1. Comment #386213 by Dhamma on June 9, 2009 at 1:10 pm

I'd more than love to listen to these clips, but the sound quality is so low it's unbearable.

Other Comments by Dhamma

2. Comment #386221 by HBarca on June 9, 2009 at 1:28 pm

Argh it hurts my eyes and ears, better qual anyone?

Other Comments by HBarca

3. Comment #386225 by elpopstardo on June 9, 2009 at 1:39 pm

Tomahawk rock!!!!!!!!

Other Comments by elpopstardo

4. Comment #386233 by /Mike on June 9, 2009 at 1:52 pm

If you double click to go to the YouTube site there is an HQ button at the bottom right of the screen which helps the audio quality a bit.

Other Comments by /Mike

5. Comment #386242 by Diacanu on June 9, 2009 at 2:18 pm

I've seen amateur porno with better quality than this.

Was this taped on Scotch tape with barbed-wire rust sprinkled on for the oxide?

Other Comments by Diacanu

6. Comment #386247 by theinquisitor on June 9, 2009 at 2:26 pm

This was recorded back in the dark ages of the internet (1998). The days of 56k modems when the only streaming video format was low-res real media. The originals aren't much better, but if you want to try it, google "Der Digitale Planet".

Also, I'm chuffed to see some videos from my youtube channel on this site, even though my channel is mostly a platform for the work of other people. The individual lectures of the speakers are also very good, especially Douglas Adams http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=msAF_MDYWNE

Other Comments by theinquisitor

7. Comment #386251 by the great teapot on June 9, 2009 at 2:35 pm

Those who complain about the quality

Douglas has been dead for quite some time now.
wish it were not the case, but what can one do?

May be watching amateur porn is the only response.

Other Comments by the great teapot

8. Comment #386267 by wetbread on June 9, 2009 at 3:10 pm

Sheesh. Anyone spoiled around here? The quality of the AV does indeed suck, but the quality of the conversation is fantastic.

Other Comments by wetbread

9. Comment #386281 by SilentMike on June 9, 2009 at 3:29 pm

I remember I had that event in the real player format years ago... It was a very interesting set of lectures, as well as the discussion. I treated it almost like audio due to the quality.

I think It would be better to have it as one movie clip. If there are no copyright issues (after all, 1998...) then why not have a MOV available? It shouldn't demand much bandwidth in this quality anyway.

Other Comments by SilentMike

10. Comment #386290 by ChaunceyGardner on June 9, 2009 at 3:40 pm

is that a rug jared is wearing?

great discussion. audio quality improves a little after the first few minutes

Other Comments by ChaunceyGardner

11. Comment #386293 by mig... on June 9, 2009 at 3:53 pm

2. Comment #386221 by HBarca
"Argh it hurts my eyes and ears"



Knowledge doesn't come easy my son...

Other Comments by mig...

12. Comment #386296 by Lucas on June 9, 2009 at 4:04 pm

mig... - Dig the avatar... but I've got kryptonite gauntlets!

Other Comments by Lucas

13. Comment #386297 by movingshadow on June 9, 2009 at 4:07 pm

oh so there's a little distortion, sounds fines

Other Comments by movingshadow

14. Comment #386299 by Zzyx1170 on June 9, 2009 at 4:25 pm

Dhamma wrote:

I'd more than love to listen to these clips, but the sound quality is so low it's unbearable.

I found the original RealMedia files (http://www.web-for-vision.com:8080/ramgen/SPIEGEL/Wfv_Isdn.smil) which have better-quality sound.

The whole thing comes out to almost 3 hours which I converted to 2 mp3 files at:
http://www.mediafire.com/download.php?rz2tuwzo2tm
http://www.mediafire.com/download.php?mzjntvt1wmy

Other Comments by Zzyx1170

15. Comment #386302 by Ygern on June 9, 2009 at 4:44 pm

What a great talk to listen to. Thank you for posting it. And my how young everyone looks :)

Other Comments by Ygern

16. Comment #386359 by Sunday Afternoon on June 9, 2009 at 7:40 pm

Thanks Zzyx1170!

Other Comments by Sunday Afternoon

17. Comment #386383 by Fuzzy Duck on June 10, 2009 at 12:28 am

The most epic discussion EVER.


