Richard Dawkins on evangelizing for evolution, science, skepticism, reason, and rationality

[@lbogaardt]

"So you haven't retired". "Oh god, no". :)

[@Rocky_Anunnaki]

🔥 long live! Richard Dawkins 🔥

[@boomstheory5361]

Richard Dawkins can't live forever. But his soul will. It's his decision where his soul spins eternity and it looks like he's in God's patience. There's a difference in having your own disbelief but when you are actively going out and trying to spread disbelief unto the world than you are purposely acting against God. I mean good luck and all if you feel like that's a fight you're going to win but just made the consequences for these actions very clear

[@2CSST2]

@@boomstheory5361 The actual true god, according to my beliefs, dislikes anyone who criticizes antitheists and spreads threats about their '"soul" after death. So good luck and all if you feel like that's a fight you're going to win but just made the consequences for these actions very clear

[@boomstheory5361]

@@2CSST2 it's not what is according to your beliefs. It's according to his word. Everybody is a good person according to their beliefs. But you obviously know God is real. Why would you care about people talking about a god you didn't believe exist? And I bet Dawkins knows God exist. He's studied and theorized and debated about God so many times. Dawkins is the type to open his heart to Jesus on his deathbed. Everyone knows God is real. But many deny their own heart. Yall are gonna miss christians when we're all gone. See how long you can handle true lawlessness. Everyone makes their own rules, because there's no consequences after death and everyone is right in their own eyes.

[@boomstheory5361]

@@2CSST2 the first murder ever was the first brothers ever born.

[@ResearchThis]

@@boomstheory5361 huh? Remember, In the bible, when Cain was cast out for Murdering Abel? ... and he was worried about other people killing him or harming him and he asked God for help, and God gave him some kind of sign? Yeah, uh... who were those "other people", that other nation of people? They already existed, and didn't come from Adam and Eve. Think about it, look it up. And in that same book, God talks to "other gods" and says Adam would become like "us" if he eats of the second tree. Look it up. Who are those other gods?

[@chindi17]

I love Richard Dawkins. A great teacher on evolution and used to watch his teachings on evolution on TV. He is the reason I understand Evolution much better. Thank you sir and I will be buying his new book too.

[@piertinence]

@According to Darwinist evangelist atheist Dawkins everything ought to be explained atheistically. He came with the ridiculous idea that the human eye, the human brain and other human organs would be. designoid objects presenting only an illusion of design. "The kind of design that natural selection creates is qualitatively different than the kind created by an intelligent entity. We don't want to say design, because in our language, design implies a designer." Darwinist atheist DawkinsThere is no evidence that natural selection, the deity in Darwinism, that is said to have taken some bacterial life forms through billions of years of an evolutionary journey, resulting in the creation of all living creatures on earth, would have actually existed.

[@jinn_1891]

He used to have a part in a show called "inside natures giants" where he explains the anatomy and function of body parts

[@piertinence]

Given that Darwinian evangelist atheist Dawkins regards his own brain as a designoid object too badly faulty to be the creation of an intelligent entity , I doubt if he could explain the anatomical functions of intricately designed, programmed and engineered body parts the like the human eye. I doubt if the science fiction author has ever looked into real science. "The complexity of perceptual cells beggars the imagination. In humans, 127,000,000 cells called rods and cones line up in rows as the “seeing” elements that receive light and transmit messages to the brain.... These rod cells are so sensitive that the smallest measurable unit of light, one photon, can excite them. Under optimum conditions the human eye can detect a candle at a distance of 15 miles. Yet with rods alone, we would see chiaroscuro, only shades of black and gray, and would not get the focal resolution allowed by the more complex cones.Squeezed into the dense forest of rods, the larger cones tend to concentrate in the precise spot in the eye where focusing is most acute. Although cones are one thousand times less sensitive to light, they make possible all perception of colors and fine details....Our assortment of rods and cones lets us see objects at the ends of our noses and also stars light-years away.... Our brains do not receive photographic images of anything. Rather, some of the 127,000,000 rods and cones get “excited” by light waves and fire off messages into the 1,000,000 fibers of the optic nerve, which coils like a thick television cable back into the recesses of the brain. Impulses from the retina race along the fibers of the optic nerve, fan out in the brain, and finally slam into the visual cortex, stimulating the miracle of sight. The cortex has no easy task, since one billion messages a second stream in from the retina. - Paul Brand, M.D. and Philip Yancey, celebrating the complexities of the human eye in In His Image "(Zondervan, 1987), 134-135.

[@adiluniverse7767]

When I see Dawkins I feel comfortable and motivated about science , Richard you are amazing.

[@piertinence]

@Atheist speculative biologist Dawkins admits that a Darwinian evolutionary creation appears infeasible but that by smearing the process over infinite timescales the naturalistic miracle would become conceivable, which is not supported by science “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. Only God would essay the mad task of leaping up the precipice in a single bound.” Atheist Darwinist Richard Dawkins

[@Gi-Home]

Richard Dawkins is a brilliant author and his books have been very influential in the best way on my views of the world and he has added so much to my analytical toolkit. Richard is one of the master educators that expands the perception of the world.

[@herbieshine1312]

@Helena Baxter what an utterly dull, boring and predictable response!

[@herbieshine1312]

@Helena Baxter so you're saying you have nothing of interest or intelligence to say so you'll just say something really stupid and prove yourself to be a dullard. 👌😆

[@herbieshine1312]

@Helena Baxter you do seem to be! 🚤🚅🍦💥🎉🎈💐👻🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🍖

[@herbieshine1312]

@Helena Baxter I know you are but what am I?

[@Allsportdriver]

Dawkins is a fraud - singing and tap dancing his pop culture pseudoscience for his x-files audience. Must admit he's made himself wealthy hustling books though.

[@SkyeMpuremagic]

Two of my favorite people 💞

[@olabaskerville]

And mine! 🥰

[@silvioi9061]

Give the “humanist of the year” award back to Dawkins!!

