Faith, Reason, and Theology: Richard Dawkins and Alex O'Connor in Conversation
Vložit
- čas přidán 13. 01. 2024
- Join me in a new conversation with Alex O'Connor as we discuss a range of topics, including Jordan Peterson, Ayaan Hirsi Ali's journey into Christianity, my bafflement at how Alex could stand three years of studying the non-subject of theology, the fear of death, and other things.
.........
Join Substack:
richarddawkins.substack.com/
Subscribe to Poetry of Reality Channel: @poetryofreality
Follow:
Instagram: the.poetry.of.reality
Twitter: richarddawkins
Facebook: richarddawkinsbooks
Reddit: thepoetryofreality - Věda a technologie
Stay healthy Mr Dawkins. We need you.
Absolutely ❤❤❤❤❤
he doesnt look/sound so good at the moment, but i suppose he's in his 80s now.
The fool has said in his heart there is no God. Time is running out for Richard Dawkins to repent of his sins and turn to Jesus for salvation. There are stumbling blocks or limitations that have been observed, tested and studied. They have been trying to create life in a test tube through chemical interactions for decades and have not even come close. There is no evidence that living matter came from non-living matter. Irreducible complexity within the single cell is a headache for evolutionists Every part within the atom has to be present for it to function and this dispenses with random chance mutations and natural selection relative to chemistry, even the atom is finely tuned with subatomic numbers relative to protons and neutrons in atoms that make up various substances. The fossil record yields no transitional forms between species, neither are there any living forms, so Darwin's tree of life is dead, we only have evidence on the nodes of the branches corresponding to micro-evolution that is kinds within the specie and this lines up with the biblical account Jesus did not lie to us he is the only door into God's presence. Jesus said love God with all of your heart, soul, spirit and strength and love your neighbour as yourself. This is flawless doctrine, wholesome doctrine, sound doctrine and good council. It sounds about right to me, if people want world peace. How do I know the God of the Bible? Answer through the life of Jesus.
@@jacobmatthews7524 He does great for his age, but we are all limited by our biology.
Don't worry, he will evolve!
Richard’s channel should have millions of subs 😢
Why? Not seen one decent dance, trick or rant. He has not even reacted to Life Of Brian but claims to know about atheism.... shocking lack of content.
What crypto does he use?
Theists intentionally blind themselves to the truths Dr. Dawkins speaks. It'll never have as many subs as it should.
but it's too easy to become intellectually lazy,
@@josmith9662are you high?
Needs some female Yoga teacher as an intro.
A deeply thought provoking, intelligent conversation - thanks.
No conversation is interesting without an opposing viewpoint.
@@3joewjlmfao that's a pretty garbage take.
Can't have a good conversation between to rocket scientists if there isn't a rocket science denier involved according to your logic.
@@ashtonhaggitt216 i said interesting conversation.
@@3joewj your definition of "interesting" is not necessarily universal.
@RDTRNT Yea, because it's my opinion and opinions are not universal.
Crazy to think 82 year old Richard Dawkins running a podcast in 2023! What a treat! Though he seems to want to move on from debating christian arguments even though it was what he was made famous from... This Alex chap seems very sharp, he is fast creating a presence too online, i can see him becoming a major voice for the coming decades and probably of new generation of public intellectuals, exciting!
It's good for his health, one might think.
I don’t get a feeling of academic honesty from Alex, think he is a closet Christian & out to make a name for himself, just like his friend Chris Williamson.
Dawkins continues to debate the 'God' question because it is vital to his worldview that God be 'killed'. His obvious social Darwinism depends on there being no God. If there's a God, how can Dawkins' views that the warmonger John McCain was a "good man", have "no sympathy" for Julian Assange and even now his support for Israel, not be seen as immorality?
Public intellectuals 🤣🤣🤣 "I don't believe in God" wow give this man a Nobel prize.
@@RichardDawkinsIsaNonce Is if saying that there is a god is any more deserving of credit?
