out and fall asleep. Kind of ruins the point of having a debate if one is forced to scroll through the video just to listen to Richard Dawkins and get away from the tedium of the other speaker.
That's what I was doing, fast forward, can't comprehend his mumble jumble!
I can't stop laughing!!! You're definitely on point.
Just listen to it in 2x speed and he is actually pretty fun. Still a bit boring tho
beliefs in fictions unites massive groups of people
beliefs in non-fiction also unite people. A story doesn't need to be true to motivate people, it just have to be a good story.
@Winning Grinn It is worth noting, therefore, that religion is at its weakest amongst the rich and educated. That it is in rapid decline in the most prosperous nations.
(And the seeming anomaly of America, a highly religious prosperous nation, ceases to be anomalous, once you factor in that it's also a very unequal society and all that religious belief is piled up on the majority poor and disenfranchised.)
As you say, the symptom rather than the disease.
The disease is poverty. Not just material poverty, that is, but informational poverty - a lack of education - too. Poverty beyond just money, but poverty of opportunity, poverty of social structures, and so forth.
The height of which, I feel, is the implicitly insulting religiousness found in many black Americans - the former slaves now guarding their former master's silly fairy tales, that they were forced into, more tightly to their bosoms than their former masters, now rich and educated on the backs of those they held down, could give the slightest care for.
It's all rather horrid. Not that they would see it that way, nor possibly, in many cases, ever be convinced to understand what's really going down.
But they cling to it, as many in various states of poverty do, because the meme tells them such sweet lies. And this is, for me, the most vile and egregious "sin" of religion.
"It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than it is for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of Heaven", the Bible tells us.
Ah, such a sweet lie. When you're at the bottom of the dung pile, as it were, then it's so sweet and powerful to hear that the Lord will have his vengeance on the rich. That he has greater love and care for the downtrodden.
The Abrahamic religions are full of praise for fasting - Lent or Ramadan - and of embracing your poverty. "Blessed are the poor". The rich, we're told, won't get any Heavenly rewards. Disregard your possessions, your family and abandon it all in the name of the Lord.
This is what's preached over and over.
But think about that. The above text does not qualify any of this. There is no qualifying caveat that it's the rich people who become rich through greed, or rich on the backs of others, who shall be prohibited from Heaven.
No, any and all rich people. Even the rich people who, for example, obtained their riches by growing food, cooking food, selling goods to their community.
Even the richest people - like Bill Gates and Warren Buffet who've given billions of their wealth to raise the lowest (and committed to giving almost all of it away before they die - oh, and atheists both of them too), or (to some degree) Elon Musk who's devoted his riches to (what he thinks might) fixing the problems with the world (I'm not saying he's necessarily taking the right approach or will succeed, but you have to credit that at least he's trying and his intent is in the right place).
This is the most insidious of sweet lies that religion propagates.
It praises poverty. It advocates for continued poverty. With no qualifications, it condemns any riches - obtained by any means, for any reason whatsoever, regardless of your deeds nor your intent - as worthy of eternal damnation.
It tells people it's awesome to be poor. And that you should stay that way. Don't try too hard to remedy your poverty.
Including your educational poverty. There are no words in praise of intelligence in these texts - indeed, the grand "sin" of all, inherited in perpetuity in the Abrahamic texts, was disobeying the instruction to not eat from the Tree of Knowledge.
Getting smart - this mythical non-explanation for human intelligence - is the unforgivable eternal sin. When humanity succeeded too well, we're told, in constructing the Tower of Babel, the punishment was to tear down the tower and confound human efforts to ever succeed again by creating all the different languages of the world.
Obviously, this myth is nonsense. We've built far bigger towers since. And if Sodom and Gomorrah were so worthy of punishment, then how did the Greeks and the great city of Ancient Rome escape similar punishment exactly?
But you get the gist of what I'm saying. The insidious lie of these religions - which are, indeed, exactly feeding that human insecurity with sweet controlling lies - is that poverty is awesome.
Poverty is "noble" and "spiritual".
The gods favour those at the bottom - even though, yes, that's logically nonsensical, as you wouldn't be on the bottom if you were being favoured by your gods. But that's the cognitive dissonance that this all rides on.
Religion takes the poor and the weak. Those in dire troubles. Those who suffer all manner of poverties.
And then it keeps them there.
A most horrid crime is committed against billions - of the least capable of resisting - and we're to not only overlook it, but praise it and "respect" these beliefs.
Bollocks to the lot of it, I say.
Jesus still lives and the God hater is dead!!!! Very sad!!
You mean like the idea that chemicals magically turn into living cells?
@@joakkley9659 Jesus still lives? What a moronic comment
Watching debates and intellectual discussions used once to be my favorite thing to do. Now , i cannot enjoy doing anything.
