Richard Dawkins: The Freedom Delusion

[@jtbasener1810]

I am writing a scientific horror story which is deeply inspired by this debate. Thank you, my friend, for helping carry on this conversation!

[@Doru857]

I wish you the best of luck and great succes!!✊💪 I'm thinking of writing something myself for a few years....a story that plays into my mind continuously, inspired by the truth of the world...🙌

[@jtbasener1810]

@@Doru857 That sounds amazing! You should certainly put as much time into it as you can; I have plenty of stories in the past that were a great annoyance for me to write and whose result was never perfect. But I am still very grateful I wrote them, as nothing has grown my writing like experience. Do you have anything specific in mind for a story, my friend?

[@Doru857]

@@jtbasener1810 Any type of story will be inevitably inspired by personal experience, specifically experience of knowledge..."everything you know".This is why George.R.R. Martin said that you need empathy if you want to write(fiction), especially when it comes to the characters. You need to know people and understand them, but more than anything you need to know yourself, because(I think...) any writer will end up with the story that he himself/herself would have liked to read when they decided to start writing based on their skills and ability to be honest with what they know...This is what I mean by "the truth of the world"(I wanted to get to this...).It played on my mind continuously for years because I changed, so the story changed as well, based on life experience and what I know and it will continue to do so until it gets published..."Art is never finished, only abandoned"....to a final form. Something specific...I know for sure that the story will lean towards historical drama and psychological horror...as preferred genres and that I like allegorical and unconventional storytelling...The movie "The VVitch" X The TV Series "Taboo" X Dumas/Goethe/Proust/Dostoievsky's writing but the closest thing I could think of is the Visual Novel-The House in fata morgana(a hard read because of the content)....I felt like it was made for me...Writers know other writers the most through their stories.

[@Doru857]

​@@jtbasener1810 ​ Something specific....to an extent. (I think) every person who starts writing will end up with the story that he himself/herself would have liked to read at the moment they started to write.This is why it played continuously on my mind, because over the years, I changed, so the story changed as well. This is why I meant by "the truth of the world". George.R.R. Martin said that you need emphaty for writing.(To understand people, in order to write characters, you need to relate.) I learned that the person you need emphaty the most for is yourself if you're doing art."Know thyself" and all that jazz...For this reason, I know it will end up a story that will explore the "experience of knowledge" in every form on a thematic level.The protagonist wanting to "live in truth" ends up struggling because he finds out more and more.I think this never changed even if other aspects did. And I read a lot of classics so I can see myself being inspired by Dumas/Proust/Dostoievsky/Goethe, ending up with a novel similar in genre with the movie "The VVitch" or the mystery horror Visual Novel "The House in Fata Morgana"..

[@Doru857]

@@jtbasener1810 ​ Something specific....to an extent. (I think) every person who starts writing will end up with the story that he himself/herself would have liked to read at the moment they started to write.This is why it played continuously on my mind, because over the years, I changed, so the story changed as well. This is why I meant by "the truth of the world". George.R.R. Martin said that you need emphaty for writing.(To understand people, in order to write characters, you need to relate.) I learned that the person you need emphaty the most is yourself if you're doing art."Know thyself" and all that jazz...For this reason, I know it end up a story that it will explore the "experience of knowledge" in every form on a thematic level.The protagonist wanting to "live in truth" ends up struggling because he finds out more and more.I think this never changed even if other aspects did. And I read a lot of classics so I can see myself being inspired by Dumas/Proust/Dostoievsky/Goethe, ending up with a novel similar in genre with the movie "The VVitch" or the mystery horror Visual Novel "The House in Fata Morgana"..

[@ephilbin]

C.S. Lewis' "Funeral of a Great Myth" anticipates every move from this sort of materialist non-think. "If science had not met the imaginative need, science would not have been so popular. But probably every age gets, within certain limits, the science it desires." None of Dawkins' worldview came from a place of genuine empirical pursuit. Since the mid 19th century, our ideological and academic elites have yearned to pull away from God, and modernist trends were the first big excuse to take that step into the darkness.

