1. Comment #161119 by Stephen Maxwell on April 14, 2008 at 8:47 pm

Watching. Sounds promising from what I've seen so far.

Other Comments by Stephen Maxwell

2. Comment #161131 by mintcheerios on April 14, 2008 at 9:42 pm

I found this right before I was about to start on a paper.

Other Comments by mintcheerios

3. Comment #161132 by robotaholic on April 14, 2008 at 10:08 pm

I like how Dawkins used to be the bad cop until Hitchens came along lol

Other Comments by robotaholic

4. Comment #161135 by adk on April 14, 2008 at 10:45 pm

I have a physics exam coming up ... but I like to think that this counts as studying..

Other Comments by adk

5. Comment #161136 by arcooke on April 14, 2008 at 11:00 pm

Excellent video... can't wait to hear the Q&A.

Other Comments by arcooke

6. Comment #161140 by m-man on April 14, 2008 at 11:20 pm

I was there!, it was great ;)

Other Comments by m-man

7. Comment #161141 by Auld on April 14, 2008 at 11:28 pm

Looking forward to understanding more about QP from Lawrence.

Other Comments by Auld

8. Comment #161146 by mrgoodjob on April 14, 2008 at 11:44 pm

I agree with Dawkins regarding having open "conversation" in this particular setting, but I must disagree completely with him given the debate setting. I think the debate setting is extremely lacking in proper, firm, aggressive moderation. This allows for far too much rhetoric and we often see the same arguments raised time and time again. Take for instance the Hitler, Stalin, Mao argument about atheistic violence. The question has been raised verbatim to all the horsemen when they have clearly addressed this argument and squashed it. And there are countless other examples. This lack of moderation in debate setting is a colossal waste of time and has no place in academia. I see a tragic "slippery slope" concerning this and I beg you to draw comparison with the dog and pony show that has become the American political debates. Let us not allow this corrupt behavior to spill over into academia as well. We should have annual awards for "best academic moderator" to illustrate the importance of making sure that either debater, or any given collection of debaters, are not allowed to shape an academic debate outside what is considered proper argumentation. I have seen high school debaters with a greater understanding of argumentation than PhDs across the board.

Other Comments by mrgoodjob

9. Comment #161148 by A heron at night on April 15, 2008 at 12:12 am

This is very, very good.

Other Comments by A heron at night

10. Comment #161153 by roakes on April 15, 2008 at 12:54 am

I sometimes think the Professor Dawkins wins debating points by the sheer weight of good manners. On this occasion he had stiff competition from Lawrence Krauss.

Other Comments by roakes

11. Comment #161156 by alabasterocean on April 15, 2008 at 1:07 am

Well I like Dawkins as much as the next science lover. But the talk about debate and so forth is quite stupid. When two people agree on a question of course they can sit down in a pro aut contra conversation and kick out the moderator and times frames. In a debate between two opposing forces they need time, 5min pro etc. And if all deliberation is cut down to pro vs. pro there is no controversy. If everybody was spending time in front of a pro audience debating a pro quasi-opponent it will ruin the democratic tool of debate and critical conversation. I like to see Dawkins do more debate.

And yes, there is different ways to do this to. Look at Sam Harris, he almost always sit down and have a rational conversation/debate. Or Hitchens classic debate form where they follow strict timeliness of pro vs contra. Dawkins to often just stand and lecture an pro or often quite uninformed audience.

I like to see more Dawkins debate. Hitchens or Harris style. Or an alternative. The debate form is an must have in serious academia. I concur to what MrGoodjob says above.

The Double Slit Experiment illustrated:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfPeprQ7oGc

Other Comments by alabasterocean

12. Comment #161158 by madame_zora on April 15, 2008 at 1:16 am

"Any fool could have been a Darwin"~ Richard Dawkins.

Haha, don't you ever stop. Your candor is so wonderful to watch, I also loved watching you wax poetic about Wallace's fever dream, then admitting your curiosity about what else he might have been thinking in that fever- those are interesting things to think about, and rarely do people mention them.

