Richard Dawkins On Aliens, God, And The Complexity Of Life (1/2)
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 5 ต.ค. 2024
- / sciencereason ... Richard Dawkins On Aliens, God, And The Complexity Of Life (Part 1/2).
---
Please subscribe to Science & Reason:
• / ffreethinker
• / best0fscience
• / sciencetv
---
Richard Dawkins at the Edinburgh International Book Festival on Monday, August 11, 2008. The interview was conducted by Paula Kirby.
Many thanks to Douglas Bogie Gray and Mirage Television for filming the event!
Richard Dawkins is a British ethologist, evolutionary biologist and popular science author. He was formerly Professor for Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University. He was voted Britain's leading public intellectual by readers of Prospect magazine and was named one of Time Magazine's "100 Most Influential People" for 2007.
Dawkins came to prominence with his 1976 book "The Selfish Gene", which popularised the gene-centred view of evolution and introduced the term "meme". He is a prominent critic of creationism and intelligent design. In his 1986 book "The Blind Watchmaker", he argued against the watchmaker analogy, an argument for the existence of a supernatural creator based upon the complexity of living organisms. Instead, he described evolutionary processes as analogous to a blind watchmaker. He has since written several popular science books, and makes regular television and radio appearances, predominantly discussing these topics.
Richard Dawkins is an atheist, secular humanist, sceptic, scientific rationalist, and supporter of the Brights movement. In his 2006 book "The God Delusion", he contends that a supernatural creator almost certainly does not exist and that faith qualifies as a delusion − as a fixed false belief.
• www.richarddawk...
• / richarddawkinsdotnet
• tinyurl.com/Daw...
If you enjoy the video and would like to support the work of The Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science, please purchase the program on DVD at richarddawkins....
.
always wondered what Dawkins would have sounded in a lecture hall ... that was very deep. his explanation on the formation of protein made me wonder about the possibilities of what else could be in the universe ....
Science = 1
Creation = 0
I'm so glad I was born a Buddhist.
I agree!
Marc S Philosophy. We don't believe in 'gods' any superior beings, which is why I consider my self Buddhist-Atheist!
Personally I think it's still unexplained by science, i mean there're lots of cases with kids speaking about past lives. I consider my self Atheistic-Buddhist too, as I don't believe in supernatural 'gods' but I do follow Buddhist philosophy.
Messiahnyde Buddhists are Atheists! Buddhism is a philosophy, the Buddha is a human being, we don't believe in gods. Even I consider my self an Atheistic Buddhist!
Messiahnyde Oh okay that makes sense, well yes true in a way, because what I noticed is, whatever the Buddha thought in his philosophy is pretty much common sense including treating everyone with equally and love. But I have a feeling that if i were born a christian, muslim or hindu, I'd have a hard time accepting any atheistic/secularist views. Because what I notice when it comes to religious people is that they're always close minded and dishonest. I mean even as a Buddhist I still question things like the universal balance and karma.
Yet regarding this we must observe the following: ‘Milk chemistry indicates that the donkey is man’s closest relative.’ ‘Cholesterol level tests indicate that the garter snake is man’s closest relative.’ ‘Tear enzyme chemistry indicates that the chicken is man’s closest relative.’ ‘On the basis of another type of blood chemistry test, the butter bean is man’s closest relative’” (Morris, Henry M., The Twilight of Evolution, Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1967).
It really annoys me when people ask the question "do you believe in aliens?" in the same sense as "do you believe in god?"
They are two completely distinct ideas and while, yes at the moment there is no evidence that extra-terrestrial life exists, the sheer facts that life exists on this planet and that there are probably billions of trillions of planets in existence resoundingly implies that aliens exist. Whereas there is no evidence and more importantly, no reason to believe in a god
Answer to Richard Dawkin´s question @ 6:00
As a polymer chemist, I think a Polymeric chain could answer that question. Depending on the structure of the linked molecules, they will fold into different shapes. In fact, they could take different shapes and not be constrained to a single form. They could react to their environment much like living polymers react to the molecules that they are designed to react to.
