Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason & Science
Richard Dawkins interviews Dan Dennett for “The Genius of Charles Darwin”, the Channel 4 UK TV program which won British Broadcasting Awards’ “Best Documentary Series” of 2008.
This footage was shot with the intention of editing for a television program. What you see here is the full extended interview, which includes a lot of rough camera transitions that were edited out of the final program (along with a lot of content).
Source
the cameraman caused me a lot of dizziness
Bacteria has been saving the planet for billions of years now man is it savior, please dont be greedy with self indulgnce
Dan Dennet is boring and very insightful. The Pinker interview was precipitously more interesting.
Unfortunately Darwinism doesn’t explain life itself. It assumes life with the primordial cell. Science has also proven God does exist with the revelation of the Big Bang. Matter can’t create itself. Also there is a logical problem. If we believe materialism to be true, then why should we believe that since we have no control over our thoughts. They are simply the materialistic workings of a moist robot. So we can’t believe our thoughts if we have no control over them which is what Darwinism is. So, materialism & necessarily atheism fails right out the gate.
I ve never heard a group of people, so excited about dying, and not having an afterlife.
nice backyard
Where do these guys come from? The science of Einstein, Feynman and Oppenheimer gave us 'mutually assured destruction', and 170,000 dead in a moment in Japan, and the possibility of 7.5 billion now. I am pleased Dan pulled through, but he and Richard laud Faust's bargain.
This director just makes them repeat their spontaneous conversation and falsely act it out again for no reason. Then doesn’t even bother to edit it out.
Let them talk. Stick the camera on a tripod and leave them be! This is an honest discussion, not the blair witch project.
I haven’t seen Richard’s blood boil at his most dense opponents as it did at this ‘director’.
3:25–3:34. “…but we don’t have to see it that way.” Seems like atheists don’t necessarily not believe in God, but really don’t want God to exist. They’re constantly searching for alternatives.
Sorry, but it is idiotic to state as a fact that consciousness is a product of the brain and nothing else. Maybe it is, but we are so far from understanding how that could be possible that it is too early to dismiss the possibility that consciousness involves something outside of the physical world.
Dennett and Dawkins; two complete intellectual idiots that go so well together! These guys are so "smart" they've completely lost their minds! It's the painting that created the painter! Really? In what universe? Sadly, complete morons!
Yeeesssssss!!!! What a wonderful exposition by Dennett and Dawkins! I love them! After all, the word "soul" means "anima" (alma in Spanish) which means "breath" in Latin and, therefore, the name of all non human and human species as "animals": animated beings who walk, run, feel, eat, sleep and, in the special case of Homo sapiens, thinks (of course, not all of them…lol!). So what Dawkins and Dennett hold is that the "soul" is the product of brain activity…just wonderful the way these marvelous scientists/philosopher (in the case of Dennett) unveil aspects which to so many people remain a mystery.
I’ll never get bored of watching your interviews! You are a fantastic human being Richard Dawkins!
Stop saying "crain"!
Yes being here and alive is really an honor, which too many people waste. By whining, chasing after money or gods or
wasting time with endless entertainment instead of enriching ourselves with knowledge and growth of our minds.
I have to say (and am prepared to accept hate for it) that I partially disagree with Mr. Dawkins on the subject of being bored. It's easier to enjoy life when you have some degree of social, financial or educational privilege. Those people living in poverty with terminal ennui are not going to be thankful for or amazed at their own existence at any given moment of a day, whether they're responsible for their situation or not.
In The Blind Watchmaker, Dawkins wrote that he could not imagine being an atheist at any time before 1859.
But neo/Darwinism.relies upon occasional useful + adaptive mutation.
Some say no such constructive mutation is known. That may be challenged, but even the most ardent defender of neo-Darwinism argues that only a very, very few might help.
Thus neo-Darwinism renders itself FALSIFIABLE
The falsifiability lies in the necessary abundance of aberrant fossils we ought to find. But every fossil found, wherever and whenever, works. That´s to say we may envisage it flying, running, swimming.
For the abundant squillions of weird and useless things that ought to result from neo-Darwinian accidents we see no evidence.
This ONE Point FALSIFIES neo-Darwinism. It falls at the very first hurdle.
For such precise fossilised remains is the last thing to result from a process which has as its central mechanism the random generation of unsupervised novelties.
And proves that, if evolution occurred, the mechanism driving it could not have been neo-Darwinian.
BUT, neo-Darwinism is a harmless creation myth.
Listening to this discourse, and contemplating the fact that all of us – has the inherent ability to participate in (or, rather – on) the excact same trains of thought, boggles the mind.
To quote Daniel; ‘Thank goodness!’ . . . . . .
Darwin took the magic out of nature, and the mystery out of existence. He didn't take God away from us. . He just put the question mark at the end of those sentences.
If only the parks, and well EVERYWHERE were full of intellectuals problem solving, this would be the best world ever!!!
All the gurus, preachers , scientists, philosophers ect speak with such certainty. Each group has their own cult /sheep follows just like you . No one can say with absolute certainty everything takes faith of some sort. Because until you take your last breath, you simple won't know if you can argue with this. Then your following faith, be it faith of god. Faith evolution. Faith of nothing after death.
brilliant
Denney looks sort of darwin
Professor Dennett is only half right.
There are two dangers in Darwin's Idea.
First, there is the danger in rejecting it completely.
The second danger is in taking Darwin's Idea too far.
Evolution suggests how life forms may have changed since their inception.
However, evolution does not fully explain this process, and the remaining gaps between variations in simple insects, to say nothing of the leap from one species to another, would make The Grand Canyon look like the moat around a toy castle.
Further, and even more importantly, Evolution Theory is not a explanation for the origin of life.
Therefore, and it would be much better for the evolutionist to say "Neither Darwin nor his acolytes have any better understanding of how inert matter became living cells than do those who say 'An Unknowable God did it.'"
Admittedly, and perhaps one day this will change to the point where science will be able to explain everything.
But for now that promise is as empty as is that of the Christian who insists that Jesus is on his way back and will tell us exactly how the whole process works, whenever he finally shows up.
At least they're sitting down in this one.
Wonderful interview – pity about the lousy camerawork throughout !
Lit
This casual conversation between two persons of different- but complimentary – disciplines is nothing less than a confluence of intellectual forces (theirs and those that they draw upon) that, more than any video I have ever seen or any book I have ever read, has the power to change lives – and, for those lives which are not in need of change, to deepen and broaden their understanding of their singular and unique existence…and of Existence in general.
He would give the biggest prize to Darwin FfS he is very ignorant