Tags for this video have been changed from 'metal heads, kids, 12 year old, story, malcolm brickhouse, jarad dawkins' to 'metal heads, 12 year old, malcolm brickhouse, jarad dawkins, unlocking the truth' - edited by Grimm

Dawkins shits me these days. He's a man almost entirely devoid of humour and does not have the temperament to face people with opposing viewpoints to himself.

I recently watched him be interviewed by Australia's own Andrew Denton, and my god did Dawkins come across as a humourless dick.

I hate that he is so much the face of atheism these days, because he doesn't show the humanity of it well at all. I MUCH prefer Neil deGrasse Tyson, because he is a man of humour, of wit, of charm. All of which I think Dawkins lacks.

He just makes me cringe now.

i think her question was coming from a much different place than his answer. She asked, seemingly, from a sense of obligation. He used rational arguments about the 'luck' of circumstance, but the sense of hubris is not specific to her. It is endemic in a way of thinking, from which Dawkins himself is not entirely divorced.

Richard Dawkins - "What if you're wrong?" has been added as a related post - related requested by Grimm.

Professor Richard Dawkins - "What if you're wrong?" has been added as a related post - related requested by Grimm on that post.

*related=http://videosift.com/video/Richard-Dawkins-What-if-youre-wrong

It's not a rational discussion just because two people are putting words in order. Chopra is just babbling, and Dawkins is letting him because every badly used 'metaphor' is another inch of rope Chopra is hanging himself with.

Edit: IS HE FUCKING KIDDING US? The "Quantum physics aficionados" have "hijacked" his concept of quantum healing!? Deepak Chutzpah...

Big Dawkins fan, Chopra I'd never heard but was facinating in this vid.

One of the biggest things I took away was that we ALL have subjective expiriences (sp) so 7 billion subjective expiriences is very difficult to put to any objective tests?

Not sure I make sense even to myself ...really interesting video though

holy shit that was awesome.
two men in fundamental disagreement discussing calmly and rationally.
my respect for dawkins just went up a few points.


oh ok.for chopra too.

I truly admire Richard Dawkins, but the question is philosophical, and the way he answered that question is nothing to look up to.

Most religious people believe in a "higher power" for pragmatic reasons as well, it's emotionally comforting for them, and gives them a sense of purpose. If pragmatism was enough, religion could justify its faith in god the same way.

For example, one of the twelve steps for recovering addicts is "recognizing a higher power". Whether or not that's factually true, the belief is therapeutically useful.

I think a better answer should go along the lines of establishing what "justify" means, then explaining that the alternative, NOT believing in the scientific method, allows knowledge to be arbitrary, or impossible.

At least that's how a philosopher of science would start to answer that question, but I guess "It works, bitches" makes for a better sound bite.

How to Justify Science (Richard Dawkins) has been added as a related post - related requested by RFlagg.

And since it doesn't do so automatically if linked in the description, *related=http://videosift.com/video/How-to-Justify-Science-Richard-Dawkins

Richard Dawkins - How to Justify Science - Doodle has been added as a related post - related requested by RFlagg on that post.

You are greatly missed Christopher. Dawkins. Dennett and Harris are doing a good job. But the master was/is Hitchens. Can't add anything to the accolades paid to the great man, except to say, faith based apologists are happy that they can no longer be torn apart by him in debate.