Awesome interview with good questions.
Dr. Collin Patterson, a paleontologist at the Natural History Museum in Britain, when asked why he hadn't included any illustrations of transitional forms in his book, Evolution, he replied in a letter: "I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them?I will lay it on the line?there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument."
yeah, but in his second edition of evolution (1999) he states that his comments about no transitional fossils was taken out of context.
quote from Patterson himself:
because creationists lack scientific research to support such theories as a young earth, a world wide flood or seperate ancestry for humans and apes their common tactic is to attack evolution by hunting out debate or dissent among evolutionary biologists.
i learned that one should
think carefully about candour in argument (in publications, lectures or correspondence) in case one was furnishing creationist campaigners with ammunition in the form of quotable quotes often taken out of context.
unquote.
way to do exactly what he was talking about, but dishonesty is a trate amongst you creationists.
btw, your holy book of nonsense is NOT a science book !
'The Mandelbrot Set' is a beautiful piece of maths that helps explain how complexity originates from simplicity. For instance, how a simple water-droplet can fractalise into a complex snowflake. Answers are out there if you look for them.
@Ensiferu
No, your first sentence was the challenge - "please name a single movie with alien life forms that are not simply humanoid with a few tweaks." Read your first post again.
The next paragraph was a wholly different point concerning the difficulty in imagining something outside our experience, but you'll note that doesn't make any reference to being part of your challenge; it's a related point, but you quite clearly ask for something which is merely non-humanoid, which I provided.
shure46 - I'm not a scientist, however there are other people who are and actually specializes in certain relevant fields. One of them said this:
"If you have nothing in quantum mechanics you'll always get something." - Lawrence Krauss
I would recommend watching his talk 'A Universe From Nothing'. Quite illuminating.
Man i have never herd such an amazing way to describe it, thank you so much i really mean it. it is such an articulate and yet accurate description of how most religious people view the world =D
Apparently you've never heard of the correct spelling of "heard" either.
that last sentence is so true, im sure you wouldn't mind if i use it in future
What other material would you propose?
Statistics can say that there must be a lot of life, but it can be possible that there is no more than this that we have here.
@elgranelgraf Yes, I know that wasn't exactly what you were saying. But it was close enough. And if you really want to question the reliability of my argument, then by all means go for it. Just don't be so surprised when you find out that it's really a very solid point.
@gothkid287 I never said your argument as a whole was invalid. I just said that its reliability should be called into question.
what is it with theist and atheist arguments? this is science, lets keep it pure science, with no boundaries.
@ThoseWereTheDays56 Atheism in context:
Atheism is not a movement or group, it's simply the term used for a lack of belief in a deity, primarily caused by an increase in education.
The reason a God is placed into the unknown seems to be for the personification/ simplification of abstract realities. It has also been linked to an innate psychological need for authoritative 'fatherly reassurance'.
Faith is a negative influence in science/culture because they differ to an absolutist assumption.
Very well put.
he was directing his answers to the audience
Richard's vocabulary amazes me. :)
Evolution: 0 points
God: 0 points
Ancient Astronauts: 10 points!
"Well the important thing is that you've found a way to feel superior to both."
Thank you comrade.
Lets get this out of the way. Atheism is NOT a belief, it is NOT a claim, it is NOT a statement of certainty, it is merely a response to a baseless claim for which there is currently no evidence. Theists say "I KNOW that there is a god" we respond "if you have no evidence, then we have yet to be convinced"
We are not making a claim, we are merely saying that we don't believe the god claim.
Give us evidence and we will believe, until then, we have yet to be convinced.
Peace
Hummmmmmmm Im a young chemist and I always thought that the reason that an enzyme "folds" itself into a particular shape is that the certain "side" chains (the R chains) properties would favor such a shape (ex hydrogen bonding, hydrophobic properties, hydrophilic properties, ect....) and this is ultimately responsible.