Richard you are a huge part of me living a free life. My mind was so confused before finding you. Thanks. Really really thank you
Much love for Richard Dawkins and alex O'Connor from iraq ❤
The fool has said in his heart there is no God. Time is running out for Richard Dawkins to repent of his sins and turn to Jesus for salvation. There are stumbling blocks or limitations that have been observed, tested and studied. They have been trying to create life in a test tube through chemical interactions for decades and have not even come close. There is no evidence that living matter came from non-living matter. Irreducible complexity within the single cell is a headache for evolutionists Every part within the atom has to be present for it to function and this dispenses with random chance mutations and natural selection relative to chemistry, even the atom is finely tuned with subatomic numbers relative to protons and neutrons in atoms that make up various substances. The fossil record yields no transitional forms between species, neither are there any living forms, so Darwin's tree of life is dead, we only have evidence on the nodes of the branches corresponding to micro-evolution that is kinds within the specie and this lines up with the biblical account Jesus did not lie to us he is the only door into God's presence. Jesus said love God with all of your heart, soul, spirit and strength and love your neighbour as yourself. This is flawless doctrine, wholesome doctrine, sound doctrine and good council. It sounds about right to me, if people want world peace. How do I know the God of the Bible? Answer through the life of Jesus.
Are you from Iraq?
Thank you, Richard. I've been listening to Growing Up in the Universe lately, and I can't wait to show it to my four-month-old daughter one day :)
Two people I never get tired of hearing. Thank you for the video Prof. Dawkins.
glad not being bored
Special thanks to Richard for having this channel. He has surely earned the right to retire from public life is he so chose, yet he keeps his foot on the pedal even today. A national treasure.
I never get tired of Professor Dawkins. He's pure gold
Thank you Professor Dawkins. It is always a pleasure to listen to you. I hope you live a long life so we can keep learning from you.
I love that Alex O'Connor has gotten such great recognition and conversations. Having followed him for years i almost feel like a proud uncle or sonetbing. Great talk as always.
Yes I feel that kind of familial pride too. Crazy really, but he was so young when I first found his channel.
@@budd2nd same bro its insane how he's grown. he's gotta embrace the philosopher beard
Alex is well placed to assume the mantle of logic and enlightenment representative. It's great to see him moving into this space.
Think Alex is not very honest with himself, he probably is a closet Christian although he keeps claim he is an atheist.
What a creepy fantasy lol you like to pretend a young man is your nephew and your the weird uncle that the family doesn't leave their kids around unsupervised.
I am fascinated that Mr. O'Connor asked Prof. Dawkins some of the same questions I had when reading God Delusion. I enjoyed this lively discussion indeed.
I love that I get to watch this twice from two perspectives 😄❤️
Seeing these two sit apart from each other is almost surreal. It's like a generational blessing in the most non-christian way possible
It’s all in the bible, we’ve been expecting them.
Youre the best Richard. Love your work sincerely
What like... out of all the Richards..he's the best one?....or......
Really enjoyed the comments on Jordan Petersen. Spot on!
Same. His religious bent is nauseating….
Only seen a bit of him and cut the religious stuff short as i aint tolerant......but his general being was not as bad as The Atheist Experience and other commentries had led me to believe. I think his political and social beliefs get him double whammied as evil incarnate in some media I was watching.....
Peterson enables the least capable thinkers. Religious ignorance.
Huge respect and love to Prof. Dawkins. I did find the conversation a bit dragging, where Prof. Dawkins had already made a very meaningful, strong logical arguments, Alex seemed to be lurking around the same question and exploring different angels where there was nothing to explore . I loved Prof. Dawkins composer, patience and his ever amazing eloquence.
Yeah Alex was kind of dragging it
Dawkins making a meaningful strong logical argument 🤣🤣🤣 what was it "There is no God because i say so and I'm always right and my proof is i have a pompous voice"
Yet another great discussion! Thanks for this!
This is an interesting and intelligent conversation. Well done!
Richard has always been a direct and real hitter in all his conversations. All-time favourite.
Thank you so much. I enjoyed this conversation immensely.
Brilliant as usual thank you Richard, thank you Alex.
Richard Dawkins, come to Boston again so I can hug you!
I remember who I was fifteen years ago before reading The God Delusion. Thanks for everything Prof. Dawkins
Excellent discussion, as usual. Insightful, informative and above all polite! Thank you.
How in the hell did i not know dawkins had a channel
You don't need a belief in a God to be good and kind. I hope I prove that every day and I'm sure Professor Dawkins does.
You don't need to BELIEVE in God, no, but from where comes your sense of morality?
As a theist, I can say that many times, my atheist friends put me to shame when it comes to morality. I'm 100% sure that people who don't believe in God are capable of exercising objective moral values, sometimes times, to a degree that puts theists to shame. The real question would be, where does that morality come from?whose morality do we live up to? If we can't agree that there are objective and absolute moral values, who decides what's moral and what is not? Culture? Civilizations? Governments?individuals? Who can give us guidance on moral issues? If there's a Creator, He, and Only He has the absolute right to dictate the moral laws. But if evolution is the source of our moral values, then there can not be absolute moral values. In other words, it's someone's opinion against someone else's.