Krauss was also noticeably relaxed, funny and fascinating, his description of particles going through two slits was wonderful, and was the foray into ridiculousness they both engaged in. Great stuff, informative and a lot of fun. I think this form of discussion was comfortable for both of them.

Other Comments by madame_zora

13. Comment #161171 by bujin on April 15, 2008 at 2:01 am

Looks like I won't be doing much development on the completion and attainment reports again today! I'm on part 3 at the moment, and it's rather interesting!

Other Comments by bujin

14. Comment #161173 by cafeeine on April 15, 2008 at 2:07 am

In response to No 8, mrgoodjob

In regards to the Stalin, Hitler et al, I have long been wondering if the whole repetition of the question is along the lines of "if you repeat a lie long enough..." slowly making the connection between atheism and totalitarianism they want to push regardless of the return argument. To the listener who has been told that atheists are a shade eviler than beelzebub, the argument that Stalin did not commit his actions due to atheism does not hold water. It may be that what is being wrought is guilt through repetitious association.

Other Comments by cafeeine

15. Comment #161174 by Dr Doctor on April 15, 2008 at 2:10 am

I've enjoyed listening to this while I work today, the experiment in format worked.

I found one comment by Richard Dawkins very interesting, that he would be happy to teach evolution at a summer camp.

If I had any spare money at the moment, or if summer wasn't my busy period as far as the company is concerned I would step up to lobby the Foundation to do this and stump up donations to help make it happen as it would be a very constructive step.

I feel frustrated that I cannot help in this matter.

Other Comments by Dr Doctor

16. Comment #161209 by Artful_Dodger on April 15, 2008 at 3:16 am

Interesting discussion. I just hope that Dawkins will be equally willing to engage in a similar way with fellow-scientists who are not atheists.

Dawkins really let the cat out of the bag when he said that his aim was not only to establish the truth of science, but to KILL religion. That immensely unscientific agenda is going to turn out to be counterproductive for Dawkins and his band of new-atheists. Because of this he has already alienated huge numbers of very intelligent people who might be sympathetic with his aim to further scientific knowledge. Most people instinctively know that science and faith are not incompatible with each other, unless they have been hoodwinked into thinking they are either by religious fundamentalists on the one side or by the likes of Dawkins and his cohorts on the other. The effect of Dawkins (mis)using in this way his professorial chair in order to drive through his "faith-eradication" program will drive parents and many educators into their bunkers and make them much more anti-science that they otherwise might have been.

Other Comments by Artful_Dodger

17. Comment #161214 by epeeist on April 15, 2008 at 3:25 am

Comment #161209 by Artful_Dodger

Interesting discussion. I just hope that Dawkins will be equally willing to engage in a similar way with fellow-scientists who are not atheists.

The question is whether he would actually get answers from them. It seems to be that whenever someone asks a theist a hard question they cut and run.

Perhaps you could finally get around to actually telling us something about how one can tell the difference between what is literal and what is metaphorical in the bible. This and some extended questions can be found in the post below.

http://richarddawkins.net/articleComments,2394,Lying-for-Jesus,Richard-Dawkins,page27#160334

I hope you aren't too busy, or have other things to do.

Other Comments by epeeist

18. Comment #161215 by Mark Barratt on April 15, 2008 at 3:26 am

How is attempting to get rid of manifestly untrue and unscientific ideas an "immensely unscientific agenda?"

I can't think of a more scientific agenda.

Other Comments by Mark Barratt

19. Comment #161216 by Tyler Durden on April 15, 2008 at 3:28 am

Comment #161209 by Artful_Dodger:

Dawkins really let the cat out of the bag when he said that his aim was not only to establish the truth of science, but to KILL religion. That immensely unscientific agenda is going to turn out to be counterproductive for Dawkins and his band of new-atheists.

Excuse me? Does that even make any sense? Where exactly is the "unscientific agenda"??

If Dawkins is looking to "establish the truth of science" then it is a scientific agenda. Taking religion out of the equation is also a scientific agenda. Your "point" is a complete non-sequitor.

