LudVan 2 75
HARDtalk – Professor Daniel Dennett — Philosopher, Cognitive Scientist and Atheist
Stephen Sackur speaks to Daniel Dennett, a philosopher who applies Darwinian evolutionary theory not just to species, but to ideas and religious beliefs. He believes religion has outlived its usefulness, hampers rational thought and damages our species. Along with Richard Dawkins and the late Christopher Hitchens, Dennett is seen as a founding father of the new atheism. But do humans want to live in a world where atheism rules and religion is dead?
Source
HARDtalk – Professor Daniel Dennett Part 2
Thanks!
Welcome
Dan Dennett is a genius. That's all there is too it. As Dawkin's said about this interview, Dennet was much too smart and POLITE to Sackur.
When did Dawkins say that. I only saw, and uploaded the interview today. I watch Hardtalk every day, is it an old one? I did expect Dennett to be more forceful in his replies, he was rather lenient regarding religion. I would (if I could) banish it from the planet.
He said it on his twitter today
Thanks
I'm new to twitter and I've just seen that there are quite a few Richard Dawkins there. Would you mind sending me the right one
It's the one with the tick to show it's verified. He has over 600,000 followers
I found it. I don't agree with Dawkins that Sakur was nasty or belligerent in a personal way, that Dawkins seems to suggest, that's Sakur's job. Dawkins sounds rather childish in that tweet. As for polite, well that's a good thing, perhaps as he was in England he felt he should be.
Thanks. Now I know for the future.
Yeah it's his job haha. Dennett's final words were wonderful though.
Yes it is his job, but as you say his parting words are (I would say) beautiful.
Dennett is always polite. It's his way. And don't be fooled that the British are polite! Sakur is British and let's not forget that late and great Hitchens (English born, but Amaerican citizen) was brutally rude (in a good way).
Sakur has his moments, but he seemed ignorant in this interview; it seemed as if he didn't read Dennett's arguments before the show and just asked some shallow questions. Perhap's that's just my opinion because I"m so familiar with the arguments from both sides.
EASYtalk for Dan Dennett.
Dennett far from his best here.
Yes I expected him to be more forceful
Dan had so much more patience with this guy that I ever could.
It's sad to see Dan dropping the ball here twice – 1. conceding the "absolute certainty" nonsense and 2. contradicting Sam Harris when saying that science has nothing to say about morality, and then in the next sentence saying that we need to use a rational approach to it (which, in effect, means "scientific").
Good job on NOMA though.
In all Dennet gave a very lack lustre performance here. Dawkins also did not do too well on HARDtalk. It seems that Dawkins and co, don't do too well in confrontational exchanges, when quizzed by a professional journalist. Perhaps they should stick to print, and documentaries.
I think they need to prepare polished answers for the typical arguments – only the absolute best speakers can counter them in a convincing way in an interview situation. Even Hitch couldn't IMO – I loved his appearances on TV, but in those moments where his fan said he was "eviscerating" his opponents, I fear that believers wouldn't find his arguments convincing at all.
I'm sorry but you use abbreviation that I don't understand. Previous post NOMA, this post IMO. You had enough space not to use an abbreviation, It's probably my age, but I hate this trend*. It would be hard for the interviewee, to know what questions he/she was going to be asked. And if they did start to give clever answers, the interviewer would change track. He had a wealth of facts on his lap, plus an earpiece. It's his job to win in HARDtalk. *No offence meant, and I hope none taken.
NOMA is non overlapping magisteria, a term coined by Stephen Jay Gould, IMO is "in my opinion".
Maybe you're new to the topic of atheism vs. theism, but there aren't THAT many arguments that theists can make. So for the most common ones it really makes sense for atheists who are frequently interviewed to prepare polished answers to those arguments.