-Kevin

Other Comments by Fuzzy Duck

18. Comment #386388 by NakedCelt on June 10, 2009 at 12:46 am

I would very much indeed like to hear Richard's answer to Douglas's final question in video #4, which nobody answered because they'd run out of time.

Other Comments by NakedCelt

19. Comment #386397 by Michael Conrad on June 10, 2009 at 1:12 am

For those complaining about audio quality: A transcript of Adams' lecture/speech can be found in "A Salmon of Doubt". And this lecture is by far my favourite text in this book.

Edit: you can also find it online: http://www.biota.org/people/douglasadams/

Other Comments by Michael Conrad

20. Comment #386457 by 0strich on June 10, 2009 at 4:09 am

thanks for the conversion, Zzyx1170!

Other Comments by 0strich

21. Comment #386474 by Pyrion on June 10, 2009 at 4:45 am

I think its appropriate to link a famous speech of douglas here:

Douglas Adams' speech at Digital Biota 2
Cambridge U.K., September 1998

[url]http://www.biota.org/people/douglasadams/[/url]

Other Comments by Pyrion

22. Comment #386480 by Peter Grant on June 10, 2009 at 5:04 am

Zzyx1170,

I managed to download the second file but the first one isn't working. When I click on it, it redirects to:

http://download22.mediafire.com/yd5hqxzuxeyg/rz2tuwzo2tm/Evolutionary Perspectiv es - 1.mp3

Sitting behind a proxy, can you please post the direct link for the first half.

Thanks :)

Other Comments by Peter Grant

23. Comment #386506 by flying goose on June 10, 2009 at 6:28 am

What an interesting observation by Douglas Adams,

We create imaginary entities and they are very very useful to us.

and the anecdote from Bali, and the final question about the baby and the bath water. Pity there was not more time.

Do they go on to discuss it afterwards? Any conclusions?

Other Comments by flying goose

24. Comment #386511 by mixmastergaz on June 10, 2009 at 6:43 am

Hi there, F.G.

Douglas is riffing on an idea he elucidates more fully in his posthumously-published collection of essays and journalism 'The Salmon of Doubt'. There's more to be found therein. I'd recommend it, but then I'm a huge fan of Douglas's work.

I agree; it is an interesting observation. I was also struck by Dan Dennett's remark that maybe what they (the panel) were doing was rather like the crow whispering to Dumbo that the feather isn't really magic. I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on that.

Other Comments by mixmastergaz

25. Comment #386517 by Koldtoft on June 10, 2009 at 7:08 am

Very intresting. Would be´even better with better audio quality (or just english subtitles)

When is this recording from ?

Other Comments by Koldtoft

26. Comment #386519 by flying goose on June 10, 2009 at 7:13 am

mixmastergaz

I was also struck by Daniel Dennett's remark. It is not unrelated to Cupitt's notion that God, is a useful fiction, or that religion contains useful fictions.

Of course all this was recorded before 9/11, that might have changed minds.

I am not so convinced by Richard's view that we end up with the religion of our parents. I see ample, albeit anecdotal evidence to the contrary.


Diarmaid McCulloch, a reformation specialist says that many of the most fervent reformers were the children of fervent Catholics.

Religion may indeed have some familial connections. But as is pointed out here. Many atheists have been brought up as religious.

But to be fair to Richard, he admits to guessing, (I think) and Religious studies or anthropology is not his specialism.

Edit Neither of course are they mine.

Other Comments by flying goose

27. Comment #386557 by movingshadow on June 10, 2009 at 8:49 am

"Diarmaid McCulloch, a reformation specialist says that many of the most fervent reformers were the children of fervent Catholics."

"reformers" are another subdivision of christianity, are they not? Still, basically, same religion as the parents in that case.

Other Comments by movingshadow

28. Comment #386561 by mixmastergaz on June 10, 2009 at 8:54 am

F.G.

'Useful fiction' is an interesting phrase. It's refreshing to hear such a view expressed here. Although I wouldn't describe myself as a person of faith by any means, I do still find many aspects of liberal Christianity appealing. I hesitated to type that because, I think for many regulars here, to be an atheist seems to require an animosity towards religion that I don't generally feel, and I'm anticipating being hauled across the coals for even saying such a thing. I also take your point about inheriting one's parents' religion. I think although some do break-free of their up-bringing (and many of those who do seem to find themselves posting here!), I'd say that Richard is pointing to a general trend. Of course, being free to choose one's own religious affiliation is a luxury open only to some of us...

