FOLLOW BOREME
TAGS
<< Back to listing
Richard Dawkins: What if science worked like religion?

Richard Dawkins: What if science worked like religion?

(4:01) Consciousness raising clip from Richard Dawkins' lecture at UC Berkeley.

Share this post

You can comment as a guest, but registering gives you added benefits

Add your comment
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: wtf (2499 days ago)
This guy is a tool. He's spreading a myth about science and religion being mutually exclusive for his own gain. O'reilly gets science more than dawkins gets religion. They are both as ****ing stupid as each other.
ReplyVote up (150)down (136)
Original comment
This guy is a tool. He's spreading a myth about science and religion being mutually exclusive for his own gain. O'reilly gets science more than dawkins gets religion. They are both as ****ing stupid as each other.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (2498 days ago)
no, I reckon Dawkins understands that science and religion are not mutually exclusive, but if he admitted it, he couldn't sell his books half as well
ReplyVote up (137)down (126)
Original comment
no, I reckon Dawkins understands that science and religion are not mutually exclusive, but if he admitted it, he couldn't sell his books half as well
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: S Hawk! (2500 days ago)
Oh **** off the lot of you! You either don't listen, "it's absurd to assume the beliefs in religion based upon the geographic area", don't understand, "Religious questions are crucially different from the scientific question (note lack of plural) or have no clue "I've never watched or read anything by Dawkins before"..... but feel happy to comment!! Start listening to fact rater than fairy tale!
ReplyVote up (131)down (130)
Original comment
Oh **** off the lot of you! You either don't listen, "it's absurd to assume the beliefs in religion based upon the geographic area", don't understand, "Religious questions are crucially different from the scientific question (note lack of plural) or have no clue "I've never watched or read anything by Dawkins before"..... but feel happy to comment!! Start listening to fact rater than fairy tale!
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (2500 days ago)
The lack of plural was quite intentional, you could make a better analogy to a scientific question, this particular one is risible. Anyone who could present it is blinkered or just not very bright. Seriously, is this a good example of the way the man reasons? As I said I don't know but the logic is plain, if it is - he's an idiot.
ReplyVote up (105)down (117)
Original comment
The lack of plural was quite intentional, you could make a better analogy to a scientific question, this particular one is risible. Anyone who could present it is blinkered or just not very bright. Seriously, is this a good example of the way the man reasons? As I said I don't know but the logic is plain, if it is - he's an idiot.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (2500 days ago)
Incidentally the reason I haven't bothered myself with the works of Dawkins is I've read all the arguments for and against the existence of God and as I said, I certainly agree with Dawkins to the extent particular religious forms are cultural constructs so I didn't see how he would have anything to add to my understanding.
ReplyVote up (119)down (134)
Original comment
Incidentally the reason I haven't bothered myself with the works of Dawkins is I've read all the arguments for and against the existence of God and as I said, I certainly agree with Dawkins to the extent particular religious forms are cultural constructs so I didn't see how he would have anything to add to my understanding.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: greenman (2500 days ago)
Once again typical of the atheist. Attack and insult anyone who disagrees with Dawkins. Beautiful opening line. Is that how you debate with everyone? And is it not a bit of a misnomer to be an theist if you are going to treat dawkins as a bit of a deity!
ReplyVote up (123)down (153)
Original comment
Once again typical of the atheist. Attack and insult anyone who disagrees with Dawkins. Beautiful opening line. Is that how you debate with everyone? And is it not a bit of a misnomer to be an theist if you are going to treat dawkins as a bit of a deity!
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Testies (2498 days ago)
Science seems to be based on things like evidence, testable hypotheses, stuff like that. Religion seems to be based on stuff written 300-500 years after the alleged incident and more about social control and power. I'd posit 95+% of believers believe (and believe what they do) because their parents believed. And if they were born somewhere else - well, we could test that, eh?
ReplyVote up (129)down (133)
Original comment
Science seems to be based on things like evidence, testable hypotheses, stuff like that. Religion seems to be based on stuff written 300-500 years after the alleged incident and more about social control and power. I'd posit 95+% of believers believe (and believe what they do) because their parents believed. And if they were born somewhere else - well, we could test that, eh?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (2498 days ago)
Testable hypotheses are great when you can get them but science makes do when it can't. Evidence must be selected and interpreted. Ask a scientist and the best answer you will get to 'What is science' is "It's what scientists do." Most people have the wrong idea about science, it is a creative activity as close to art as arithmetic.
ReplyVote up (134)down (141)
Original comment
Testable hypotheses are great when you can get them but science makes do when it can't. Evidence must be selected and interpreted. Ask a scientist and the best answer you will get to 'What is science' is "It's what scientists do." Most people have the wrong idea about science, it is a creative activity as close to art as arithmetic.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Samsgimp (2500 days ago)
Even if the the whole world had one flavour of belief in 'god' it would still be absurd to hold those beliefs-as-true in the way Dawkins illustrated with his fellow peers supporting the asteroid theory with no evidence whatsoever. We must never lose sight of the fact that, in most cases, evidence = truth and belief = fiction. My only hope is that there is life after death but I don't believe in it and science has yet to prove - either way.
ReplyVote up (140)down (131)
Original comment
Even if the the whole world had one flavour of belief in 'god' it would still be absurd to hold those beliefs-as-true in the way Dawkins illustrated with his fellow peers supporting the asteroid theory with no evidence whatsoever. We must never lose sight of the fact that, in most cases, evidence = truth and belief = fiction. My only hope is that there is life after death but I don't believe in it and science has yet to prove - either way.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (2499 days ago)
The problem on both sides of this debate is mainly epistemological. What does it mean to say a thing is true? Science is a system built on a few unprovable fundamental premises e.g. objective reality, causality. Science accepts, 'believes' in these as true because it must to function.