[@christiangadfly24]

"I hate that question." The answer materialists give whenever you ask them about the giant massive holes in their worldview.

[@harlowcj]

They happily believe in a theoretical abstraction that nobody has ever seen called "matter", and believe that this matter self arranged itself into them, after self arranging itself into a universe, but God? Too spooky bro.

[@christiangadfly24]

@@harlowcj Right?! 🤣

[@Eremite2109]

I surely have a free 'won't'

[@seankenney7756]

I watched this interview when it came out, and this response from Dawkins I thought was a perfect example of the hole in his ideology. He doesn't believe in free will, so his own beliefs about science and evolution are predetermined, and not on the basis of rationality or choice. He had no choice to be an atheist, just as I had no choice to be a Christian. Why even argue that someones beliefs are wrong?

[@AcidGubba]

How do you know that the will is free? Life is an illusion. What you see is not something you see with your eyes; your brain forms the image that you see. Life could also be deterministic, like everything in physics. Would it make a difference if your life was deterministic or with your own free will? What would be the difference?

[@seankenney7756]

@ Are you asking the question of your own free will, or were you determined to ask?

[@kennorthunder2428]

If a criminal says to the judge "It's just the result of molecules bouncing off each other", then the judge can say exactly the same thing. Therefore the criminal should not be engraged or greived.

[@PilgrimMission]

That was a awesome explanation . Thank you.

[@drjonathanswingler800]

Glen, keep up the good work.

[@oliverjamito9902]

Thank you for attending!

[@JoanKentBible]

Sometimes I think I have free will, sometimes I don't!

[@davidbanner6230]

'You think, therefore you are...: Descartes

[@brendonlake1522]

Dawkins has a rather simplistic view of philosophy, hilariously he engages in it while denying it at the same time!

[@fernandoformeloza4107]

Dawkins world: The free will delusion The morality delusion The beauty delusion The consciousness delusion The love delusion The God delusion

[@SpeakLifeMedia]

It’s a heavy price to pay!

[@tommarshall7247]

Ouch!

[@edmundburke8490]

Very good.

[@prestonmccoy7097]

You’ve summed up the atheist/evolutionist paradigm brilliantly! Lol. Love? No, that’s a delusion that somehow helps you to raise your children and carry on your bloodline. Free will? Nah, bro. That’s natural selection playing tricks on you to feel as if you’re doing something worthwhile. I can go on and on…

[@alohm]

14:00 If we remember that science in Latin and Greek and even still in German means : "To come to understand" then ignorance or bias would/could be unscientific. The root of the word science in Latin (scientia) means "knowledge," and the related verb scire means "to know" or "to understand." Similarly, in Greek, the word episteme (from which we derive epistemology) also refers to knowledge or understanding. In German, Wissenschaft (science) literally translates to "knowledge creation," focusing on the process of coming to understand.

[@joshuafield8224]

🎉ë e I see we e we é 3ëer e4😢

[@mikeomonkey]

The games people play : "Rationality" the biggest delusion of them all

[@Grimtheorist]

It's interesting watching theists trying to act like they aren't wrong.

[@springwood1331]

@Grim such unjustified certainty all round, there are just things beyond our comprehension

[@Grimtheorist]

@@springwood1331 You seem pretty certain of that... heh

[@anthonybrett]

I often wonder, if we are all suffering from the same delusion, then maybe it isn't a delusion.

[@Theomatikalli]

nope, a delusion is a delusion.. facts are facts.. just because everyone believed the earth was flat back in the day didn't make it actually flat. Eventually once the evidence is overwhelming people will admit their delusions and hopefully the majority will choose reality.

[@jonah9861]

Atheism is for teenagers.

[@Grimtheorist]

Theism is for toddlers.

[@rdptll]

I think what Dawkins and others are essentially saying is that “science” is literally everything.

[@tomgreene1843]

Even though it isn't!

[@lkae4]

You don't really hate that question because there is no free will.