Other Comments by mixmastergaz

29. Comment #386597 by flying goose on June 10, 2009 at 10:13 am

movingshadow

We might view it like that, our minds, even secular ones, have been conditioned by ecumenism.

They would not, I think, have seen it like that in the 16th century. Goodness me in parts of the world, there are those who still would not see it like that.

Other Comments by flying goose

30. Comment #386603 by flying goose on June 10, 2009 at 10:42 am

mixmastergaz

'for many regulars here , to be an atheist seems to require an animosity towards religion'

For many maybe, but by no means all regulars.

being free to choose one's own religious affiliation is a luxury open only to some of us...

This is something that the most ardent fanatic should be thankful for. Thankful to the enlightenment that made it possible.

The possibility of choice in religion, or indeed no religion makes possible a sincerity in religion which our forebears could only have dreamt of.

Other Comments by flying goose

31. Comment #386616 by Quine on June 10, 2009 at 11:27 am

The possibility of choice in religion, or indeed no religion makes possible a sincerity in religion which our forebears could only have dreamt of.

This is a very important concept. I believe it was Jefferson who observed that forced religion produces not piety, but hypocrisy.

Other Comments by Quine

32. Comment #386618 by Zzyx1170 on June 10, 2009 at 11:34 am

Peter Grant wrote:

I managed to download the second file but the first one isn't working.

....

Sitting behind a proxy, can you please post the direct link for the first half.

Right now, the direct link to the first file is:
here
but I'm not sure if that link changes.

Other Comments by Zzyx1170

33. Comment #386702 by NakedCelt on June 10, 2009 at 7:53 pm

I can see two potential "uses" for religion. Neither requires actually believing in gods and things, just retaining certain traditions from existing religions.

(1) Memes are subject to natural selection, and although infectable the human brain is not defenceless. It is generally a good trick for a meme to make itself (economically) useful. Therefore, we can predict that religious behaviours with economic consequences will be good for their practitioners more often than chance will predict, even if the religious belief it is based on is nonsense.

For an introduction to the theory, see Marvin Harris' Cows, Pigs, Wars and Witches: he discusses this at some length for the Hindu "cows are sacred" meme and the Muslim "pigs are unclean" meme, among many others. The logic goes something like this:

First, someone develops a superstitious behaviour. Most of us have our little superstitions about this and that. Let's say that someone in Bronze Age Europe cuts down an oak tree, and next day his cows fall sick. No connection, but he makes one in his own brain. He never cuts down an oak again.

Second, the superstition spreads. Generally, this would have to mean that the originator thinks up a reason for the superstition that makes sense to other people. "Making sense" doesn't have to mean it's actually rational; "oak trees belong to the gods and they'll punish us if we cut them down" makes sense enough, especially to a Bronze Age European mind, to get accepted.

But for the superstition to become a widespread practice, it usually has to achieve more than that. After all, the tribe in the next valley is just as likely to believe that oak trees are under a curse and must be cut down wherever they're found.

Now, here's the thing. Oak trees grow far too slowly to be realistically cultivated by small-scale subsistence farmers. But acorns are a nutritious food, albeit rather bitter, and oaks can survive climatic crises that might wipe out a crop of wheat or peas. Hence -- for a reason unconnected with the original superstition -- it really is a good idea not to cut oak trees down.

Along comes a freak storm. The crops die, and the oak-revering tribe subsists on acorns for a season. The oak-abominating tribe lacks that resource. There are three ways it might go next: perhaps the oak-abominating tribe dies out completely and the oak-reverers move into their patch; perhaps the oak-reverers now have a military advantage (greater numbers, better-fed warriors) over the abominators, and kill them; perhaps the abominators, noting the better fortune of their neighbours, decide their gods are not strong enough and turn to worshipping the oak gods instead. Or any combination of the three. The point is, the meme of oak-reverence spreads because it really is a good idea to leave oak trees standing.

Hence, although we can safely reject (for instance) the idea that cows are sacred to the Hindu gods, we should probably be careful about throwing out the idea that it's good sense to keep your cow alive if you live in India. We should do some careful ecological research first, at least.

(2) Cat books routinely tell you that frightened or angry cats raise their backs and make their hair stand on end "to make themselves look bigger". I always used to wonder about that: how does the deception keep on working? Why don't the other cats figure out that it's a deception, and stop paying attention to it, thus making it useless as a signal and eliminating it?