Big fan of your work and I’m so glad I found your channel! Much love from South Texas! 💞
Wow,that was a wonderful conversation.Both men are very impressive in their own way.Than you!
Love you, Richard. Great one. Alex is a very special rising intellectual.
I like Alex too. But I get the feeling that over-education has withered his ambition. Shame, since we need bold ideas.
@@donthesitatebegin9283my feeling is he lack of scientific rigor, too interested in recognition instead real facts.
What 😂
Loved this, thank you❤
All respect for Alex O‘Connor. He is one fine and very bright person. He is intellectually rather ahead of so many of his interview partners. And I guess he is ahead of Dawkins, too.
You are joking
Great question about CS Lewis’ argument about authors and characters and laws of literacy. Excellent interview.
Hearing Dawkins talking about poetry is spiritual
I had no idea you had a channel. I’m so excited to watch every video. Huge fan!
I am proud to have come to life in your era "Master Dawkins"❤
Oh glorious Master Dawkins, Lord over my universe, let me write the sweetest hymns to sing thy praises
Be careful of who you admire. Dawkins praised the warmonger John McCain as a "good man", has "no sympathy" for Julian Assange, and sides with Israel even now.
Clown said “Master Dawkins” 💀
I really appreciate your content, it helps me a lot. Grateful for you Richard Dawkins.
Da mm it Richard, I am not an atheist, but I sure love to hear you speak. ❤️🙌
We love you Dawkins ❤❤❤
Thanks Teacher Ricahrd Dawkins,my English no very well,but I'm learning...I like of silence and of life that's true...
Richard Dawkins is one person I'd fangirl for. Shamelessly.
Perhaps one of the most empowering truths, if not the most empowering things for a person to realise. It's also a continuous journey to return to/remember this awareness, daily.
The search for more knowledge will never end as long as humanity exists.
Great conversation
Dear professor ❤
Intellectual acuity coupled with humility. Thank you for the conversation Mr. Dawkins.
I really enjoy these conversations even as a Catholic. I appreciate clear cut scientific honest discussions and you would be surprised on how many people with religious affiliations watch this.
As a Catholic, you would be better off avoiding Dawkins altogether. He is morally depraved. He praised the warmonger John McCain as a "good man", has "no sympathy" for Julian Assange and even now supports Israel along with the rest of the prominent atheists.
Nice one!
Sigh, I was just thinking about the christmas my brother and I watched your Universtiry Christmas Lectures. What a lovely way to spend an hour every morning, whilst eating christmas chocolate and mince pies it really was. It's sad that my kids didn't do the same...no, they (and I, I'm almost ashamed to say) had Minecraft!
Thank you 😊
I love this conversation so much! Richard Dawkins is one of my heroes and someone who influenced and helped me tremendously. I also love Alex O Conner, he has become my new favorite atheist and thinker
these are dumb thinkers that you like
@@billwalton4571He's not a creationist lol
It's a delight to be listening to individuals who are utilizing their brains for what they are there for, precisely like Alex and Richard in this civil, logical and entertaining discussion!
As for someone who has had the privilege of living on this wonderful planet for close to 70 years, and when it comes to the overarching questions our species are confronted with in regards to us _being_ here - in the vastness of space, namely: _''HOW did it all start?'', _WHERE_ did it all start?'', and not least: _''WHY,_ and _WHAT_ made it all start?'' - all I can say, is:
I honestly _don't_ know! - And for me, that has never been a problem! . . .
Even though I personally threw religion(s) out the mental window at the tender age of 13 (and with a normal upbringing, _devoid_ of religious indoctrination, aside from certain futile attempts from a handful of deluded elementary school teachers), and since that point, I have _never_ looked back, other than in tremendous appreciation of from the outset being equipped [or what Prof. Dawkins adamantly would state is something definitely EVOLVED!] with a 'personal' neural network (i.e. 'brain'), enabling me to _instinctively_ comprehend the utter folly of superstition and 'magic', I guess I have to say I find a certain kind of mitigating ''solace'' in knowing that every single living human being on the face of the Earth is in literally the exact 'same boat'; none of us knows anything _remotely_ similar to definitive answers regarding any of these most profound of conundrums, and you can take _that_ to the bank! . . .
