NOMA as in how Dawkins criticises NOMA?

I think there's a subtle distinction between what NDGT is saying and NOMA, which is that i don't think he suggested that any religion should be given the position to present what they know as fact. He seemed to suggest that the American physicists he knows, if they are shall we say 'spiritual' then they are spiritual in a more open sense than being classed as any particular religion. Perhaps in the sense that they see no reason for there NOT to be different realities or even that the universe is not a part of something else. In that way they may be open to spirituality even if just in a general well-being sense, and use religious texts as interesting moralistic tales. If you believe in the possibility of something greater than yourself and that it is abstract and unlike anything we can imagine, then you could use the christian god as a 'good enough' placeholder, even though you believe in the physical universe as being separate to 'god'.

At the end of the day, no matter how cutting Dawkins can be, he himself knows that you can't prove anything about this god or that god, and ultimately anything to do with why there is this reality nor what any alternative might be. He's just a guy with opinions about how this place works too, and he's certainly not the smartest of us to ever have been.

Might you be putting too much focus on the (i think facetious) comment that it teaches how to go to heaven not how the heavens go? I think, or rather hope, that he was trying to say that there's no way to tell one way or the other, but he can understand why people feel comforted by it, why some people are moved by their own unique experiences to feel that way. Also that you can say you subscribe to something even whilst you hold your own completely modified version of it according to what you experience in this reality!

Richard Dawkins - Sex, Death & The Meaning Of Life #2: Death has been added as a related post - related requested by Lilithia on that post.

Richard Dawkins - Sex, Death & The Meaning Of Life #3: Life has been added as a related post - related requested by Lilithia.

*related=http://videosift.com/video/Richard-Dawkins-Sex-Death-And-The-Meaning-Of-Life-Ep-3

Richard Dawkins - Sex, Death & The Meaning Of Life #1: Sin has been added as a related post - related requested by Lilithia on that post.

Richard Dawkins - Sex, Death & The Meaning Of Life #2: Death has been added as a related post - related requested by Lilithia.

Richard Dawkins - Sex, Death & The Meaning Of Life #3: Life has been added as a related post - related requested by Lilithia.

Richard Dawkins - Sex, Death & The Meaning Of Life #1: Sin has been added as a related post - related requested by Lilithia on that post.

*related=http://videosift.com/video/Richard-Dawkins-Sex-Death-And-The-Meaning-Of-Life-Ep-2
*related=http://videosift.com/video/Richard-Dawkins-Sex-Death-And-The-Meaning-Of-Life-Ep-3

This video has been seconded as a duplicate; transferring votes to the original video and killing this dupe - dupeof seconded with isdupe by Grimm.

For what it's worth I think Dawkin's statement 'no engineer would ever design that' is misguided as anyone who has hacked some software to meet a deadline will know or someone how has used duct tape to temporarily fix a leaky pipe so a building can open on time (but forget to fix it months later) will also know that compromises in design are the norm. there is never a perfect piece of engineering as we are human and don't live in a vacuum.

Oh yeah, Science is definitely: " simply our way of understanding what our senses tell us". Smoke DMT... that is Science. After you do that... it takes maybe 5 minutes. Come back and let's talk about Science.

Dawkins is ABSOLUTELY trying to inflect on to the situation with his own agenda. My position is simply not the mainstream, sell-out point of view that the media & educational system taught me considering when someone is bringing up a "nerve", "evolution" & "intelligent design" that this somehow does not denote a motive? I can think for myself. Are you kidding me? I love Science more than anything... go and fucking read some Lanza.. go read that your standpoint is cookie cutter.

"If it were done as a single nerve in a direct route, it would be subject to damage from a jerking head motion"

"That doesn't make much sense as all nerves start as large bundles and get smaller as they subdivide."

Correct. My point was only that a shorter route might not be beneficial, even though the right inferior laryngeal nerve goes directly to the larynx. After rethinking that statement, I retract [or redact] it. Either way would work.