Thank you. Had to look up NOMA (now I'm getting lazy). Never heard of Mr. Gould, I'm not American. Believe me theist can make a multitude of arguments. It's seems you have not looked at my profile, so I'm Jewish, and the Jews have a wealth of literature that will answer any theory put forward by non-believers. I gave up arguing the point of science versus religion. Even Dawkins says you can't persuade, or sway a devout religious erson that the Torah is wrong on creation & History. TFN
Yeah – I don't understand Stephen Jay Gould's clumsy contention. It creates a false divide.
Stalin and Mao? Seriously? If religious people examined the history of their faith beliefs they would be shocked. It amazes me that theologians who know the history still oeddle their nonesense. I suppose their opportunities to change income streams are limited.
"theist can make a multitude of arguments" I'm really curious as to what multitude of rational arguments any theist can make in favour of his/her religion. There really aren't any that can't easily be destroyed. Give me a couple of examples please
Contact a Rabbi.
lol if there were so many convincing arguments you would be able to give me a couple of examples. The truth is that there arent any.
You seem to be under the impression that I'm a theist. I'm not. I'm an agnostic. In the discussions I've had with the religious, they with their great knowledge of the Torah, and Talmud, bring forth counter arguments. I don't have this knowledge. So that is why I suggest you contact a Rabbi.I still hold to evolution though. Also watch here on YT Chief Rabbi of UK talk with Richard Dawkins, and see how cleverly the Rabbi gets Dawkins to agree with him.Then maybe you'll understand.
I have seen the debate you mentioned (and any debate with Richard dawkins on youtube). What important point does Dawkins concede? The best any rabby/priest can do is state that you cannot prove that god does not exist therefore it is just as likely for it to exist. I'm sure you see how ridiculous this argument it (since you cannot prove unicorns don't exits either)
It's a long time since I've watched the debate. But I do remember Dawkins agreeing on one or more points. But the Rabbi (who incident;y I don't like) uses a disgusting trick at the beginning by accusing Dawkins of being antisemitic. Regarding if God does or does not exist, we return to the my previous statement regarding the Torah and Talmud. It's not very clever to argue on something of which one does not have knowledge. As I stated I'm an agnostic. Lets leave it at that. Peace.
This point on extremism being equivalent to being certain about something is absolute nonsense. The damage from extremists doesn't come from the fact that they're certain about their God, it comes from the whole host of extra beliefs that that certainty entails. Whereas if Dan were to say he was certain on the meaning of lie, what else does that entail? Nothing. That's it. A single position on a single issue can do no harm if that issue has no real-world connection.
This interviewer bugs me. He keeps taking this aggressive devils advocate tone that can only lead to defensive responses. Have a discussion, not an interrogation.
Dennett always trips over his own arrogance when intelligently challenged.
Absolute certainty is the province of religion and the antithesis of science.
I can't fathom why it is that Brits tend to be such utter milksops on this issue.
it's christopher! not chris, god damn it! he hated "chris".
While Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris may actually manage to help a few dozen people over time, I'm afraid this guy will never "cure" anyone at all. As far as interviews and debates go, I think he is the least effective of the Four Horsemen of Atheism. As much as I agree with him, telling the truth is not enough. You need to take into account what people want to hear, cause that's the only message they will invest in. If you give them 90% of that, maybe you can skillfully slip in a 10% of critical thinking, with a 1% chance of landing. Slowly. Smoothly. In very small doses. Assuming you have the right body, the right voice, the right face, and all the rest of it.
Of course then, I do love the way interviewers (either out of personal bias or out of external conditioning) always attack, shame, and ridicule the token atheist, whenever they have a politically correct hook to trip him up with, but then, when the atheist scores some unshakable point – as @5:14 to 5:44 – they just let it slide, and quickly move on to some other topic, looking for some other angle. No endorsement, no acknowledgement, nothing. Typically, when they have no other angle, they fall back on the old, "Yes, but you can't be certain that there is no God, you can't prove that God does not exist." That's how you know they have nothing better, they've hit rock bottom.
I don't buy that the "meaning of life" is the most important question. Doesn't it first have to be established that there is a meaning?