[@Seekthetruth3000]

Who took it away?

[@silvioi9061]

@@Seekthetruth3000 American humanist society, because of a tweet that according to me was totally legitimate.

[@Seekthetruth3000]

@@silvioi9061 Sadly, leftists and their cancel culture are very detrimental to a free and democratic culture. The same is true of the far right.

[@piertinence]

Darwinist evangelist atheist Dawkins has provided so much hope to those living with the hope that death would be final.

[@reason827]

Dawkins and Shermer. Two great thinkers.

[@piertinence]

Darwinist evangelist Dawkins has given a lot of hope to those who live in the hope that death would be final. The concept of an illusion of design and the idea that smearing the process of an evolutionary creation over billions of years would make the miracle of a Darwinian evolutionary creation possible as preached by darwinian evangelist Dawkins is an insult to our intelligence.

[@TheWeirdSide1]

I wish the editing would have been done differently. To fix issues with delay and/or 'overtalking', a simple zoom to individual speaker would solve the problem. When those issues are not present, both speakers can be shown, which would be 95% of the video. I hope that is useful constructive criticism. I really enjoyed the discussion! Thank you!

[@GaaikeEuwema]

Such a privilege to be able to listen to these conversations

[@piertinence]

@Darwinist evangelist Atheist Dawkins is doing awesomely for a man who is regarding his own brain as a designoid object that would be presenting only an illusion of being intelligently designed, programmed and engineer. One must admit that his control of the English language is just phenomenal. "The kind of design that natural selection creates is qualitatively different than the kind created by an intelligent entity. We don't want to say design, because in our language, design implies a designer." atheist Dawkins

[@panicsum]

Bernardo Kastrup or Iain McGilchrist would've been a welcome addition to this conversation. Rupert Sheldrake most definitely.

[@aresmars2003]

Oh, interviewed last month! kzbin.info/www/bejne/eYm5hmiIh55pqtU Bernardo Kastrup on the Nature of Reality: Materialism, Idealism, or Skepticism 19,203 views Aug 7, 2021

[@majajackson777]

Professor Dawkins is such a treasure! He taught me so much and I'm forever grateful. It's so wonderful to hear him speak in such a sophisticated way. I hope I 'll be able to see him in person one day.

[@piertinence]

Darwinist evangelist, atheist Dawkins preaches that all the creatures in the creation would have been created from some bacteria he claims was taken through billions of years of a materialistic, natural evolutionary process.. Dawkins is also preaching the BS of an illusion of design and the idea that billions of years could make up for the astronomic improbability of eyes and knees, enzymes and elbow joints and all the other living wonders to self assembled and be created following a natural evolutionary process. Darwinist evangelist atheist Dawkins calls the hogwash the poetry of science. Preaching nonsense in Shakespearean English does not make the speculative bullshit anymore credible. I hate quack well spoken scientists, they are annoying.

[@DJCailler]

I have read "The God Delusion" , "The Selfish Gene", "The Greatest Show on Earth", "The Blind Watchmaker"... and maybe one other book by Dawkins. Good stuff

[@stephenglasse9756]

'noone knows how it happened but somehow without violating the laws of physics and chemistry a molecule arose that just happened to have the property of self-copying - a replicator" Dawkins (the robot repeater) CLIMBING MT IMPROBABLE. No one knows somehow it just happened 🤔

[@Allsportdriver]

@@stephenglasse9756 Yes. First there was nothing, and then it exploded.

[@stephenglasse9756]

@@Allsportdriver yes LoL 😆. Something on the size of an atom then expanded to ten light years in diameter in one quintillionth of a femtosecond🙄. And that despite not being measurable with any clock known to man and nothing in physics to say it could happen when it would happen, how fast it would expand and why it would suddenly stop😁.

[@Allsportdriver]

@@stephenglasse9756 People fall at Dawkins' feet when, in reality, HE has on the blinders and cannot grasp the enormity of things unknowable to humans.

[@stephenglasse9756]

@@Allsportdriver yes it's crazy. His arguments in THE BLIND WATCHMAKER and CLIMBING MT IMPROBABLE are so full of holes it beggars belief. Half of the time his explanation of evolution amounts to him just describing how an ability eg spinning a web is *advantageous* NOT how it actually evolved. But he's such a good writer people don't look beyond the rhetoric. He can then even make blatant admissions like "no one knows how it happened" and evolution of self-replicating molecules defies known chemistry and physics and people still think he's got all the answers 🤨

[@robertmajewski4486]

I love Richard Dawkins ! He help me very much in how religion is stupid and insene

[@Atom_Line]

Thanks for Hearing Me & Helping Allowing it ..👍🏽 👍🏻 👍🏿 👍🏾 ❣️❣️❣️❣️

[@timothymulholland7905]

What a privilege! It is unforgivable that people have attacked Dr. Dawkins because he dares to discuss topics like gender scientifically. He has done more for humanism and humanity than all his detractors together.

[@drts6955]

I agree. It's also unforgivable that two apparently intelligent present an absolutely idiotic parody of something like Critical Race Theory. They sound like Creationists talking about evolution. Zero attempt to actually understand, just frivolous rhetoric. I do think there are valid criticism of "wokeism" but if you don't actually engage with the issues it's pathetic.

[@EMO_alpha]

@@drts6955 Structural racism is not hurting blacks. And agitating people into a race conscience isn't gonna help either. I think black people can have better lives without needing a hedgemonic position in society first. Progressives used welfare to destroy the black family. They need the left out of their lives then we can reacess what to do next.

[@drts6955]

@@EMO_alpha I would agree with many of the sentiments you express. Unfortunately a lot of what you are implying is simply a parody of Critical Race Theory. I'm quite sure it's something you don't know much about. It's just a political talking point for you. That's the problem

[@EMO_alpha]

@@drts6955 Maybe you don't know that much about crt and thats why what i am sayin sounds like talking points.

