1. Comment #216891 by Drain on July 23, 2008 at 3:52 pm

Been waiting for this :) Watched half of the episodes so far and the discussion has been great so far. Very good choice of the four people the discussions were with I must say.

Other Comments by Drain

2. Comment #216904 by Ally01290 on July 23, 2008 at 4:35 pm

Great stuff! I've very much enjoyed watching the discussions with Lawrence Krauss and Steven Weinberg repeatedly since they were released :)

Other Comments by Ally01290

3. Comment #216908 by Dhamma on July 23, 2008 at 4:45 pm

Nice! I'll be more than eager to watch it sometime tomorrow.

Other Comments by Dhamma

4. Comment #216910 by adk on July 23, 2008 at 4:53 pm

Nice! Really enjoyable to listen to! :)

Other Comments by adk

5. Comment #216926 by james1v on July 23, 2008 at 5:27 pm

Richard, please, please get some socks that match your trousers or shoe colour (color to you yanks). White socks are not an option with shoes or trousers...Shell suits/sportswear..yes!
Your views? marvelous and correct! PZ, top socks,
bang right for your dress! Your opinions..Marvelous. Come on Brits, we invented classic dress style! the yanks have coppied and excelled us! Apart from PZs awfull trainers!:)

Other Comments by james1v

6. Comment #216943 by razajac on July 23, 2008 at 5:40 pm

PZ and Richard early on hit on the issue of vociferous advocacy. One of the things people don't talk about enough about the practice of religion--esp. fundamentalist Christianity, as I've seen it--is how this dynamic functions in these milieus.

In churches that seem stable and getting on swimmingly, what you can find pretty quickly is a kind of mutually agreeable standoff. People believe all kinds of weird stuff in these situations, and are generally adapted to keeping these things to themselves. By way of further stabilization, however, when someone who's forgotten the content of this particular memo pipes up and says something off-the-wall, there's a general understanding to smile and nod and pretend to be in agreement. The reason I know there's not is that I've occasionally been in these situations and, not being beholden to this state of affairs, try to get to the bottom of things, whereupon it becomes quickly apparent that "getting to the bottom of things" is NOT the order of the day, or of any day, in these environments.

I felt this is something Richard and PZ were sort of hinting at when they raised this issue regarding the scientific community.

Other Comments by razajac

7. Comment #216950 by Wosret on July 23, 2008 at 5:49 pm

"These are the building blocks of life, and like all building blocks, they are made by a carpenter -- named Jesus. Right after he burried the dinosaur bones". -- Stephen Colbert.

Other Comments by Wosret

8. Comment #216953 by Angels On a Pin Head on July 23, 2008 at 5:55 pm

At around 13-14 minutes, where Richard is talking about evolution as a trajectory through multidimensional space, he struggles to express the concept of resistance to evolution in certain directions. I think the concept he looking for here is "gradient" - certain directions in this multidimensional "organism space" have steep gradient (evolution in that direction is tough). Ironically the concept comes, I believe, straight from "Climbing Mount Improbable".

To extend this to the clade selection concept, there are certain "paths in space" that correspond to evolutionary innovations which we can visualise as taking an organism's offspring over a small lip into a wide plain that is crossed with many easily-travelled paths - i.e. to a large space of descendants that can be reached easily, without fearing either extinction, or steep climbs up an improbable evolutionary track.

Of course the "climbing mount improbable" concept falls down on one point - it's not a single organism that climbs the mountain, it is its offspring that find themselves born into a position in "organism space" at some point close to the parent, while the parent eventually dies off. In the clade selection concept, once an organism has reached our "wide plain full of paths" then its multiple offspring would be free to separately follow the multitude of different easily-travelled paths - i.e. to radiate rapidly into a variety of species.

Other Comments by Angels On a Pin Head

9. Comment #216965 by HappyPrimate on July 23, 2008 at 6:14 pm

Received the DVD today in the mail. Absolutely recommend buying it if you can. So nice to see this on the TV screen and can turn the sound up as loud as needed. I'd love to see many more of the DVDs of talks and lectures. Thanks RDF!