And do tell, what exactly is a "new-atheist"??

Other Comments by Tyler Durden

20. Comment #161217 by Quetzalcoatl on April 15, 2008 at 3:29 am

Epeeist-

I'd be surprised if he returns. He seems to be doing hit and run attacks on any thread with "Richard Dawkins" in the title at the moment.

And you have already had the answer for the metaphor question. YOU JUST KNOW.

Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl

21. Comment #161218 by Artful_Dodger on April 15, 2008 at 3:32 am

Epeeist,

Ther are clearly many theist philosophers and scientist that you have not had the chance to listen to. I actually think that there are a number of theist debaters from whom Dawkins is cutting and running before any engagement starts.

As for the metaphorical / literal issue, I have answered that question, tho seemingly not to your satisfaction, which I would probably not do however long I spent on it.

Other Comments by Artful_Dodger

22. Comment #161219 by epeeist on April 15, 2008 at 3:36 am

Comment #161217 by Quetzalcoatl

I'd be surprised if he returns. He seems to be doing hit and run attacks on any thread with "Richard Dawkins" in the title at the moment.

I would be very surprised if I ever got an answer. However, I am not really doing it for his benefit. Like Jon_sociologists valiant attempts with wooter I am doing it to show the underlying insincerity and dishonesty of the theist posters we get and the lack of argument that they can muster.

Other Comments by epeeist

23. Comment #161222 by irate_atheist on April 15, 2008 at 3:39 am

16. Comment #161209 by Artful_Dodger -

Most people instinctively know that science and faith are not incompatible with each other, unless they have been hoodwinked into thinking they are either by religious fundamentalists on the one side or by the likes of Dawkins and his cohorts on the other.

Please, enlighten us as to what is not incompatible between science and religion. I would hazard a guess that several professional scientists who post on this site - this thread, even - would be curious to know precisely where they are compatible.

Artful, it's over to you.

Other Comments by irate_atheist

24. Comment #161223 by epeeist on April 15, 2008 at 3:39 am

Comment #161218 by Artful_Dodger

As for the metaphorical / literal issue, I have answered that question, tho seemingly not to your satisfaction, which I would probably not do however long I spent on it.

No you haven't. You have made a few comments on specific pieces of the bible.

What you have not done is to provide some kind of general mechanism for saying what is literal and what is metaphor. Nor have you provided any argument as to how you gain the authority to make statements as to what is literal and what is metaphorical.

Other Comments by epeeist

25. Comment #161224 by Quetzalcoatl on April 15, 2008 at 3:40 am

Epeeist-

the other option was "I ignore the bits I don't like".

I agree with you for the most part, but some of the theist posters we get are honest and try to explain their positions properly without resorting to hit-and-run tactics. Brother John and Mark Taunton are excellent examples of this.

Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl

26. Comment #161225 by Artful_Dodger on April 15, 2008 at 3:45 am

Taking religion out of the equation is also a scientific agenda

It depends on what you mean by "equation". When aked by Napoleon where God was in his cosmological scheme, Laplace answered "Je n'ai pas besoin de cette hypothèse". This was a sensible answer, and might have been even if Laplace had been a theist. God, being outside the universe (as the originator of the universe must be) does not need to feature in any scheme depicting the universe. So keeping God out of the picture (equation), in that sense, may make a lot of sense. That is why the agenda to KILL religous faith as a "scientific" project does not make sense, because it is science's role to explore the cosmos, not speculate as to the identity or non identity of its hpothetical originator. That is why Dawkins' stated agenda is unscientific.

Other Comments by Artful_Dodger

27. Comment #161226 by epeeist on April 15, 2008 at 3:45 am

Comment #161224 by Quetzalcoatl

I agree with you for the most part, but some of the theist posters we get are honest and try to explain their positions properly without resorting to hit-and-run tactics. Brother John and Mark Taunton are excellent examples of this.

Agreed, to my shame I used a universal rather than existential quantifier.

