KnifeMissile

Someone in another thread linked this video of a Dawkins Q&A session after a presentation. You can watch the presentation, itself, if you like, which was basically a selected reading from his new book, The God Delusion. Personally, I think that the Q&A is more interesting...

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/qR_z85O0P2M"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/qR_z85O0P2M" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

There are a couple of things that made me feel that this is thread-worthy. I can't help but feel that Dawkins misunderstood several of the questions and I'm curious to see how my opinion compares with others'. Also, while some of the questions were very good, others were pretty silly and others, still, just made the questioner look foolish. Again, I'd like to see other opinions...

The audience is also very interesting. After every question comes an applause. There's also an applause after some of Dawkins more striking points. It appears to be a very supportive audience. The natural conclusion is that a presentation by Richard Dawkins will bring about his supporters. However, it does take place in Lynchburg, an apparently intensely religious area. Also, a disproportionate number of the questioners were theists, which might suggest that they are not his supporters. Now, there are a number of possible explanations for all of these observations but I still find them intriguing...

For your convenience, I will quote each of the questions here. I have removed all of the stammering and some context for brevity. It will still serve as a useful index and will certainly be less confusing than referring to "the sixth question..."






I haven't quoted it, here, but the questioner first delivers a joke that doubles as a backhanded jab to Dawkins. He also claims to be a scientist but doesn't say what field of science he practices. He delivers his question as if he's got a really good point and he doesn't expect Dawkins to have an adequate response. As it turns out, they agree and Dawkins has a good reason for agreeing. Furthermore, it seems to me that Dawkins feels that the questioner's objection serves to prove Dawkins atheistic assertions more than the questioner's religious ones. Indeed, this theme will come up, again, and I don't undrestand how it's supposed to support the theistic view...

**** A word I can't discern from context. It sounds like "ought."
---- A word I can't discern from context. It sounds like "can."
If someone knows what these words are supposed to be, I will gladly fix this quote...

The question's intent is still clear, or as clear as this non-question can get, anyway. What's unclear to me is how this "question" is any different than the previous one? It seems to be a rather important question to christians and I've seen it outside of this video.

I also began recognizing that theists draw distinctions that I do not. This questioner distinguishes "moral sense" from "morality." To me, this is like the Bush administration's distinction between homosexual behaviour and homosexuality...

I think this is the most interesting question posed in the entire session. People cling to religion so fastly that I think that Ustwo may be right when he says that people need religion.

Personally, I don't understand why atheists are so hated. Before Dawkins, I've never heard of any atheist attacking religion and, after watching some of his videos, I'm beginning to think that he isn't even all that militant. By some accounts, terrorists are more popular than atheists. I mean, I guess it makes some sense in that christians (are supposed to) think that God is more important than their lives but still...

A good question and one I don't think Dawkins really answers. He said what the point of all these "mock religions" are but he doesn't address the possibility that they do more harm than good by insulting the religous' beliefs. Furthermore, their point might be too subtle to be understood, especially in the face of the potential insult...

Again, I've never understood this obviously prevalent opinion of theists; that morality requires a "higher power." To me, this makes about as much sense as saying that morality implies the existence of a cup of tea...

EDIT:
Strangely, it seems to me as if Dawkins misunderstands this question. He responds by clarifying his opinion on the political electability of atheists which, frankly, doesn't appear to be the point of the question. Now, admittedly, the question is basically a repeat of some earlier questions so perhaps he's just trying to say something different with his given time?

Here's another non-question question. I get the sense that the questioner makes far too many associations in life. I think that a lot of misunderstandings in the world come from people making false associations. Things of the nature of always seeing blonde people driving blue cars and then assuming that all blonde drivers drive blue cars and that all blue cars must have blonde drivers.

Dawkins' interpretation of the question is interesting. He responds by talking about the extreme accuracy of very difficult to conceptualize scientific theories and compares that to the Holy Trinity which he claims isn't nearly as accurate.

Ethics and morality is a real sticking point for theists! This is my favourite question but only for its humour value. The questioner hasn't a clue how ridiculous his question is and Dawkins casually demonstrates it, with humour, to the entire audience.

Here's another distinction that theists make that I don't; the mind and the brain. I mean, I can make a distinction and use it in a sci-fi story where my mind is transfered into a computer but, obviously, the brain remains in my head. However, it looks like the questioner doubts that the brain can create a mind and that just seems silly to me. Especially when you can see how altering the brain alters the mind...

It also seems to me that the questioner has his religion rooted so deeply into him that he can't even conceive of how anyone can think of his notion "mind" in physiology...

