The Mystery of Existence: Richard Dawkins, Richard Swinburne, Jessica Frazier, and Silvia Jonas
Vložit
- čas přidán 29. 07. 2023
- Philosophers on God (book): amzn.to/3K4enjy
Talking about Philosophy: talkingaboutphilosophy.com
The Global Philosophy of Religion Project: global-philosophy.org
Support: / panpsycast
_____
Richard Dawkins: richarddawkins.com
Jessica Frazier: bit.ly/jessicafrazier
Silvia Jonas: silviajonas.com
Jack Symes: jacksymes.co.uk
Richard Swinburne: bit.ly/richardswinburne
_____
‘The origin of our universe is the greatest mystery of all. Why is there something rather than nothing? Further still, how did we come to exist in a world with such precise laws of nature and complex creatures? As we shall see, how we answer these questions determines everything: from the meaning of our lives to the secrets of our futures.’
This event features Jack Symes in conversation with four of the biggest names in philosophy: Richard Dawkins (representing science and atheism), Jessica Frazier (on Hinduism), Silvia Jonas (speaking on Jewish philosophy), and Richard Swinburne (defending Christianity).
With over six-hundred people registering for tickets, we were absolutely overwhelmed by your support; thank you to everybody who came along! A very special thank you to our Patrons and the Global Philosophy of Religion Project at the University of Birmingham for making the event possible. We hope you enjoy the show!
Someone should remind Richard Dawkins that, in his own published work, his definition of "simplicity" is having fewer parts of fewer different sorts.
You're probably referring to the 1st chapter of "The blind watchmaker" and I would agree, as well as point to different holes in his elaborations of simplicity and complexity
Why?
@@chikkipop
Because he seems to have forgotten.
@@Mentat1231 And you seem not to be explaining why you would think this.
@@chikkipop
Why didn't you ask? Throughout the video, Swinburne used that exact meaning of "simplicity", and Dawkins kept insisting God couldn't be simple because of a completely different definition (i.e. having many capacities).
If I could recommend anything its to raise the volume. I have it at max volume and its fairly quiet
a complete explanation would be one that explains every question that is being posed here and make this event obsolete.
There'a a huge misunderstanding in saying that blind automatic process necessarily excludes intelligence behind the very process. This is like focusing on the computer game making process while ignoring the programmer. If the computer game making process is seen only in its internal code production without a perception of the external factor(programer) of course the observer will conclude that the whole process was automated. Of course, the analogy is not necessarily true, but neither is the counter view. Since we don't know the initial factor or cause of the process, both views are ultimately unclear in terms of being true or false. Intelligent creator deniers are satisfied with the observation of the process, without needing the explanation of what originated the process, while creationists seek to adapt God as the process creator. Evolution theory therefore did not explain the origins of evolution, while creationists hope that God is the explanation of the origins of life. It is an inconclusive debate, which renders both views as being ultimately unsatisfactory
Not true. There is much to learn, but the choice between evolution, which is abundantly supported, and an ancient myth for which no evidence exists, is clear.
*"Intelligent creator deniers are satisfied with the observation of the process, without needing the explanation of what originated the process"*
In other words, we're satisfied with incomplete explanations, even as we continue the effort to learn, because incomplete answers which point to reasonable but tentative conclusions are better than non-answers. A puzzle may be incomplete, yet a picture still emerges.
@@chikkipop you don't understand my point. Evolution is a theory which enters into the game when life is already there. Creationism speculates about the origins of life. Evolution does not address the questions of origins, and creationism does not address particular mechanisms which are pointing at selection of traits within a biological systems.
@@oioi9372 You said *"It is an inconclusive debate, which renders both views as being ultimately unsatisfactory"*
I replied that this was not true. The fact that evolution does not address the *origin* of life does not mean that it is not addressed. Though we are not yet certain of the exact process, we have a great deal of knowledge pointing to abiogenesis. Again, it is not "ultimately unsatisfactory" and it is by no means an inconclusive debate, since that would give creationism a place at the table it does not deserve. You say *"creationism does not address particular mechanisms which are pointing at selection of traits within a biological systems,"* but it's much worse than that; creationism does not address anything, because it offers no facts or evidence in favor of its contentions.
There is no equivalence between actual explanations which are justifiably incomplete, and mere contentions for which there is no support at all.
I love both richards in this video, but parts were cringe
16:06 see the moderator's facial expression
Good is only imagination we Will never know How we are here. Mistery. Forget It. Impossible now. Maybe one day someone Discover It not now.
The only and repeating question to Richard Swinburne would be: "how do you know?"