Other Comments by epeeist

28. Comment #161228 by Quetzalcoatl on April 15, 2008 at 3:47 am

Epeeist-

I didn't meant to nitpick, but it always jars a little, and I don't want any of the less honourable theists to use such phrases against us.

Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl

29. Comment #161232 by irate_atheist on April 15, 2008 at 3:50 am

26. Comment #161225 by Artful_Dodger -

So keeping God out of the picture (equation), in that sense, may make a lot of sense. That is why the agenda to KILL religous faith as a "scientific" project does not make sense, because it is science's role to explore the cosmos, not speculate as to the identity or non identity of its hpothetical originator.

Epeeist - Could you wheel out your lemmata?

Artful - 'Not part' of the universe? And yet you claim to have a book written about him? Just how screwed up are you that you can't have any consistency whatsoever in what you write?

Other Comments by irate_atheist

30. Comment #161234 by Steve Zara on April 15, 2008 at 3:54 am

God, being outside the universe (as the originator of the universe must be) does not need to feature in any scheme depicting the universe.

It's a bit hard to know how you can know about him then.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

31. Comment #161239 by Tyler Durden on April 15, 2008 at 4:03 am

Comment #161225 by Artful_Dodger:

It depends on what you mean by "equation". When aked by Napoleon where God was in his cosmological scheme, Laplace answered "Je n'ai pas besoin de cette hypothèse". This was a sensible answer, and might have been even if Laplace had been a theist. God, being outside the universe (as the originator of the universe must be) does not need to feature in any scheme depicting the universe. So keeping God out of the picture (equation), in that sense, may make a lot of sense. That is why the agenda to KILL religous faith as a "scientific" project does not make sense, because it is science's role to explore the cosmos, not speculate as to the identity or non identity of its hpothetical originator. That is why Dawkins' stated agenda is unscientific.

Complete and utter bollocks. Seriously, is this the best you can do?

Other Comments by Tyler Durden

32. Comment #161242 by epeeist on April 15, 2008 at 4:09 am

Comment #161232 by irate_atheist

Epeeist - Could you wheel out your lemmata?

Certainly can - it is part of the "Fleabytes" thread in which Artful_dodger strangely avoids answering how to tell the difference between literal and metaphorical parts of the bible.

http://richarddawkins.net/articleComments,2285,Fleabytes,Paula-Kirby,page38#135651

Because of the missing posts this doesn't seem to work.

Lemma 1: The Universe was created
Lemma 2: The creator of the universe is an omnipotent, omniscient being
Lemma 3: This being, having created the universe continues to play a part in the development of the universe and all that is in it
Lemma 4: This being is specifically the deity of a particular sect of people living in one small section of one small planet circling around particular star out of 10¹¹ others in one galaxy out of 1.5*10¹¹ others.
Lemma 5:All of this is documented in a book written approximately 2000 years ago

All the lemmas need to be demonstrated in turn. Once this has been done then you may actually have some claim to the truth of your religion.

Other Comments by epeeist

33. Comment #161243 by Tyler Durden on April 15, 2008 at 4:09 am

Comment #161225 by Artful_Dodger:

God, being outside the universe (as the originator of the universe must be) does not need to feature in any scheme depicting the universe.

Comment #161234 by Steve Zara:

It's a bit hard to know how you can know about him then.

Steve, it's at this point that theists usually start talking about warm, fuzzy feelings, the fact that they "just know", or about their "inner voice". Pah, such hogwash.

Other Comments by Tyler Durden

34. Comment #161245 by epeeist on April 15, 2008 at 4:15 am

Comment #161225 by Artful_Dodger

So keeping God out of the picture (equation), in that sense, may make a lot of sense.

Artful - you keep blathering on about "God" as though there were only one. Hubris on your part.

I have been to Greece and seen the temples. Until you disprove the existence of Zeus and Apollo could I ask you to not bring your presuppositions into the arguments you make.

