Sorry *dupeof=http://www.videosift.com/video/Dan-Dennett-Religion-as-a-Natural-Phenomenon

This video has been declared a duplicate; transferring votes to the original video and killing this dupe - dupeof declared by mauz15.

>> ^HadouKen24:
This guy can't even get his facts about atheists right. It was Dennett who came up with the term "Bright," not Dawkins.
EDIT: In addition, he's wrong that there must necessarily be an uncaused first cause. We don't know that this universe is the first universe, or a universe uncaused by a previous chain of causation; that's still on the table as a possibility. With it established as a physical fact, one only need to point out that it is logically possible as well. There is no logical contradiction involved in asserting that there was no beginning to the series of caused states that has resulted in now.


Granted. But wouldn't that put this universe without a beginning somehow out of the realm of physics (partially, at least.) , since it science needs at least a hypothetical cause as the basis for its conjecture?

This guy can't even get his facts about atheists right. It was Dennett who came up with the term "Bright," not Dawkins.

EDIT: In addition, he's wrong that there must necessarily be an uncaused first cause. We don't know that this universe is the first universe, or a universe uncaused by a previous chain of causation; that's still on the table as a possibility. With it established as a physical fact, one only need to point out that it is logically possible as well. There is no logical contradiction involved in asserting that there was no beginning to the series of caused states that has resulted in now.

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

It's great to see them all together. Hitchens is probably the odd-man-out in that setting. Dennett and Dawkins are more scientists, while Harris is a philosopher and Hitchens is a historian.

I like all four, but for different qualities. Dawkins is a great scientific mind, because he seems to have that inquisitive stance towards most things. Dennett is very knowledgeable and seems like a great thinker. Harris is very reasonable and down to earth, and able to cut through the crap. Hitchens bases his arguments in history and from the "dictatorship" angle.

I'm gonna promote this as soon as I have a power point.

Oh yeah, it's great to see them all together. Hitchens is probably the odd-man-out in that setting. Dennett and Dawkins are more scientists, while Harris is a philosopher and Hitchens is a historian.

I like all four, but for different qualities. Dawkins is a great scientific mind, because he seems to have that inquisitive stance towards most things. Dennett is very knowledgeable and seems like a great thinker. Harris is very reasonable and down to earth, and able to cut through the crap. Hitchens bases his arguments in history and from the "dictatorship" angle.

(I think I'm gonna copy this comment to that sift too.. )

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

>> ^Trancecoach:
ooh, boy this is gonna ruffle some feathers, but I wonder if, metaphorically speaking, we can say that religion performs a similar function? (Idea not my own, but suggested by Dan Dennett)

I believe ideas, like religion, can act as viruses and cause people to do things they wouldn't normally do (like fly planes into buildings), but I'm going to have to say *removechannel religion.

ooh, boy this is gonna ruffle some feathers, but I wonder if, metaphorically speaking, we can say that *religion performs a similar function? (Idea not my own, but suggested by Dan Dennett)

Don't see how a discussion so unbalanced reveals anything useful that has not already been said.
Let's focus on videos where both people are "equally prepared" to debate shall we?

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3780702651936909797&ei=aW3YSIKQFJCurgLC75nbAg&q=J.P.+Moreland

Put Moreland and Hitchens or Dennett, etc and then we may have something.

Moreland is not much though.

Can you make a list of Christian ideas that atheists claim as their own? I'm not at all curious about the pragmatic sides of theisms, but the theft of religious intellectual property is very interesting.

In reply to this comment by ShakaUVM:
In reply to this comment by poolcleaner:
Where did you read that atheists claim these ideas as their own?

Like I said, I spend a lot of time on the IIDB boards, and it's a fairly common to see statements like "Religion shouldn't be used as a justification for war" being used as a club against theists.

I'm a theist, and I agree with that statement, and the concept was developed by theists during the Enlightenment, which is why seeing statements like that (or many of the statements made by Sam Harris) annoy me.

Personally, my philosophy is basically Pragmatic, so things like this actually matter quite a bit, as I tend to judge philosophies and religions by the results they produce. While atheism is a fairly reasonable position, when you look at guys like Sam Harris and Dawkins, who basically make their money by being fucktards towards Christians, that I get really annoyed with it. Dan Dennett is closer to the breed of atheist that I prefer.

At the same time, when I look at the immense amount of good being done around the world by Christians and the almost total lack of anything resembling, say, an atheist Red Cross, compounded by the direction that all the atheist nations have gone to to date (China, USSR, France, Cambodia), that I think a Pragmatic argument for Christianity becomes clear.

Don't think that my theism is just for Pragmatic reasons - I do think that Christianity is a defensible stance (and, in fact, a quite probable one, for various reasons) -- but Pragmatic arguments are a sort of common ground that both theists and atheists can participate in.

In reply to this comment by poolcleaner:
Where did you read that atheists claim these ideas as their own?

Like I said, I spend a lot of time on the IIDB boards, and it's a fairly common to see statements like "Religion shouldn't be used as a justification for war" being used as a club against theists.

I'm a theist, and I agree with that statement, and the concept was developed by theists during the Enlightenment, which is why seeing statements like that (or many of the statements made by Sam Harris) annoy me.

Personally, my philosophy is basically Pragmatic, so things like this actually matter quite a bit, as I tend to judge philosophies and religions by the results they produce. While atheism is a fairly reasonable position, when you look at guys like Sam Harris and Dawkins, who basically make their money by being fucktards towards Christians, that I get really annoyed with it. Dan Dennett is closer to the breed of atheist that I prefer.

At the same time, when I look at the immense amount of good being done around the world by Christians and the almost total lack of anything resembling, say, an atheist Red Cross, compounded by the direction that all the atheist nations have gone to to date (China, USSR, France, Cambodia), that I think a Pragmatic argument for Christianity becomes clear.

Don't think that my theism is just for Pragmatic reasons - I do think that Christianity is a defensible stance (and, in fact, a quite probable one, for various reasons) -- but Pragmatic arguments are a sort of common ground that both theists and atheists can participate in.

>> ^quantumushroom:
For people who claim there is no God, they seem to have a very narrow definitions of Who or What God is.

If you'd have read and understood anything at all on the subject that is not religious propaganda, you'd know by now most atheists, and more importantly most prominent ones like Dawkins and Dennett, have the largest definitions of "God". Dawkins is even against the idea of calling the universe "God" like Einstein did (in a moment of poor judgment IMO). Theologians on the other hand, tend to pose more and more abstract, and thus narrower, definitions of God as they go along in order to fend off attacks by atheist and other theologians. Then they fall back on general statements of equivalence like "God is all" or "God is infinity", which mean nothing.

You have free will to f k up your life all day and night long.

There is no free will, but that is another debate. Which you have already lost by the way. A long time ago. Like, centuries ago.

Since I've been an atheist, I've heard all this before.

That's exactly what I meant by "beyond your comprehension". You may have heard it all before, but you've understood none of it. As for the rest of your last post, it doesn't warrant a response.