Other Comments by HappyPrimate

10. Comment #217092 by Angels On a Pin Head on July 23, 2008 at 10:16 pm

At around 25 minutes, Richard is talking about religious people who believe that their religion is incompatible with evolution - he is saying that we just have to show them the overwhelming evidence for evolution to shake their faith in their god.

I think the important thing here is that many religions also send out another message: that attacking any aspect of the religion is equivalent to attacking the things that people value in their lives. For example, that attacking the church is attacking the moral foundation for their lives; that the church is part of the major happy events of their life such as marriage and childbirth; that the church is a fundamental part of their social, public and private life, and their support network; that music and the arts are devalued if you devalue their spiritual inspiration; and that the ills of modern society are a result of people leaving the church. You see this presented explicitly (and clumsily) in the creationism museum where they have a section connecting the lack of Biblical literalism with a dystopia vision of life.

Life within a church has different aspects to it, some of which may be valuable while others may not be (someone's social network may be entirely based around the church, and friendships and support do have value). However the church makes its whole self important to people, augmenting any real value that it may have, by masquerading as a critical component of things that people understandably do value. People have strong emotional attachments to being moral, to friends and family, possibly they are even built into our thinking, and we are not going to give them up easily, so by associating the complete church package with things that are strongly emotionally valued, the church can recruit its members to its defence whenever any aspect of it or its doctrines is attacked.

We can see this in Roman Catholics. Questioned closely, many will admit to disagreeing with the official line on contraception, transubstantiation or immaculate conception, or at least they will try to avoid answering the question. However, the same people will quickly jump to the vigorous defence of such beliefs in public, and cheer the Pope on his visits. It seems to me that this is them defending the church, clearly the church is something of great importance to them.

I have a theory (not a scientific one) that there are almost always some people within a religion who personally question its supernatural teachings, and these people my get on with their lives in an almost religion-free way. However these people still defend their religion when they believe it to be under attack, because of the artificial importance the religion has to them - and it's the importance of the religion that I'm talking of here, not its supernatural teachings, about which they may privately have their doubts (doubts that they avoid thinking about too closely for fear of undermining their own faith in the church).

I don't think this is the same as Daniel Dennett's idea of "belief in belief", although they both have similar consequences in that otherwise intelligent individuals will end up defending beliefs that they may not hold themselves. In my formulation people are instinctively defending all aspects of a religious institution because it is made important to them - partially, and debatably, by having some worthwhile aspects, but more interestingly by parasitising values: locking itself into the value so the understandable instinct to defend the value is misdirected and the person who has had their values infected will start defending the religion in whatever way they can.

In societies where religion has significantly declined, it would be interesting to consider if it was the connection between the church and things of value in people's lives that eroded first, allowing people to leave the church and then admit that they weren't totally convinced about the "god" thing, or whether people stopped believing in their god for whatever reason, and then being apart from the church found they didn't need it or found secular alternatives to whatever it did provide.

But back to my original point, which I've forgotten.

Fx: scrolls up, scrolls down again.

Oh yes. So, if your aim is to promote atheism what tactics would you use? Richard suggested the method of claiming (or waiting while religious leaders claim) that religion and the discoveries of science are incompatible, and then jumping in and pointing out that the science side of the scales includes overwhelming evidence. Hence science wins, hence no God. QED

However, I would suggest the tactic of making religion less important to people. Some aspects of this may be practical things, such as providing alternative social and support networks. But other things might be attempts to disinfect people's values and to try to make people realise that, for example, you can be an atheist and a moral person, or that the church is not really connected with the world being a safe place to bring up their children.

The two tactics are not in conflict, or even the only things you can try. However, if you try the science-vs-religion and science is backed by overwhelming evidence tack on someone who has had their values parasitised by religion, many of them will simply pick religion over science, whatever contorted reasoning is required, because it is equivalent to then having to choose between science and their love for their family.

Other Comments by Angels On a Pin Head

11. Comment #217110 by beanson on July 23, 2008 at 11:21 pm

Excellent stuff

Other Comments by beanson

12. Comment #217369 by Diocletian on July 24, 2008 at 9:33 am

This is an excellent group of discussions. Well done Richard, Josh and those who took part in these discussions. I hope there are more to come and look forward to viewing them.