Other Comments by epeeist

35. Comment #161246 by black wolf on April 15, 2008 at 4:16 am

It's a bit hard to know how you can know about him then.

Steve, it's at this point that theists usually start talking about warm, fuzzy feelings, the fact that they "just know", or about their "inner voice". Pah, such hogwash.

And said feelings are satisfactorily explained in biochemical and psychological terms (yes, with evidence). In favor of preserving the mystical connotations, that evidence is summarily ignored and dismissed.

Other Comments by black wolf

36. Comment #161247 by irate_atheist on April 15, 2008 at 4:18 am

32. Comment #161242 by epeeist -

Thanks :)

Steve -

It's a bit hard to know how you can know about him then.

Do you think, perhaps, maybe, they're making it all up? Surely not.

Other Comments by irate_atheist

37. Comment #161248 by Vaal on April 15, 2008 at 4:21 am

33. Comment #161243 by Tyler Durden

Steve, it's at this point that theists usually start talking about warm, fuzzy feelings, the fact that they "just know", or about their "inner voice"

The same inner voice as David Koresh and the Reverend Jim Jones?

Other Comments by Vaal

38. Comment #161250 by Steve Zara on April 15, 2008 at 4:23 am

Comment #161243 by Tyler Durden

Steve, it's at this point that theists usually start talking about warm, fuzzy feelings, the fact that they "just know", or about their "inner voice". Pah, such hogwash.

And at this point, I proceed as follows...

If you claim that God is purely external to the universe, and you believe in God, then there are the following possibilities:

1. By an astonishing co-incidence, your idea of God matches the actual nature of God.
2. Your idea of god does not match the actual nature of God.
3. You are deluding yourself.

2 and 3 mean you are wrong, and 1 is phenomenally unlikely. So, the odds are that your belief in God is wrong, if you insist he is purely external.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

39. Comment #161254 by Quetzalcoatl on April 15, 2008 at 4:30 am

On my blog I've just posted the first of several on believers' inner feelings and relationships with God.

But there are few who claim that God is purely external to the Universe. For him to have inspired the Bible or to interact at all, he must be linked in some way. The fact that therefore such an intrusion into the physical Universe should be scientifically testable is an awkward one, and often ignored.

Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl

40. Comment #161257 by Steve Zara on April 15, 2008 at 4:34 am

Comment #161254 by Quetzalcoatl

But there are few who claim that God is purely external to the Universe.

Indeed. This is why I believe deism to be a stranger position than theism.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

41. Comment #161260 by Milton on April 15, 2008 at 4:37 am

I was thinking about one thing they talked about in the Q&A. The issue about bringing more science and scientific thinking into popular culture. The first think that came to my mind where it already exists is tv-shows and books about crime investigation.

All sorts of stuff like CSI and shows about court trials are very popular. People like looking for clues and the investigation of evidence.

Is there something to be learned from that kind of entertainment when trying to promote scientific thinking in a wider sense?

Other Comments by Milton

42. Comment #161262 by Bonzai on April 15, 2008 at 4:41 am

I watched two of these videos and was bored out of my skull by the mutual admiration and pomposity.

In my boredom I clicked around youtube and found Feynman's old interview with the BBC. I haven't watched them for a long time. I decided to watch them again for old time's sake.

Wow! Feynman still rules even though he is long dead. He was sooo cool !

Feynman was passionate, completely unpretentious and had such interesting, original things to say.The contrast with these Dawkins-Krauss videos was like day and night.

I am ashamed to admit that I was in a roboholic hero worship mode instantly.I was born too late.

Other Comments by Bonzai

43. Comment #161263 by Artful_Dodger on April 15, 2008 at 4:41 am

Steve, "external to the universe" does not mean that he does not interact with the universe. Obviously, creation means interaction. But would Hamlet, had he so wished, been able to find "evidence" of Shakespeare's interaction with his story or with himself as a character? Well, no. Because Shakespeare's intervention, though all embracing and all-pervasive, was actually invisible. Nevertheless, there would not have been a play without it.

