Richard Dawkins & Alan Lightman on Science & Religion

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

[@HowToAcademyMindset]

See more of Richard here: kzbin.info/aero/PLFIigLLitqDlT00WkmkFP_y626lLrUIdb

[@captainzappbrannagan]

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.

[@joelonsdale]

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!

[@captainzappbrannagan]

@@joelonsdale I didn't know about tchurch ties. I think you get what I meant though . He should have more accolades.

[@joelonsdale]

@@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!

[@vatsmith8759]

@@joelonsdale Knighthoods are awards made by the state, not the King. The King just performs the ceremony as head of state.

[@heather4595]

​@@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!!!

Thank you very much for sharing this. It's much appreciated.

[@dragansavic39]

Thank you dr. Dawkins for mentioning Wallace. Many don't.

[@casparuskruger4807]

Lots of incredulity in your opening speech, Mr. Lightman

[@MehmetAliMD]

What an amazing conversation with respect and jokes are. Thanks, both of the speakers.

[@tamaraTT]

Exactly!!!! British sense of humour always

[@hectordavid4201]

WOW, one of Richard's best speech!!!

[@venkatwarren43]

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.

[@darthlynx5792]

Alan's opening statement basically just means "If you feel like god exists, god must exist"

[@rouzah9419]

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!"_

[@vincentanguoni8938]

Nice.. I believe it's cause we would very much like there to be a God... Or something!! Si o no?

[@peterpyramid]

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

[@marcusshakur3481]

@ 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”.

[@starfishsystems]

@@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.

[@fredrikpetersson6761]

Kudos to RD ! Impressive come back from health problems. 👏

[@81Mace81]

So lovely to see Richard back debating. These are precious occasions, folks!

[@VNVgirl]

I am so thankful to see this! no doubt mr 81Mace

[@BibleResearchTools]

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

[@jdones5475]

Agree with you 81 Mace!

[@CandidDate]

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 !!!

[@Raydensheraj]

@Christ is king piss of trolling your bullshit here you damn liar.

[@nikhilgv9]

Very happy to see Prof. Dawkins in a debate after a break.

[@hedycampbell586]

Richard Dawkins showed brilliance and great patience!

[@2fast2block]

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. kzbin.info/www/bejne/gJqwoq2ElL6Gjrc “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. kzbin.info/www/bejne/jWLCfHiMlqisl6M kzbin.info/www/bejne/r4icmJStr79_qc0 kzbin.info/www/bejne/mpXEooarqdlol9k No, the eye did not evolve into various eyes. Your mere chance mutations are absurd. kzbin.info/www/bejne/jmjLY3uNmLmql5Y 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.”

[@piertinence]

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

[@duanericardo5893]

We love you Richard Dawkins

[@krishnadastr8232]

I love Richard Dawkins talks

[@2fast2block]

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. kzbin.info/www/bejne/gJqwoq2ElL6Gjrc “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. kzbin.info/www/bejne/jWLCfHiMlqisl6M kzbin.info/www/bejne/r4icmJStr79_qc0 kzbin.info/www/bejne/mpXEooarqdlol9k No, the eye did not evolve into various eyes. Your mere chance mutations are absurd. kzbin.info/www/bejne/jmjLY3uNmLmql5Y 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.”

[@BlacksmithTWD]

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.

[@piertinence]

I am not crazy about science fiction. Light sensitive cells do not grow into eyeballs as preached by the darwinist priest

[@normanthrelfall2646]

A lovely comment from somebody. Thank you for the very well-thought-out opinion added to this content. I enjoyed reading it.

[@Forest-jj7pj]

Tacos + sour cream + pinto beans + tomato salsa + chilli jalapeño ----> Transcendental Experience indeed ;)

[@kimlowe705]

Professor Dawkins’ explanations convert complex science into common sense.

[@peachespage2923]

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.

[@kimlowe705]

@@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!

[@peachespage2923]

@@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?

[@pinball1970]

@@peachespage2923 Do actually understand any Physics?

[@hopelessnerd6677]

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.

[@guitarislife01]

3:03 Used the word "lay" correctly.

[@ronniabati]

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?

[@larryparis925]

Thank you Prof. Dawkins, for a coherent, meaningful presentation.