Other Comments by Diocletian

13. Comment #217690 by 35bluejacket on July 24, 2008 at 2:32 pm

Razajac:

Well written and said. It seems this "agreeable standoff" ia apparent in almost all relationships and limits any real close friendships, alliences or, to say the least, any intellectual growth in society.

Other Comments by 35bluejacket

14. Comment #217750 by Blake C. Stacey on July 24, 2008 at 3:24 pm

Wow — thanks for linking to my annotations! :-)

Other Comments by Blake C. Stacey

15. Comment #217865 by n0rr1s on July 24, 2008 at 6:05 pm

I see a comment from a religious person having gone unchallenged for a whole 45 minutes. What is this site coming to? ;)

#217825 by christianapologetic
I theink they should veer far away from a "Theory of everything". Its obvious that the reason that they havent found it is because maybe this creator (obviously a creator), want to keep a secret.

That is not at all obvious. If it is obvious to you, please supply the explanation for the rest of us (with evidence of course).

By far the most likely reason that a theory of everything has not yet been found is that it is quite a lot of work, and rather difficult. Give it time, progress is being made.

Other Comments by n0rr1s

16. Comment #218152 by MatthaiNazrani on July 25, 2008 at 12:46 am

I once shared Dawkins' surprise at the mention that Jesus created the world. Is it an American thing? I mean, in my Eastern Catholic background, it sounds very strange to say that Jesus created the world rather than say God did it, even though I suppose it's all the same. We (and Anglicans or the rest of Christianity apparently) must have a sort of division of labour between God and Jesus.

I wouldn't mind these videos so much if they wouldn't act so dismissive twoards religion.

Hmm. I'm sure that they are equally dismissive of Fairyism and the finer points of fairiology. I think somebody should complain.

Other Comments by MatthaiNazrani

17. Comment #218156 by MatthaiNazrani on July 25, 2008 at 12:54 am

I theink they should veer far away from a "Theory of everything". Its obvious that the reason that they havent found it is because maybe this creator (obviously a creator), want to keep a secret.

Is it "obvious" or is it "maybe"?

It sounds as though you realised that your statement is an unfounded speculation half way through the sentence.

Other Comments by MatthaiNazrani

18. Comment #218179 by AfraidToDie on July 25, 2008 at 3:15 am

16. Comment #217825 by christianapologetic: ...because maybe this creator (obviously a creator), want to keep a secret.

Wants to keep a secret? Why, is he/she "playing" with us. Santa and the tooth fairy f with us as well. Better be good "cause he's watch'n us"... u don't put that tooth under the pillow and she won't replace it with money. But don't worry, he's keeping the secret really well.

Other Comments by AfraidToDie

19. Comment #218256 by wfr on July 25, 2008 at 6:00 am

At about 00:31 in the interview with PZ, Professor Dawkins expresses an interest in the American "constitutional separation of church and state."

There is no such thing.

The famous phrase was penned by Thomas Jefferson in a letter to a church in the state of Connecticut, fourteen years after the Constitution was adopted. The story of this letter, and of Jefferson's reasons for writing it, are fascinating.

The Constitution itself guarantees freedom of religion. Nothing else on that topic.

Other Comments by wfr

20. Comment #218271 by Roger Stanyard on July 25, 2008 at 6:26 am

WFR: At about 00:31 in the interview with PZ, Professor Dawkins expresses an interest in the American "constitutional separation of church and state."

There is no such thing.

The famous phrase was penned by Thomas Jefferson in a letter to a church in the state of Connecticut, fourteen years after the Constitution was adopted. The story of this letter, and of Jefferson's reasons for writing it, are fascinating.

The Constitution itself guarantees freedom of religion. Nothing else on that topic.

REPLY: I don't understand this statement at all. If there is no seperation of church and state in the USA, why do creationists keep losing in the courts (Dover etc.)

If there is no seperation of church and state then the head of state is head of the church - as is the case in the UK.

How do you explain freedom of religion and lack of seperation of church and state. The two are mutually incompatible.