But actually, Christians believe that God did write himself into human history as one of the characters, the main character in fact. Insofar as there is evidence for the reliability of the 4 gospel accounts of Jesus' life, death and resurrection, there can be said to be evidence of God's interaction with the world. Of course you ca take the tack that so many of you have taken and simply airbrush Jesus Christ out of human history, and press on regardless of it.

Other Comments by Artful_Dodger

44. Comment #161264 by Steve Zara on April 15, 2008 at 4:47 am

Steve, "external to the universe" does not mean that he does not interact with the universe

Yes, it does.

Obviously, creation means interaction.

No, it doesn't, especially not in a non-deterministic universe. Especially not in one with quantum mechanics, which includes the likelihood that even the past is uncertain.

Of course you ca take the tack that so many of you have taken and simply airbrush Jesus Christ out of human history, and press on regardless of it.

I have no intention of airbrushing Jesus out. But in return I would like you to paint in the other stores of resurrection and miracles, the stories of Amen-Ra, of Julius Caesar and so on.

But actually, Christians believe that God did write himself into human history as one of the characters, the main character in fact.

So, the "God being external to the universe" statment was a fib then?

Other Comments by Steve Zara

45. Comment #161265 by Quetzalcoatl on April 15, 2008 at 4:47 am

Artful_Dodger-

Well, no. Because Shakespeare's intervention, though all embracing and all-pervasive, was actually invisible. Nevertheless, there would not have been a play without it.

Strange, then, that you claim such knowledge, Hamlet.

Insofar as there is evidence for the reliability of the 4 gospel accounts of Jesus' life, death and resurrection, there can be said to be evidence of God's interaction with the world

The Gospels are unreliable, contradict each other, and do not tally well with history. Hardly revelatory.

And are you making the assertion that the Gospels are the ONLY evidence of God's interaction with the world? If so, why? If not, what other sources of evidence do you have?

Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl

46. Comment #161266 by Bonzai on April 15, 2008 at 4:48 am

So Artful are you a cosmologist or something? If not I wonder what qualification do you have to talk about how God being external to the universe and interacting with it and so on with such confidence.

How do you know?

You can't even find that stuffs in the bible.

Other Comments by Bonzai

47. Comment #161267 by epeeist on April 15, 2008 at 4:49 am

Comment #161263 by Artful_Dodger

Steve, "external to the universe" does not mean that he does not interact with the universe. Obviously, creation means interaction.

And if he interacts then methodological interaction should give us the ability to investigate that interaction. Or is your god a bit like Sagan's dragon?

Of course you ca take the tack that so many of you have taken and simply airbrush Jesus Christ out of human history, and press on regardless of it.

No we don't. We ask for evidence. I suspect a fair number of people here would accept an historical Jesus. Where we would take issue is with the claim that he was the "son of god". All the supposed evidence for this comes via writings of cult members, hardly neutral.

Other Comments by epeeist

48. Comment #161279 by Star Spangled Eagle on April 15, 2008 at 5:36 am

For Dodger:

Do not, as some ungracious pastors do,
Show me the steep and thorny way to heaven,
Whiles, like a puff'd and reckless libertine,
Himself the primrose path of dalliance treads.
And recks not his own rede.

-Ophelia, Act I, scene iii

Other Comments by Star Spangled Eagle

49. Comment #161280 by Dr Benway on April 15, 2008 at 5:37 am

I've shared the story before, about the guy who believed he had a radio transmitter in his head. An over-achieving med student got an x-ray of his head, put the film up on the light box in front of the patient and said, "Look, no radio!"

The patient replied, "Ah, but I can see the wires..." and he pointed to irregularities and suture lines in the bones.

Moral of the story: these "fixed, false beliefs" serve an emotional need. That need must be met in some alternate manner before the belief will change.

Q: What is the need?
A: It is the Jesus feeling.

Other Comments by Dr Benway

50. Comment #161289 by Matt7895 on April 15, 2008 at 5:57 am

A very interesting talk. Thanks for putting it up on the website.

Other Comments by Matt7895