[@2fast2block]

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. kzbin.info/www/bejne/gJqwoq2ElL6Gjrc “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. kzbin.info/www/bejne/jWLCfHiMlqisl6M kzbin.info/www/bejne/r4icmJStr79_qc0 kzbin.info/www/bejne/mpXEooarqdlol9k No, the eye did not evolve into various eyes. Your mere chance mutations are absurd. kzbin.info/www/bejne/jmjLY3uNmLmql5Y 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.”

[@dipdo7675]

Religion was the 1st attempt at explaining the world and existence but has been passed at a prodigious speed by modern science!!

[@edwardcopeland5069]

Religion was not the first attempt at explaining the world! Religion is the result of not being able to explain nothing.

[@Rico-Suave_]

Watched all of it

[@acari27]

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.

[@ingenuity168]

Richard Dawkins ! Brilliant. 👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻

[@dafyddllyrdavies6601]

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

[@bellarosalarsen1638]

Bravo my darling Richard.

[@AllansStation]

Richard at his best, he speaks the truth

[@lawrence1318]

There's no such thing as truth in a universe of matter and energy only. So you're contradicting your own doctrine.

[@starfishsystems]

@@lawrence1318 Nonsense.

[@mentuemhet]

I miss Christopher Hitchens.

[@mentuemhet]

yes, he would have also destroyed this guy in the video. i can just imagine it.

[@andersestes]

Always. He is my mentor in life

[@BibleResearchTools]

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

[@Raydensheraj]

@@BibleResearchTools Says the uneducated Christian hahaha

[@Raydensheraj]

@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.

[@Paine137]

Ideas don’t deserve respect; ideas always should be challenged. Just like this one.

[@doubleclick4132]

lol everytime i watch anything with dawkins in it im just waiting for when he'll bring up the "weeping at a shubert quartet" thing

[@wayno.1970]

Richard Dawkins is one of the most inspirational people I have ever listened to

[@gerardmoloney433]

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

[@pinball1970]

Agreed

[@lawrence1318]

Then you need to get out more.

[@johnmoore9862]

Blind faith versus well researched fact based science. You choose.

[@lawrence1318]

@@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?

[@poulthomas469]

"God is outside our ability to perceive him" Well that's convenient.

[@mikeabrahams679]

Always the theist's/deist's get out of jail free card

[@starfishsystems]

"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.

[@FourDeuce01]

He’s outside our ability to perceive him, but somehow they still know he’s out there. Must be magic.🤡

[@poulthomas469]

@@FourDeuce01 Well sure, he wrote a book.

[@FourDeuce01]

@@poulthomas469 Yeah, I know. I have a first edition signed by the author.😜

[@Mark1526374859]

‘Dr Lightman you can’t out transcendent me’.

[@Jesse-ig8mm]

35:41 Yes... You will be hugely surprised unfortunately.

[@pablo1985]

Dawkins is awesome. That is all.

[@2fast2block]

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. kzbin.info/www/bejne/gJqwoq2ElL6Gjrc “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. kzbin.info/www/bejne/jWLCfHiMlqisl6M kzbin.info/www/bejne/r4icmJStr79_qc0 kzbin.info/www/bejne/mpXEooarqdlol9k No, the eye did not evolve into various eyes. Your mere chance mutations are absurd. kzbin.info/www/bejne/jmjLY3uNmLmql5Y 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.”

[@nathandougherty7058]

@@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.

[@2fast2block]

@@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.

[@MrTheclevercat]

@@2fast2block You don't even have a high school diploma. Go copy paste your degree for us lmfao clown

[@MrTheclevercat]

@@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.

[@CRMcGee2]

Science has shown us wonderful things that religion would keep hidden from us due to ignorance.

[@johanthornqvist5686]

such as?

[@CRMcGee2]

@@johanthornqvist5686 medical science period.

[@johanthornqvist5686]

@@CRMcGee2 give me an example

[@CRMcGee2]

@@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.

[@GUULLIVER]

@@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! 🤣

[@jvincent6548]

And there we have it in all its nakedness. "I want respect for my beliefs".

[@nab267]

I think I now understand what the Eye of the Universe from Outer Wilds represents

[@thegroove2000]

I can listen to Richard all day. Hes got that intellectual mojo.