[@oliverjamito9902]

Like an Art. Infant daughter from HIS SIDE will say, Lord an artist! Thank you my little LIGHT with a Candy as an offering to comfort the COMFORTER!

[@nstaylor23]

I think it's time for Richard Dawkins to just go quietly now . Although I would enjoy seeing him sit down for a chat with James Tour. That would send him on his way.

[@sparty1928]

There is something similiar! James Tour at Harvard, it's interesting to watch.

[@Grimtheorist]

The same James Tour that got embarassed by Professor Dave? That guy's a goober!

[@Grimtheorist]

​@@Autobotmatt428 I feel no embarrassment for Dave whatsoever, his behavior was appropriate given the tantrums that Tour immediately launched into from the start. In a debate about who is right, being smug (I would just call it "direct") is way better than throwing a tantrum and *still* being wrong anyways. What is even more embarrassing, though, was the dinner afterward, where Tour was among other people way smarter than him and he sat there silently like a child while all the grown-ups around him had actual intelligent discussions. At no point during either event did Tour ever realize just how embarrassed he should have really been. *That* is the most embarrassing part of the whole thing.

[@jonobnz7597]

​@@Grimtheoristit was a mess, but I got the point of it. How can nothing create something? It's scientifically impossible. And if a scientist does manage to create something from nothing, then the Christians are still right. You need intelligence, being a scientist in this case, to create something out of nothing. Plus that primordial soup idea is a joke. A mineral filled rock pool got struck by lightening and that produced self replicating cells. That's a huge faith based belief statement.

[@sparty1928]

@@Autobotmatt428 I'm not a fan of thretening people's livelihood for political statemets. But Tour... You just can't take him seriously, and it diminishes his academic achievements. He's like a commercial pilot being caught flying a small plane privately, while being intoxicated. Not a good look.

[@jondoe8014]

If I believe in free will then I am determined to believe in free will therefore I will not change my mind lest I refute the truth that is determinism.

[@naturalisted1714]

Just because we don't have free will doesn't mean reactions aren't necessary. If someone hurts you, you might hurt them back, and doing so many cause them to think twice before hurting others. So reacting _also_ falls into the realm of cause and effect. And so, reactions to pain, crime, etc, fall in-line with determinism. A smart determinist knows that crime can be lowered by punishments because they see the causal chains. Richard simply doesn't think about this aspect of life much.

[@arno_groenewald]

It is a tragedy, almost as much as a designed unit's ambition to kick against both it's core design and purpose, to see how Dawkins continuously go about under utilizing his copacity. 🙄🤦🏻‍♂️ I pray for the day to see him stopping his kicking and barking against the Great Architect.

[@LukeBlase]

In my peripheral vision, Glenn's dark coffee mug with the red and white label kind of looks like a giant 2 litre Coca-Cola bottle. Just imagine him coming into the office and casually sipping on a huge Coke bottle throughout the day, the way the rest of us drink coffee.

[@tryme3969]

These days, Atheism is getting destroyed 😂😂

[@gedvalente9092]

There's isn't a single compelling argument for a God-creator other than an emotional one.

[@jmprov356]

Dawkins and his worldview are taking a severe beating recently. First with Piers Morgan ("I don't know what existed before the big bang, but smart physicists do!!), and now here with his belief that everything has been pre-ordained and we have no choice but to follow the script.

[@brianandcindy1]

You can't even begin to do science until you first believe something. There are too many things upon which you *could* do science (an infinite number, actually), so you have to discriminate. So, when you decide what to study, you use your beliefs about what is important to study, vs the infinitely larger set of things you would find useless.

[@MetaHominini]

Can you debate or have a dialogue with other people who disagree with your views? It would be interesting to see how you tackle disagreement and counter-arguments

[@wild7goose]

I would recommend watching a discussion between Dillahunty and the host of this video. It was hosted on the Unbelievable podcast a handful of years ago.

[@MetaHominini]

@@wild7goose Commentary videos are easier to make and can be effective to elaborate on a discussion. However, I prefer active dialogue over commentary videos since it would be 'more' honest to allow the opposition to clarify or reply to the criticism. That way you learn more about the opposition which is helpful because you reflect on your own position as a viewer. Thank you for the reccomendation I didn't know it existed.