[@drts6955]

@@EMO_alpha No. That's not true. I'm definitely not an expert but the idea that CRT is a bogeyman is ridiculous. I actually agree with you that racializing politics is bad in many ways. However CRT is not simply that. Many of the analyses made by CRT are simply a reflection of facts about US society that are undeniable. You may think it's best to just ignore these things and try to move on. I would tentatively agree with you (but again I'm no expert). But in any case that this not mean that people who engage in CRT are wrong. Just because something upsets you doesn't mean it's false

[@Ralph85Williams85]

And that's how you change your daily plans in 3 seconds and start listening to M. Shermer's show!

[@daignat]

Mr. Shermer, I love you, your books and ideas - I really do. A lot! But you do talk too much in your interviews :) Please give your guests more space :)

[@mayflowerlash11]

Read Shermer's comment under the title.

[@daignat]

@@mayflowerlash11 I did but also, please read my comment: "you do talk to much in your interviews" - in all of them! I understand Dawkins problem but that's a reason why he should wait for him and give him more time, not to speak over him, interrupt and take the lead :) Anyway, it's all good :)

[@mayflowerlash11]

@@daignat Yeah, I get your point. It also looked as if they had some tech issues. Dawkins was speaking without being heard several times, and there was some echo at times. But I agree Shermer could have let Dawkins talk more or not over talked him. Dawkins could easily have passed the talking stick back to Shermer any time he wished. Perhaps Shermer was being too protective. Cheers

[@nabormendonca5742]

If only Shermer did interviews the way *I* like them. 🙄

[@mayflowerlash11]

@@nabormendonca5742 Indeed!!

[@PMKehoe]

Dr Dawkins seem to be struggling here… a lot of breaks… hope his feeling well!

[@customisedfitness]

He was 80 this year.

[@ResearchThis]

😪

[@lbogaardt]

@@things_leftunsaid Another one? Or are you referring to the one several years ago?

[@BallJuiceOfZeus]

Looks damn good for 80 wow

[@billscannell93]

He seemed to me to be doing okay. If you pay close attention and/or have watched lots of interviews and debates of his, he has had to speak a little more slowly and think things through carefully, ever since he had that stroke.

[@ahmedaldarwish9102]

@1:22:40 I'm from Saudi Arabia and The God Delusion (Arabic version) has been downloaded, as I recall, 3 million times. I myself read it in English but I was happy that people in my society were at least open to give the book a chance. It's not about converting people out of Islam. That's not my intention, but I believe being cognizant of a different narrative challenging to yours is crucial in the age of social media and information. And it was so cool that Dawkins didn't take any copyrights action against the pirated Arabic copy.

[@simplicityistheultimatesop6571]

You can’t and won’t be able to convert people out of Islam even if you tried. 24:45Allah has created every [living] creature from water. And of them are those that move on their bellies, and of them are those that walk on two legs, and of them are those that walk on four. Allah creates what He wills. Indeed, Allah is over all things competent. 29-19 Have they not considered how Allah begins the Creation and then repeats it? Indeed that,for Allah,is easy. 29-20 Say,[O Prophet ] travel through the land and observe how He began creation.Then Allah will produce the final creation.Indeed Allah,over all things, Is competent.Sahih InTernational. 15-26 And We did certainly create man out of clay from an altered black mud. 15:28 And [mention, O Prophet], when your Lord said to the angels, "I will create a human being out of clay from an altered black mud. 15:29 And when I have proportioned him and breathed into him of My [created] soul, then fall down to him in prostration. Not everyone in Saudi Arabia is ignorant of the religion.

[@ahmedaldarwish9102]

@@simplicityistheultimatesop6571 Hi Black Tea. "Not everyone in Saudi Arabia is ignorant of the religion." That's not what I was talking about. Ignorance of the main Islamic traditions is another different matter. But yeah, sure. Also, I'm not interested in proselytizing people to atheism. I'm a Muslim, but I regard myself as a classic liberal, too. The general climate indicates otherwise, that many people don't read to widen their understanding of various viewpoints different from theirs. Most read things that affirm their own conclusions. Just a piece of advice, please write the Quranic verses in Arabic next time.

[@simplicityistheultimatesop6571]

@@ahmedaldarwish9102 this is not a private conversation and I want the others to read what the God of Abraham says,you’re not trying to convert people out of Islam,I challenge you to convince me that the Quran is not the word of the Creator.most English translations if the Quran is second hand rate.can you translate these 2 words into English?ادنى وأقرب

[@ahmedaldarwish9102]

@@simplicityistheultimatesop6571 I'm not gonna participate in this challenge. Thank you. I'm not an Islamic scholar or theologian. Besides, whatever you believe is your business, not mine, and I'm not in the business of convincing you of anything.

[@ahmedaldarwish9102]

@Fritz Feuer Hello, Feuer. If you try to reconcile Islam with Classic Liberalism (Free speech , individualism, etc.) at a societal level, it might seem impossible because these concepts are both misconstrued and immaturely understood. Islam needs a reformation and a reinterpretation of its spirituality, not its text. The text is silent on its own. It's only in the words of its Imams and Shields (clerics). What took place in the 7th century shouldn't be carried to the 21st. Currently, this is a socio-religious movement (if that's ever a correct term) between scholars who want to reignite the text and those who want to present it with a modern twist. Think of it as Left vs Right in a Western political sphere. And young Muslims are being attracted to the modernised version, as it moves away with all the past fanaticism. At a personal level, I always keep in mind that people are different in their views, even if I find them radicals myself. I try to not to get offended, for a start, if someone said cursed or lampooned or satirized Prophet Mohammad. I personally don't agree with how most Muslims behave at the slight disagreement. There's zero intellectualism in such reaction. I have to separate my emotional attachment to my faith from my intellectual thinking whenever I discuss Islam, Liberal values and globalisation and so on (like a scientist in the lab, you can say). At least that's how I do it.

