Richard Dawkin's answer to t he question..."What if You're Wrong?"

[SaveElmer]

It's a classic

On edit:

Well I guess I made the assumption Richard Dawkins was well known...which I shoudln't have...sorry.

Richard Dawkins is a well known atheist and debunker of non-scientific explanations of natural phenomena...including life.

He believes the development of religion is part of the evolutionary process.

He was asked by a student what if he was wrong...meaning what if he was wrong that there was no God...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X0OTxxKD0ME&NR

[Scout1071]

1. Can you sum it up a little?

[jgraz]

5. Dude, the thing's like a minute long -- go check it out

[JanusAscending]

6. Uhm.."dude",

do you just get your kicks out of being NASTY to people?? Maybe he has dial up like me, and can't play the videos. Ya think it would kill ya to give a civil answer once in a while?:grr:

[jgraz]

9. how is that being nasty? Maybe he didn't know it was only a short vid

Not very discerning for a christian. And yes, it quite probably would kill me to be civil. :P

[bananas]

48. Now THAT would be cool!

Man killed on internet by being civil!
Film at 11!

[Scout1071]

11. I'm not a dude.

And it's just common courtesy.

[Old and In the Way]

2. What if we're wrong about global warming?

If we're wrong. we've spent money and resources making this a better planet.

If we are right, then ley the idiots explain the downside.

[Taverner]

70. Global Warming is based on reason and the scientific method

We can cite empirical evidence to corroborate our claims.

Christianity (or Hinduism, Islam, Scientology etc...) cannot.

[jgraz]

3. And we'll be moving over to Religion/Theology in 3..2..1..

But yes, it's a wonderful answer.

[Mojorabbit]

4. That was wonderful! n/t

[dicknbush]

7. I like Richard dawkins but I can't play Youtube on my old computer ..

Could you write the answer out perhaps?

[SaveElmer]

8. For those with no video capability...

He replies by saying that those born in judeo-christian countries believe what they belive because of an accident of birth. If they had been born in India they would be Hindu, in Denmark during the Vikings they would believe in Thor, in classical Greece they would worship Zeus...or in central africa the Great JuJu up the mountain" Christians don't know what it is like to belive in other faiths cause they weren't brought up that way...

He turns it around by saying what if your wrong and God is really the great JuJu up the mountain...

[originalpckelly]

10. No, atheists and believers of all types, what if you are wrong?

None of you, whether atheists or theists can prove you and your particular "truth" is right.

Professor Dawkins is espousing a personal belief, one which he can no more prove than Ted Haggard and his friends.

Real scientists admit the truth whatever it may be, and in the case of God, we simply do not know, one way or the other.

[jgraz]

12. Wrong and wronger

Sorry, but advocacy for evidence, logic and the scientific method is not the same as some random belief in a logically inconsistent supernatural (and horrifically violent) doctrine.

"Real" scientists follow evidence no matter where it leads. They don't concern themselves with unprovable fairy tales.

[papau]

17. LOL - I love the faith based when they claim to be thinking like a scientist -n/t

n/t

[jgraz]

18. Edit -- wrong place

Bush is a weenie

[originalpckelly]

No, real scientists never come to conclusions about matters which have no evidence...

whatsoever.

I would say that most of the BS most religions spew is so crazy and provably false, it's hilarious.

However, no scientist would claim that a certain possibility is undoubtedly true without any evidence or even theory to back him/her up.

[bananas]

49. Scientists do that all the time

They don't like to admit it, but they do.
They're only human, after all.

[papau]

14. Very True - but people of faith like Dawkins/Harris & friends hold fast to their beliefs n/t

n/t

[jgraz]

19. Oh really? Can you prove to me that your mother doesn't turn into a unicorn when no one is looking?

What's that? You can't? Well, then my "theory" that your mother is a unicorn holds equal status with quantum physics and evolution. After all, your baseless claim that your mother does NOT turn into a unicorn is just your own personal belief. :sarcasm: (of course)

Fairy tales and superstition do not hold equal status with logic and scientific method. Deal with it.

[Atman]

24. That's the biggest crock of shit argument I've ever heard!

Yes, I can prove my mother doesn't turn into a unicorn after I leave the room, using science. First, there are no unicorns. Second, humans cannot spontaneously turn into other creatures at will. It is scientific fact.

Now, prove your god stuff to me.

:shrug:

.

[jgraz]

32. Dude, I'm on your side

Rule #1 of DU -- NEVER forget the sarcasm tag

(Though I'm pretty sure YOUR mom is a unicorn :P )

[Atman]

40. Sorry!

I'm pretty good at picking up the sarcasm thing usually, but I missed it this time. Thus is the nature of this thread! So much of the god stuff is so fantastic and utterly ridiculous that it is hard to tell where the "faith" ends and the sarcasm starts.