[@christiangadfly24]

It's even more difficult when you consider, internal critique, that the debate will have zero effect on anyone's worldview because the agents involved have no free will.

[@MetaHominini]

@@christiangadfly24 What is the purpose of a debate or a discussion?

[@christiangadfly24]

@@MetaHominini I am stepping out of the internal critique now and assuming Christianity is true: To help spread the truth, increase learning, and allow people to use their free will to align their views more accurately with the truth.

[@alohm]

If you have read Dawkins his struggle is no surprise. He ends one of his books with: "while we know miracles exist, that does not mean God exists" The hypocrisy and ignorance of this statement is deafening to those in the know.

[@Autobotmatt428]

Thats part of the reason i don't like him

[@Andrew-jb2ib]

"Miracle" is just a word. Christianity doesn't have sole purchase of that word. A miracle is an extreme statistical improbability. It's a happy coincidence. If we aren't able to use words that are used in the Bible then we would struggle to articulate anything.

[@alohm]

@@Andrew-jb2ib You didn't read his book, he was clear what he meant by Miracle. I mean how can you still think this when he has admitted he loves Christianity and is a cultural Christian. Even I would not say that... lolz

[@Andrew-jb2ib]

@alohm if you're English, like he and I, then you are a cultural Christian. You can't avoid that. If you're born and raised in Thailand, you'll be a cultural Buddhist. India? Cultural Hindu, etc. There's no hypocrisy here and he has said that many times in his career.

[@LitotheLlanito]

12:30 Laplace's Demon (a thought experiment/ intuition pump connected to the idea of determinism) is hugely relevant. Predicting, and Deciding (/choosing) are different, and ultimately clash, because we are in the world. If we attempt to predict our own actions for instance, it seems always possible to be contrary and buck the prediction voluntarily precisely because it is what we apparently would do. Being part of the system one is modelling makes it impossible to have a complete model on pain of infinite regress, because the model would have to include a model of itself, in turn having to include a model of itself etc etc etc. This is familiar to philosophers professional and lay. What the implications are is a whole other question. For a start though, we perhaps should expect an agential sentience within a deterministic system to have something that could be called an illusion of free will, but we shouldn't get hung up on the word illusion because what we are looking at isn't illusory but a feature (not a bug) of our architecture. We can (at least often) transcend those forces working through us that we can identify, with sufficient understanding, practice, and conviction. In short with the faith that we can.

[@GeoffV-k1h]

Imagine you are walking along a beach. Then say someone asks you to pick up a grain of sand. One among hundreds of billions on the beach. You do so. Now, if Dawkins is correct, you had no choice but to pick up THAT exact grain of sand. Does anyone believe that.

[@oliverjamito9902]

My little LIGHT thy Candy is worth more than riches, wealth, nor creation itself in front!

[@andyjones1982]

Poor Dawkins. I am a Christian and I would have been equally puzzled by that opening statement and declared it is a non-sequitur. Dawkins should have asked him to define Free Will, because it is certainly possible that the thing we experience directly is not the same as the philosopher's definition. The philosopher's definition is the Principle of Alternate Possibilities, which is functionally equivalent to randomness. But healthy minds are not undetermined like randomness. Healthy minds are constrained (determined) by truth and should converge with each other.

[@BeachandHills-hb2pq]

Your being to kind. He does not think free will exsists. He is a grown man a Proffessor willing to publically say that. If he had power he would alter the laws and society to accomidate that idea. You seem knowlageable about philosophy work though what no free will would mean or ethics and law. Society in general.

[@andyjones1982]

@@BeachandHills-hb2pq I am often told that I do not believe in free will. I just smile, because that really depends on what is meant by "free will". Dawkins should do the same, like Daniel Dennett does, but he lacks sense.