[@mmaphilosophytheologyscien4578]

Richard Dawkins is considered an intellectual laughingstock by Christian philosophers and atheist philosophers as like. You need to do more research.

[@thegroove2000]

@@mmaphilosophytheologyscien4578Will any atheist then debate and argue against him? NO. Richard would wipe the floor with them.

[@thegroove2000]

@@mmaphilosophytheologyscien4578He has done more than you and in examining the nature things. Your an idiot compared.

[@mmaphilosophytheologyscien4578]

@@thegroove2000 Richard Dawkins is scared to debate William Lane Craig. He’s such a coward.

[@thegroove2000]

@@mmaphilosophytheologyscien4578 Prove it.

[@johnwarren5096]

Lightman was outclassed.

[@alienakpax6978]

Richard Dawkins once said "DO THE JOB PROPERLY" ❤

[@filmeseverin]

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.*

[@shawnlund]

How can they poll the audience for questions and then not wrote down and answer the question as it was asked?

[@JosephNordenbrockartistraction]

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.

[@studio-flash]

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!

[@shenlaoshi7106]

Haha

[@blah7918]

3:17 now you know how I’m feeling listening to you my old mate!

[@fondueeundof3351]

I think all these spiritual and transcendental experiences emerge from the same material foundation that enables us to think and to be self-aware in the first place. However, contrary to Lightman's view, I think these experiences are susceptible to scientific analysis, simply we're not yet there yet.

[@louisesumrell6331]

Subjective experience is deeply personal. No need to invent an invisible sky-daddy just because you don't understand it.

[@IKissedTheBlade]

Science: "We don't know... let's keep looking for the answer" Religion: "We don't know... therefore God"

[@richardearnshaw2719]

That's it in a nutshell way 👍

[@richardearnshaw2719]

I agree in a nutshell 👍

[@pinball1970]

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.

[@pinball1970]

@The Neo AntiZodiac Vandals And Science actually works, don't for get that part. You are using it to post.

[@GUULLIVER]

@@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.

[@bman6502]

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…

[@mehdibaghbadran3182]

Religious, belongs to long time’s ago and they did not changed, but now we’re living in 21 centuries and everything comes forward in science, except religion!

[@BigBangWitness]

Richard Dawkins WINS

[@zeko77tz]

Glad to see Mr. Dawkins still rocks.

[@CandidDate]

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?"

[@viktortandofsky6914]

Dawkins is an antisemite

[@MrTheclevercat]

@@viktortandofsky6914 Based on what, the fact that he is an atheist?

[@poozer1986]

@@viktortandofsky6914 guess you'll never back your baseless assertion with any evidence. Much like every other bitter theist

[@viktortandofsky6914]

@@poozer1986 Religion is faith, not fact, jackass.

[@pinifasi843]

Just curious,why Nietzsche wasn’t mentioned once in this discussion,especially Will To Power,which seems relevant..

[@briansmith3791]

" 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". - David Bohm, colleague and protege of Einstein in a talk with David Suzuki. ( 21 mins).

[@marchalthomas6591]

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.

[@csjrogerson2377]

And what does that prove? Apart from sod all.

[@ArizoGecko]

When we finally do release our 1st true A.I. being, it should be modeled after Richard Dawkins.

[@filmeseverin]

I have proved in my top message, posted 2 days ago, that atheists are in error regarding the existence of God.

[@poozer1986]

@@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

[@GUULLIVER]

Nope. It should be modeled after (an imaginative hybrid of) Donald Trump, Vladimir Putin and Saddam Hussein. 🤣🤣

[@petermeyer6873]

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.

[@filmeseverin]

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.*

[@petermeyer6873]

@@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.

[@filmeseverin]

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.*

[@filmeseverin]

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.

[@petermeyer6873]

@@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?

[@suesalach113]

Wake up call every time!! I would hear Richard Dawkins speak! The sound of reason and data! Thank you,you saved the conference for KZbin 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!

[@2fast2block]

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. kzbin.info/www/bejne/gJqwoq2ElL6Gjrc “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. kzbin.info/www/bejne/jWLCfHiMlqisl6M kzbin.info/www/bejne/r4icmJStr79_qc0 kzbin.info/www/bejne/mpXEooarqdlol9k No, the eye did not evolve into various eyes. Your mere chance mutations are absurd. kzbin.info/www/bejne/jmjLY3uNmLmql5Y 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.”

