* please watch at least 1 video before posting. so far there have been too many posts which are answerable by any of these vids.
Richard Dawkins is an evolutionary biologist at Oxford University and one of the leading proponents in the understanding of Darwinism. Dawkins is most well known for standing up against non scientific forms of thought such as superstition, spiritualism and religion. He's been one of my favorite intellectuals to read and listen to so i figured there were probably other people on this forum who might enjoy some of his work. I've complied a list of his documentaries and videos of him. There is well over four hours of stuff to watch here. I found Dawkins about a year ago by an older TL.net thread so i figured i'd post a more comprehensive list of his stuff here.
DISCLAIMER: As you might have guessed already there are topics in this video that involve religion. I realize religion threads on tl.net tend to be a bit explosive. I don't want this thread to be closed. Please keep any discussion here civil or don't post at all.
"The Enemies of Reason" focuses on superstitious belief and it's negative ramifications on society. Dawkins attacks astrology, spiritual consulting and other such methods which conflict with science. This is the first video of Dawkins i ever saw and i found it quite interesting. i recommend you watch this 1st Part 1 http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7218293233140975017&q=richard dawkins&ei=ogF6SICQIJHWwgPO9ZT0BA
Here's a video where Dawkins takes an hour of questions from audience members after a lecture; many of which are challenges to his questions on religion. There are also many appearances from Liberty University students here (the only university which teaches Creationism as fact).
This is a debate held between Dawkins and Alister McGrath. Alister McGrath is a very well respected professor of historical theology at oxford university. i found this debate very engaging, definitely check it out. There is a moderator who (while isn't filmed for most of this) stops the two and makes sure they are actually answering each others questions.
"The Four Horsemen" is a two hour unmoderated discussion amongst four of the most prominent atheistic writers in the world: Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennet, Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris. Here they discuss what they are trying to achieve from debating this issue. If you watch this, check it out last on the list.
Mr. Dawkins is quite right to be vehemently opposed to intrusions of science upon religion. Creationism and its better dressed counter part Intelligent Design are not science and do not deserve any merit.
He has gone too far in his attacks though, adding as much creedence to the idea of Intelligent design by opening the debate, rather than a simpler and more effecient out of hand rejection.
Furthermore, his attacks on religion verge into a hysterical and blind disregard that is ironically very nearly religious in its tone. Dawkins is every bit the fundamentalist that Pat Robertson is, just on the other side.
I distrust anybody who claims to have an unambiguous and correct approach to religion, and fundamentalist atheism is no different. There is no basis to disbelieve God, as much as there is no basis to believe.
His association of religion and various negative commonly ascribed to religion are incorrect as well. Being bigoted and unwilling to listen to contradictory evidence are often evinced by religious people, but just as often shown by non-religious folks (you can't tell me the Communists didn't have the same traits that Dawkins so reviles in religion). In the end, the problems Dawkins ascribes to religion are not problems that are exclusive to religion, they are just the general downfall of humanity itself.
God and Humanity are inextricably woven together; indeed it is difficult to picture one without the other. To dismiss a cornerstone of the collective human experience is deeply misguided. It is also deeply offensive to me to suggest that religion is incapable of good. Whatever the motivation, either a foolish fear of divine retribution, or a balanced understand of God, people who have found faith often tend to a generosity, calmness, and sobriety which they might not otherwise have. I'd rather see people scared of acting badly than people acting badly. The psychosomatic power of prayer has been well documented, and there already is one solid plus to religion (and after all, the effects of prayer only come into effect if you truly believe they will work. Mind you, I'm not saying God is intervening in these cases, but that the sick can truly get better through prayer, or any average person overcome challenges feeling that God is helping them)
Most of all, it's perfectly possible to have a balance of religion and reason, to give each its natural sovereignty. For questions that can be answered by observation and the scientific method, those answers are accepted. For the fundamental mysteries, only religion works there.