.

[jgraz]

41. But thanks for the compliment

It was the biggest crock of shit I could think of ;)

[stevietheman]

38. There's no way to scientifically prove there are no unicorns.

And that's not sarcasm.

[Atman]

42. There IS a scientific way to prove cells don't magically transform into unicorns

And since virtually all of mankind has accepted that unicorns are a fantasy creation, I'll willing to skip the science on that one. Using your logic, science can't prove Yoda isn't real, either. But everyone knows it's a made-up character.

I know what your point is...that very convenient point which is the very backbone of all religion..."You can't prove a negative." Therefore, we can't "prove" there is no god. That's the way religion was designed, to be unprovable (or un-disprovable). How conveeeeenient.

.

[jgraz]

43. Shut up you will! Real Yoda is!

[Zhade]

60. Looking at me like I'm crazy, people at work are!

You made me literally LOL - that does NOT happen often while reading thses pages.

Nice one!

[jgraz]

62. Well, sorry you're at work on Sunday

But I'm glad you got a laugh out of it...

[Bill McBlueState]

47. very true

And, there's no way to scientifically prove there are no gods.

But if you follow the alleged commandments of a unicorn, and you go to a meeting once or twice a week to worship said unicorn, and you expect to meet that unicorn when you die, even when there is no evidence either way that the unicorn does or does not exist, people would be right to consider you a bit off.

[Atman]

56. POST OF THE THREAD!

BWHAHAHA! I wish I'd thought of that one!

.

[stevietheman]

57. This is true.

I wasn't making a case for a god or gods. I do think the burden of proof is on the believer, not the denier. With a total absence of proof, I refuse to heel to the supernatural.

That said, there _could_ be beasts resembling unicorns somewhere in this vast universe. How do we know?

[cosmik debris]

31. Now that's about the most senseless thing

I've ever heard you say. And you've said some real doozies!

[Evoman]

67. ........

:rofl:

Yeah...okay.

[Book Lover]

20. Depends

What kind of god/s do you imagine I am wrong about?

[Atman]

22. I know I'm not wrong.

Every shred of scientific evidence points to me, an atheist, being "right." Christians only have "faith" to go on, and cannot prove one single one of their fairy tails. There is simply not any question in my mind on this one. There is just nothing about the god argument that makes any sense. I need more than mystery and faith and voodoo and "you might burn in hell!" to convince me to believe fairy tales whose origins are very clear to anyone interested in investigating them. Every religion is basically the same story with different characters in different. That alone should tell you something...every other "person of faith" is just as certain that his god is the real one. It simply can't be true. If the Christian god is the one and only "real" god, how come so many people believe in so many other gods? Is your god just fucking with everybody? He's/she's not a benevolent loving god at all, just a jolly prankster who kills thousands and thousands on a daily basis, created babies born with horrible abnormalities, allows good people to be eaten by cancers while liars and crooks ravage his creation with wars and treachery.

Sorry. I know I'm not wrong on this one. And it's not based upon "faith." It is based upon a lifetime quest for knowledge.

.

[Viva_La_Revolution]

26. ...

:applause:

[originalpckelly]

28. Not really, in fact you know very little about the scientific evidence in this area...

Within our universe there is absolutely no evidence that God exists. None.

However, as any good physicist will tell you, we cannot know what happened before the big bang. Literally anything is possible before that moment.

It's very similar to what happens beyond an event horizon in a black hole, we cannot know what happens because that is the very nature of an event horizon.

[jgraz]

35. Did you learn your science off the back of cereal boxes?

Every physicist will give you the same answer to what happened before the big bang: absolutely nothing. The question is meaningless -- time started at the big bang, so it's impossible to have a "before". It's like asking what's north of the north pole.

And quite a few people are starting to talk about what happens beyond the event horizon of a black hole (see Hawking's latest works). The event horizon is not some magical boundary immune to scientific description -- it's just a threshold determining whether light can escape the gravity well.

[stevietheman]

39. You get the Atheists' Amen on that! n/t

n/t

[Viva_La_Revolution]

23. Isn't' that the definition of Agnostic?

I find myself bouncing back and forth between Agnostic and Deitst.

I guess I'm an Optimistic Agnostic. :)

[Atman]

25. For a while I was an agnatheist

I wasn't sure whether I really didn't believe. Now I am.

.

[originalpckelly]

30. Well, I'm an agnostic, simply because I cannot prove or disprove the existence of God...

and science is the agnostic viewpoint. Ask any physicist or cosmologist familiar with the big bang, and ask them if they know what happened before it. They will be unable to tell you, because the big bang is believed to have originated from a singularity, and in any singularity there is an event horizon. Beyond the event horizon, it is absolutely impossible to predict what occurs, because that's the innate nature of an event horizon.