[@BeachandHills-hb2pq]

@@andyjones1982 Interesting. Becouse you have trained you "pick" the deffinition you work with. Everyone else uses the common knowlage meaning. Also the the average person say someone who changes or "picks" the deffintion is Cheating or playing word games. Big problem is 85% of the population is in the average range so can not understand this, Even bigger problem is only 0.1% have studyed this stuff so any missunderstandings will not be picked up. To the average person it looks like our Interlectual eleat do mean "we have no free will" Dawkins even said "The Lawers are behind the times with the new truth about free will." 99.9% of the poulation have not had any training in this so take what the eleate say as correct.

[@andyjones1982]

​@@BeachandHills-hb2pq Yes everyone knows what free will is, by doing it, but there are different ways to turn it into a mathematical description, and some of those are wrong. Unfortunately the most common or obvious way of defining free will is now considered to wrong by most philosophers. I thought that was what Dawkins meant, until you said that thing about lawyers. If he really doesn't believe in free will, he is confused and kind of insane.

[@BeachandHills-hb2pq]

@@andyjones1982 Thanks for replying . He and others had said this often. To the common person like me he literally means it and want society to change to this new truth. The fact you says it’s about mathematically modelling it is never mentioned. To me there is a significant number of public intellectuals saying this and want society to change. My daughter has watched videos saying free will does not exists and says she is confused 🫤 but she did not reject the idea automatically. My psychology training says they want to allow there “passions” or vices to be made legal in the long run. Thanks for replying

[@Theomatikalli]

Very rich waiting for Richard to be old and slower before quizzing him intensely ... Let the old man rest and ask us the younger ones these questions and we can answer quicker with more vigor... ask @alex o'connor or @sabine hossenfelder etc. and stop picking on an old man.

[@HearGodsWord]

He's not being picked on 😂

[@Theomatikalli]

@@HearGodsWord There were a lot of times it felt like they were looking for a gotcha moment. Dawkins is not a Philosopher/Physicist he's a biologist.. He's trying to tell them that I'm not an expert in philosophy/physics but they want to press him on those subjects.. It's like inviting a musician to an interview but trying to focus the questioning on Quantum physics. Ask him about how biology affects his stances since that's his expertise. If you want to ask physics questions invite @lawrence krauss.

[@HearGodsWord]

@@Theomatikalli he willingly went on there to promote his book. It was nothing like the example you fabricated.

[@Theomatikalli]

@@HearGodsWord You are actually right, I went and watched the whole thing on the Trigonometry youtube channel and it was a more rounded conversation..This channel just chose to only focus on the segment that he literally said he was not qualified to talk on.

[@kenobi4582]

I don't know how much the old atheists like Dawkins have influence on the world

[@FortYeah]

Very interesting comments on the skeptic vs faith attitude. Descartes really screwed us!!

[@oliverjamito9902]

Revealed and manifested! Who Comfort?

[@rummy9999]

Scrivener offers jaw-dropping simplistic "counters" to what he presents as Dawkins views on free will. This dogmatic cognition might have appeared to have some validity 100 years ago. But recent scientific findings and philosophical considerations about free will need a more attentive approach. Dawkins repeatedly clarifies he is no "expert on free will", yet Kisin repeatedly tries to drag him into this position. Eventually Kisin props up a facsimile of Darkins as a straw man, which he claims represents some sort of "scientific view" of free will. Scrivener then rushes eagerly in to knock the straw man down. Scrivener informs us he has definitive knowledge of the inner working of Dawkins mind, and even tells us what he imagines that is. An Alice in Wonderland production... a gentle way to drift off into Neverland at the end of a hard day... But at no point is a single contemporary consideration about free will mentioned, let alone rebutted.

[@kevinrombouts3027]

Excellent

[@martynmettam9296]

Thanks Glen, that’s brilliant. The last ten minutes of your talk I revel in. I love how you emphasise that we live in a supernatural world, a world of wonder. However I have one complaint, every now and again it seems to me you conflate the “scientific” as the naturalistic/materialistic. Maybe I’m wrong? I believe it’s perfectly reasonable to use science to show or reason the supernatural and God.