Neil Tyson is the shit, I completely agree. I like Richard dawkins but SOMETIMES the way he goes about by "putting it out there" is not a great thing for me, he should be more of an educator then trying to 'deliver truth to the public' like as tyson said
i'd recommend you watch the videos generalstan since your response was posted 10 minutes after i made this. although you and jibba are both right about dawkins being too barbed as far as his writings go. i remember my philosophy teacher and me talking about that over beers about a year ago. i suppose it's his ideas that actually count.
if you guys like people who deliver less offensively try, sam harris or daniel dennet. they're better at that part in my opinion. they're also in the final video which i find to be better than all of these.
You're right that I haven't had time to watch the particular videos you've posted, but I doubt that they're radically different than the dawkins I know from the God Delusion and other prior experience.
I will watch them later on today when I find time.
I also want to say that I find Dawkins to be brilliantly articulate, I find very much to agree with him on, even on the subject of religion (especially our shared contention that religion shouldn't be indoctrinated in children from a young age, that the young should have freedom when it comes to their religious choices). He's also a singularly brilliant scientist, who has made great contributions to evolutionary biology (the concept of a meme is simply revolutionary).
In the end, the problems Dawkins ascribes to religion are not problems that are exclusive to religion, they are just the general downfall of humanity itself.
Agreed.
I think he has addressed many of your points in his writings, however. He has acknowledged the mental comfort and security that science cannot currently provide, but believes there are other alternatives to religion and that medicine is making its way into that realm. Humanism is another positive alternative.
He is not positive that God doesn't exist, but he has seen no proof that he does, and part of his skepticism stems from the fact that most peoples' religions are a product of their birth location rather than their own being. Scientists can be wrong, and certainly there are corrupt ones who do a poor job, but science constantly goes through peer review, while religion does not.
But no, he doesn't think science and religion can coexist peacefully and I agree.
On July 13 2008 23:25 MyLostTemple wrote: if you guys like people who deliver less offensively try, sam harris or daniel dennet. they're better at that part in my opinion.
My guess is for Christians, Sam Harris is actually the most offensive. His books are pretty nasty, and are a good read.
On July 13 2008 23:25 MyLostTemple wrote: if you guys like people who deliver less offensively try, sam harris or daniel dennet. they're better at that part in my opinion.
My guess is for Christians, Sam Harris is actually the most offensive. His books are pretty nasty, and are a good read.
i've only read 'a letter to a christian nation'. but in debates he seems the least offensive. you can google vid them.
You have to read "The God Delusion" to understand what Dawkins is about, this man is a genius. I will watch the videos later, but I think Dawkins is a revolutionary man.
good luck with the book, its heavy shit!!
thanks for bringing attention to this man Tasteless
On July 13 2008 23:54 Hypnosis wrote: You have to read "The God Delusion" to understand what Dawkins is about, this man is a genius. I will watch the videos later, but I think Dawkins is a revolutionary man.
good luck with the book, its heavy shit!!
thanks for bringing attention to this man Tasteless
I would say "The Selfish Gene" is really what Dawkins is about. He's a scientist first and foremost, and his theory of the selfish gene really is the basis of his atheism, and now mine as well.
edit - On a side note, I just wanted to add the ironic thing is everyone who reads Dawkins probably is already an atheist that is just looking for some rational justification, whereas those who are not atheist (and more importantly, don't want to be) will probably never read his books. In the end, you believe what you want to believe.
I like this thread already. Ive read three of Dawkins books and I'm currently reading "The Selfish Gene". I prefer his older books but "The God Delusion" is great too. If you like Dawkins I think you should check out books/talks etc by Daniel Dennett too. He is my favorite philosopher who just like Dawkins (and me) loves evolution. Daniel Dennet also have a lot of interesting ideas about our conscience and the philosophy of science in general.
It should be mentioned too that Dawkins was the man who invented the word "meme" and thereby founded memetics.