I think this is just a silly question but Dawkins does his best to answer it...

Dawkins is obviously quite bitter about Antony Flew. So much so that, in answering the second part of the question, he had forgotten to answer the first!

This was an awful debacle of a question. He tried to ask two questions but was surprised by Dawkins' answer to his first question and so he asked a third one and even tried to ask, yet, another. As you will see, later, he will give his question to another to ask on his behalf...

The first question degenerated into a semantic argument; something I abhor and find terribly uninteresting.

The second question is, in my estimation, another example of people making false associations. Amazingly, he actually got an applause for his question, as if it were a striking point. I think this notion comes from the idea that everything must begin and end but I don't find this to be a reasonable conclusion...

Dawkins takes this question in a different direction than I would have. He assumes that there is a beginning, just as these theists do, and explains how the explanation of the physicists, as inadequate as they may be, are still more compelling than that of Creation...

This is the question where, I think, Dawkins clearly misunderstands the questioner's intention. It's interesting to see him try his best to make sense of it but I suspect she finds his answer unsatisfying...

A silly and pointless question but, amazingly, Dawkins has a good answer for it...

This is a continuation of an earlier question. My response would have been quite different than Dawkins. He appears to be annoyed by the question, as if he's been asked it too many times, and essentially replies that it's nonsense.

I would have tried to, at least, explain why it's nonsense. Both the notion that matter must "begin" and that God is outside of the "system."

I don't really understand the question and it appears that Dawkins doesn't, either. As always, he tries his best to answer. I think he said that a female God, if you could introduce the idea, just might help to improve society...

I'm surprised anyone would ask Dawkins such a personal question. I mean, it seems to me to be clearly outside his expertise. He's a biologist, not a social worker. What does he know about helping people face their families about their religious convictions or lack, thereof?

I can't believe there's actually a "university" that claims to have dinosaur fossils so young and, apparently, either can Dawkins. He goes farther than I would have in accusing the University of spreading false claims and actually urges people attending it to leave and go to a "proper univesrity."




I expect that this might be look like a long post. In my defense, my monitor is 2560 pixels wide so most of these quotes fit on a single line and, thus, they don't look particularly long to me. Either way, I hope people enjoyed the Q&A and I look forward to other interpretations of the video!

SecretMethod70

I, unfortunately, don't have the time to watch the whole Q&A session at the moment, but I look forward to doing so and hopefully providing some input (although, I suspect I won't have much to disagree with Dawkins about).

That said, for now I just want to make a note about that final fossil question. It's unfortunate that Dawkins hadn't heard of Liberty University beforehand. However harsh his response was, I can only imagine it would be even moreso if he knew exactly what Liberty University is. Still, I'm a bit surprised that he wasn't made aware of it considering Liberty University is based in Lynchburg, Virginia - where this BookTV presentation took place.

For those who are not aware, Liberty University is a university founded by Jerry Falwell. From what I have heard, its curriculum is as offensive as the man who founded it.

Amusingly, the question asked of Dawkins is actually referenced on the Wikipedia page for Liberty University. That reference is followed by this information which goes further to show how absolutely deficient Liberty University is when it comes to having any credibility whatsoever...

__________________
Le temps détruit tout

"Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling

CSflim

People go on and on about Dawkins (and other unashamed atheists) being such "extremists" and being so "intolerant" and "disrespectful" and "hurtful". When you actually read and listen to what they have to say you will find that they are nothing of the sort. They are certainly passionate and powerful in their discussions on religion. Two simple thought experiments;

1: Have a look at the relative levels of intolerance on the other end of the theist-atheist spectrum. Even among relatively reasonable and tolerant Christians, you will find them every Sunday attending discussions where it is routinely asserted that those who do not believe as they do deserve to be mercilessly tortured for eternity. (Not all Christians believe this of course, but a lot do, even some of the apparently more tolerant ones). And I don't even have to mention the level of hatred found amongst the less tolerant theists - openly condoning genocide against others. Now go back to the rather measured and careful criticism of Dawkins and co. Dawkins has never encouraged any kind of violence against theists and has never even suggested that religious people are immoral people. At worst he has said that religion has been used to justify many horribly immoral acts - a statement which seems to be utterly beyond dispute by any reasonable person.

2: Take a piece of Dawkins discussing religion. Now in your head change the top of conversation from religion to....well anything else: politics, competing economic theories, whatever. Does it still sound like an extremist's rant? Or does it just come across as a strongly argued piece of political writing (or whatever)? In my mind it is most certainly the latter. Unlike politics, people are not used to hearing religion being criticized, which is why it always appears to be in such bad taste to do so.