Why is it plausible to think that a being can be infinite but not that the universe or process can be infinite?
I agree with that post 100% :)
@53dumey: As I said, the numbers are growing. It is sometimes a bit difficult to interpret statistics, because non-affiliation with a certain church does not mean that people are atheists (and the best statistics in my home country are based on denomination, because, due to church taxes, the data is readily available on whose).
@Ensiferu
Okay, since you seem to have trouble with it, I'll explain it using small words for you.
You said "show me a movie where with non-humanoid aliens". Someone else may have said "The creature designs in many films is so unique and outstanding", but I wasn't replying to them, I was replying to your request that someone present a fictional alien which isn't humanoid.
I then showed you a list of examples; rather than admit you were wrong, you then attempted to revise your criteria.
A Parable about The Ant (Tricky Dicky Dawkins): The Ant stood upon the railroad track and proclaimed to the anthill, "Look! Where is God? This earth and this iron rail that I stand on could have come about from natural forces over millions of years! Our ant scientists have already proven that we can find iron in the ground, so there is no God greater than you or me."
Just then, a locomotive doing 60 mph came along and turned the Ant into a powder that blew away with the wind.
@ThoseWereTheDays56 "However I am by no means confident that there is a supreme entity as you suggest, I simply hold the opinion that the intelligent design argument holds as much merit as any other" You are free to hold that opinion. Dont let the fact that Intelligent Design holds almost no merit whatsoever hold you back.
It's because he's extremely smart that you feel stupid. The reason he makes you feel smart is most likely because he is so enthralled with the diversity and epicness of life that he makes you realise how amazing humans really are.
I agree. Irrationality is never desirable and supports regressive behaviour. Nothing more to add.
Except:
“It pays to keep an open mind, but not so open your brains fall out.”
― Carl Sagan
he makes me feel smart and stupid at the same time, i can't really explain why...
Because Confucius says so...lol .
The English word "fool" originated from a Latin word, follus (folly and follies originated from the same Latin word), which meant cheeks puffed out, or bellows, referring either to a mocking facial expression, or "foolish" words that are being loudly spoken i.e. bellowed. Later, the definition of "fool" included not only sound and appearance, but behavior in general i.e. "one who is destitute of reason; a person who acts absurdly, irrationally or unwisely."
We have some very good ideas on this and good evidence to support those ideas. You are right that we don't really know exactly how life actually started but that doesn't mean we will never know and it certainly doesn't mean that you plug in things we have no evidence of existing (like a god or aliens) to explain things.
@elgranelgraf 1. I'm not British so I've never heard of it being spelled any other way than 'recognize'. And I know it really doesn't matter, just wanted to point out a mistake.
2. I might have to hand you that one; it just came across as not sounding right.
3. Saying that because part of my argument is fallacious makes the rest invalid is a fallacy in itself.
He he, while it is true that we usually portray alien life forms in Sci Fi as humanoid, remember the huge counter-example of "2001: A Space Odyssey" where the aliens are so strange we can't even fathom what they are doing.
Air has weight Job 28:25 16th Century
Light can be split up into component colors Job 38:24 1650
Matter is made up of invisible particles Romans 1:20 20th Century
Plants use sunlight to manufacture food Job 8:16 1920
Arcturus and other stars move through space Job 38:32 19th Century
Water cycle Ecclesiastes 1:7 17th Century
Life originated in the sea Genesis 1 19th Century
Lightning and thunder are related Job 38:25 19th Century
Man was the last animal created Genesis 1 15th Century
Dawkins does not rule out the possibility of alien life. No self-respecting evolutionary biologist would ever.
Thanks for proving my point.