[@rouzah9419]

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".

[@dorimbin5219]

If "God" exists outside of physical universe, how do you attempt to describe anything about the character and purpose of this "God"?

[@robinhoodstfrancis]

Lightman referred to William James´ Varieties of Religious Experience, which refers to more than a sense of identity with the Universe, or even something transcendent. James actually includes presentations of healing testimonies based on "mind-cure" approaches, which are derived from Christian Science. CS talks about Divine Mind and Love, etc, and people adopting that thinking, and then experiencing healing and benefits. In relation to Jesus, no less. Leaving shamanism, etc aside for the moment. Now, explain Gandhi, Rasputin, Sganyadiyo (Handsome Lake-prophet healed of alcoholism), Catholic medical examinations of Lourdes and canonizations, now Craig Keener´s 2011 tome Miracles, and more. Lightman is interesting in the role he is assuming. He acknowledges other phenomena, a key point, while the implication goes uncompleted. Other disciplines need to be cited. In fact, Max Weber et al´s basic development of antipositivism and interpretivism. Freud´s basic insights, especially the pre-Oedipal distortion, demonstrate the distinction of the human experience of words and the shifting between mental verbal type psychology and the neuro-physiological system. It leads to the phenomena of mind over matter, as simply as "I´m staying up late to finish this paper, and I´ll willfully drink caffeine no matter how tired my body is." The human verbal mind has a symbolically-interactionally-biographically-historically constructed nature that has energetic components, and trans-energetic components in psychosocial-cultural information content. Recognizing accounting in cuneiform, and similarities to modern forms is exciting. G Smith recognizing the Biblical Flood story type elements of the Epic of Gilgamesh provided another level. The confirmation of the Assyrian Sennacharib context encounter with Hezekiah is another. Hezekiah was trapped in Jerusalem, and with a prophet, Isaiah?, was told the Assyrians would be defeated. Assyrian material confirmed the campaigns in general. Herodotus had a record of a massive attack of field mice. An odd occurrence. And one that correlates with the attribution of a Hebrew/Jewish prophet with a king. Get denialistic attributions ready. Dawkins: "I respect you too much to respect your ridiulous beliefs." Oh, I hope I haven´t been rude to anyone." Yeah, Richie. Rude as Hell. You should have been dealth with on many occasions. I got my college degree in Bio Anthro focused around the evolution of speech and symbol use. I worked in things like social services, then got a masters in International Relations, using ecological and social economics and sociology. Alan Lightman went so far as to say he thinks the human mind is just material. He´s a physicist, after all. Time to actually look at the fact that "science" is actually a human activity, and scientific natural philosophy. Philosophical forms of knowledge, with empiricism, and related methods like introspection and contemplation, then are all on the spectrum of philosophical truth and their diverse academic fields. Epistemology, and its actual epistemological divisions into knowledge/phenomena domains. Fritjof Capra´s work in Systems Theory, extended to social phenomena and for sustainability, is an important touchstone on that subject. Goedel´s Incompleteness Theorem is completely ignored by Dawkins.... That math is limited in its applicability. The real world isn´t just about mathematical description. Just like scientific materialism obsesses about "science", missing its true nature as scientific natural philosophy.

[@Forest-jj7pj]

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.

[@user-eb3kk4hj3x]

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

[@undogmatisch5873]

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!

[@nathane5287]

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.

[@notwhatiwasraised2b]

I think it's more an argument from personal incredulity - I don't know what else to make of it so...God.

[@pcstar123]

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!

[@notwhatiwasraised2b]

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'

[@pcstar123]

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!

[@dawnbaldwin5919]

I believe the future will be able to send messages to the past from old footage such as this!

[@wenhaosun9256]

Great! 2018

[@AstronomyGuru84]

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.

[@rickallen9167]

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.

[@ramaraksha01]

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!

[@CausalityLoop]

@@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.

[@rickallen9167]

@@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.

[@BlacksmithTWD]

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.

[@Ethentent]

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.

[@tonygriffin_]

And he was recovering from a recent stroke here, but only mentions it as an amusing rhyme at the start of his talk.