How does exactly Dawkins evade that same question, knowing that evolutionary theory nor physics give us the answer to what was the factor which originated the universe?
@@oioi9372That's only one question it doesn't answer. It answers a bunch of other ones ;)
In my view, the debate was largely lost in the first 10 minutes when Richard Dawkins was allowed to peddle his faith unchallenged. Atheism requires faith in Evolution, which faith Dawkins has oodles of, not withstanding a lack of evidence. Biological (“Macro”) Evolution really is not an established fact, nor is the age of the universe. They are theories that rely on untested assumptions, and often fail to predict or account for real world data. If this sounds ridiculous, it’s only because people everywhere have for generations been trained accept evolutionary faith statements and shallow assertions to the contrary. When you tell massive falsehoods ad nauseum, people will believe them.
If it was the case that Evolution is certain, why do an estimated 40% of Americans (and many more across the world) not believe it? I suggest it’s NOT that they are anti-science ignoramuses - because all modern people know how blessed we are via medicine, technology, and other science-related advances. So here’s a better question. Given that Dawkins laments and ridicules belief in Special Creation, why does he REFUSE TO DEBATE Creationist scientists? (Yes, real scientists, with PhDs, working as scientists who believe in Special Creation; see Creation.com for more info.) (By the way, belief in Special Recent Creation does not necessitate acceptance of Protestant soteriology, which in my view, is unBiblical in major ways.)
I’ve heard that Dawkin’s excuse for not debating those who really know the many weaknesses of Evolutionary Theory and who really know the evidence for Special Creation and a Young Earth is that he “doesn’t want to afford them such prestige.” More likely, I think, he’s afraid he’ll lose his prestige when he loses one debate after another. For example, here’s one little encounter that probably scared him off - it’s a youtube clip entitled “Richard Dawkins Stumped by Creationists' Question.” Here Dawkins was asked a pertinent, basic, evidence-seeking question - and he had no answer.
To Bible-believing Christians, I say this: Saint Paul, inspired by the Holy Spirit of God, wrote that, “… since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities - his eternal power and divine nature - have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made…. [Rom 1:20 NIV] Hence, the traditional Christian view has been that our very existence in this universe is the visible evidence of the invisible God’s supernatural power and nature.
However, the Theory of Evolution contradicts this, asserting that our very existence is merely evidence of the power of nature and the material world. These competing claims are mutually exclusive. If the traditional Christian view accepted, the “mystery of existence” inexorably points to a Supernatural Creator. Only by atheists defending their ridiculous faith in Evolution to the nth degree, can the Deist answer to the mystery be avoided. Dawkins provided that tiresome and empty rhetoric at the beginning and no-one challenged him. Swathes of philosophical territory was thereby just given away freely - with Richard Swinburne afterwards clawing back a sizable, but vastly reduced philosophical territory.
Dawkins was clearly and completely outgunned by Swinburne here. I don't know how any fairminded person would fail to see that. Swinburne can mix both the science and philosophical nuances with an amazing coherence! Dawkins tries to extrapolate the science into the philosophical but then fumbled and stumbled and even contradicted his own argument. I just wish he would simply be humble enough to know the limits of science and tread carefully when he begins to cross over into metaphysical discussions. He will gain more respect if he does that. But i guess that's one wish Dawkins is not willing to grant. Sigh.
Sadly at heart I think Dawkins is just dishonest, he stumbles all the time, that is nothing knew, he will nevee even say that maybe there is a God.
Pride.
@@ericday4505 Nonsense. There is no evidence for gods, and philosophy doesn't get you there, which is why no philosopher has or ever will win a Nobel Prize for discovering an amazing new fact about reality.
@@ejwest Nonsense. You will be unable to support your claim.
@chikkipop So do you think science is the only method by which we can discover truth?
Can God make (1+1=3) ???? If not, then not any religious God or consciousness, its the foundational principles of logic and mathematics the ultimate reality as abstract object, which set the parameters of all possible worlds.
I'm not so sure if logic is a thing, I mean when I can't make a square circle, I'm not so sure if that means there's a force called logic limiting me.
Richard sums it up like this for me. 'Keep it real become an Athiest'.
"Science should have priority."
Except for questions that Science, in principle, can't answer...
Really awful panel all around
The problem of evil has nothing to do with God. The creator leaves us free to either follow the path of love or selfishness and negativity. Christ tought his laws 2000 years ago.