Mr. Dawkins is making an assumption based upon no evidence whatsoever. He is correct in his advocacy of evolution, because we can prove it's existence fairly well. We know from our current period that it is indeed going on, specifically in MRSA and other antibiotic resistant bacteria.

Mr. Dawkins is right that most religions are horse shit, but he's totally wrong in making the absolute statement that there is no God. It is not a verifiable claim.

[toddaa]

33. Dawkins has never made the statement "There is no God"

Geez, people who hate Dawkins and his book really go out of their way to avoid reading it. It's so much harder to argue with someone when you first have to listen and comprehend what they are saying.

[Atman]

44. It is not a verifiable claim.

Again...how conveeeeeeeeeeeeenient...for the church.

.

[jgraz]

59. More specifically, it's not falsifiable

Which means that it has little value in modern rational discourse.

[greyl]

76. Not concerning Dawkins, you aren't.

He sharpens the specific and particular point that if scientific, logical, reasonable, rational, empirical probabilities are considered, the Gods thus far described are highly improbable.

[trekbiker]

84. it has to do with probability.

for instance, there is no scientific evidence to show life exists on other planets. But because of the immense number of galaxies, stars and planets (there is now direct evidence of planets orbiting other stars btw) there is a 99.99999999% probability that life exists on other planets. It is not proven but is for all practical purposes the truth. the same cannot be said for a god or gods.

as for the creation of life by natural means science has already demonstrated that amino acids and complex molecules can be created from natural conditions that existed on earth 3 or 4 billion years ago. But for life to start one thing had to happen. A self replicating molecule (predecessor of DNA) would have to have been formed. This is an incredibly unlikely event. at least until you stand back and look at it from the perspective of probability. Given the untold countless billions of molecules floating around in the primordial "soup" and the hundreds and hundreds of millions of years then the probability of a self replicating molecule forming is not so remote. And it only had to happen ONE time..

and thats a hell of a lot more interesting than a stupid medieval fairytale book

[Warren Stupidity]

13. My answer is quite simple:

if there is a god and I am wrong I will gladly inform the supernatural deity that the only ethical position to take, given the state of this world that it constructed and governs, is to deny its existence, just before the deity burns me to a crisp of course. I might even snark: 'is this your manliness?' as the bolt issues forth.

[scubadude]

15. All he did was obfuscate,

dodging the question entirely. His answer was unsatisfactory. Oviously he isn't honest, therefore he fails in my book.

Gee, he sounds like a politician...

Scuba

[toddaa]

27. How did he dodge the question?

I don't have the teacher's addition. What's the correct answer?

[toddaa]

29. Wait, I found it

If I'm wrong, then I go to Hell.

[jgraz]

36. Nope, he used logic

and gave a perfect answer to a meaningless and intellectually bankrupt question.

[cosmik debris]

37. It's a re-hash of Pascal's wager

It has been throughly debunked. I'm sorry you missed that.

[Roland99]

16. FSM! All Hail HIS Noodly Appendage!

[trekbiker]

85. I too have been touched by His Noodly Appendage

You may be interested to know that global warming, earthquakes, hurricanes, and other natural disasters are a direct effect of the shrinking numbers of Pirates since the 1800s. For your interest, I have included a graph of the approximate number of pirates versus the average global temperature over the last 200 years. As you can see, there is a statistically significant inverse relationship between pirates and global temperature.

http://www.venganza.org/

[Viva_La_Revolution]

21. a hero to Athiests and Agnostics and Deists

we get it. :)

[deepthought42]

34. OMFG, That's at my alma mater!

R-MWC! How could I have missed this! Damnit, I shouldn't have graduated in '05...lol. Oh wait... my alma mater doesn't exist anymore...damn Board of Trustees...Bastards!

[Danger Mouse]

45. I don't really like Dawkins' answer...

but on the other hand, the question was stupid and probably meant to trap him.
So his reply was suitable given the circumstances.
I mean...how is he supposed to answer it to the student's satisfaction? 'Then I'll start praising Jesus!'
Ah well...

[charlie]

46. It was meant to trap him alright

I watched the entire event last month and you could see Liberty U had organized a Dogpile on Dawkins project. It seemed like half, maybe more, of the questioners were from Jerry's diploma mill. And bizarrely, considering they had so many opportunities to bumfuzzle Dawkins, the quality of questions weren't much better than "so, what if you're wrong?"

[Danger Mouse]

51. It's really not a very intelligent question...

because there's no way to answer it in a satisfactory manner...Dawkins' response was more along the lines of 'what if YOU'RE wrong'...which is one of only two possible responses, really.
If they were so determined to make him look bad, I'm sure there are many more intelligent questions they could've used...ah well...