Well, because it's not actually a pure deception. Sure, a raised back and fluffed-out fur don't mean that you're faced with a big cat. But they do mean that you're faced with an angry cat, and that's something you might -- if you're cat-sized yourself -- do very well to heed.

Now think about people. We routinely say "Good luck" to our friends when they're going for an exam or a sports match or similar. The practice presumably arose out of a belief that there is such a thing as "luck" and that it is potentially increased by wishing. Should we therefore chuck out the phrase "Good luck" as irrational nonsense?

Of course not. Saying "good luck" to someone won't materially affect their chances, but it nevertheless communicates a genuinely useful social message. Something analogous will be true of many, many religious practices in different traditions around the world.

Baby and bathwater... You can see why people don't like atheism, if they think we're going to take away all that useful communication.

Other Comments by NakedCelt

34. Comment #386705 by HappyPrimate on June 10, 2009 at 8:09 pm

Quite an interesting discussion. I noted that this took place pre 9/11 and therefore I think the discussion regarding religion was very different than post. Very enjoyable nonetheless once you get use to the sound distortions. Sort of like listening to an old scratched record. Some of you may be old enough to remember those.

Other Comments by HappyPrimate

35. Comment #386721 by Peter Grant on June 10, 2009 at 10:49 pm

Zzyx1170,

Thanks for the link, but I managed to download it at home last night :)

Other Comments by Peter Grant

36. Comment #386813 by PERSON on June 11, 2009 at 5:24 am

"You can see why people don't like atheism, if they think we're going to take away all that useful communication."
The problem is that in some cases, they are right. If one is disposed to be insensitive to the function of such signals, being able to dismiss them as irrational and thus useless or even harmful is tempting. And many succumb, I think. It was the essence of the modernist project, ISTM.

Other Comments by PERSON

37. Comment #387045 by nonsuch on June 11, 2009 at 8:43 pm

14. Comment #386299 by Zzyx1170 on June 9, 2009 at 4:25 pm

Dhamma wrote:

I'd more than love to listen to these clips, but the sound quality is so low it's unbearable.

I found the original RealMedia files (http://www.web-for-vision.com:8080/ramgen/SPIEGEL/Wfv_Isdn.smil) which have better-quality sound.

The whole thing comes out to almost 3 hours which I converted to 2 mp3 files at:
http://www.mediafire.com/download.php?rz2tuwzo2tm
http://www.mediafire.com/download.php?mzjntvt1wmy

THANK YOU! THANK YOU! THANK YOU! Zzyx1170

Thank you for taking the time to do that, it is much appreciated.

There are so many video-only lectures and clips posted here, it is very frustrating. Many don't have the time to sit and watch these lectures/discussions (bad audio or not!), and I wish an mp3 could be provided for all of them. I am sure that many here who do not have the time to sit and watch them would then be able to at least LISTEN to them. (JOSH: something to consider? Just thinking of a way this website could be even better).

Other Comments by nonsuch

38. Comment #388835 by Dr Doctor on June 18, 2009 at 8:07 am

@FlyingGoose

I am not so convinced by Richard's view that we end up with the religion of our parents. I see ample, albeit anecdotal evidence to the contrary.

If I remember correctly he indicated that it was overwhelmingly the case, not something that always followed, and the context of the statement was about now (the time of the talk) into the past.

Anyhow, this was one of the more fascinating discussions yet shown by RD.net, even if it wasn't as slick as some and had some audio quality problems (so what, learn to listen to what is said, the quality wasn't that distracting).

I thoroughly enjoyed seeing Douglas Adams in that setting.

Other Comments by Dr Doctor

39. Comment #390976 by jsrail on June 24, 2009 at 9:40 pm

Thanks to Zzyx1170 for the download links. Being someone who has been an atheist for many years, I have not spent much time really thinking about it. I came across Richard's website here and began to listen to speeches and such on various topics for the atheist community and find it all facsinating. I have been struck with a rather nasty nerve disease that, so far, keeps me in bed for 2/3 of a day. This has given me much time to listen and think about things such as this discussion, and I am very thankful for it. For someone who has dealt many years with a client base which was 95% evangelical christians, it is refreshing to read the thoughts of folks who thing like me and I learn from as well.

Other Comments by jsrail