As Alex so rightly puts it at the outset of this discussion; *''you'll **_have_** to think of religion as essentially something which serves as some kind of social function''* - in my view boils down to being the unequivocal double edged sword that it in reality _is,_ and always _has_ been: giving it's adherents (in many cases) a 'source' of profound sense of patently false (surrogate) security and/or comfort (not to mention ''salvation''), while on the other hand being the most _insidious,_ perfidious and _effective_ tool for de facto mind control that has _ever_ seen the light of day on this 'godforsaken' planet! . . .
I take it that I'm not alone in harboring a tremendous affinity for the statement once made by the Austrian Neurologist Sigmund Freud:
*''The whole thing [religion] is so patently infantile, so foreign to reality, that to anyone with a friendly attitude to humanity it is painful to think that the great majority of mortals will never rise above this view of life.''*
Dawkins has a fascinating capacity to cut straight through humanity’s confusions in thinking about thinking, and look objectively at questions. His replies to CS Lewis questions put forth by Alex are great examples 👌
Alex is too nice. I remember William L Craig constantly laughing to the heavens, and using Alex's name like a kindergarten teacher would during their conversation. And when Alex put a good point, (I think it was about at which stage a chair comes into being) Mr Craig scoffed and said that was among the worst arguments he'd ever heard... and then didn't even explain why. I think Mr Dawkins is right. I also find WLC unbearable
i know exactly what youre talking about and remember thinking, he didnt even explain why haha
Excellent podcast!
Oh I love love love these types of videos! If I was an influencer with 30 million followers, I’d share this with everyone 😭.
I am SO excited to watch this!!
28:00 Blunt and to the point. LOL.
1:02:48: No need to slip that in there Alex
I wish Richard had the opportunity to ask Alex things and converse more about what is interesting to him. Was anything missed out? I adore Richard Dawkins and can't get enough of hearing him speak. I always respect someone who plays devils advocate but it would have been more interesting if this had been more like a conversation and less like an interrogation.
28 instead of providing Alex with a good point of view he tried to humiliate his studies, is that wonderful to you ?
The Miracle in the Cell and the End of Evolution
The complex structure of the living cell was unknown in Darwin's day and at the time ascribing life to "coincidences and natural conditions" was thought by evolutionists to be convincing enough. The technology of the 20th century has delved into the tiniest particles of life and has revealed that the cell is the most complex system mankind has ever confronted. Today we know that the cell contains power stations producing the energy to be used by the cell, factories manufacturing the enzymes and hormones essential for life, a databank where all the necessary information about all products to be produced is recorded, complex transportation systems and pipelines for carrying raw materials and products from one place to another, advanced laboratories and refineries for breaking down external raw materials into their useable parts, and specialised cell membrane proteins to control the incoming and outgoing materials. And these constitute only a small part of this incredibly complex system. W. H. Thorpe, an evolutionist scientist, acknowledges that "The most elementary type of cell constitutes a 'mechanism' unimaginably more complex than any machine yet thought up, let alone constructed, by man."105 A cell is so complex that even the high level of technology attained today cannot produce one. No effort to create an artificial cell has ever met with success. Indeed, all attempts to do so have been abandoned. The theory of evolution claims that this system-which mankind, with all the intelligence, knowledge and technology at its disposal, cannot succeed in reproducing-came into existence "by chance" under the conditions of the primordial earth. To give another example, the probability of forming of a cell by chance is about the same as that of producing a perfect copy of a book following an explosion in a printing-house. The English mathematician and astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle made a similar comparison in an interview published in Nature magazine on November 12, 1981. Although an evolutionist himself, Hoyle stated that the chance that higher life forms might have emerged in this way is comparable to the chance that a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein. This means that it is not possible for the cell to have come into being by coincidence, and therefore it must definitely have been "created". One of the basic reasons why the theory of evolution cannot explain how the cell came into existence is the "irreducible complexity" in it. A living cell maintains itself with the harmonious co-operation of many organelles. If only one of these organelles fails to function, the cell cannot remain alive. The cell does not have the chance to wait for unconscious mechanisms like natural selection or mutation to permit it to develop. Thus, the first cell on earth was necessarily a complete cell possessing all the required organelle and functions, and this definitely means that this cell had to have been created.