Moreover, freedom of religion means just that - to hold and practice any religious position including atheism. That means freedom from religion as well.

It is irrelevent if 99.9999% of the population want the state to promote religion. That is still incompatible with the very idea of freedom of (and from belief) and the basic rules of democracy.

The alternative is theocracy - like Iran - or the mess of Northern Ireland.

Do you really think that religion should and can be politicised given that there are some 33,000 different Christian denominations and sects and some 400 different religions world-wide. Whose religious opinions take priority?

So please explain yourself and do tell us which religion the state should not be seperate from. Please also tell us which religions it should therefore be seperate from and why.

Roger Stanyard, British Centre for Science Education

Other Comments by Roger Stanyard

21. Comment #218285 by wfr on July 25, 2008 at 6:45 am

Roger, forgive me for being unclear.

The point of my previous comment was that there is no basis for the doctrine of separation in the Constitution. In fact, there is no legal basis for it at all.

The practical separation which we Americans enjoy (with various degrees of success in various jurisdictions) is due to the opinion of our third President in 1802.

The doctrine of separation is a fine tradition, but it is merely a tradition. It works fairly well despite its lack of legal status. Sort of like the British government.

Other Comments by wfr

22. Comment #218324 by Roger Stanyard on July 25, 2008 at 8:42 am

Comment by WFR on Seperation of Church ansd State: "In fact, there is no legal basis for it at all."

I still don't get what you are saying. Are you saying that there was no legal basis for the defendents taking action in the Dover case, or numerous other US court cases, and that Judge Jones was hopelessly mistaken in his decision?

Other Comments by Roger Stanyard

23. Comment #218352 by wfr on July 25, 2008 at 9:45 am

No. The Dover decision was on the subject of teaching religion in Science class. The practice of teaching religion in publically-funded schools, where attendance is compulsory, violates freedom of religion.

My only point is that the phrase "separation of church and state" originated in a letter written by Thomas Jefferson. It has no statutory existence in our Constitution, nor in any Federal Law. Professor Dawkins's use of the words "constitutional separation of church and state" reflects a misunderstanding shared by many Americans. The professor, being British, can be excused for this misunderstanding. The Americans can not.

Other Comments by wfr

24. Comment #218371 by Roger Stanyard on July 25, 2008 at 10:23 am

WFR: I still don't understand. My limited knowledge of seperation of church and state in the USA is that it derives from the 1st Ammendment to the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Therefore it is a constitutional arrangement deeply embedded in US law.

You seem to suggest the whole matter is an exercise in fiction and that organisations such as Americans United are deeply deluded.

Other Comments by Roger Stanyard

25. Comment #218430 by wfr on July 25, 2008 at 12:38 pm

"...it derives from the 1st Ammendment to the Constitution and the Bill of Rights."

That is an OPINION, shared by many Americans, including Mr Jefferson.

Just for reference, here is the only clause in the Constitution that refers to religion: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"

What actually is derived from this clause is a body of judicial decisions which answer specific questions. Can we teach religion in public schools? No. Can we release pupils during the school day to receive religious instruction elsewhere? Yes. Can we use religion as an excuse not to pay taxes? No. Etc.

I suppose we could call this body of decisions the "separation of church and state," but the application of this label does not define the limits of the separation.

While the court decisions are "embedded in US law," the separation doctrine is not embedded at all.

Roger, thank you for the dialogue. I fear that we are abusing our privileges by carrying it out in this forum. Feel free to contact me at the hotmail address, fulda304.

Other Comments by wfr

26. Comment #218437 by wfr on July 25, 2008 at 12:45 pm

Allow me to correct myself. The US Constitution mentions religion in two places. The other one is this: "...no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."

My mistake.

-WFR

Other Comments by wfr

27. Comment #219976 by Happy Hominid on July 27, 2008 at 10:25 pm

This is interesting, even if it's http://anothergoddamnedpodcast.blogspot.com/">not exactly the Four Horsemen or four of our best scientists. More like a Herd of Heathens.