I didn't know who "Alan Lightman" was. I *did* think that this was a talk between two scientists. Like in events with Richard Dawkins and Lawrence Krauss.. but the further he proceeded into his starting monologue the more i was hearing words that describe a pathetic weak mindset. The same weak (and confused) mindset that drives a common man into religion just as it does when a scientist has such a mindset. He is an emotional man. And there is nothing wrong with being emotional but everything has its time and place. Imagine scientists one day developing a generator that can make energy for the human race with absolutely no harm for the environment. The beauty of its ingenuity and the beauty of it not being hazardous to planet earth is something that could make you emotional. His little boat and stars story is nothing short of ridiculous and evidence of a weak and emotional man. It is the exact equivalence of _"Look at the treeeees!! I am in tears! How can't you see god when you see their beauty?"._ Just replace "trees" with "stars".
I'm so glad to see Mr Dawkins back
I'm afraid Alan Lightman's tone sent me to sleep after just a few seconds.
I thought Richard Dawkins had a stroke, but apparently it was Alan Lightman, the boring git.
I am shocked that I laughed aloud at this comment. I am ashamed of myself.
a boring git with a PhD in relativistic gravitation theory. It is no surprise to anybody that God cannot penetrate your arrogance!
who created ahmad's clock then?
😂
@Christ is king Did they all meet the respective God/ saviour that they were raised to believe in, or did they all meet the same one so they can confirm for everyone else which one in fact is the true God/ saviour?
I must admire Dawkins' patience. Especially since science and religion do not compute (at all).
Really , most pioneers of the various sciences , believed in God and with good reason , and believed in God and sciences goes hand in hand for thousands of scientists to day all over the world.
@@runelund5600 you must be kidding. Most (real) scientists don't even think that way. They go by evidence, by demonstration, by logic and proper reasoning.
The vast majority of those that still believe are thoroughly brainwashed and to be found in seminars or theological studies. (imagine studying the lives of superwoman, or mickey mouse)
Your asinine claim really prove you are scientifically and mathematically illiterate
@@runelund5600
They followed several gods.
@Rune Lund
And don't think all religions have the same concept of gawd.
God, I hate the multiple question format with a vengeance. Everyone is left confused about what the question was despite multiple recitations. Importantly, how is it in anyway better than the simple one question and response at a time method?
I agree. Why the hell do they do that?
Looking up to the vasteness of the sky on a clear night and pondering on your own connection to something larger is just a confirmation of the fear of being insignificant.
The need for this connection does not occur until the realization of ones random and limited existence.
In this almost 14 billion year universe belief of a deeper meaning did not occure until we got conscious about our mortality around 10.000 years ago.
Religion is not about worship of a deity, it's about self importance, or rather denial of ones own insignificance in the larger picture.
I embrace the fact that by pure coincident, I'm here and I'm actually aware that I am.
Richard is the best straight face comedian ever to grace the screen
I can't help but thinking about how much our awareness of science has grown over the centuries... and how scientists have had to grow their boxes of understanding. The work in Quantum Mechanics, for example, has created a larger box of understanding. Of sorts. One thing I did like about Alan Lightman's lens was that he was open-albeit not convinced-to the possibility that maybe, just maybe, there is another plane of fact they haven't yet discovered/explored. A scientific mind MUST be open to new possibility in order to follow the thread of curiosity. At any rate, thank you for sharing this conversation. Most interesting!
Losers have hope the laws of nature will be proven wrong someday so their absurd beliefs come true.
Richard Dawkins teaches the universe came from "literally nothing."
Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it.
We can't get anything from "literally nothing." We can't even get science without God. The laws of nature only can come from a Lawgiver, God.
God is the reason for us and all we have.
th-cam.com/video/JiMqzN_YSXU/w-d-xo.html
“However improbable the origin of life might be, we know it happened on Earth because we are here.” -Richard Dawkins.
We only get life from life...the law of biogenesis. We can't get anything without God.
The odds are NOT there.
th-cam.com/video/W1_KEVaCyaA/w-d-xo.html
th-cam.com/video/yW9gawzZLsk/w-d-xo.html
th-cam.com/video/ddaqSutt5aw/w-d-xo.html
No, the eye did not evolve into various eyes. Your mere chance mutations are absurd.
th-cam.com/video/X7h2HWcTwa4/w-d-xo.html
Even Dawkins admits we can't know what is true because of natural selection...
The God Delusion, “Since we are creatures of natural selection, we cannot totally trust our senses. Evolution only passes on traits that help a species survive, and not with preserving traits that tell a species what is actually true about life.”
Mr. Lightman immediately turned me off when he spoke of science "reducing" things. This shows a complete misunderstanding of what scientists actually do.