So what can we draw from all this? Why does Dawkins seem to be so "hardcore" (to use the expression used by the OP of a different Dawkins thread). In truth it says more about religion and its position in society than it does about the writings and opinions of one out-spoken scientist. Religion has managed to place itself into a rather unique place in society. One which lays claim to a massive influence on people's lives (being the ultimate arbitier on all moral issues, being the only valid source of meaning in people's lives, etc), but yet at the same time insists that it must never be challenged, because to do so is to be deemed "intolerant" or "insensitive to the feelings of others". It has little to do with what Dawkins has to say or how he says it and everything to do with how people regard religion as such a precious, fragile things that must be protected from all criticism. This idea is not even limited to theists. It affects atheists in droves, who having come to the conclusion that religion is bunkum, still insist on defending it to the last (presumably because it is acceptable for an intellectual such as themselves to be without supernatural beliefs, but the illusions must be defended for the benefit of the ignorant unwashed masses ). Of course this kind of "betrayal" is doubly painful for the unashamed atheists amongst us.

Douglas Adams (a close friend of Dawkins) made this point very well:
I would also thoroughly recommend the book "Breaking The Spell" by Daniel Dennett which discusses these ideas at length.

__________________

Infinite_Loser

It's worth noting that if Dawkins finds a question he can't answer he'll either 1.) Respond with a sarcastic comment or 2.) Ignore it completely.

I'd ask Dawkins this question: "Science is built on induction, which entails searching out things in the world and drawing generalized conclusions about those things based on observation. Whenever science is unable to prove that something exists, it merely states that the object might exist but that there is no scientific evidence supporting that claim. Scientists can only draw conclusions on what they find, not on what they can't find so how, exactly, can a scientist claim that God doesn't exist? I've yet to see a scientist openly claim that aliens don't exist because they've never seen one."

__________________
I believe in equality; Everyone is equally inferior to me.

CSflim

First of all: there are plenty of philosophical problems associated with using science to determine the truth. This is well known and accepted. And it is pointed out very frequently. What is pointed out less frequently is that it's the best we've got. Certainly there are difficulties with science, but it is certainly massively superior to the process of say, divine inspiration (a process which is utterly indistinguishable to an impartial observer to the process of making crap up). So by all means be critical of science's ability to get at the truth; just apply such stringent requirements equally across the board: do not apply double standards and let off "other ways of knowing"^TM too lightly.

Second: The existence or not of aliens is not on a par with the existence or not of a god. There is at least some evidence for the possibility of life on other planets, that evidence being; life on this planet. It is generalizing from an extremely limited sample size (i.e. 1), but all that the "extra terrestrial life" hypothesis is saying is ultimately "more of the same, elsewhere". It is nothing more than a rather tentative application of induction. Since we know that life on this planet evolved, and suspect that similar conditions and materials exist elsewhere in the universe, it remains a possibility. It is reasonable to not wish to draw premature conclusions. It is a genuinely open question.

Third: "Scientists can only draw conclusions on what they find, not on what they can't find so how, exactly, can a scientist claim that God doesn't exist?", this argument in one form or another (i.e. the shift of the burden of proof) seems to be the favorite argument of very many theists: You can't prove that I'm wrong, therefore I must be right (or at the very least on 50:50 odds). Of course this is the ultimate point in the wide range of "mock religions" that the OP wondered about. Whether it involves orbitting teapots, Invisible Pink Unicorns or Flying Spaghetti Monsters, the point is always the same: the inability to refute an assertion is not enough to establish its veracity. Stated otherwise:
"Just because there is no answer one is justified in giving, does not mean that one is justified in giving whatever answer one will" (Daniel Harbour). Or to answer your question more clearly; atheists are not claiming the non-existence of a god despite the lack of evidence, but because of it.

__________________

Willravel

Richard Dawkins might reply: God is a scientific improbability along the same likeliness as my own farts learning how to read or my cell phone acting as a time machine. Those who embrace god as reality are deluded. The argument that you cannot disprove god is probably the weakest of all god arguments. It proves nothing except that the arguer is able to believe in something absent of ANY proof. It's as safe to claim that God doesn't exist as it is to claim that I've wasn't hatched from an egg. If someone seriously accused me of hatching from an egg, you'd say, "No, he was born". You'd be right. If someone said that God is real and I said, "No he isn't", I'd be right.

KnifeMissile

Specifically, which questions did he respond to in this manner? Of the questions posed in this thread, the theistic qustioners were far more sarcastic than he was...