Hi 11 years later
@@thanushan3981 Hi! It's funny seeing some of my random comments responding to people who are long gone from a different youtube comment era.
richard makes excellent points. imagine a universe that contains nothing. no matter, no stars, no atoms. a complete void. a completely dark vacuum. now imagine occupying that void a being that is highly highly complex, who then decides to populate that void with material that is originally not present, but created out of nothing by that being. the only possible way someone can believe that is either: 1) they were indoctrinated with that belief since early childhood, or 2) they strongly desire that belief is true
FFreethinker- It would be a good idea to post this as a video response to "Dawkins Admits Intelligent Design Possible" as in that video Ben Stein simply narates over the top of Dawkins while he is speaking twisting his words and making out that he is implying he believes in intelligent design when in reality he was simply offering a possible scenario that was rational at the very least.
That description of how a protein molecule works sounds very complex and detailed. God sure must have been smart to come up with a process like that. Too bad he wasn't smart enough to put a fence around that tree of knowledge.
@ThoseWereTheDays56 You're wrong. Dawkins is actually just being a scientist and acknowledging the fact that the universe is big and complex enough to have different possibilities for evolution and life However, the intellectual consensus on this issue is that evolution is probably the only way for intelligent life to form There may be God like creatures in different parts of the universe, but the laws of physics are mostly constant everywhere The point is there is no monotheistic mastermind
You have the freedom to believe of course. As soon as it starts to affect policy in government, and when it kills, divides, shames, undermines learning, oppresses, and abuses then it is time for others who believe differently to step in. They can still believe if they want, but stop legislating their beliefs, stop shaming their children, stop abusing women, stop neglecting medical treatments, stop refusing condoms, stop hating homosexuals and stop inflicting their beliefs on us.
Peace
Well, it would explain the beginning of life on those planets upon which it took place, but yes, at some point you'd have to stop retracing your steps and come to a planet where life came about through wholly naturalistic means i.e. without external interference.
Dawkins has said as much on a number of occasions, including in this very interview where he says incredibly advanced god-like beings could exist, but they would have had to have evolved naturally at some point in the past.
jeez...i feel so dumb now. thanx alot richard dawkins.
He wrote the famous legal volume-A Treatise on the Law of Evidence, which many consider to be the greatest legal volume ever written. Greenleaf was a skeptic firmly set against Christianity, and taught his students Christianity was false. When one of his students challenged him to investigate evidence for Christianity for himself, he set out to disprove the Biblical testimony concerning the resurrection of Jesus Christ
@karamarouge : Yes, I am aware of that. The comment concerned the common creationist argument that there in fact do NOT exist any beneficial mutations (upon which evolution would then act). This refutes said unlettered argument.
Awesome!
"Secret Messages in the Water" illustrates an obvious pattern within nature
Everyone who asks "CAN YOU DISPROVE GOD!?"
Obviously you believe in "God", so please tell me CAN YOU DISPROVE THE FLYING SPAGHETTI MONSTER!?
Get shit on.
Well said though.
Peace
You don't hear religious nuts talking about proteins the way Richard Dawkins does.
I like this guy. It's great to listen to him.
Can any body tell me whom the interviewer is? I find her questions very pertinent and interesting. I'm a huge Dawkins fan BUT I feel uneasy with his replies because of her questions. Please help to know her name. Peace.
@bodiddly83 . Dawkins never lies. And he is never wrong.
"I'm sure the universe is full of intelligent life. It's just been too intelligent to come here."
Arthur C Clarke
@SuperPignati You speak of Drake's equation as if the answers it gives are set in stone. I quote Michael Crichton, "The problem, of course, is that none of the terms can be known, and most cannot even be estimated. The only way to work the equation is to fill in with guesses. As a result, the Drake equation can have any value from "billions and billions" to zero. An expression that can mean anything means nothing. Speaking precisely, the Drake equation is literally meaningless."
Being a deist, I find it ironic that if most theists kept their mouths shut, they'd have a much more convincing argument.
I understand you base your faith of disbelieve on opinion and thats it.
as soon as the presenter says little green men my eyes role instantly...
This was not what he said is his interview.
Thinking that aliens could be an imposibility and saying that God isn't a possibility, you might well as well just admit you believe in the aliens.