There are three limitations or stumbling blocks to Darwinian Evolutionary Religion
• There is no evidence that living matter can come from non-living matter
• There are no transitional fossils and no intermediate living organisms between species
• Irreducible complexity as in the single cell and living organisms are made of trillions of cells
Professor Proves Scientists cannot explain the Origin of Life
Dr James Tour one of the World’s top chemists challenged ten of the world’s leading origin of life researchers to produce evidence for their theories. He wanted the evolutionary scientists to put up evidence or shut up and stop misleading the general public. Evolutionists are always claiming they are getting warmer to explaining how life evolved from a primordial complex soup of chemicals. This primordial soup is an invention of man and there is no evidence that this ever existed in the actual earth’s geology, this only exists in the imagination of evolutionist’s hearts and minds. These top evolutionists have refused to debate Dr Tour face to face on the 25th August 2023. Dr Tour issued a daring warning on his you tube channel. He promised to admit he was wrong, and he would take down all his anti-evolution material on his channel and stop making videos about chemical evolution, on one condition: that any one of the ten leading origin of life researchers-all chemists with intimate knowledge of the chemistry of life-would answer one of five questions about how life overcame hurdles that had to be surmounted before a living cell could appear. Dr Tour took himself out of the judging and allowed three of his opponents to judge for them-selves on whether they had succeeded. He wrote to each one of them personally giving them 60 days in which they could respond and by the deadline of the 24th October, not one of the ten had dared to take up his challenge. My comment: Life evolving from chemicals in relation to “fine tuning” that has to be precise and is extremely complex is impossible and so this theory, chemicals to the first living cell carries no scientific justification. There is design in DNA and RNA for those who want to see it, line upon line of digital code. Yet, chemicals to living cells, is the line pumped continually in schools, colleges and universities. This is committing academic murder! Tell a lie long enough, loud enough and often enough and people will eventually believe it. Darwin’s evolutionary fairy tale depends upon chemical evolution in order to get life started.
Dr Tour has authored 680 scientific publications and holds 120 patents. In 2014 Thomson Reuters named him one of “The world’s most influential scientific minds” and he won the Royal Society of Chemistry’s Centenary Prize for innovations in material chemistry and is also a fellow of the American Association of Advancement of science. Dr Tour is a committed Christian believer and he stands in awe of God because of what he has done through creation. He states my faith has increased through scientific research, end of quote. The truth in relation to science can lead you to faith in our Lord Jesus Christ.
Jesus said to Nicodemas who was about the third richest man in Jerusalem at that time, you must be born again of water and the spirit or you cannot enter into the kingdom of God. Nicodemas replied, how can a man be born when he is old, can he enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born? Jesus knew the thoughts of his heart and replied, “If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe, how will you believe, if I shall tell you of heavenly things?” That is my point we are only scratching the surface when it comes to the wonder of God’s creation. Jesus didn’t lie to us, he told us the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Jesus loves you and he wants you to repent of your sins by saying the sinner’s prayer. Lord Jesus I have broken your loving commandments, but I repent of my sins and turn away from them, please come into my heart and life and forgive me, give me your peace and reassurance. God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son that whosoever believeth in him should not perish but have eternal life [John 3:16].
Richard is amazing ❤❤❤❤
Prof. Dawkins, I share your fear of eternity. It has been the most daunting thing my mind has been able to conceive of since I can remember.
I hope you find peace 🙏
Here we go 🤜🤛
I am now 77 years old and as long as I can remember , I have held the same views as yourself on religion Richard. Only I never had the courage to voice them in public, as religious folk can get very nasty , as you know. but then no doubt a religious person would say that if I had faith , then I would have the courage. I will die an atheist (humanist) and no doubt a still coward.
It really depends on where you live, what relationships etc you have to lose.
I was in Saudi 6 months and kept my gob shut when people assumed i was christiain, declaring athiesm might have endangered my head and job..... Spouting off in a bar in England is risk free
Alex is on a roll. From eviscerating Ben Shapiro to a wonderful discussion with Dawkins. Well done lad.
Eviscerated ? I thought they had a nice respectful discussion.
@@MarnildBen was struggling to keep up and alex dismantled ben's moral relativism argument and returned it back to highlight the hypocrisy of morality in religion.
It took me years to like Richard Dawkins because I thought him to be cold. I was wrong. I hope he lives until he's 100 and enjoys every moment. Thanks for tge valuable conversations Alex. Peter Hitchens should apologise for his behaviour, hope he gets over himself.