[@mayflowerlash11]

Richard is right. If children are exposed to advanced ideas when they mature the ideas return to their consciousness and are better understood. It does not matter if the child does not fully understand the ideas, it is the introduction that matters. When I was in grade 3 in primary school I was taught how to change the base of numbers including base 2, ie binary. I had no clue what this might be applied to. Until years later I learned how computers work. I could recite Newton's 3 laws of motion as a child. This made sense years later when learning about physics. Children should be introduced to advanced concepts without the expectation that they understand. The idea having been planted will mature when next it is exposed to the more mature mind.

[@molletre9606]

I absolutely second that. Of course it must be introduced in a way a child can somehow built it into their little world. Its not necessary they will ever understand it in full, but it can be a way to keep them away from the poison called religion and other brain washing superstitions.

[@mayflowerlash11]

@@molletre9606 Agreed. btw there is a small series of children's books which whimsically teach them about nuclear physics, quantum mechanics etc. The are titled "A babies guide to ..." . They are funny because the baby cannot be expected to understand the first thing about the topic, but the baby is listening to the tone of the adult readers voice, and hearing new words. It's very funny reading about radioactive decay to a child who only wants to hear the sincerity in your voice and couldn't care less about the meaning of the words. Even so ...

[@missshroom5512]

Well said🌎❤️

[@mayflowerlash11]

My son has two of these books for my grandchildren aged 3 and 5 currently. They enjoy listening to an adult's reading voice but clearly have no clue what the subject matter is. Occasionally they ask a question. The response to give is just a few more facts and they are happy. Who knows when that deeply buried idea will enlarge their view of the world.

[@pbredder]

Dan Dennett contrasts a bottom-up (crane) structure of the real world of hierarchically organized complexity, to the top-down (sky hook) explanation of religions (Gods)

[@aresmars2003]

10:45 RD - "If you allows miracles to happen, then you might as well pack up, and not bother with it. Science is all about doing it in spite of the lack of miracles. Once you allow miracles to get smuggled in, then you've given up on science, betrayed science."

[@nasirfazal5440]

When l was doing my doctoral work in chemistry at university college London my daughter was born and l suggested to my wife that as soon as she started crawling, she should be left in my laboratory and would take care of her and she should grow up to be anatural chemist,my suggestion was shot down.Prof.Dr.Nasir Fazal gold medalist Cambridge USA

[@catherinemunroe3960]

enjoyed this very much ,thanks shermer and dawkins

[@ammartakleef1389]

Thank you Richard Dawkins, I am very happy to see you, and thank you both for the new information, I wish you good health regards.. Ammar Takleef, an atheist from Iraq/Baghdad new subscriber

[@simplicityistheultimatesop6571]

Not everyone in Iraq is a believer and you have all sorts of cults in there,leaving a cult doesn’t make you an atheist.

[@albionicamerican8806]

I'm an atheist, but I believe in the rapture: I can see that Christians are already starting to disappear.

[@ntr10me]

American?? That's some BRITISH level of wit. Well done!

[@Muonium1]

That's a very churlish and nasty thing to say, and the sort of thing that makes me reluctant to associate myself with the word atheist, though I am an inveterate one. My parents are believers (I bet yours are too); I love them very much and it would give me nothing but anguish and sadness to see them come to harm because of their unevidenced beliefs.

[@albionicamerican8806]

@@Muonium1 Religions come and go like everything else. A few years ago _Harper's_ magazine ran an article about the few thousand remaining Zoroastrians in the world, who in India are known as the Parsees (Persians). The last Zoroastrian could very well die in this century, and the rest of humanity will go on about its business and not notice the religion's absence. Yet at one time millions of people across Southwest and Central Asia held Zoroastrian beliefs, and these beliefs apparently influenced Jewish, Christian and Islamic theologies. We are probably a lot closer to the twilight of Christianity than we realize, and eventually Christians will be viewed as religious living fossils like how we see today's dwindling population of Zoroastrians.

[@MikeKGullion]

@@Muonium1 I interpreted it as both a joke and descriptive statement. It was a play on the word "rapture." He didn't say that he wants or hopes that Christians disappear, but that he sees them disappearing. He also didn't express a normative statement; no where did he say that Christians disappearing is a good thing (cf. descriptive vs normative statements).

[@Muonium1]

@@albionicamerican8806 that's nice. I'm more concerned about the virulence of the religions that are inevitably going to replace it when it's gone.

[@davidanderson9664]

YES, Richard: "Kimilsungism" in NK is absolutely the closest a political system gets to a religion. Way more supernatural stuff in it than other extremist ideologies. Great talk, btw, Prof Dawkins never disappoints. D.A., J.D., NYC

[@billscannell93]

Good old Dawkins, he has been an inspirational and comforting figure for me since I first heard of him through South Park (of all places) what seems like another lifetime ago. I have got to read some of the more recent books!

[@Allsportdriver]

Cartoon world is where his wildly extrapolated "theory" of evolution belongs.

[@billscannell93]

@@Allsportdriver Whatever you say, bud.

[@MikeKGullion]

Dawkins made a great observation regarding party politics. Why do so many people agree on topics that have no relationship to each other? Republicans, for example, support gun rights and faith-based initiatives. What's the connection between such disparate issues? What's the connection between limited government/low taxes and anti-abortion? Is it all in-group socialization? Group identification?

[@EMO_alpha]

Pathological ideologies like to use the power of the state to commit genocide, force people to go along with bad ideas and steal peoples money. Its not friggin rocket science.

[@Jimyblues]

The Greatest Show on Earth by Dawkins is beautiful- always dig both these guys even when I don’t agree with them !

[@mohscorpion2]

thanks for your amazing videos and interviews , please invite prof. robert sapolsky

[@jamesbailey5008]

Just discovered your channel, Louis theroux, Jim al-khalili, Richard Dawkins, great guests

[@PMFtheman]

Robert Sapolsky's view on Free Will are mine.