[shrike]

55. I think it's a valid question

For anyone pushing an agenda. That goes for Dawkins or Jerry Falwell.

In anticipation of your next statement, maybe the AA should go to a Dobson or Robertson speech and do something similar. I'd have no objection.

[charlie]

63. I don't consider it invalid

It was a wasted question, a chestnut every atheist and believer has asked and answered innumerable times.

And no, that wouldn't have been my next statement. I have no objection either.

[shrike]

66. If everyone else has answered it, why not him?

Dawkins has put himself forward with a point of view, why shouldn't he answer it?

[Danger Mouse]

69. My point is...what IS the point?

I mean, there don't seem to be very many possible answers to such a question, really...'whoops, guess i'd go to hell then?'

[shrike]

80. You're right, Elrond

I don't really care what he answers or doesn't, although maybe a guy who's as certain of himself as Dawkins needs to be reminded that he COULD be wrong. I've met more than a few people like that, frankly, who come from all walks of life.

[charlie]

72. I dunno, you tell me

Why shouldn't he answer it?

Where did I say he shouldn't? I said she and the Liberty U team wasted their shot at the atheist bogeyman, not that the questions were invalid or impertinent or whatever it is you're thinking.

[Danger Mouse]

73. Nah, I'm not saying he shouldn't answer.

Just that the question is kind of dumb.

[charlie]

74. Hey, Elrond

Wassup? :hi: My reply was for Shrike.

[Danger Mouse]

77. Lol, sorry...

I'm out of it...I got involved in a flamewar on the LOUNGE of all places...glad that's over...anyway, my brains fried, I'm off to bed...

[shrike]

79. Well, you're the one who said it was a wasted question

I don't particularly care whether he or anyone else answers it.

[charlie]

81. Yes, I did

At last, you get it. If any of us has a crack at Bush in a limited Q&A, I hope no one wastes time with a picayune question like "what if you're wrong?"

[shrike]

82. Too bad you don't get it. I don't think it was a wasted question.

Which has been my point all along.

You have your opinion. I have mine. The world won't end if we disagree. Hopefully we can leave it at that.

[NMMNG]

50. He does what I've never heard any religionist do

He openly admits "We could all be wrong".

I think I'd die of shock if Falwell, Dobson, et al, made such a statement when asked the same question.

[Danger Mouse]

52. What, in your determination, is a religionist?

I've been saying 'we could all be wrong' for years.

[toddaa]

53. Easy

A religionist is forbidden from saying we could all be wrong.

;)

[Lydia Leftcoast]

61. No, acknowledging doubt is a part of the Christian tradition

going way back.

Not all Christians are like the fundies.

[jgraz]

64. Doubt may be part of the Christian lore

But do ANY Christians believe that those who doubt are better Christians than those who believe without question? Is there any Christian tradition which celebrates doubt? Celebrates those who question the doctrine?

The core of Christian doctrine (as with all the Abrahamic religions) is unswerving belief in and obedience to god and his laws. All Christians moderate this approach to some extent -- even the fundies. If they didn't, they'd be out stoning their children every time they got backtalk from them.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

68. There is definitely a school of thought (and I've encountered it in

several different denominations) that it's spiritually immature to just accept whatever you're taught. You have to question and decide whether you want to make it your own. We're talking about the last few centuries, too, not Biblical times when if you didn't follow the given traditions, you literally couldn't function in the tribe.

[TreasonousBastard]

83. Actually, one major core of Christian belief is...

that we go through a period of doubt and questioning. Faith must be in accord with human reason and experience. The questioning of it will reveal how deep it really is.

Of course there will always be blind believers who don't look any further than what their preachers tell them, but there are such blind believers in every human activity. Science and politics come to mind.

Religion is simply philosophy with an element of the supernatural thrown in and called the Divine.

[toddaa]

65. Duh

Why so defensive? R/T is making us all crazy. Time for drinks.

[shrike]

54. I've said it more than once

Though Admittedly I'm not Dobson.

I think the only way to live in a civil society is to admit you could be wrong. About anything. Rigid ideology of any kind is not a good thing.

[jgraz]

58. But thinking you're wrong is expressly forbidden in almost every Abrahamic doctrine

How can this possibly be reconciled with things like the First Commandment?

[Taverner]

71. Great - but incomplete

Empirical Evidence is what establishes natural phenomona with supernatural.

[greyl]

75. I don't understand your sentence.

"Empirical Evidence is what establishes natural phenomona with supernatural."

?

[Taverner]

78. Sorry - a bit tired there

It should read "Being able to provide Empirical Evidence is what separates natural phenomena from the supernatural..."