I love you, sir
I loved this conversation.
I love how Alex is running Dr. Dawkins’ podcast 😂 Who’s interviewing who here?
I loved this conversation. I felt there were some unanswered questions towards the end so of course I venture:
1. Concerning the human desire for a god, Fromm proposed as reason the adults’s need for parental love and care. I can also imagine the need to escape responsibility and free arbiter when facing tough decisions.
2. There must be many studies showing how some departures from rationality and beliefs without evidence favor survival. There were some examples in “The God Delusion”.
3. As a weak consolation in the face of death, just consider that we die slowly every day after reaching adulthood: we lose teeth, eyesight and hearing, we get saggy skin, weak organs and dementia. Death is almost a continuous process.
Plus, by dying we make space for future generations.
Never heard of this guy but I’m very interested and the conversation was extremely satisfying. The first bit reminds me of one thing I think of often, and that’s scale. There are many sizes of life. Humans are small in comparison to elephants or a redwood tree, we also know there are stars and things out there bigger than what we have in our system. So the question comes to scale, or perspective. Is life and the universe really big? Or are we just small?
As far as we can tell everything is relative to each other.
Whenever I need resassuraunce of my moral and intellectual superiority, my prowess as a logician and a good old fashioned gutteral laugh, I listen to these guys.
Claiming moral superiority is not often effectively done. It's like when humble people brag about how humble they are.
@@theboombody wrong.
Love your content. Can you please add subtitles for your videos? Sometimes its really hard to understand for non-native speakers like me
I’m waiting for a book from Alex. He needs to take that next step . Make a statement.
"We are in an unimaginable universe " Alex 14:03 😊
I've never seen Dawkins directly in front of me, not something I'd ever considered. He's often addressing a interviewee to his side. So the intro caught me off guard. 😂
One can’t help but like that grey gentleman, and I say this as a confessing Christian. He has the charm that Christopher Hitchens always lacked.
I have discovered that living your life to fit into the concept of time is to limit the fullness of your life. Now I'm not saying time isn't important or doesn't have relevance in our lives, we all know the world works on time. But you don't have to live your life strictly within the concept of time. Certain parts, yes, but everything? No. You can separate what's important from what is routine. Living your life as experiential existence allows you to move time to the background. It becomes less important than the experience itself. So, I have chosen to look at life as not the time we are given but the experiences we are given. Good or bad. That is essentially what life is, moving from one experience to the next. Time is linear, experience is fluid. For example, the expression time flies when you're having fun is, in my opinion, a fallible observation. Time neither speeds up or slows down, it's how the particular experience is making you feel that allows you push time to the background so as not to allow it to interfere with your good experience. You forget about time and that is freeing. The same goes for bad experiences, time appears to slow down and makes the pain worse, when really it is your unwillingness or inability to confront the issue head on. Time doesn't care if you are having a good time or a bad time, it doesn't speed up or slow down, it is our perception of the experience that causes the disconnect. Living one's life as an experience is far more rewarding than waiting for an expiration date where you feel you have to cram as much into it as you can. Just enjoy the moments you're given, learn the lesson it's teaching, and stop worrying about how many you will have. Quality over quantity.
Sin is for religeous grifters to exploit. We are not born with sin. We are born self aware and evolve to self analyze our actions and adapt to achieve the outcomes we desire.
Can someone ask Dawkins why we can’t demonstrate in a lab the transition from non self replicating chemicals to self replicating life? 11:27
I saw that interview 4 yrs ago, Alex was so intense and border line aggresive I thought he was going to bite Richard.... I suspect he has mellowed now, lets see
Was it? 😅 I thought it was nice, just like this one
@@OfficialRogue it saw a near bite experience, this one was more licky
Richard concedes his arguments and is open to debate. Alex seems to be rigid and doubles down on his beliefs. Great pod cast Richard is so relevant today as always. Great minds. It’s not about Hitch’s charisma but his knowledge and wisdom.
To me Alex has always been more the crusador type, couple that wth being younger, more mobile with ideas and doing an interview... he will play devils advocate.
Richard however strikes me as slightly bemused that others cant cope with the simpliest realities of this world. A bit like me when my lodgers still cant manage two locks on the front door after 3 years in the house
@@ashleysherlock5705 The reason for this should be obvious as this was uploaded to Alex’s channel as well. His style of interviewing revolves around challenging the other’s beliefs. He wants thoughtful answers, and philosophically probes his guests. As Alex intended to upload this to his channel for his podcast too, I think that Alex naturally slipped into being the host. However, I suppose on Dawkins’ channel this might come off as Alex simply being stubborn as one would expect Dawkins to guide the conversation and Alex to fill the role of the guest by merely responding to questions.