[@viktortandofsky6914]

Dawkins is an antisemite

[@Legorreta.M.D]

Viktor Tandofsky Do you have a quote? I have never as much as heard anything resembling antisemitism from him

[@ophiolatreia93]

Me too i love Dawkins. He's my mentor

[@2fast2block]

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. kzbin.info/www/bejne/gJqwoq2ElL6Gjrc “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. kzbin.info/www/bejne/jWLCfHiMlqisl6M kzbin.info/www/bejne/r4icmJStr79_qc0 kzbin.info/www/bejne/mpXEooarqdlol9k No, the eye did not evolve into various eyes. Your mere chance mutations are absurd. kzbin.info/www/bejne/jmjLY3uNmLmql5Y 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.”

[@davidwilkie9551]

When you know, only silence is necessary.

[@bretnetherton9273]

"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.

[@henriksrensen5958]

I'm so glad to see Mr Dawkins back

[@cornerstaple8747]

Richard Dawkins is good at holding on to that truthful and scientific mind

[@cornerstaple8747]

@Verum Est Mundum, Reason isn't a straw man.

[@corb5654]

@@verumestmundum4006 You appear to need no reason to behave in an unreasonable and somewhat delusional fashion...

[@2fast2block]

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. kzbin.info/www/bejne/gJqwoq2ElL6Gjrc “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. kzbin.info/www/bejne/jWLCfHiMlqisl6M kzbin.info/www/bejne/r4icmJStr79_qc0 kzbin.info/www/bejne/mpXEooarqdlol9k No, the eye did not evolve into various eyes. Your mere chance mutations are absurd. kzbin.info/www/bejne/jmjLY3uNmLmql5Y 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.”

[@BlacksmithTWD]

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.

[@thisklik]

Find a good sound engenier for nex debate!!feedback on Alan's mic is painfull in my headphones

[@sasamitrovic9474]

Scientist and believer. As far from each other as Salieri from Mozart, Is the greater achievement Darwin's theory or the completely incomprehensible way of how acupuncture came about in medical practice? Did science suffer from Einsteinism, Darwinism, Newtonism, Marxism, Freudism Judaism and Atheism?

[@steveg5074]

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..

[@JustNow42]

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.

[@ansfridaeyowulfsdottir8095]

James T. Kirk once asked: _"What need has God for a star ship?"_ What need has Dawkins for a moderator? {:o:O:}

[@ansfridaeyowulfsdottir8095]

Ah, this was not a debate at all, it was a discussion, which needs no moderator. Dawkins excels at those, and thanks to the moderator for not poking his beak in too often. {:o:O:}

[@blah7918]

11:46 you are welcome

[@demven04]

My respect to the professor Dawkins, he's absolutely brilliant here.

[@2fast2block]

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. kzbin.info/www/bejne/gJqwoq2ElL6Gjrc “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. kzbin.info/www/bejne/jWLCfHiMlqisl6M kzbin.info/www/bejne/r4icmJStr79_qc0 kzbin.info/www/bejne/mpXEooarqdlol9k No, the eye did not evolve into various eyes. Your mere chance mutations are absurd. kzbin.info/www/bejne/jmjLY3uNmLmql5Y 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.”

[@saintmichael9736]

No one is brilliant that does not honor God...atheist are not very bright ...look up and see the wonders of the LORD...

[@pinball1970]

@@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.

[@chaveraoh]

@@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.

[@bernieflanders8822]

@@saintmichael9736 ok I looked. Where is the magic sky daddy and what part of any of it needs creating?

[@henkmarks8856]

I must admire Dawkins' patience. Especially since science and religion do not compute (at all).

[@runelund5600]

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.

[@henkmarks8856]

@@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)

[@aqilshamil9633]

Your asinine claim really prove you are scientifically and mathematically illiterate

[@allahjr.8522]

@@runelund5600 They followed several gods.

[@allahjr.8522]

@Rune Lund And don't think all religions have the same concept of gawd.

[@roberttrefcer86]

It seems like people against religion flood comment sections, while people of faith are on the outside living life. There is too much contention for me. Have a great day.

[@iveseen1]

Religion is certainly not up to contemporary criticism.Dawkins books are a masterpiece and a credit to his research .

[@bakeumawaytoys3453]

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.

[@romnarz]

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

[@lawrence1318]

@@romnarz Christianity is not a religion.