Other Comments by Happy Hominid

28. Comment #219977 by Happy Hominid on July 27, 2008 at 10:27 pm

Sorry about that link. Try this:
http://anothergoddamnedpodcast.blogspot.com/

Other Comments by Happy Hominid

29. Comment #220706 by Sigmund on July 29, 2008 at 12:56 am

"Four fascinating discussions between Richard Dawkins and some of today's top scientists. "
Wait a second, in what particular universe is PZ Myers a 'top scientist'?
I like his blog and don't doubt that he's a decent teacher, but top scientist! - you are joking right?
I would describe him as a scientific activist or more accurately a 'top scientific blogger' but 'top scientist' makes him sound like a nobel prize winner or someone who regularly publishes in the big journals pushing the boundaries of his field of interest - and that, unfortunately, is just not PZ.

Other Comments by Sigmund

30. Comment #220713 by Steve Zara on July 29, 2008 at 1:13 am

Comment #220706 by Sigmund

I am going to have to agree. I absolutely love PZ Myers' scientific posts, and from what I have seen he is a superb lecturer, but he is not one of the top biologists, and I am sure he would agree.

A far more appropriate title would have been:

"Four fascinating discussions between Richard Dawkins and some of today's top scientific communicators".

But, I have never heard of David Buss before, so perhaps the communicator bit is not that good either.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

31. Comment #221377 by jamesstephenbrown on July 29, 2008 at 2:56 pm

I get Dawkins' hesitance about using "group selection". But it seems completely wrong to me.

Surely in a situation where a group is exposed to low individual selection pressures and strong group selection pressures for instance in two waring tribes, a trait that has passed through one group by chance and diversity, and because of the genetic similarity of that group, if that trait is beneficial to winning the war, but simply neutral, or even malignant within the group (bearing in mind that the individual selection is low) then that trait - when put into conflict with the other group will be "group selected".

Can anyone help me with this?

Other Comments by jamesstephenbrown

32. Comment #222204 by VoxMoose on July 30, 2008 at 10:33 pm

Sigmund and Steve:
The "top scientist" group moniker is a stretch, but no reason to pick on PZ Myers alone. Steven Weinberg and David Buss are probably the only "top scientists" in the bunch by the definition of a "nobel prize winner or someone who regularly publishes in the big journals pushing the boundaries of his field of interest." Although Dawkins made contributions early, his currently held position at Oxford is technically that of "scientific communicator" (Charles Simonyi Professor of the Public Understanding of Science). Indeed, by Sigmund's definition, Sagan couldn't be regarded as a "top scientist" either.

However, marketing blurbs aside, all of them in the video are working scientists and seriously know their stuff, even if many aren't at the top of their raw publish-or-perish game. However, being a "science communicator" (especially after paying one's dues in the trenches) is a very noble pursuit. I personally like Steve's alternative marketing blurb.

Ironically, although at one point probably the top of the top scientists in the world, Weinberg isn't the greatest science communicator -- although he certainly has his moments. Being a "top scientist" isn't the main point of interest for the the video content, its that the people in the discussion are thought-provoking, articulate, informed, and educated on the key topics of interest.

Other Comments by VoxMoose

33. Comment #222236 by Sigmund on July 31, 2008 at 3:04 am

Voxmoose, try doing a little background reading on all four of those mentioned and you'll see that PZ sticks out like a sore thumb. Sagan certainly isn't a current top scientist. Because he's dead. When he was alive, however, he was clearly involved in numerous important discoveries and projects that pushed the boundaries of human knowledge (regarding the athmospheres of Venus and Titan and the idea of liquid water on various moons of the solar system - amongst many others) and, like three out of the four mentioned, has an impressive publication list.
To describe PZ as a top scientist is like calling Carl Zimmer a top scientist. I like both of them but to be a (top) scientist you actually need to do science rather than communicate the research that others have done. OK, that's my personal opinion and others may differ but I seriously think that experimental work is a necessary condition that shouldn't be overlooked.
That said I understand why Richard Dawkins might want to include PZ in this group of interviewees. While not exactly known for his science, he does have a high public profile that appeals to the target audience of this video and for that reason alone he is worth including. Just try to get the categories correct, please.

Other Comments by Sigmund