[@samueltopping7812]

Was it Hume and his fork, not Descartes not caused the split between facts and values?

[@pierrepierre-nh5qg]

A body without a soul and spirit is dead. The spirit of love is the sorce of life (God is love) and the source of good health is a will that chooses to counter balance the spirit of fear with Gods love, so that the output of the sympathetic nervous system is balanced by the output of the parasympathetic nervous system. In such circumstances Heart rate variability is smoothly sinusoidal rather than irregular.

[@fernandoformeloza4107]

Perhaps because Dawkins is looking at Christianity through the eyes of scientism, that this is the reason why he thinks Christianity is absurd; of course Christianity would seem absurd if you only look at it through the eyes of scientism

[@andrewperez2473]

“The molecules made me do it.” And I was under the impression that it was the devil. Dawkins “Flipped” it. At least deflected responsibility. Geraldine was ahead his time. Flip Wilson that is.😉

[@oliverjamito9902]

Beloved why marvel? Even a little infant daughter from HIS SIDE!

[@LitotheLlanito]

4:30 compatibilism needs to be heard here. Have you heard the story of Wittgenstein and someone walking in a garden, saying how it appears that the sun goes round the earth, but the challenge comes, but what does it look like for it to look like the earth is spinning on its axis? (Very badly paraphrased.) Point is, free will isn't an illusion. It's misconceived. (If determinism is true, but we appear to ourselves to have free will, then we need to work out what we're looking at, given determinism. Determinism may not be true. If it isn't, then we can look at free will differently. They're different projects, that can't easily be combined: we can't look at our experience of free will to work out whether determinism is true or false: the evidence of natural law from the rest of the world of observations is too strong, at this point in history. We would instead need to use free will to help us understand what natural law is, for instance.)

[@oliverjamito9902]

All shared "i" AM MEEKS will say, Indeed!

[@Gracchus66]

Here's my theory: Facts, Knowledge, and Science are of and about the real/physical world. Value, Belief, Faith, and God are only in our minds and " hearts".

[@Theomatikalli]

With Freewill, just because a lion has no choice but to hunt doesn't mean that you just leave the lion to roam the streets because it has no choice.. You still build a game park to keep them from harming humans. What changes is the motivation for prison .. its now for protecting others from you and for rehabilitation instead of the old tit for tat motivation.

[@BeachandHills-hb2pq]

You can not rehabilitate cause there is no free will. The Criminal will do what he wants, it his nature to prey on other pepole. No rahibatation is possible. No free will. It becomes Prey or Parasite Vs The Herd.

[@Theomatikalli]

@@BeachandHills-hb2pq I think you dont understand what it means to not have free will. No Free will means you don't decide what makes you do what you do but it doesn't mean you can't be changed. Even if you don't have free will, for some people rehabilitation is still possible. If you commit crime because you feel that society does not love you, then it's possible to show you society's love in order to change that perspective and make you not commit the same crime based on the same motivation. Once we've shown them sufficient love, they will have no choice but to abandon that motive. The same way you had no choice but to understand that 2+2= 4 once you understood maths.

[@BeachandHills-hb2pq]

@@Theomatikalli You beleve in free will so much you cant think of a world view that beleves it does not exist. If Dawkins is correct you cannot change yourself. A thief will allways be a thief its uncontrollable. The man who kills a man sleeping with his wife is uncontrollable. He even said your feeling of free will is all an illusion. His idea removes choice and change from lots of things. Changing motive becomes trying to change someones inate drives. With this idea you are turned into a biological robot to be altered at best. THats why commentators push him on this topic.