Alex indicates multiple times he's playing devil's advocate to the theological point of view to foster the conversation. I think the only thing Alex kind of pushed that was his personal belief was about debating WLC, since Alex has had a few pretty good conversations with him (including one where he kind of stumped WLC with the notion that the universe could actually be 'necessary presupposition' instead of god).
@@ashleysherlock5705 They were speaking in regards to his interviewing style. Because that’s how you challenge people’s positions. He plays devil’s advocate to see if the other person’s arguments will stand up to criticism. Literally the whole point of what I was just saying
How you got that impression of Alex from this interview I have no clue.
When I was 5YO, I had faith Santa Clause was real. Then at 8, I realized the truth of Santa Clause. I had faith as a new Christian, till I realized the truth.
love the videos! timestamps would be great
I'm neither scientist nor mathematician but I strongly believe, based in our current numerical values that if "2 + 2" is not equal to "4", we're doomed...
Sangat bermanfaat
I can agree with Ayaan's comment on you, Mr. Dawkins, being very Christian. The ultimate truth is to me not limited to the observable world, but also the moral world. There is a saying that goes "don't let the truth stand in the way for a good story", which IMO is more true than one would think. The moral of a story is often far more important than the story itself. It is what speaks to us the strongest. Thus, I don't believe the Bible is literally describing actual events, at least not to 100%, but I believe in the power behind the stories, what they tell us. Jordan Peterson, another one of my big heroes, made me realize this. It doesn't matter to me if the Bible is literally true, or even whether God really exists or not. The truth is bigger than that.
You have devoted your life to the observable reality and science. That's good and admirable. To me, the scientific method is exactly what the first commandment is all about. If God is The Truth (and more), then the commandment "You shall have no other gods except me", literally says that you must only believe the truth, which no-one can ever get a full picture of, and, thus, it's imperative to question more or less everything. The scientific method is the best method we have to get closer and closer to the truth. No religion or ideology allows this to happen as extensively as Christianity working within a fundamentally liberal democracy. You don't know the truth, hence you are not up to decide how other people should live their lives, or what they should believe. You must tolerate the existence of people having very different views and living very differently than you, however it does not say you should try to communicate your view of truth. Truth matters. That's why the authoritarian woke ideas really must be fought. It's completely non-sensical and is nothing more than an effort to revolt against the reality. Something an angel called Lucifer once tried. Again, here's a story I don't believe is literally true but extremely powerful in a moral sense.
While I respect your viewpoint, it seems you are conflating religion with morality, which are two distinct concepts. The Bible, as a religious text, offers guidance on both spiritual and moral matters. However, the scientific method, as you correctly pointed out, is crucial in understanding our physical world. It's not about choosing between science or faith; it's about utilizing each to their strengths while acknowledging their limitations.
As for Richard Dawkins, he is a prominent atheist and evolutionary biologist who has made significant contributions to the field of science. His work, particularly "The God Delusion," has sparked many debates on religion, belief, and morality. It's not about him being "very Christian"; it's about critiquing religious beliefs in light of scientific evidence.
Regarding your statement about Jordan Peterson, I agree that the moral lessons we derive from stories can be powerful and impactful. However, using these stories to justify a belief in an unprovable deity seems like a leap of faith rather than a logical conclusion based on empirical evidence.
Your view is dishonest. You claim to know things about an unseen world. If you haven’t “seen“ it, you can’t “know” it. But you claim it anyway, why? If you have a rational reason, then you could do what your Bible demands and prove it to others. Instead, you just claim truth that you can not honestly claim.
Science is honest, it only claims knowledge of what it can know. You should try it.
Mark Cohn was asked the same question when he was walking in Memphis, he said he was tonight.
I wached this video that alex mentioned about sun being a size of a blood cell
Is it on CZcams?
There's a good reason for calling it the biblical corpus. Even though people intellectually know it's many books that were written over time and bound into one we generally think of it as one book just like any oth book on the shelf.
Listening to that podcast, I cannot but be grateful that finally prof Dawkins got on the Internet!
Such a legacy!
One (probably stupid) thing that got my imagination occupied recently is:
Why did Evolution not come up with "the wheel" as part of a living organism? Or maybe I am ignorant and there is such creature?