We are divine entities who have forgotten where we come from. We are like drops in an ocean who incarnate to learn the difference between good and bad in this polarised dimention. Originally we were with God but because we existed in a realm of pure love we couldn't experience polarity and couldn't understand the difference between good and bad, therefore we incarnated on this plane to make such experience. Humans are the creators of their conditions who need to evolve spiritually in order to understand our divine nature before we can return to our original place with God.
The best but also only excuse that God has for all the suffering, injustice and death in this world is that "HE" DOES NOT EXIST!!! Moreover suffering, death and injustice exist since life began here on earth millions of years before the Homosapiens came into existence by the process called evolution some two hundred thousand years ago! So, humans can't possible be the cause of that! And suffering and death are essential for species to be able to evolve so that they can adapt to the changing environment so that they can survive! And pain is necessary so that we know if or body is in danger! And think of the massive overpopulation if nobody would die! Life would virtually no longer be possible here on this planet!
@rudysimoens570 you are entitled to your opinion but soon you will change your mind.
@@albertoesposito2389 no I won't because my opinion is based on scientific facts but not on silly supernatural beliefs! If you would have studied evolution and cosmology in a PROPER SCIENTIFIC UNIVERSITY you would no longer believe all that supernatural nonsense of ANY religion! You are the main victim of your own indoctrination, probably from childhood on! Moreover, the religion people believe in is just a geographical coincidence! If you would have been born in Pakistan you would as firmly believe in the existence of Allah as you do now believe in the christian god! If you were born in India you would probably be a buddhist or a hindu! If you were born in ancient Greece you would have believed in the existence of Zeus! If you were born in the time of the Vikings you would have believed in the existence of Thor!
Indoctrination from childhood on, social pressure and often oppression, a lack of a PROPER scientific education especially about evolution and cosmology and often a lack of reasoning abilities are the keywords here! Even intelligent people put their reasoning abilities on hold as soon as their religion comes into play because of indoctrination from childhood on! Anyway, have a nice life inspite of your delusions!
Swinburne's explanation of simplicity and god's simplicity is lacking and doesn't explain anything. He lists a bunch of assertions with no explanation to back them up. Very unsatisfying and simply annoying.
I think he relies on the divine simplicity thesis which assumes that the originator of the universe is being whose essence is the existence, so whatever exists is due to the act of being. The nature of such being is inconceivable since it has no attributes and properties except predications thar are to be found in literally everything.
@@oioi9372No. This comment is cringe. He doesn't hold to divine simplicity. He is talking about ontological simplicity lol
It is truly a god delusion that the first Richard is under. It's like hearing a sermon from a preacher from the 17th century,
Swinburne's premise is a non-starter and completely arbitrary. It is like starting in medias res ... there is a god. philosophically weak and dishonest and lacks argument. Why should we begin from the premise that there is god?
I think it's just a hypothetical scenario. Like saying, "what would we expect the universe, the world, etc.. to be like if there was indeed a God?".
Science donot explain why, it tries to explain only how. ) Dawkins understands nothing, only blabber evolution.
...and here we are blessed by you who can use a man-made book to explain us why?
So, please, the stage is yours.😅😅😅
I wanted to say "Richard Dawkins with 3 completely useless debaters". But I won't say it, as 2 of the 3 mentioned are ladies and it is not in my nature to be discourteous to women. Of the two nice ladies, one was quite clueless , and the other for some strange reason had committed herself to Hinduism, but more or less didn't underdtand why she had been invited there. The 3rd one was quite offensive from my point of view, as he purported to look upon this universe as the handywork of god with the express purpose of creating him and other look-alikes who defy commonsense and want to lay down the rules for what people should think about this universe and life on this planet. What an insult he was to the presence of Richard Dawkins, and to the audience and to those of us who had chanced upon this 'debate' on CZcams.
Absolutely agreed.
I have been searching for 50 years and found that the greatest wisdom is in advaita Vedanta non duality....we can actually experience and be infinite Divine peace and love and bliss... yoga and Buddhism have the best answers to every question...seek deep inside and find the truth 🙏🕉️☮️🥰
@@samartman3395 Well, I've been searching less than you, but I have found great teachers like Richard Dawkins many decades ago.
And well - that's the truth I was seeking for :)
@@richardpetek712That's the truth you were 'seeking' (!) for is it? So clearly you made up your own mind about what the truth was and then went out to find somebody who was flying your flag. How dogmatic and closed minded.
@@richardpetek712 it sounds like you think you're so brilliant....but you found what you wanted and not necessarily the actual truth ☹️☹️☹️☹️☹️ try being objective and open to whatever reality is 🙏☮️🕉️🥰....also physicists today are discovering what yogis knew 5,000 years ago 🙏🕉️🙏🕉️