[@BeachandHills-hb2pq]

@@Theomatikalli I did reply but Yt deleted. I argued free will is more important than stated. That Dawkins expects laws to change. That strong elations are even more important than state. Lots of emtonal things can not be changed easily. I have a background in psychology somethings are deep and not manipulated. Dawkins expects the laws themselves to change in a post Christian country. If you believe you have no free will it undermines your sense of agency and ability to change your life. Lack of agency causes mental illness. This idea will make society’s sicker. Have a good day

[@Theomatikalli]

@@BeachandHills-hb2pq The laws of UK/USA were already independent of religion so there is no Post/Pre Christianity dependency. Laws are always changing to reflect our latest understanding of the human condition. On your comment on agency, do computers have free will? The answer is no. But is a computer useful in a variety of ways? Yes it is. Just because you don't have free will doesn't mean that you don't have agency. You just need to be more comfortable with this last statement. You are burdening lack of free will with things it does not entail. To avoid society becoming sicker we would have to communicate better so that people don't misinterpret what a lack of free will means.

[@Theomatikalli]

Human senses have been demonstrated to be prone to illusion. I'm sure some of you have seen 2D drawings that looks like 3D i.e. optical illusions. This free will episode is like a person being told that you are looking at a 2D optical illusion and then they answer by saying but all of us see this as a 3D so you are wrong. Regardless of your feelings, It's still an illusion. Assumptions are not knowledge, they are assumptions. You assume because you lack knowledge.

[@leepretorius4869]

Would you admit that part of the illness is determinism/compatibilism WITHIN Christian theology, particularly soteriology?

[@davidbanner6230]

DO WE HAVE FREE WILL? I think the lack of (free-will) thinkers, are really saying that what we are is predetermined by what we have experienced previously in our lives. We only have a free will as much our background will allow us... Isn't that why narcissistic people cannot overcome their behaviour, because they have been pre-programed by their past experiences...? And, isn’t that why the Christian message is based upon forgiveness, because people are made what they are, by the ‘good or bad’ experiences that have befallen them….? And isn’t that why Richard Dawkins can never recognise such reality, because, in doing so, he would have to admit, that there is a vital purpose for religion, in our lives, to focus on the truths that Atheism can never admit to…

[@bcatcool]

BTW - He's not...

[@tomgreene1843]

Dawkins has no free will ...but can probably construct his own morality .

[@jascon24]

Why is he deferring to a philosopher on the question of free will? Shouldn’t science explain it?

[@Cal96729]

Because it's a philosophical question, not a scientific one

[@donaldmccarthy1681]

Dawkin's is at the end of his atheistic bullying days, because the jig is up. I saw this happen with Bertrand Russell also. If they didn't in fact have free choice it would be sad. Instead, it is poetic justice.

[@Theomatikalli]

He is just old and has less vigor... You should feel satisfaction winning discussions with him now when his mind is slower .. find younger atheists and they'll give you more articulated rebuttals. Your world view is still lacking. Feel free to throw some argument at me now and I'll try to answer them as best I can.

[@falconer15138]

De construct from the world? I must have done that a long time ago.

[@Theomatikalli]

With the Betty the Botanist, example you are right about there being many layers of reality. However the issue that arises with Christianity is that you propose a layer that is unverifiable/unfalsifiable i.e. it's not even a reality/layer. It's like Gareth saying to betty that the rose was actually made from a slab of steel.. That's when Betty's "it/it" reality becomes relevant again because that's the domain in which it thrives. The domain of facts. We then ask you to demonstrate how you got this rose from a slab of steel. If you cannot then we say you are just making stuff up. Even in the other layers of reality, you still have to coherently justify your stances.

[@fernandoformeloza4107]

"there are other ways of looking at the world" well said

[@fernandoformeloza4107]

Nothing about what Richard Dawkins is saying about free will makes any sense; Dawkins even admits to this. Lol

[@Gracchus66]

Scrivener: " Because he, (Dawkins) thinks his scientific expertise trumps what lawyers and moral philosophers have thought for thousands of years." What? GS is clearly is not on the side of lawyers, and philosophers but actually on the side of believers and theologians but he didn't say that because he knows or at least intuits that would have weakened his argument more . And Dawkins thinks and says no such thing. His position is clearly that science is about objective facts and that philosophy and religion are different domains. And he admits again and again that he's not qualified to answer questions about philosophy. But the triggernometry guys keep pressing him in on it. I watched a couple of times their whole discussion, and it was most definitely not among their best work.