On July 13 2008 23:18 GeneralStan wrote: Mr. Dawkins is quite right to be vehemently opposed to intrusions of science upon religion. Creationism and its better dressed counter part Intelligent Design are not science and do not deserve any merit.
He has gone too far in his attacks though, adding as much creedence to the idea of Intelligent design by opening the debate, rather than a simpler and more effecient out of hand rejection.
Furthermore, his attacks on religion verge into a hysterical and blind disregard that is ironically very nearly religious in its tone. Dawkins is every bit the fundamentalist that Pat Robertson is, just on the other side.
I distrust anybody who claims to have an unambiguous and correct approach to religion, and fundamentalist atheism is no different. There is no basis to disbelieve God, as much as there is no basis to believe.
His association of religion and various negative commonly ascribed to religion are incorrect as well. Being bigoted and unwilling to listen to contradictory evidence are often evinced by religious people, but just as often shown by non-religious folks (you can't tell me the Communists didn't have the same traits that Dawkins so reviles in religion). In the end, the problems Dawkins ascribes to religion are not problems that are exclusive to religion, they are just the general downfall of humanity itself.
God and Humanity are inextricably woven together; indeed it is difficult to picture one without the other. To dismiss a cornerstone of the collective human experience is deeply misguided. It is also deeply offensive to me to suggest that religion is incapable of good. Whatever the motivation, either a foolish fear of divine retribution, or a balanced understand of God, people who have found faith often tend to a generosity, calmness, and sobriety which they might not otherwise have. I'd rather see people scared of acting badly than people acting badly. The psychosomatic power of prayer has been well documented, and there already is one solid plus to religion (and after all, the effects of prayer only come into effect if you truly believe they will work. Mind you, I'm not saying God is intervening in these cases, but that the sick can truly get better through prayer, or any average person overcome challenges feeling that God is helping them)
Most of all, it's perfectly possible to have a balance of religion and reason, to give each its natural sovereignty. For questions that can be answered by observation and the scientific method, those answers are accepted. For the fundamental mysteries, only religion works there.
There is a reason why athiests are generally much smarter individuals than other people. They can be good people on there own, and i believe that is what Dawkins is trying to get at. He would like people to be on a higher level of thinking and its great that there are people like him at that level of intelligence now.
On July 13 2008 23:25 MyLostTemple wrote: if you guys like people who deliver less offensively try, sam harris or daniel dennet. they're better at that part in my opinion.
My guess is for Christians, Sam Harris is actually the most offensive. His books are pretty nasty, and are a good read.
i've only read 'a letter to a christian nation'. but in debates he seems the least offensive. you can google vid them.
his writing is definitely more pointed and insulting, but ya dennet goes almost to the point of absurdity to avoid anything that could be viewed as a direct attack on religion in his book.
On July 13 2008 23:24 lokiM wrote: Neil Tyson is the shit, I completely agree. I like Richard dawkins but SOMETIMES the way he goes about by "putting it out there" is not a great thing for me, he should be more of an educator then trying to 'deliver truth to the public' like as tyson said
?????
Dawkins is a distinguished professor with full tenure at arguably one of the world's best university. You don't obtain such a position without being an educator first...
And its precisely because Dawkins is a scientist first, public advocate 2nd, that I respect him. I listen to facts, data, and clear and rigorous analysis. Not charisma and petty rhetoric.
On July 13 2008 23:24 lokiM wrote: Neil Tyson is the shit, I completely agree. I like Richard dawkins but SOMETIMES the way he goes about by "putting it out there" is not a great thing for me, he should be more of an educator then trying to 'deliver truth to the public' like as tyson said
You really should read some of Dawkins older books about biology and evolution. He is the master of making complex things understandable to the general public. That's one of the major reasons he got famous for in the first place.
But yeah Neil Tyson is nice too. I loved his talk at the 2006 Beyond Belief conference (Where that clip is taken from). Where he goes through some of 'gods' Unintelligent Design Ill see if I can find it...
EPT
Ill see if I can find it...