@@danielgautreau161 Yeah that piqued my ears, too. But when I thought about the concept of “reducing” things, I thought about the challenge of putting huge concepts into words. In a sense you have to “reduce” the concept into words in order to build experiential understanding from there. Its like making building blocks of understanding. Once you have those, you can make the bigger leap of deeper understanding. Follow me?
Surely science can be thought of, instead of describing the 'physical' universe, as more simply and all-inclusively trying to understand the fundamental truth of reality?
@@danielgautreau161
Well, it's correct to say that science is a reductive analysis. What's NOT correct is to suggest that it's a Bad Thing. It's extremely useful.
If we consider any phenomenon, a completely faithful model of it - one that didn't remove or abstract away from the slightest detail - would be indistinguishable from that phenomenon itself. It would not be any possible understanding that we could hold in our minds, because our mental model is at the very least a physically different instantiation from the phenomenon itself. As experiencers, we are always, therefore, at an imperfect remove from phenomena, and that is inevitably a form of reduction.
What science attempts to do (with remarkable success) is to perform the reduction in a disciplined way. A model of the parabolic motion of a baseball in flight doesn't take into account the color of the baseball, or the color of the stitching, or who hit it, or whether it was a cloudy day. Yes, that is reductive. But it's also extremely powerful, because the model works for many other phenomena too.
And it doesn't take away from our human experience of the baseball in any way. It makes available an extra dimension of insight to our experience.
It's true that we can become disconnected from the beauty of direct experience by overthinking things. As a practicing Buddhist I'm aware of how easily that takes place. But this is a matter for human mindfulness, as it was two millennia ago when the Buddha first called attention to it. It's not a problem with science, as Lightman would suggest. It doesn't require positing supernatural beings or forces. (Those are reductive too, by the way, but not usefully so.)
If Lightman wants to say, look, I went off in the boat one night and just floated under the stars and it felt very complete without need for further analysis, great. Most of us can relate to that. But NO FURTHER ANALYSIS means just that. It means being present in the moment. It doesn't mean insert some favored supernatural explanation. That's just the mind getting in the way again.
I don't know why anyone agrees to debate Dawkins. He makes mincemeat out of the people he ostensibly agrees with! There's nobody who comes close to his level of intellect and his ability to see straight to the nub of an issue.
I don't know how warm it was there when this guys were giving lectures. And I think it will be better if this gentleman's make a audio not video because I can easily notice how badly there panicked 😀😀😀
From 41:00 on Alan Lightman essentially says, that he considers lying (by agreeing even when one knows better) in the face of those who believe in order to keep their belief unharmed is actually a respectfull treatment.
I cant help it, but lying in the face of someone is the least decent treatment of any person without applying physical misuse.
Atheists cannot answer seriously to the *Are you and this world the result of no intelligence?* question, without recognizing the existence of God, because *from no intelligence involved, no intelligence comes,* the entire process from the so called Big Bang until humans time proving the existence of God because *the results of a process prove the intelligence involved into that process.*
@@filmeseverin Ill make that as short as possible for you: Intelligence has evolved due to a set of rules, where things evolve, that are usefull. Intelligence really comes in handy, try it!
Your explanation on the other hand contains a non sequitur. Thus there is no proove in your chain; its not even a chain its all just one single statement. That statement (intelligent beeings can only be created by intelligent beeings) allready has been proven a) false by evolution and even b) an infinite regression by logic.
Atheists renounce to elementary logic and to simple rationality intentionally when they believe that this reality has always existed without any intelligence involved, because *from no intelligence involved no intelligence comes and the results of a process prove the intelligence involved into that process. That is why the entire process from the so called Big Bang until nowadays is proving the existence of God.*
The superficial ones do not think enough to understand *the simple fact that from no intelligence involved, no intelligence comes.* They ignore the intelligence put from the beginning. For example, the intelligence mentioned includes the exact value of the speed of light matching the manifestation of what we call "gravity", working together since the primordial conditions to form in the end this reality, which hosts intelligent life that is able to feel / understand / admire / enjoy / respect / love the Creator, especially through His human form, Jesus Christ.
@@filmeseverin You are not reasoning, you are just trolling. Maybe you can at least shed a little light on this question:
How come that believers like you are intelligent enough to learn a language but then just not intelligent enough to produce meaningful, sentences. The fact, that so many people fall in that category strongly hints to the suspicion, that you are actively crippling your intelligence or use thereof to maintain your belief. How bad is that? Why are you wondering, when others look down on you? What do you fear to miss, when you gave up such misbehaviour?
How did Dawkins not fall asleep in those initial 15 mins?
Yes. It was boring
Love this kind of event and hope we'll see Richard in more of these. I don't necessarily agree with Alan's interpretation of emotions & their amplification but I sure admire his composure and way of speaking.
