Richard Dawkins on the origins of life (1 of 5)

Back



Richard Dawkins at the Edinburgh International Book Festival on Monday, August 11, 2008. The interview was conducted by Paula Kirby. Credit: http://richarddawkins.net/ The Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science (Many thanks to Douglas Bogie Gray and Mirage Television for filming the event!)

Channel: Education
Uploaded: September 29, 2008 at 4:54 pm
Author: PiroNiro

Length: 0:10:25
Rating: 4.94
Views: 33,313

Tags: Richard Dawkins Paula Kirby Atheist Atheism Edinburgh International Book Festival Evolution Creationism Christianity Christian Islam Origins of life Abiogensis Religion God

Video Thumbnail #1:




Video Thumbnail #2:




Video Thumbnail #3:




Video Url:


Embed Code:


Video Comments:
jndala (Tuesday 18th of November 2008 01:32:11 AM)
Ignorance IS a disease. In fact, ignorance is roughly analogous to polio: there is a cure and most scientists had believed that ignorance had been stamped out, unfortunately like polio, religious advocacy has caused a massive resurgence of it. Unlike polio, however, ignorance is rampant in most parts of the world, not just those places where the cure is simply inaccessible.
jeclements (Monday 17th of November 2008 11:29:41 PM)
Yes, so who or what created god? An answer that god has always existed is magic of the same order. Arguing that god is not subject to logic or reason means that you have argued yourself out of a logical debate.
iswhatyoubelievetrue (Monday 17th of November 2008 05:48:08 PM)
We know that buildings(the effect) has a builder(cause) because of the necessary attributes the cause must possess to be able to produce the effect. Design, order, and complexity speak greatly of an intelligence. It's not magic, it is the same logic used to determine there was an intelligent being that created a computer. The cause must be much greater than the effect. Expansion/contraction theory is just believing in infinite regression.
court0114 (Monday 17th of November 2008 03:30:39 PM)
Dawkins is taking a proactive posture which science should have taken decades ago. If religion had not stepped on the toes of science scientists like Dawkins would have stayed in their Labs creating cures to disease and discoveries for the betterment of the human race.
jeclements (Monday 17th of November 2008 12:41:57 AM)
Aristotle believed that the universe has always existed and will always exist. Adding a 'god' is therefore an unnecessary unnecessary extra step to the uncaused cause argument. The fact that the universe is decaying is not proof of a cause for the universe. One theory has the universe in a neverending state of expansion and contraction. I don't know if the universe had a cause or what it might be. But just because I don't know does not require me to 'magic' up a god as an explanation.
iswhatyoubelievetrue (Sunday 16th of November 2008 09:27:43 PM)
There are only 3 options that I can think of for the explaining the beginning. 1) Infinite regression of causes 2) The universe had no cause, but spontaneously came out of no where. 3) There was an uncaused cause that began the universe, and has always existed. I choose 3, because 1 is impossible. 2 defies the law of cause and effect, and because the universe had a beginning and is decaying, it must have been caused. Because of the impossibility of 1, there must be an uncaused cause, "God"
ChaoticSouls (Saturday 15th of November 2008 09:39:44 PM)
iswhatyoubelievetrue he already explained that life is not built on random chance but slowly built upon itself look into evolution. Also your using poor apologetic. Fine tuning is dumb because god would have to be even more fine tuned then the universe which means even more imposable.
jitsukadan (Saturday 15th of November 2008 12:34:24 PM)
When has he said that he hates `God'? It seems he hates the fact that people are still clinging to nonsensical religious beliefs in these enlightened times.
kosty1990 (Saturday 15th of November 2008 11:34:48 AM)
I will be every creationist on the earth for this argument. "God is the alpha and omega he is the perfect circle, who always has been and always will be." somehow this proves god never had to be created, i have yet to see it but it must be true cause every creationist on earth will say just about the same thing
jockc (Saturday 15th of November 2008 08:50:52 AM)
You are thinking too simplistically; read The Selfish Gene and you will understand what Dawkins is suggesting. In any case, I never understood how protesting that complex things cannot arise by chance helps the creationist argument. You still have the problem of where the creator came from.