[@aaronclarke7732]

Not mine because they ignore: 1. Quantum mechanics making Laplace’s demon impossible. 2. Daniel Dennett’s convincing argument that we’re better off pretending to believe in freedom, moral responsibility and agency anyway. 3. Why would we evolve executive function and the top-down inhibition of the prefrontal cortex if the sensation of control and choice is not meaningful to us? Same for praise and blame. They can be established on other grounds than libertarian free will.

[@PieJesu244]

Science discovers the miracles.Nothing else. He knows there is much more more than science.

[@FR0STYF0X]

Very glad to hear Richard saying he's "not that confident" about his own lack of tribal thinking. In the Brexit conflict he defined himself as a "remainer" and said voters were "not qualified" to decide such a complicated question. I'm pretty sure if he'd happened to notice convincing evidence that an independent Britain was better for itself and therefore the world, he'd have seen it as a simple enough question for the voters to decide. He is from the tribe of academics most of whom are remainers so he was primed not to notice such evidence.

[@justincase4937]

If nothing existed prior to cosmos, there also wouldn't be cause and effect, no quantum mechanics or anything. But then again, there would be nothing to prevent anything from happening. And when thinking about it, nothing is not a phenomenon and cannot exist.

[@briansmith3791]

Yeah. The Universe didn't come from Nothing according to Roger Penrose. He says the Big Bang came from "incredibly complex geometry" 1:10^10^124. Penrose says this is a "demonstrable fact". The geometry existed before the Big Bang, is in the Universe now and at the End, when everything dissipates, only the geometry will remain.

[@justincase4937]

@@briansmith3791 YUP, and I guess the debate is far from over, especially in the wake of the recent discovery that the expansion accelerates. The Big Bang theory bagan as a fight between Martin Ryle and Fred Hoyle, who were barely household scientists at the time. It was Ryle who in 1946 with one of the earliest radio telescopes came up with data suggesting that the galaxies were moving away from each other. He concluded that the universe was expanding, and anything expanding must of course in the past have been more condensed and occupied a smaller space. The thesis was controversial because it implied a starting point. Hoyle was the first to refer to the beginning as "Big Bang". Being an atheist however, he argued against it, stating that if the universe had a starting point, it also had a creator. In his opinion, the universe was, always had been and would forever be in a steady state, where as a consequence of the quantum mechanics new matter came into existence and formed new galaxies in the vast void of space. But "Big Bang" catched the public's attention and became an excellent marketing tool for Ryle's supporters (notably Albert Einstein, whose formulas had originally shown that the universe expanded. He just couldn't belive so and therefore choose to 'correct' them with the 'cosmological constant', much to his later regret). It was important for Ryle, who was more of a technician than a astronomer, to show results from the exciting, but expensive new instruments, notably the radio telescope. Therefore he was extremely sensitive about critique, and got upset when Hoyle -- more of a philosopher and mathematician -- questioned the data and indirectly accused Ryle for having 'selected' the objects measured so it would suggest that galaxies put distance to each other. Ryle argued that if Hoyle was right, the galaxies should be evenly spread across the universe, but if the Big Bang had occured, the remote galaxies would be packed more densely, as radio signals from there were older and thus from a time when the universe was smaller. It took him until 1961 before he could actually show any difference in the distribution of galaxies troughout the universe (and it is still difficult, even with today's much better radio telescopes). Stephen Hawkin later came up with the idea that perhaps rather of having a 'beginning', it was something infinite small in an infinite bent space-time that accelerated -- a model still widely accepted in lack of better explanation. Hoyle, as we all know, had an amazing careeer, and continued to defend his steady state hypothesis until his death. Ryle gave up astronomy and went into oblivion.

[@MsJavaWolf]

I also think it's an incorrect view. I think that something has always existed, or maybe saying "always" is wrong, as it might have existed outside of metric time. I just don't think that there is much reason to believe that it was a personal God.

[@majajackson777]

It's so wonderful to see Richard's witty smile ❤

[@JDHobbs]

When Michael mentioned, "female genital mutilation" I remembered how Hitch would argue it as just "genital mutilation". Eschewing the moral relativism regarding common circumcision of infant males.

[@TheWeirdSide1]

𝔸𝕤𝕥𝕦𝕥𝕖 𝕠𝕓𝕤𝕖𝕣𝕧𝕒𝕥𝕚𝕠𝕟!

[@n.e.7647]

Michael Shermer is a great guy, but from his perspective as a practicing Jew, I think it might be more difficult for him to see the similarity between female and male genital mutilation. Personally, I've never thought of it that way before, but that is actually a really good point by Hitchens.

[@JDHobbs]

I'm confused, I thought Shermer was a non-theist? In any case, circumcision is so common among MDs (and likely profitable) that it's almost never questioned or consider elective surgery; it was based in both religion and faulty science of hygiene. People forget that MDs aren't scientists, and if you see the procedure you'll think differently.

[@cristomx]

​@@n.e.7647 What are you talking about???? That is totally false, Michael Shermer has been for more than four decades a practicing and active atheist. In his youth he was Christian. He never has been Jew.

[@n.e.7647]

@@cristomx Oh, for some reason, I thought he was a practicing Jew. I'm not very familiar with him. I'm more familiar with Richard Dawkins. I guess I thought he was a religious Jew, because I think I heard someone on another podcast mention that he was Jewish, but I didn't realize he was an secular Jew.

[@elijaguy]

I wish Dawkins a long refreshing vacation in a life loving community who is not bothered by metaphysical challenges, just enjoying good music, food, drink, art, humor, nature, lovely people, lots of fun, no interviews, grand relaxation. Nirvana for Richard, be blessed!

[@MoistNoize]

Richard is so incredibly careful in regards to what he agrees or disagrees to. He's like a MMA fighter the way he approaches these interviews, even has his guard up with people like Shermer who virtually agree with him on everything.

[@joshuawilson844]

I have been a keen admirer of Dawkins after watching the entirety of The Four Horsemen. Likewise with Shermer, since he debunked several fleeting interests of mine when I was a young explorer of things fantastical (remote viewing, conspiracies, etc.). Seeing these two together was very welcome this morning, but it does make me think, "Who will come up behind Dawkins as he is getting on in age?" Who will carry that mantle? Great show, thanks Skeptic!