I'm guessing you didn't actually watch the video? I say this because he answers your very question with his response to question #4:

Infinite_Loser

Dawkin's is almost always sarcastic

Anyway, I'd simply ask him how he came to the conclusion that the invisible pink unicorn-- Or any other mythological being-- Doesn't exist since he has no evidence to disprove the notion that they do exist. If he wants to argue based on the scientific method, then I want him to show the scientific evidence which disproves the existence of God.

...Of course, that evidence doesn't exist.

As you pointed out, he has no rebuttal for such a question because there isn't one. Asserting that God doesn't exist takes just as much faith as asserting that God does exist.

That's nice and all, but you really didn't answer my question: Since when has science ever considered a lack of supporting evidence to equal non-existence?

...And, as I'm sure you're well aware, the exact same reasoning you've used here to argue for the existence of aliens has also been used to argue for the existence of God.

First and foremost, there theists possess no burden of proof. You seem to forget that theistic beliefs aren't based on any set of logical reasoning. Our beliefs are based on faith, and faith is very, very different from logic. If anyone must disprove the notion of God, it's you. Anywho, I'll ask this again (As I fear I'm being ignored); Since when has a lack of evidence ever been equatable to non-existence? Making a concrete assertion based on inconclusive/incomplete evidence is not only absurd but also isn't scientific in the least.

Any scientist worth his or her salt knows that science will never be able to qualify the existence of God, and to trying to do so is futile. Religion works in the realm which science simply can't and never will be able to explain. Theists need no rational explanation of God nor do we need to prove that He exists, as we have faith he exists. You, on the other hand, feel the need to rationalize God based upon human limitations (Which, by the way, you'll never be able to do). So, until the day you can pull out some scientific evidence which states "God doesn't exist!", I'll take all atheist arguments with a grain of salt, as they have no logical basings.

__________________
I believe in equality; Everyone is equally inferior to me.

Ch'i

Why would Atheists be required to refute something that has not yet been established? The lack of burden for Theists is the basis for skepticism in Atheism.
Its been said before, but I'll say it again. There is no proof of God's existence, and saying that science is absurd for pointing that out is, absurd.

I worship a Nilla Waifer which rules from a place called Nabisco, for instance. This snack exists in a dimension we cannot comprehend. Science is trying to tell me that because there is no proof of it's existence, it probably does not exist. I find science' judgement to be incorrect sense they cannot disprove the ruling cracker.

I have twenty-four H2 Hummers stacked ontop of one another in my front yard, next to a tree. This probably is untrue, but sense you have no idea what my financial situation is, or the assets I may, or may not posses, you cannot say for certain that there are not, in fact, twenty-four H2's in front of my house. That's Atheism.
Thank you for the contradiction.
Explain the logic pertaining to faith. You're argument in favor of Theism could be pursuasive on a philosophical platform, but not in the faculty of reason.

Infinite_Loser

I already answered this:

That's why.

That's not even close to anything I've said up to now. Pointing out the fact that there is no physical evidence of God's existence isn't absurd. Stating that God doesn't exist because of a lack of physical evidence, however, is absurd.

Lack of evidence doesn't equal non-existence.

Whatever you want to believe is fine, but let me correct you on something: Science doesn't claim that an object doesn't exist if there is no evidence of it but rather that the object might exist in the absence of scientific evidence. That's, like, the third time I've repeated that.

Oh, and we can probably prove that the notion that you have twenty-four Hummers stacked on top of each other in your yard untrue, as it's physical and is easily qualified.

There was no contradiction.

Did you, like, not read anything I typed out? I don't have to explain my faith based on logical reasoning as faith is, by nature, illogical and isn't based on reason.

__________________
I believe in equality; Everyone is equally inferior to me.

Ch'i

You made the assertion that science will never be able to prove the existence of God after poiting out the fallacy in "making a concrete assertion based on inconclusive/incomplete evidence."
All hail Nilla Waifer. Atheists are not saying "God does not exist", but rather "God probably does not exist." There's, like, a difference.
Explain how faith is seperate from logic and reason.

Frosstbyte

Those of us who are atheists or agnostics see a very clear line of logic, IL. We're making logical, fact-based arguments. Your faith specifically rejects either the need for or the presence of a logical, fact-based foundation. If you want to engage us in an argument-which is what you're trying to do-we're going to engage you with our facts and our logic. We're looking at the world and observing and drawing conclusions. None of our evidence, arranged in any logical order, suggests there is a god. That fact is unimportant to you, because you believe in god simply because you believe in god. That fact is paramount to us because we see no reason to believe in god unless we can prove that there is a god.

You won't undermine our arguments or Dawkins' by saying, "I believe and that's the point, to believe without evidence." Nor, for that matter, are we likely to undermine yours.