Notice how much attention he gave to describe what these alliance would be like.
No matter how hard he tried to save himself, he is still talking out of his ...............
According to the X-Files we were colonized by aliens
Given that they did not understand the things we do today, but the things God had them write down, took science and history thousands of years to finally understand what they were talking about so long ago. You like almost all atheist don't know what you are talking about but listen to those who think like you, time to change and look at all the evidence that has been available for centuries.
agree on one condition,I´ll be the leader
I'm trying to find the ridiculous interview/debate where some theist tries to accuse Richard Dawkins of "believing" in aliens, when Richard was just trying to say aliens "could" exist and that it was likely that some aliens do exist somewhere else in the universe. Can anyone help me out?
Dawkins is merely speculating. He's not saying it's a certain fact or that it's even likely that aliens designed life on Earth. In his interview with Ben Stein he was simply asked whether or not he could conceive of any way intelligent design could explain the origin of life and this is the possibility he proffered.
He's never said that he personally subscribes to the notion, unlike say, Raelians, who believe it wholeheartedly.
The trouble for the monotheistic religions is that evolution is the final nail in the coffin for them. It explains our origins and our behaviour and hence is in absolute opposition to the religious explanations, which is why the church fights it. Atheism is entangled with evolution because it provides the answers the atheists are looking for, having rejected the 'man in the sky' argument from the theists.
I don't think Richard hates the religious at all, he's just trying to free their minds.
But why does claiming "it makes "more" sense for infinite somethingness to spawn something than infinite nothingness to spawn something." make more sense? By what logic?
@Ensiferu
You said "please name a single movie with alien life forms that are not simply humanoid with a few tweaks."
I provided a list of non-humanoid creatures that clearly met your original criteria. If that is not what you meant, then it should not have been the criteria you asked for.
As for imagining something outside human experience, the TARDIS qualifies for your revised criteria.
@dakodar
Impecable logic. You have a good point.
Science fiction is generally more about differences in social science, but i'd like to see some natural genetic difference.
Think you could send me a link to that debate?
If you were to specify a location bacteria from earth could survive after tagging along for spacetravel, the moon is not a logic one. Bacteria need something to oxidize, and and oxidant. On the moon there is no atmosphere, and so the supply of both would be limited to what the bacteria is in direct contact with.
And I'm sure this make perfect sense to you some how.
types10000, Just reading your debate here with shotinthedark(appropriate name) and I just had to say, bravo on your patience! I was literally LOL in amazement that someone could actually try to state that "logic is useless and sub-rational"
FUCKING UNREAL!
my thaughts are that: animals evolve in the way thay did is because it was requied for suvival and so was an efficant design, not the same, but not too difrent.
Organometallic substances (even regular compounds) can carry out catalysis - similar to that of an enzyme, though current understanding is the since proteins do it better and cheaper nature would go with proteins.
None of that has to do with "god" as defined by religion. Nice try.
Given this, what youre talking about here would be thought of regardless of theism existing or not. So I dont really see what your point is. If energy is always transformed and never dies, who's to say there has to be a start to it? Why cant it just always have existed? There is a huge unknown and I think given our limitations in this existence we are not meant to claim anything concretely such as theism does.
@Ensiferu
The Horta from the original series of Star Trek, the Crystalline Entity from Star Trek: The Next Generation, all told a couple of dozen races from the Star Trek franchise, the TARDIS and the Daleks from Doctor Who, Stargate has the Go'Auld, the aliens in Evolution, the Thermians in Galaxy Quest, 2001's aliens are too alien to even be perceived, the Thing from the movie of the same name . . .
We mostly use humanoid aliens because it's cheaper, not because we're unimaginative.
@53dumey: But this also (and more often) happens the other way round, don´t you think? People living surrounded by religious people who do not dare to say they do not believe in God? About the state churches: You are right (it is the same in my home country, Germany). But the question asked in the poll below was not aimed at the "denomination" but at faith in general. I agree that you cannot say all those who are not members of the church are atheists.