[@gorgoniosolchaga7928]

I love this man!! Mr. Dawkins, you are the man!!!

[@piertinence]

@Atheist Dawkins is clearly very honest when admitting that his eyeballs as well as his atheist pea brain could only be designoid objects too badly screwed up to be the creation of an intelligent entity. therefor he brought the ridiculous concept that all our organs in our body, and all the creatures in the creation (like elephants, giraffes, tigers, owls, peregrine falcons, bald eagles, birds of paradise, peacocks etc.,) could only be designoid objects only presenting an illusion of design. 🤮🤮🤮🤮🤮🤮🤮

[@stormbringer_7774]

They start off talking about old Hitchens, and smiles appear I love that bro’s😂👍🇬🇧 My niece is trying to get to Oxford

[@williamearl1662]

Just make sure she is somewhere on the LGBTQIBAME spectrum and conforms to the modern religious orthodoxies. Also she must not appear as scientific as Messrs Shermer and Dawkins, they are just relics of the old white power structure and they are simply wallowing in a discipline we all know is racist.

[@jamesschneider2091]

Fascinating program. Richard's productions/publications have been a bridge to my understanding of Darwin (personal & professional life), and of evolutionary biology and the myth of religion. Long live Professor Dawkins!

[@rafayshakeel4812]

Excuse me! How can you say that religion is a myth by only studying one religion: Christianity? With all due respect, but you're being very absurd, Sir! Anyway, my personal recommendation would be to look into the rational foundations of Islam. May Allah ( God ) guide you.

[@jamesschneider2091]

@@rafayshakeel4812 Islam, quran, prophets, christianity, hindu, muslim - all the same myth of pure ignorance!

[@rafayshakeel4812]

@@jamesschneider2091 I don't wanna be rude, Mr. James. But it seems like that you haven't studied your own worldview. Under Atheism, there is no difference between excrement and a human being. The majority of the Atheists believe in or subscribe to philosophical naturalism, which entails the following: - Everything in the universe can be explained via physical processes. Now, everything can be boiled down to the atomic world. If you're gonna argue by saying the following sentence: - "We've emotions, feelings, and purpose," then I'm going to give you a simple and straightforward answer, which is that these things are nothing but chemical happenings in the brain. By the way, you don't have any epistemic right to talk about objective morality from the lens of subjective morality. Islam has objective morality, Atheism doesn't. Please educate yourself about your own worldview, and stop finding excuses to not worship the true God.

[@jamesschneider2091]

@@rafayshakeel4812 Epistemic reasoning is a rational thought process which exposes religion as objective and subjective myth. Atheism is founded on moral and ethical foundation . . . Theism is founded on cruelty, persecution and hatred. Humankind has always had one good excuse to wage mass murder - RELIGION! What were the last words of Islam we heard recorded from a 9/11 suicide pilot terrorist before he committed an act of violent mass murder of innocent citizens . . . "God is great!" Your religion is a fraud.

[@rafayshakeel4812]

@@jamesschneider2091 First and foremost, you made a huge blunder by saying that Atheism is founded on a moral and ethical foundation. Atheism is simply a lack of belief in God(s). It's the philosophies that have real life implications. As I said before, Atheists don't have anything to ground their morality in. All these morals that have become popular in the 21st century are nothing but social conventions, mate! Your morality is subjective and this is supported by every single educated Atheist and Theist. Please learn about your own worldview. One more thing! Atheists haven't contributed much to Man-Kind. Theists have always been the majority and still are. Theists are to be credited for most, in fact, all of the technological advancements we have made.

[@johnhaggerty4396]

As Richard Dawkins said, no scientific writer has yet won the Nobel Prize for Literature and that is unjust. Let's hope the Swedish Academy begins to widen its scope and starts looking at some of our great science writers.

[@bretnetherton9273]

Awareness is known by awareness alone; is the sole irreducible axiom of reality. To put forth a syllable to the contrary is but to concede.

[@apolicum]

Richard is getting so old... :( I really hope he'll live for another 20 years at least!

[@Daysdontexist]

Richard dawkins the reincarnation of Charles Darwin" Michael just has clustered brilliant mind.

[@willmpet]

I agree with “Moral Politics”, there are more complex reasons for being Liberal or Conservative.

[@Atom_Line]

Video refuses being read. This is saying in french language : “ Aucun Flux “ . Why exactly❔☹️

[@jerrytugable]

It means zero flow, = 'no data stream'.

[@martinh3506]

So nice to see Richard Dawkins, keep up the fight sir.

[@grosbeak6130]

Upfront let me say I am an agnostic Taoist. Now on to my comment regarding this particular video: What we have here folks basically is an echo chamber based on scientism. It was really one of the most self-serving conversations I've heard in a long time.

[@briansmith3791]

Materialists are stuck on 'Nothing' before this Universe. Roger Penrose says this is false. He says the Big Bang came from "incredibly complex geometry" 1:10^10^124. This is a "demonstrable fact". The geometry was there before the Big Bang, is IN the Universe now, and at the End, when everything else dissipates, only the geometry will remain.

[@hannibalbarca8521]

This Shermer guy he’s in love with his voice, he can’t stop talking.

[@davidbanner6230]

I’ve never been particularly religious, and like most people in their lives there could have been times when I thought it clever to be anti-religious. Yet, as I have grown older, I have come to look at things in a different light. For instance: I now wonder about what happens to the pain we have caused to other people, and creatures? Does it just dissipate into the Universe as a function of nerve-ending reactions that have no connection to the world that created them, or is there some function of time, where they are all calculated, and made accounted for? To my mind, this makes it possible to make, what we choose to call God, an integral part of what we all are.

[@TracyPicabia]

@50:10 Hitler was no atheist and absolutely claimed to struggle for a more or less Christian god's agenda: 'The act which brings about such a development [miscegenation] is a sin against the will of the Eternal Creator. And as a sin this act will be avenged'. (Mein Kampf 1925)

[@user-ny7sg9mz1v]

If he was an atheist, will it make him a less atheist than you? He just have to believe there is no supernatural being right?

