Now available in HD: http://richarddawkins.net/article,3625,The-Four-Horsemen-HD---Now-on-YouTube,Richard-Dawkins-Sam-Harris-Christopher-Hitchens-Daniel-Dennett

*promote

Tags for this video have been changed from 'ted, evolution, religion' to 'ted, evolution, religion, philosopher, Daniel, Dennett' - edited by mauz15

Tags for this video have been changed from 'atheism, theism, darwin, philosophy, belief' to 'atheism, theism, darwin, philosophy, philosopher, daniel dennett, belief' - edited by mauz15

I commented elsewhere that watching this video was akin to watching a pair of blind people trying to duel with pistols at twenty paces.

I really do like Hitchens. He's opposed to almost everything I stand for, but there's something about his brash eloquence that makes it a real pleasure to listen to him talk. I wanted to see him do well, but he didn't.

Even so, he still won the debate, and I think even Turek recognizes this. Turek acknowledges Hitchens' victory in a very subtle way--he starts out the debate saying that the evidence leans toward the existence of God as the most probable case, but abandons this toward the end. Rather, he closes by saying that even though there are a number of reasons that seem to indicate God's improbability, he could exist anyway.

Even so, every argument Turek makes has a relatively simple response.

For instance, in response to Turek's claim that "one cannot derive an ought from an is," Hitchens should have put the smack down on Turek. He should have said, "Okay, in that case, the existence of God cannot be the source of morality. The question of whether God exists is an "is." The existence of morality is an "ought." If you cannot derive an ought from an is, you cannot derive morality from the existence of God."

>> ^shuac:
Finer points on the existence of god is more Dawkins' strong suit, not Hitchens'. Hitchens is more the anti-religion guy. This should have been a debate with Dawkins.


You'd want Daniel Dennett. The apologist is the natural prey of the philosopher. It would be child's play for a philosopher of Dennett's caliber to unmask Turek's arguments for the sophistical illusions they are.

Nah. Dawkins really isn't all that good at that kind of thing, even though he makes it out to be a specialty of his.

His main argument against the existence of God, as found in the God Delusion, boils down to the claim that God cannot be the explanation for complexity in the world because then his complexity, too, would require an explanation beyond him.

This fails for two reasons.

First, there is no reason to think that God is complex. A number of theologians, in fact, have provided arguments for the claim that God is absolutely simple and without parts. This does not contradict the claim that God is the designer or creator. Examples abound of complex things coming out of simple things. To be a proponent of evolution is to assert that, indeed, complexity can arise from simplicity. Dawkins' argument simply does not follow logically.

Second, even if the argument did work, its consequence could be evaded by positing a maximally (perhaps infinitely) complex God. A maximally complex God cannot have been designed even under Dawkins' rules. To say that a maximally complex God had to have been designed by something more complex is to say that there is something more complex than something there can't be anything more complex than. Which is a flat out impossibility.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'dan dennet, robert wright, atheism, philosophy, consciousness, free will' to 'daniel dennett, robert wright, atheism, philosophy, consciousness, free will' - edited by mauz15

2) I don't believe in evolution. OK, I agree in general, but does it explain what it aims to accurately and completely? I very much doubt it. In fact I'd be amazed if the original work wasn't mostly discredited by now, just like much of Newton's work, Einstein's work and so on. Darwin's work was certainly a big step in the evolution of knowledge

Why wonder when you can know? I would bet dollars to donuts you don't even understand how evolution works. Reading a wikipedia article on evolution and believing you understand the theory is like.....reading a wikipedia article on quantum mechanics and believing you understand the theory. And no, high school biology does not give a sufficient explanation of the theory...

Atheist attack pack:
How evolution began: "Richard Dawkins: The Blind Watchmaker"
How evolution proceeded, in theory: "Richard Dawkins: The Selfish Gene"
How evolution proceeded, with empirical examples: "Richard Dawkins: Ancestor's Tale"
Why you don't have to be afraid of evolution: "Richard Dawkins: The God Delusion"
How religion began, and proceeded: "Daniel Dennett: Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon"
Why you shouldn't believe in religion: "Sam Harris: Letter to a Christian Nation"

If your religion/current beliefs on evolution can survive that reading list......hats off to your level of conviction/faith/denial.

>> ^gwiz665:
^The Philosophical Zombie argument, which you've described, bluecliff, is an old philosophical classic. There's a difference between "can't know" and "don't know". There are many theories as to consciousness, but how to find out which is right and wrong is pretty difficult. Daniel Dennett's heterophenomenology seems to be the best way forward, because it covers all the bases we have available at this point in time, the multiple drafts theory is in my mind the best explanation to date about consciousness, but there's no "hard evidence" to point in any direction.
The "proof" we have that there IS a consciousness is based on our personal introspective; I know I have a consciousness, because I'm thinking right now; this explanation, however, is unverifiable, as far as I know, and is not really enough to make a claim one way or the other. If I were a philosophical zombie - a being that does exactly what a "real" person would do, but with no "inner life" - I would still act as if I HAD an inner life and thoughts and so on.
It may very well be that there actually is no consciousness as a thing in itself, but only an emergent behavior caused by our brain's different parts, and that we are all philosophical zombies without knowing it.
The point I'm trying to make, is that subjective evidence is not good evidence. Your mind can be tricked very easily, which is why the scientific method involves multiple tests and controlled environments. Uri Geller may SEEM like he can bend spoons with his mind, so the subjective evidence is that he can; in a controlled environment, however, he is a fraud as all "magicians" who claim they aren't making illusions.