The point remains, in a scientific inquiry which you seem to be so concerned about, the burden is on the person presenting the hypothesis. The hypothesis, in this case, is that god exists. From a scientific perspective, the burden is not on us to disprove, but rather for theists to prove. As repeated above, an infinite number of possible things can be disproved, the disproof of which does not correspondingly prove anything. Thus, from a scientific perspective (which you may or may not care about), theists need to prove there is a god.

Which is all to say, science-as an abstract field-does not necessarily make the blanket claim that god doesn't exist, not can it. Scientists and people who choose to believe there is no god look at-what we believe to be-an overwhelming amount of evidence which strongly suggests that god does not exist. Given that evidence, we choose to make the (to us) logical assumption that god does not exist.

So you are right that science can't prove that god doesn't exist. If that in some way vindicates you, fine. It does not, however, make you any more correct. I can't disprove that my desk is made up of 300000000000000000 tiny potato chips. That doesn't mean that it is made up of tiny potato chips any more than its made out of balsa wood or plastic or metal or dried spit.

CSflim

All of the time. Any scientific idea which is to be without any supporting evidence is very quickly discarded. Some get carried along as "extra baggage" with other theories and so manage to survive for a while.

There is no scientific evidence for the non-existence of Luminiferous aether (rather what once constituted the evidence in its favor was debunked). Exactly what constitutes "evidence of the non-existence of something" is very unclear to me.

When a new drug is under-going testing, it is on the hypothesis that the drug contains some sort of beneficial properties. If after a controlled trial, it is found that the drug fared no better than the placebo, then the drug is discarded. In other words due to the lack of evidence showing that this drug has any beneficial properties, it is asserted that the drug is useless. The argument "well you haven't actually proved that drug does not have any medicinal properties, merely failed to show that is does" is not going to cut it with any medical journal on the planet.

Well first of all, I wasn't arguing for the existence of aliens. It would be a very poor argument, as I have offered spectacularly little evidence. However even an argument as poor as this one could not be made in favor of the existence of a god. As I stated, extra-terrestrial life is nothing more than "more of what we have here, somewhere else". It is saying that what happened on this planet, may have happened elsewhere. However the existence or not of a god is emphatically not simply "more of the same".


Ok, my challenge was implicit in my previous post. Allow me to make it explicit:

Do you believe in the Invisible Pink Unicorn? If not, why not? Can you prove that this particular conception of a god does not exist? Merely pointing to the complete and utter lack of evidence in its favor is apparently not enough.

Any atheist would be (rightly) laughed out of the room if he asserted "I don't need to back up my argument, I have faith that God does not exist". Why the asymmetry?

__________________

KnifeMissile

Actually, I was looking for some opinions on my interpretation of the questions and answers rather than to create yet another theists are irrational versus atheists are just as irrational debate...

smooth

No, IL is absolutely correct.

In scientific inquiry, you present a hypothesis...that is true what you've written. But it's on no one to "prove" anything, in fact you can't.

Science only disproves. Science falsifies the hypothesis or fails to support the null hypothesis (the anti-hypothesis if you will). there's a slew of statistical jumproping to be done, but never would a scientist claim proof for anything...oh perhaps short of a mathmatical proof but that is not the same thing.

but to say one is an atheist, that person claims there is no deity. there is no scientific basis for the atheist. I have no idea why when these threads keep coming up there is a melding of atheism with agnosticism. they are not the same, not related on a logical basis.

and our western flavor of inductive logic is not the only, nor has it ever even been accepted to be the "best" type of science.


without listening to the whole thing, I suspect that the missing words are: "ought" and "can"
to seperate should do from ability.
ought == should (moral claim)
can == actual ability


the reason theists seperate morality from moral sense is because they are curious how, from a evolutionary standpoint, something like a moral claim would come into existence. why would humans need morals, is the base of those questions.

for a theist, morality is an objective fact. it comes from a source outside the natural order. they want the naturalist to explain how it comes to being within the natural order. it's a legitimate question.

if you want to understand it vis-a-vis the homosexual vs. homosexuality argument, although I don't think it's analogous myself, I would have to say that on the whole, theists view homosexual behavior as an action. whereas some might understand homosexual as a state of being, even if they don't admit it's basis as an uncontrollable state (e.g., a genetic state), then the person is still called to stop the sinful or undesirable behavior--even if he or she remains a "homosexual" he or she must not do the actions of one.

__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann

"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman

Darth_Kettch

Very interesting Q&A, thanks for posting it! I find myself agreeing with most (all) of his points. Suppose I'd better go buy that book of his, then