Stress relief, however, is in place due to nerve bundling. I haven't done any dissections myself [yet], but from the video, it is apparent that the RLN in the giraffe's neck was well secured in its pathway to the larynx, requiring scalpel separation, rather than hanging loose, and thus well protected from damage due to shock.

I have read where descending aortal repairs in the upper section [arch] can cause damage to the RLN, resulting in subsequent hoarseness to the patient, and I can see why. This is just something that surgeons have to deal with.

But the argument that "no designer would ever make a mistake like that" makes an unfounded assumption, that IF there was a designer involved, that it could/would have been done differently. Dawkins' view of design implementation assumes a bottom up, de novo approach, which is not what ID proposes, at least from my perspective. I view ID as incremental gene tweaking to modify existent physiologies, at least subsequent to the Cambrian era.

"Imperfection is the norm but a lot of it won't cause disease. The idea that you can pick and choose which part of biology a designer intervenes baffles me."

Complex integrated designs like mammalian anatomy will always be subject to imperfections, failures, and can be improved upon. As far as how designs were implemented, the evidence is that they were incremental, and may have varied as to the source, and the methodologies.

Earlier complex designs may have been 'de novo', compound eyes for example, but in later eras, modifications appear to be modifications of what's there. Thus, it's entirely possible that design implementations may have been from various sources, and using various techniques.

But back to the question of 'bad design' as a refutation of design, I do not see the RLN as an indication of that, just a progression from earlier mammalian forms, as well as a necessary result of the descent of a functional heart as the embryo develops. Same for the male vas deferens.

If you want to focus on science, then whatever God you prefer - intelligent designer, whatever you want to call it - is completely out of the discussion. If anyone wants a scientific assessment of God, then it goes like this - "I cannot measure it with any instrument, i cannot infer its presence by its effect on something else. There is no way i can measure or quantify any aspect of God or the effect God might have on the physical universe, so why are you asking me about it?"

What is your point? I don't think Dawkins has ever said that he can prove "God" doesn't exist, and if he did he's wrong because you can't prove anything about something that doesn't exist; if it can't be measured or inferred or otherwise observed, it doesn't exist to science, because science is simply our way of understanding what our senses tell us. A non-measurable entity does not form part of that understanding if it has no measurable effect on anything we can sense. It's like asking how loud a smell is - it doesn't have that dimension to it, it's not a measurable quantity.

I'd also like to add that "i refuse to respond to responses to this" is about as arrogant a statement as you can make. "This is what i think, and regardless of any new information i can access about the situation, i will not have my mind changed and i will not even listen to the thing that may change my mind." That statement is pretty much anti-knowledge and anti-understanding and clearly demonstrates the futility of discussing science with someone who believes in so called "intelligent design."

As for talking about Dawkins being able to "create" the "tools for evolution of a giraffe".....? What on earth are you talking about? You just told the man to stick to science - but we have a working scientific explanation for evolution with gene mutation, time and selective breeding. You're the one injecting anthropomorphism into the mix (and worse, implying that Dawkins needs to disprove that nonsense explanation in order to stand so firmly behind the SCIENCE of evolution), he IS sticking to the science. When he gets asked about "God", he dismisses it - because it is out of the question when it comes to science, and he sticks to science like you ask!

Maybe the designer programmed the language of life in more simpler means than "perfect engineering". Does fucking Dawkins know how to create all of the necessary tools for evolution of a giraffe? I think not. He assumes a lot and he knows nothing. Theoretically, if we are living in some sort of programmed Universe that is somewhat randomized then the actual programming might be for self-replication and change in the simplest means in evolution over time... why would the program pull it all back for a re-drafting to make a current iteration, perfect? It doesn't appear to me that the "magic" of life is into re-drafting for perfection. That is something we have to figure out ourselves... I guess that's the whole trans-humanist sort of thing.

Science is science. No need to try and prove God or whatever does not exist, or is not an "intelligent designer" or "engineer"... focus on the Science! I really do not like Dawkins and I rarely say that about anyone.

This video has been nominated as a duplicate of this video by xxovercastxx. If this nomination is seconded with *isdupe, the video will be killed and its votes transferred to the original.