Yes but you said you needed evidence...
What I was trying to point out is that there is no evidence for many such matters, and that "belief" is, in a way, part of "knowing".

You still have to believe in the evidence, and you can never remove the subjective part of knowledge

... and even if you could, it would, in my mind, be actually detrimental to the knowledge we have

(also, the problem I see with - emergent behavior, is the problem of - who observes the behavior, and what exactly, makes this behavior "emergent")

^The Philosophical Zombie argument, which you've described, bluecliff, is an old philosophical classic. There's a difference between "can't know" and "don't know". There are many theories as to consciousness, but how to find out which is right and wrong is pretty difficult. Daniel Dennett's heterophenomenology seems to be the best way forward, because it covers all the bases we have available at this point in time, the multiple drafts theory is in my mind the best explanation to date about consciousness, but there's no "hard evidence" to point in any direction.

The "proof" we have that there IS a consciousness is based on our personal introspective; I know I have a consciousness, because I'm thinking right now; this explanation, however, is unverifiable, as far as I know, and is not really enough to make a claim one way or the other. If I were a philosophical zombie - a being that does exactly what a "real" person would do, but with no "inner life" - I would still act as if I HAD an inner life and thoughts and so on.

It may very well be that there actually is no consciousness as a thing in itself, but only an emergent behavior caused by our brain's different parts, and that we are all philosophical zombies without knowing it.

The point I'm trying to make, is that subjective evidence is not good evidence. Your mind can be tricked very easily, which is why the scientific method involves multiple tests and controlled environments. Uri Geller may SEEM like he can bend spoons with his mind, so the subjective evidence is that he can; in a controlled environment, however, he is a fraud as all "magicians" who claim they aren't making illusions.

Idiot = stupid person (just so we're clear), and my point was that I would rather have a leader that didn't believe in blatant falsehoods, which can be, as close as possible, proved.

You have to think your examples through - if you are a doctor and still believe in allah/god whoever, then the person is kidding himself, because his (or her) work directly contradicts his beliefs. If religion was kept completely separate from questions of science and reason (such as medicine, education) then I would have no trouble with it - the bad thing about it is that religion always encroaches on these and other fields. This is why religion in general is bad for the general populous. If it were a completely personal thing, I would have no apparent problem with it, but it's usually not.

I'm not sure there is such a thing has hard-wired beliefs, because I think all beliefs can be challenged. But I understand what you're getting at with that.

"I understand it's the truth and all, but if you really want to be a successful person, not just someone who lurks 24/7 on internet discussion boards, you must know when to use this truth and when not to."
You keep coming back to this and it is really not important in this context and is a thinly veiled attack on me. We're not discussing the complexities of social interaction; I know that I shouldn't confront religious people carrying the God Delusion like some sort of Atheist preacher, because that would be foolish and accomplish nothing. Gradual steps is the way to go, and that's why someone like Neil DeGrasse Tyson or Daniel Dennett take a more "political" way of introducing atheism to religious people.

Berticus got my vote, because he is right. chilaxe covers the evolutionary reasons for emotions and there are biological and chemical explanations too. Just because something is hard to explain, doesn't mean that it can't be explained.

>> ^volumptuous:
"However, Dawkins is a biologist."
Sorry, but Dr.Dawkins is also a PhD in Philosophy, and professor of Ethology. Combining Philosophy, ethology and evolutionary biology is precisely what qualifies him to make these claims.


Speaking as a student of philosophy, Dawkins is no philosopher. Daniel Dennett is, on the other hand, if you want an example of a prominent atheist/humanist philosopher opposed to religion.


I find all this animus toward religion to be just as misdirected as religious animus toward atheists. It is motivated by the exact same kind of disagreement and, frequently, lack of mutual understanding. Religion has a certain place in the human experience, and serves a certain purpose. If you get rid of religion, other institutions will step in to take up the slack. I have noticed that many atheists simply don't recognize this.

I also find it strange that people have the impression that, worldwide, religion is in decline. This is particularly strange given the role religion plays in the struggle between the Middle East and the West, which is perhaps the defining struggle of at least the last two decades, and could be the defining struggle of the century. Moreover, it also ignores the rapid increase of religiosity in areas like China, where Islam and Christianity are finally starting to make inroads in some areas.

Great! I wanted to post this a year ago, but back then you had to pay a dollar to stream it on google video.

I'll change it now. Thank you

In reply to this comment by jonny:
haven't had a chance to check the audio all the way through, but how about this copy:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5640093862168820605

In reply to this comment by mauz15:
I dont necessarily agree with everything he says, but I find him more interesting than say, Dawkins.

Hope you enjoy the sift.

EDIT: The sound seems to be out of synch. I am looking for a replacement but is not significant enough to affect your viewing experience and what he has to say.

is this art though? can you sum up the point he's putting across? he does say God a hell of a lot.
i really love TEDtalks, so it surprises me when they get people like this on. the one other time they did they had Daniel Dennett on straight after as a kind of rebuttal (which was smart).
i don't have a belief structure, it's the lack of one that allows me to see this for what it is, sorry.

'Whether you are a ... Strong Atheist... compassionate discussion on the nature of God should make you think.'

that does not make sense - because gods do not exist!

how is this man qualified on this subject? he's just a vicar. it's just religious babble.
daniel dennett should have debated him after this talk, now that would be worth watching.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'daniel, dennett, minds, concioussness, TED Talks' to 'daniel, dennett, minds, consciousness, TED Talks' - edited by berticus

Tags for this video have been changed from 'daniel, dennett, minds, concioussness' to 'daniel, dennett, minds, concioussness, TED Talks' - edited by Fedquip