[@BearKlaw]

This just might be one of my new favorite KZbin channels 🤔

[@piertinence]

Darwinist evangelist atheist Dawkins is likely the most brilliant propagator of a Darwinian evolutionary creation myth founded on Darwin Hallucinations in the Galapagos. "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. The purpose of this book is to resolve the paradox to the satisfaction of the reader, and the purpose of this chapter is further to impress the reader” Darwinist evangelist atheist Dawkins

[@pg9112471]

You guys helped me become an atheist. Now I need help with UAP/UFOs. I'm so into it, I'm like ET take me to your leader.

[@Joefest99]

Isn’t this the guy who caved to Phil Donahue when he and Mr. Cole were on? He completely agreed with Cole, and then backed down because Donahue disapproved.

[@soubhikmukherjee6871]

Long live Richard!!

[@eatmanyzoos]

a bubble from the perspective of the water is just a sphere of no water

[@naturalisted1714]

As far as death is concerned, I'd suggest listening to Sam Harris's latest podcast on death, "The Paradox of Death", and then read the essay Sam discusses: Death, Nothingness and Subjectivity by Tom Clark.

[@riyajain2825]

Why is Shermer the one speaking for 70% of this interview?? Isn't it supposed to be him interviewing Dawkins?

[@hippopotamusrex2175]

That's an interesting idea about pain being more intense in lower intelligence species. I'm thinking though, there's got to be some way that its made up for in higher intelligence rather than just being a flat penalty. Like memory. Lower intelligence species have the bonus of not remembering pain they live in the moment. If it's a budget system then higher intelligence species may feel the same amount of pain but it could be outsourced to memory of pain. A different way of experiencing it distributed across the past rather than an intense shot in the moment.

[@Erich1224]

Coastal real estate values are higher than ever. Valuable land isn't under water. Climate Science is very political.

[@nasirfazal5440]

In 1975 Nature published an article by a Cornell professor that a particle can emerge out of nothing due to QED and there is no law that prohibits on a grand scale as a universe.Kraus never acknowledged that is pathetic.

[@gssdsem3312]

You can't talk about nothing as it's nothing! It exists only as nothing so you can't experience it! "You will always experience something" ALWAYS!!!

[@Earth098]

I'm appalled to hear both of these people use the term 'Christendom'. Without knowing they are nodding to the right wing

[@skulptor]

Nothing wrong with using Christendom.

[@cosmicwave1458]

Got to love Richard Dawkins. Again Michael with lots of the repetitive added verbiage in video, like you know? "For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring "-Carl Sagan Thanks

[@tnvheiseler]

12:17 Dennett distinguishes between sky hooks and cranes. Only shy hooks are miracles, not cranes!

[@annford6640]

That moment [@ 07:34] where Dr. Dawkins looked directly into the camera... Hey Dude-Sir! Looking wonderful ~~

[@David-gv6jf]

There are already many secular organizations that could replace church’s. 4-H clubs, book clubs, ski clubs, naturalist organizations, etc, etc. Maybe they just need to be promoted more and could offer the community aspect of religion without all the superstition and bull.

[@Atom_Line]

Video refuses being read ❕Why❔

[@mayflowerlash11]

The "selector" in nature, if you must have one, is the circumstances in which a population exists. A circumstance, such as keeness of eye, favours some individuals and limits other individuals and this results in the favoured individuals producing more offspring in the next generation. The next generation has thus evolved from the previous generation. Natural forces are selective.

[@axlslak]

I think u're missing the point. The point of evolutionists is that its accidental. Meaning could be the environment. The parents. The siblings. Could be a number of factors. Meanwhile creationists have only ONE idea. God wanted it that way. Lets not look into it. God wants it this way. And then they go on to spew a lot of anti-nature, anti-science, anti-common sense stuff. EDIT: and further more, (not my idea, it's their's) God doesn't try stuff. He gets it right on first try. Therefor that's why we humans didn't evolve from a common ancestor with apes. That would mean that God made a mistake, and had to come back and remake his human model. Amend it. Repair it. That is also why some of them believe the world is like 4-5-6k years old. u ask a lot of them and are confused about the number. but they all agree not millions. I think that's because we have the hebrew calendar and year and stuff. they don't exactly know what year it is, but should be about there.

[@mayflowerlash11]

@@axlslak I think we are in agreement but expressing the same ideas in different words. Evolution is a two stage process. First comes the accident, ie the random mutation of the DNA molecule. Second comes the natural selection in which if the mutation is detrimental to survival of an individual it sinks without trace ie no offspring. If the mutation confers an advantage to the individual because it aids the individuals survival in its environment then the individual will successfully reproduce (so will the mutated DNA) and the frequency of the mutated DNA will increase. Referring back to my initial post, I was trying to express evolutionary ideas without using the usual words. The traditional words used to describe evolution have become loaded with altered meanings, but the evolutionary concepts and ideas remain the same and true. Hope this clarifies.

[@EMO_alpha]

Pizza gate is really stupid. You know what wasn't? The whole Jimmy Saville thing.

[@Telcontarnz]

With Newton and Einstein isn’t it true that Newton’s work and especially his equations work, and as such Einstein added another layer of knowledge on top?

[@hectorallanrivera9334]

With each passing year, the level of complexity and interaction at the cellular level has. come more apparent and more difficult to explain (i.e. DNA complexity and precision). The foundational premise, stated here and elsewhere by reputable physicist, state that the universe came into being from something beyond the space, time, matter and energy of our universe. Now the totality and interconnected nature of our galaxy's unique backstory, along with its rare circumstances and unlikely conditions, overwhelmingly indicate DESIGN and a DESIGNER. God bless you all.