Because Evolution came up so many times independently with wings for example...
The wheelies rolled into ditchies and got stuck.
Apparently evolution is working on a newer version incorporating large Americans, Ford trucks and winches
@@josmith9662 🤣🤣🤣
@@josmith9662 If you think of it, all "legs" are like spokes on a wheel from physics perspective. The beauty of a wheel is that you don't need to move them for each "step" forward, which expends a lot of energy.
Anyway... I guess walnut shells are a round shape, which helps them roll further from the tree 🤔🤔🤔
And most fruit too ..
Wheels are detached from the organism, this means an evolutionary pathway would be along the side of a cartilage like wheel, with boney spokes. But lack of blood supply would render the wheels susceptible to dying. Hence locomotion via a detached circular object is very unlikely to appear but the usage of wheels by us show they are very useful. Giving a good case for no creator....or he would have used wheels!
@@deathorb I think evolution through natural selection is sufficient to "solve" all the issues that you mentioned.
Look at horns, hooves, etc. they don't need blood circulation. And they work for what they are meant.
I, myself am amazed that we have had wings on dinosaurs, birds, mammals (bats) and insects. Heck, even trees and grass have "glider" type of flight for their seeds. And each of those is its own variant, fascinating stuff!
And on the part of the wheel, all we got are round walnuts and round fruit...
Smarmy? Can listen to this guy.
I hate questions like how do we know 2+2=4. In the case of 2+2=4, we know this because we've defined it as such. We have this concept of quantities, we give labels to certain quantities. When we combine the quantity we've labelled 2 with another quantity of 2, the quantity we get is the one we've given the label 4.
Challenging history with untold accuracy
I kinda like how Richard sees Alex as the new generation, at least a bit.
I am a Christian, but I appreciated this discussion. Christians need to ask themselves about these same questions. The Bible has numerous flaws and is not what many Christians churches claim it to be. We need rational discussions like these and use critical thinking skills when studying the Bible and the culture surrounding it. I may be more progressive in my approach due to graduate study on these issues. Unfortunately many Christians fall into the trap of seeing the Bible as truthful on all matters and are not open to debating things like authorship, morality in the Bible, God as unjust, Moses never existing, and the Bible being a collection of different books with different genres.
What do you mean when you mention morality and authorship?
@@rufusnunez6482 Many books in the Bible are not authored by the alleged author. For example, six of Paul's writings in the New Testament were authored by other people. There are 613 rules in the Old Testament, many of them dealing with moral conduct. Orthodox Jews follow these. Most are verbs. There is one possible addition in the the New Testament which makes thoughts a sin. Matthew 5:28 is probably added later. It is a sin to even think about adultery, not actually doing it. This is contrary to Jewish law.
@@user-og2wt3le4j I understand that Paul had some other people with him that helped him write some of the letters, meaning that the handwriting of these letters is not Paul's. I don't see how that minimizes authorship or diminishes credibility of the text. About morality, I think it's pretty consistent on the Old Testament and the New Testament, despite the fact that that portion was added later on. For example, once I read about how a portion of Mathew 28 was added to the gospel. If I remember correctly, it was the part where it says that Jesus's followers had to go around the world making disciples and teaching them what Jesus had taught them. I don't se how that devalues what Jesus says elsewhere in the gospels, for example John 17.
I think, and of course I can be wrong about this, that Jesus wanted to make it clear that the sin of adultery started with the desire of the heart.
Excuse me, I like that artwork on the wall.
Great interview by alex lol
Did they both post pretty much the same conversation on the respective CZcams channels?
I think Hirsi Ali has her frontal cortex damaged since her childhood, how could someone be enlightened with reasoning and logi, reject and quit all of that and go back to superficial 2000 year old deity. Mr. Dawkins you’re so polite and diplomatic.
It seems that we have to believe in something, because apparently we are just made that way (by whatever explanation). But with basically either religion or science, the choices of what to believe are a bit limited. Wouldn't it be nice if there were greater possibilities. There'd be more to debate, too.
The metaphor about Shakespeare and the whole thing with punctuation, capital and small letters, grammar, etc., fails to consider that Shakespeare was indeed the "Creator" but the medium and instrument by which he brought that creation forth were not only pre-existing but only one of countless other writing and grammatical systems. Which leads to a "multiverse" possibility.
There is creator, but it's simple machine. Not all powerful and not all mighty.