Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason & Science
600,345 views Jun 19, 2009 #4809
During Richard Dawkins' American tour in March 2009, he gave a talk titled "The Purpose of Purpose". I travelled with Richard to these cities and filmed the talks, which I've edited together here. The content of the talk remains intact, while the editing moves between the different locations and Richard's Keynote presentation.
Produced by The Richard Dawkins Foundation and R. Elisabeth Cornwell Filmed and edited by Josh Timonen See more about Richard Dawkins' upcoming book "The Greatest Show on Earth" here: http://richarddawkins.net/thegreatest...
This talk was given in Michigan, Minneapolis, Oklahoma and Nebraska. Filmed at: University of Minnesota - Minneapolis, Minnesota University of Oklahoma - Norman, Oklahoma Holland Performing Arts Center - Omaha, Nebraska
Introductions by: PZ Myers - Minneapolis, Minnesota Barry Weaver - Norman, Oklahoma Richard Holland - Omaha, Nebraska Filmed and Edited by Josh Timonen Shot on Red One #4809
his book,The Blind Watchmaker.
**
21:55 "It's a nice example of the fact that evolution can be a predictive science..." I love that sentence. It shows how knowing something that is indeed true leads to better decisions, because better decisions require the ability to predict outcomes. And that, in my opinion is the purpose of human's curiosity in the first place.
If we didn't want to know things, we could've died out by now. This is also the reason for why religion must be stopped. Religion is made to block questioning. It substitutes answers with fake ones and corrupts our basic tool for survival and comfortable life.
Show less
Thanks for the video! I got my copy of The Greatest Show on Earth signed by him when it came out, back in 2009, when he came to Indiana University to speak. Later that year, when I was driving back to college, my car caught on fire (a shortage in the cruise control) and after the firefighters hosed it down my backback containing this book and my laptop was the only thing that didn't get scorched.
It took a little water damage (my laptop ended up needing to be replaced) but I still have that book to this day and it always cracks me up because I think of the stories where people say a bedside bible was the only thing to survive a house fire and how it was a miracle, etc.
**
@ Xavier Arriaga, Any arguments that you put forward? Besides the petty insults? This man has own awards from top notch universities, Berkeley Oxford, Sanford..and so on. He is regarded has one of the preeminent scientists in his field. In 1977 when he wrote the selfish gene, the virus and gene transmission description he gave were all validated in the next 10 to 20 years.
Not even one scientist , his peers, have repudiate his works. He is only attacked by religious people that feel offended ...like you apparently...so yes he is widely attacked for his positions about religion.
The academic reputation of this man is intact. You get offended because he offended you imaginary friend. Anyone with the ability of reasoning can get to the same conclusions. Evolution theory is has true has the heliocentric theory....or do you disagree also that the earth revolves around the sun.
Calling names is what you do best....arguments, not your strong feature huh?
**
I don't consider Dawkins to be a great debater (possibly because he is to honest and nice to realize the sh*t that his opponents will pull) and not even the best spokesman for atheism. But if you can watch a lecture by this man and not feel some level of awe at his intellect, you should be removed from the human gene pool.
**
the 2001 and 2012 Emperor Has No Clothes Award
Dawkins toppedProspectmagazine's 2004 list of the top 100 public British intellectuals.
In 2012, aSri Lankanteam ofichthyologistsheaded byRohan Pethiyagodanamed a newgenusof freshwater fishDawkinsiain Dawkins's honor. (Members of this genus were formerly members of the genusPuntius).[194]
he was listed byTimemagazine as one of the 100 most influential people in the world in 2007,[190]and was ranked 20th inThe Daily Telegraph's2007 list of 100 greatest living geniuses.[191]
Dawkins was voted the world's top thinker based on 65 names chosen by a largely US and UK-based expert panel.[188]
**
The phrase "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" was popularized by Carl Sagan.
paraphrasing Marcello Truzzi : "An extraordinary claim requires extraordinary proof".
Earlier Laplace had written: "The weight of evidence for an extraordinary claim must be proportioned to its strangeness.".
And David Hume wrote in 1748: "A wise man .. proportions his belief to the evidence."
You published an article called "Science, Delusion and the Appetite for Wonder" in the Reports of the NCSE vol 17 issue 1 page 8 in 1997. ncse.com/rncse/17/1/science-delusion-appetite-wonder
***
Dawkins missed a really obvious reply to that girl's question about why atheism over agnosticism, why certainty over uncertainty? It's f*cking infuriating how so many people STILL don't get that atheism is NOT the absolute assertion that no God exists. It is simply the lack of a belief that one does. Theism, agnosticism and atheism are not three points on the same curve. There are only two points on the belief curve, theism and atheism. If you are not a theist, that means you lack a positive belief in a God, which makes you an atheist. End of story. Gnosticism or agnosticism deals with knowledge, a completely different question. How do so many people still misunderstand this really basic sh*t?
I'd like to add something to help answer the question from the girl at 1:12:33. In a general sense, there isn't really a difference between an agnostic and an atheist. However, just as with a strong vs. weak anthropic principle, there is a strong and weak atheism.
The weak atheistic position is the typical agnostic stance that says one is not convinced that there is a god, but they don't know it to be certain that there isn't a god. The strong atheistic position is the one the girl assumed was the only interpretation of atheism, where they are absolutely certain that no god can exist. The typical atheist is a weak atheist, and I would argue that the generalization of atheism would better be suited to that interpretation. However, on another note, I am a strong atheist.
I have discovered ways to determine that there can be no god. A scientific approach would generally not accept such a claim of certainty, and this is because most of science operates on the premise of observable evidence and the analysis thereof. However, science also operates from the basis of reason, and statements such as "inquiring as to the color of height would be invalid" are true statements.
This statement is true because there is an inherent incompatibility between color and height. Asking such a question is simply incoherent. There is importance to this method of reasoning. It establishes a priori truths, absent observation, which are certain. I have used this same method to discover that there is no space (domain space; not position space) for any god to exist. This is an a priori conclusion, and it is acquired without observation.
A priori: knowledge deduced through pure reason and justified independently from that of experience or observation. I would argue that this is the only means by which such a strong position could be achieved, and I don't intend to undermine the very real application of the scientific method. There are extremely useful applications based on levels of certainty that are understood via the scientific method, and much of our technology functions because of these scientific facts.
However, an issue of such importance as the mechanism which grants my presence is far too important for me to be content with probabilities, however great they might be. Dawkins has stated that he couldn't be fully convinced of anything by observation, even if a 500-foot-tall Jesus appeared before him and pledged the existence of a god. He would still have some level of doubt because of theoretical possibilities like hallucinations and simulated universes.
This is what makes a priori understandings such a unique tool of reason. They simply don't require observation to be true. I can reply with more information on my process if anybody is interested.
** [It is a process, not ending points.]
The Theory of Evolution does not impose any restrictions on any characteristics of Life, including the characteristic of Intelligence. Nor does it impose any restrictions on what Life, using its potentially unlimited Intelligence, could create, including what we may commonly refer to as a 'creator'.
And even though the process of Evolution may not require a Creator, Evolution itself poses no restrictions on one being created by the Evolutionary process itself. This theory does not impose any restrictions on how or where Life can be created.
The first life could have been created long before the Earth was ever formed, allowing adequate time for the evolving of such super Intelligence. Nothing in the Theory of Evolution restricts this from happening. Even if this may be an extremely rare event, remember that Evolutionist themselves consider the creation of Life to be exactly that, an extremely rare event.
**