[@oliverjamito9902]

Lord ye can see the results from all these who am I scientists in front of thee! Shared "i" AM Scientists Hosts and my Beautiful keep watch at these who am I scientists!

[@一本のうんち]

What bollocks. Problem with religious people is they assume that there are two sides of the 'chasm' and that they're on one side and scientists are on the other one... Scientists are NOT against religion or anti-religion, they'll gladly entertain the thought and awe at the evidence if ever presented, but without evidence religion is just a theory, a conjecture. We don't know the answers but so far science has explained more about the world around us than religion ever did.

[@azzag2414]

You dont think Dawkins is anti religion?

[@一本のうんち]

@@azzag2414 Dawkins is definitely not anti religion!

[@HearGodsWord]

​@user-ky9qn4pg3w thanks for providing the 'bollocks' here even more than Dawkins did

[@murphyorama]

Dawkins is greatly overrated intellectually. He's a clever man but very limited willingness to follow a logical train of thought if it seems to contradict his emotionally held beliefs. He has this way of deferring to 'experts' in fields such as physics and philosophy even when their views might disagree with his own instincts. This is disingenuous.

[@Theomatikalli]

@Murphy Have you ever heard of optical illusions? Human senses and gut instincts can be easily misled. This has been known for decades.

[@murphyorama]

@@Theomatikalli ?

[@Theomatikalli]

@@murphyorama hi, what's up?

[@haxguy0]

I dont understand Richard's point at all...

[@raymondtaylor6049]

🤔

[@raymondtaylor6049]

🤯

[@oliverjamito9902]

None scientific what is Who am I?

[@raymondtaylor6049]

😮

[@raymondtaylor6049]

😳😵‍💫😱

[@danielmaher964]

It was Gerard Manly Hopkins wrote that, you are right

[@raymondtaylor6049]

😶‍🌫️

[@raymondtaylor6049]

🫣

[@hypno59]

Who cares what this guy thinks?

[@andrewbradley6941]

Get Dawkins on to philosophy or theology and he is totally out of his depth.

[@oliverjamito9902]

What is a belief? Who are ye talking too?

[@johnfrancis4401]

Dawkins isn’t so smart. Is it age?

[@Theomatikalli]

Trust me it's age..

[@aliabbas4860]

well edited bullshit. show the whole interview instead of cut n pasting parts. so disigenuously dishonest.

[@winstonsmith2235]

Jesus did not even exist, buddy, like countless other children of gods. Why don't you see life through the prism of Santa Claus.

[@HearGodsWord]

Every historian with any credibility disagrees with you.

[@winstonsmith2235]

@@HearGodsWord not at all...Richard Carrier, Robert Price currently and dozens of others from the past. Go to Wikipedia and check the list of 'Christ Myth Theory' proponents. There is no evidence of his existence outside the NT. Everything about Jesus - similarities with other children of gods like immaculate conception and other details - point to a popular myth. In fact Jews were the last to try this framework. I found arguments against Jesus existence much more persuasive.

[@HearGodsWord]

@@winstonsmith2235 Wikipedia 🤣 there are extra-biblical texts BTW. You're being the opposite of persuasive!

[@winstonsmith2235]

@@HearGodsWord you are believer therefore no amount of critical thinking or lack of evidence/presence of evidence or arguments would convince you. The evidence for Jesus's existence has been faked in some cases (like insertions into Joseph Flavios texts and other historical texts) or is very weak. No gods or their children ever existed but were created by our human imagination. It is so cheap and low class to smuggle Jesus into every crack and dark spot that science has no answer to...I respect Christianity as I respect human history but to give any serious consideration to the religious dogmas our iron age ancestors came up with due to their dire circumstances is really an insult to reason. Good luck to you. Faith is a poor man's psychiatrist. So be it.

[@Theomatikalli]

@winston Jesus probably existed based on Historical evidence. Search for Bart Erhmen, he is an Atheist historian who can help you on this topic and many. His Miracles are not historical though.. probably a legend making exercise was done borrowing from many other legends from history eg. Epic of Gilgamesh etc.