I can tell you... not just because you don't agree with me, but because you have obviously not looked at ALL of the evidence, otherwise we would not be having this discussion.
When you watch "Expelled" Dawkins shows his faithful belief in aliens and just wasn't just mentioning it for entertainment.
i dont know why people are still arguing about this its good that the christians are spreading the word , although its a waste of time evan if they completely prove the existance of god people wont exept it due to people like dawkins its been written 2000 years ago, we should keep it to people who are capale of being saved
What I thought was interesting about Expelled was, while most Theists don't know the difference between a Hypothesis and a theory, which makes them stupid enough, Ben Stein has no clue what a hypothesis is and takes every single one WAY too seriously. I mean I could tell Dawkins was making that up on the spot, but apparantly Stein doesn't know what thinking looks like.
"If daddy learn his child"
Sorry i ve used "learn" in place of "teach" (In my language we usally use the same word for the to side )
"Fool" is used to translate a number of different Hebrew and Greek words of the Holy Scriptures (see also Translation Of Translations), including:
the Hebrew word, pronounced saw-kawl, which means to play silly
the Hebrew word, pronounced naw-bawl, which means stupid, or wicked
@Nalae1978
When I called it a Fad, I meant that there are many people out there who will "claim" to be atheist to fit in.
Actors and College students do this, only to later be seen in Church.
BTW, the UK has a lower percent of religous because the Church there is State ran, where as in the U.S. its not. Other countries with State ran Churches also have less religous.
I looked up fucknut crazy in my Music Dictionary...couldn't find it....LOL
I can understand what he's saying. :DD glad I pay attention in bio very interesting.
I think the idea is that these hypothetical aliens would have seeded simple lifeforms (single-celled organisms, say) on the Earth and then let nature (evolution) take its slow, gradual course.
And as we know from human history, it did take a very long time to go from hunting with spears, living in caves etc to having the fully fledged technological society that exists today, despite the fact that human intelligence hasn't really changed that much over the past 30 000 years or so.
He has stated in some talks that the god would not need to be proven but that there should be evidence of one. Before we can accept "god" there would stand as our understanding of what the claim is. He holds evidence and the acceptance of it in the highest regard. As a matter of fact he tells a story of a man whose life work was disproven and how much he respected that man when he wholeheartedly was happy that the scientific ideal had been upheld in disproving him. Dawkins is no different.
@ThoseWereTheDays56 why is there any reason to think that the laws of physics are different far away (in our universe)? if there are stars there that means they work similarly to stars closer to us?
"statisticly improbable things don't just happen". But it is not a basis for a big bang theory?
I kind of understand the anger of Potandthekettle. "metaphor for a mysteries that transcends all the categories of human thought" could be considered load of bs. Such a sentence might sound good to an English teacher but to a rational person it is almost meaningless. What mysteries "transcends...", example? What does it even mean? What are the categories of human thought , could you list some of them? Metaphor for ignorance is that what you mean?If yes , why could you not just say so?
Talk to Don Johanson about that? He discovered it.
Provide us with some evidence with which to go, btw.
Logic has proven itself? How? By leading us to what is true? But what is true is the matter in question and logic is the only methodology that we have to get us there. But just because it is the only method does not mean it is correct. What you've said is "Logic has proven itself by getting us to the truth." Then I ask what is truth, and you respond "What is yielded by reason and logic." So, all you've really said is "Logic has proven itself by getting us to what logic gets us to."
@53dumey: Everybody is of course free to call her/himself whatever she/he wants. And I truly do not think that Dawkins (or Harris or any other author) is responsible for the "Religious Pushback". Fundamentalism was on the rise before the so called "New Atheists" started to write their books. Fundamentalism is an answer to modernity and the globalization of ideas and its challenges to certainty and certain ways of life.
I don't believe I am stubborn as much as informed. I have done my home work and love science and have looked at the evidence. We can agree to disagree.