Not very coherent and articulate as Prof Dawkins, his arguements are baseless. However, l do respect him for his convictions. It's a free world and everybody is free to believe or not to believe. But being a physicist and believing that there is something god out there at the same time...That's where the beliefs of the like of Alan Lightman start to get hazy to me.
@@randynundlall2601 it's generally due to indoctrination since childhood which persists and bypasses all critical thinking even in adulthood.
@@eaglenebula2172 agreed mate, me too, as a child l was raised as a believer, you don´t even fart near a picture of a god. Then l grew up and read a lot, researched a lot and read the communist manifesto. And l came to realise what a load of bollox it all was. I was determined to never lie to a child, let them decide for themselves as they grow and come to know how things are ordered.
If something is beyond the physical, making it impossible to observe/measure, than how does that ‘thing’ interact with the physical world?
How can something that cannot be interacted in any way have any relevance to our experiences?
I believe the future will be able to send messages to the past from old footage such as this!
How does someone go from "I had a feeling I cannot explain" to "I know it was God"? If you can't explain it, then don't. Conversely, if you say it was "God", then you are by definition attempting to explain it, and yet now you have a burden of proof to show how you know this, and that burden of proof was not met. If science isn't able to determine such "truths", then you need to demonstrate how *you* know it (by what method?), and then demonstrate that this method of knowing things is reliable. This was not even attempted here, to no surprise.
Too much logic here. You need to "feel" more.
(sarcasm alert)
Nice script regurgitation. How about you just talk to God yourself?
All too often, people like to hide behind "burden of proof" claims or any number of elaborately set up arguments that veer conversations and debates in directions away from, rather than toward, the answer. This speaks volumes in regards to true intent.
When people want to know the answer to something, they search for the answer until they find it. They don't look for ways to hide from it while merely pretending to look for it, yet today many people do just that. They focus on keeping themselves fooled. What's even more strange is that many of them simultaneously attach themselves to the label of being logical, rational, and possessing critical thought.
The answer is simple. If you want to find God, talk to God. He has promised to reveal Himself to anyone who seeks Him with their whole heart. He has kept that promise for thousands of years.
If you want to find Him, look for Him.
Period.
All this other nonsense that so much time is wasted on doing is the furthest thing from being logical and rational a person can get.
@@RM3MB3R 😆😆😆😆😆😆😆
@@RM3MB3R "nice script regurgitation" as you then proceed to spout the same nonsensical drivel every single religious fanatic in history says. Hopefully over course of 2 years you aren't still this delusional.
@@RM3MB3R You're fooling yourself by pretending to commune with God. Which is also the simple answer to why the concept of the burden of proof irritates you so much.
The burden is on you and yet you have no proof.
I'd be angry too.
It would've been nice if Alan had clearly stated in which god he believe in. Is his god an entity? Does it manifest in anydetectable way? Seems to me he's just a very vague kind of deist...
3:17 now you know how I’m feeling listening to you my old mate!
Bravo my darling Richard.
If it lies outside the physical universe, that is a pretty good definition of something that, as far as this universe is concerned, does not exist. Lightman comes up with the most utterly feeble and indeed embarrassing arguments.
Dawkins is an inspiration.
When Einstein was asked if he believed in God, he replied, "I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings." Spinoza and Einstein, two of the greatest minds evolution has fashioned, got it right.
"Einstein had some notion of a non-personal God which created the universe, and that Man would somehow discover the Plan on which it was created". Einstein's colleague and protege, David Bohm in a talk with David Suzuki. (21mins)
I’ve always said, the fact that we have “debates” about the belief in God should settle the issue… if there were strong evidence of God, there’d be no reason for debate… the same as we no longer debate that earth revolves around the sun…
The monotone voice of Alan made this hard to listen to.
I wonder what feelings wolves have when they look into a starry sky in the dead of a cold northern night and howl their hearts out in common with their brethren!
Watched all of it
Brother Dawkins, I need you to talk to your Queen about What power She has? Her parliment doesn't seem to be working. Thank you, Sir.
As an Englishman I don't care about the existence of god but the the tablecloths need ironing that is undeniable. Shameful. Why would god make humans with such low standards. QED!
quite to the point
Your embarrassing us as a nation, but yourself as an imbecile
Alan Lightman a nightmare of bore .
bla bla
ed Denniss maybe Richard Dawkins should debate some people who aren’t morons then and not be so selective in who he debates
@@sjs9869 You're blaming Dawkins fior the poor performance of his opponent?
Classic.
sqlblindman no I’m blaming him for being a oussy of the highest order
Then you an oushole of the highest order, because Dawkins has debated many leading apologists.
So....go uck ourself.
How hard is it to find a mic that works?