[@robertmajewski4486]

My Hero :) i can t wach how Richard is old older end ... Richard stey foreve here

[@homewall744]

Feeling a sense of wanting to help others is fine. Do it. It's called charity or being helpful to another. But as soon as you force others to do the same, your charity becomes theft by extortion to meet your greedy preferences.

[@robinghosh5627]

Greatness Shines Through Forever...Stupendous Thinkers on Science, Evolution, etc Unforgettable Forever...

[@benwood7475]

I remember hating (not really) Michael when I was a kid. I’d be watching ancient aliens or the like and he’d be the token skeptic and simply destroy the arguments of the ancient alien “experts” lol Now, a 33 year old, I think he’s great.

[@williamearl1662]

They can go for religion no worries, but lay off my friends the aliens. Just because they do not defend themselves, it makes them easy targets.

[@stephenglasse9756]

Unfortunately there are far more qualified people who recognize that there's something to UFO phenomena eg Jacques Valee mathematician, astronomer, inventor of the precursor to the internet. Read wikipedia entry. Then get the book 'alien intrusion' by Gary Bates

[@benwood7475]

@@stephenglasse9756 “UFOlogists” are people who compile the anecdotes and crap footage and select the most believable. At the end of the day all there is is anecdote and crap footage of unidentified flying objects. So, I’m a bit unclear how someone can be a qualified expert on the matter.

[@stephenglasse9756]

@@benwood7475Valee and Hynek are experts in that they have Scientific expertise and they have researched the issue with open minds and have been willing to change their interpretation in response to the data. Both at one point accepted the extraterrestrial hypothesis but then rejected it because of the evidence. Hynek originally thought it was just people with overactive imagination

[@benwood7475]

@@stephenglasse9756 I’m not saying UFO’s don’t exist. The point is that they’re unidentified. I’m fine with asserting a hypothesis in the absence of convincing evidence and I hope none of these scientists have made any conclusions. Personally I haven’t seen anything remotely convincing that suggests aliens visit us. It’s the absence of evidence that’s left me utterly uninterested in the subject. IF someone supply’s real evidence then I’ll be happy to change my mind. Who doesn’t want to be visited by aliens? Lol

[@willmpet]

“When you believe in things that you don’t understand, you suffer, Superstition ain’t the way”

[@srikanthtupurani6316]

We cannot define nothingness. Most strangest thing is quantum field theory. Everything we see in the physical world is the result of quantum fields dancing in space time. Quantum fields are not concrete objects. They are mathematical objects.

[@homewall744]

Any set of believes that aren't based on scientific evidence and require faith and devotion, you have a religion. Yes you'll eventually get factionalism and other bad outcomes, but they are not key to religion (some religions don't have gods and never harm others, like Buddhism), just as we get factionalism in religions like western liberty and democracy.

[@boydhooper4080]

Dawkins is a Legend

[@heartlesstinman6928]

Let's stop being like the religious groups and idolize people, he did great things for our atheist movement, but let's not let him get away with his own bigotry about transgeder humans, Let's do what he did for us, educate him about where he is wrong. Thank you

[@FR0STYF0X]

At about 20 mins, notice how both Michael and Richard misrepresent the Republicans as "believing", when in fact only speculation "that there might be something to this", was involved. More tribal thinking?

[@traffic-law]

But the people who believe this are almost entirely republicans. It is no coincidence that religion attunes gullible people to believe in miracles, resurrections and other supernatural garbage. This gullibility is easily extrapolated to the lies spouted by politicians, shock-jocks and conspiracy theorists. The correlation between religious people and conspiracy theorists is easily proved.

[@homewall744]

If the huge meteor never slammed into Earth and killed of the dinosaurs and gave space to mammals, we'd not have humans today. So it seems that human life is the luck of a massively destructive meteor collision.

[@reynaldogonzalesgodofthemu8492]

Nothing is Darkness with out sounds

[@mohamed-df4hb]

Nothing do not exist whats left is existence 😌 and we all experience each other life's so if u are hungry I know exactly how da feel and if ur happy I also know how da feel

[@hectorhernandez215]

Skepticism here only one way ..... real Skepticism cut all ways.......

[@georgeelmerdenbrough6906]

Carmelite Nuns believe suffering is good . See Mother Theresa .

[@bobgambogi4382]

Yes! Your book on Wallace is interesting and I have read it. But Dawkins is here to talk about HIS BOOK, can't we hear from him about that? You have got to get control of yourself, Michael.

[@librulcunspirisy]

Thanks

[@BatisteBieler]

That ending was abrupt!

[@troglaceski]

At 1:07:42 correction required, where Michael asks: "Is it ok for men to commit female genital mutilation against young girls?" It is not men who perform FGM. Based on the research that I've conducted, it is always women who do it to girls. I've never encountered a single case of a man (or men) playing an active role in the ritual. FGM is regarded as a girl's "rite of passage" in some cultures, celebrated as her entering into adult womanhood. A kind of "women's business" to which men are not invited. Not unlike analogous initiation rituals for young boys transitioning into manhood (where women, likewise, are not invited). This shifts the moral context considerably... do we now have the right to meddle in cultures that are none of our business? I discuss FGM in some detail, in my book, Tyrants of Matriarchy (2021 edition).

[@SurgeonSuhailAnwar]

Well said

[@davidbanner6230]

Richard just does not understand the logic of why having no evidence makes sense. If we were to have evidence then we would not be able to function, because we would be forever looking over our shoulders? He also says, in answer to an interviewer’s question, “even if people are made happier by believing, it is not good because it is not true”. Apart from the liberty of making himself arbiter of what is good, or bad, he has to maintain that position, because without it he wouldn’t have any reason to keep writing books?

[@davidbanner6230]

And he is aware of it....?

[@StormyJoeseph]

What is plausible? Nothing is impossible. Time's not optional. 👋Hi...🤪Coo... #Haiku Yep, nothing truly is impossible.

[@patrickl6932]

DAMN THAT WAS A GOOD ONE

[@MamaMama-sv3b]

Hi Michel shermer I want to debate with in god existing