[@jackhartford521]

@@lawrence1318 Huh?!?! Explain, or I’ll just copy and paste the definition of religion.

[@lawrence1318]

@@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.

[@jackhartford521]

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.

[@TheTruthKiwi]

Thank you very much Richard, you are doing a great thing for humanity. This superficial superstitious nonsense has got to stop

[@MariaSilva-xz6yg]

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.

[@TheTruthKiwi]

@@MariaSilva-xz6yg haha yes, you're right Maria 😂

[@MichaelKingsfordGray]

It thrives in con-artists. The bullshit parasitic scams will never cease, as long as there are stupid under-educated folk.

[@joelonsdale]

Transcendence is a strange and powerful phenomena, that's for sure. But it's just an emotional response, one of many the human brain is capable of creating given the right stimulus. It's a measurable, chemical and electrical reaction like an orgasm, a shock or a pang of hunger.

[@tangentquo7996]

without any type of personal transcendence woul render a lack of quaoification . To number dimensions at all is to suggest experience capable beyond 3. we are eriously needing to shift this.

[@petermatthiesen8841]

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.

[@2fast2block]

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. kzbin.info/www/bejne/gJqwoq2ElL6Gjrc “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. kzbin.info/www/bejne/jWLCfHiMlqisl6M kzbin.info/www/bejne/r4icmJStr79_qc0 kzbin.info/www/bejne/mpXEooarqdlol9k No, the eye did not evolve into various eyes. Your mere chance mutations are absurd. kzbin.info/www/bejne/jmjLY3uNmLmql5Y 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.”

[@donaldsmith7824]

Exactly

[@edwardcopeland5069]

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.

[@2fast2block]

@@donaldsmith7824 as I showed, he's a dolt.

[@2fast2block]

@@edwardcopeland5069 says you the doofus that can't get around what I gave.

[@catkeys6911]

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!"

[@firmbutton6485]

In a nutshell, he believes due to his religious upbringing, that the emotional feelings of awe experienced within his brain, is god.

[@sciencereallyworks]

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.

[@sciencereallyworks]

Have now gone up to 2.0 with Lightman. Otherwise it’s like mainlining Morphium.

[@catkeys6911]

@@sciencereallyworks Except not as much fun.

[@catkeys6911]

It doesn't help that he looks like the imbecile car salesman in the movie Fargo. 😉

[@ED-sc7cm]

Watching debates and intellectual discussions used once to be my favorite thing to do. Now , i cannot enjoy doing anything.

[@christophercook723]

She phoned a chap and hid wife that we hardly know and put him on her phone. Drooling. O was angry at being asleep and walking up in an Ambulance being lent on by a pack of Nurses. She has been talking about Hospital and Ambulances for days.

[@Dragantraces]

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.

[@nathane5287]

Well said, absolutely dreadful.

[@pcstar123]

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!

[@darkomarkac5268]

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.

[@julianjulian2957]

transandence experience? How about delusion?

[@marktaronji4694]

Lightman's story sounds like Gandalf after he defeated The Balrog

[@rudigerk]

I'd love to see a Talk with Richard Dawkins and Swami Sarvapriyananda or Jay Lakhani.

[@anwiyayoukhanna]

Every professor in America needs to take a lesson from Richard Dawkins.

[@semerendocr]

[@2fast2block]

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. kzbin.info/www/bejne/gJqwoq2ElL6Gjrc “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. kzbin.info/www/bejne/jWLCfHiMlqisl6M kzbin.info/www/bejne/r4icmJStr79_qc0 kzbin.info/www/bejne/mpXEooarqdlol9k No, the eye did not evolve into various eyes. Your mere chance mutations are absurd. kzbin.info/www/bejne/jmjLY3uNmLmql5Y 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.”

[@semerendocr]

@@2fast2block yeah, but

[@2fast2block]

@@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.

[@normanthrelfall8313]

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

[@Cheximus]

How did Dawkins not fall asleep in those initial 15 mins?

[@kennethmarshall306]

Yes. It was boring

[@michaeldillon3113]

I was so impressed with Alan Lightnan . Not sure who the other guy is ?

[@oldtimeycabins]

The other guy- he’s the winner

[@chahkandarchast8584]

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 😀😀😀

[@TejasM14]

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?

[@Vlasko60]

I agree. Why the hell do they do that?