ReplyVote up (126)down (135)
Original comment
The problem on both sides of this debate is mainly epistemological. What does it mean to say a thing is true? Science is a system built on a few unprovable fundamental premises e.g. objective reality, causality. Science accepts, 'believes' in these as true because it must to function.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (2499 days ago)
Religion works by the same mental process but the premises are different, it's analogous to Euclidean and Non-euclidean geometry. The premises of science are pared to the minimum to explain observed phenomena according to the principle of Ockham's razor, religion includes premises as it needs them for psychological/social effect. That is the real difference between scientific and magical thinking, nothing more than why you accept a premise.
ReplyVote up (134)down (152)
Original comment
Religion works by the same mental process but the premises are different, it's analogous to Euclidean and Non-euclidean geometry. The premises of science are pared to the minimum to explain observed phenomena according to the principle of Ockham's razor, religion includes premises as it needs them for psychological/social effect. That is the real difference between scientific and magical thinking, nothing more than why you accept a premise.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: wtf (2499 days ago)
You are right, science, and the scientific method is based off faith, premise and assumption. Even logic itself is entirely founded on assumptions. What Dawkins fails to understand is that if you take all the scientific data in the world you still cant disprove god exists, no-one will ever disprove god exists. He has serious difficulty getting past his assumption that god = a bearded guy who lives in the sky.
ReplyVote up (140)down (136)
Original comment
You are right, science, and the scientific method is based off faith, premise and assumption. Even logic itself is entirely founded on assumptions. What Dawkins fails to understand is that if you take all the scientific data in the world you still cant disprove god exists, no-one will ever disprove god exists. He has serious difficulty getting past his assumption that god = a bearded guy who lives in the sky.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: a lack of proof is not proof (2497 days ago)
And you also cant prove he exists either. If you cant disprove or prove his existence then instead why don't we ask ourselves, "Are we be better off believing in god/religion, or will our lives be better served if we threw away a collective delusion?"
ReplyVote up (136)down (121)
Original comment
And you also cant prove he exists either. If you cant disprove or prove his existence then instead why don't we ask ourselves, "Are we be better off believing in god/religion, or will our lives be better served if we threw away a collective delusion?"
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (2496 days ago)
The pragmatic view Mr. James? Surely that is something very difficult to get a rational grip on? Any conclusion would say more about the ratiocinator than his ratiocination. For me there are a lot of ideas about God we could well dispense with but I wouldn't throe the baby out with the bathwater.
ReplyVote up (133)down (130)
Original comment
The pragmatic view Mr. James? Surely that is something very difficult to get a rational grip on? Any conclusion would say more about the ratiocinator than his ratiocination. For me there are a lot of ideas about God we could well dispense with but I wouldn't throe the baby out with the bathwater.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Samsgimp (2499 days ago)
If we were to draw the line anywhere - I propose that we discuss probabilities prior to the epistemological mire.
ReplyVote up (106)down (130)
Original comment
If we were to draw the line anywhere - I propose that we discuss probabilities prior to the epistemological mire.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (2498 days ago)
Your probabilities depend on your premises.
ReplyVote up (125)down (142)
Original comment
Your probabilities depend on your premises.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (2499 days ago)
Or.. get a room...
ReplyVote up (106)down (130)
Original comment
Or.. get a room...
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (2500 days ago)
What a turd. That is the most moronic analogy. Seemingly, from his initial assertion if everyone was Christian (or other) then that religion would be true? Reasonings for religions being true may or may not be faulty, but again this analogy is sh*t and poor reasoning as well.
ReplyVote up (128)down (125)
Original comment
What a turd. That is the most moronic analogy. Seemingly, from his initial assertion if everyone was Christian (or other) then that religion would be true? Reasonings for religions being true may or may not be faulty, but again this analogy is sh*t and poor reasoning as well.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Richard (2500 days ago)
For those who don't get this, may I say the word "irony" to you...
ReplyVote up (145)down (158)
Original comment
For those who don't get this, may I say the word "irony" to you...
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (2500 days ago)
I've never watched or read anything by Dawkins before but if this is a good example of his reasoning he really is an idiot. I'm not defending religion, I probably agree with him about it but his argument here is just shoddy.
ReplyVote up (118)down (129)
Original comment
I've never watched or read anything by Dawkins before but if this is a good example of his reasoning he really is an idiot. I'm not defending religion, I probably agree with him about it but his argument here is just shoddy.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Realist (2500 days ago)
His point is that it's absurd to assume the beliefs in religion based upon the geographic area they are born in. The 2nd half demonstrates this by postulating a scientific theory in different ways that religions promote their beliefs. I shouldn't have to explain this, you clearly didn't get it.
ReplyVote up (121)down (131)
Original comment
His point is that it's absurd to assume the beliefs in religion based upon the geographic area they are born in. The 2nd half demonstrates this by postulating a scientific theory in different ways that religions promote their beliefs. I shouldn't have to explain this, you clearly didn't get it.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (2500 days ago)
I got it all right, the problem is this particular reasoning by analogy doesn't hold up. Religious questions are crucially different from the scientific question "why the dinosaurs are extinct" in that they matter very much to how you live and get on in the culture you are part of.
ReplyVote up (128)down (127)
Original comment
I got it all right, the problem is this particular reasoning by analogy doesn't hold up. Religious questions are crucially different from the scientific question "why the dinosaurs are extinct" in that they matter very much to how you live and get on in the culture you are part of.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (2500 days ago)
An example of a scientific question which has social implications would be "is homosexuality a mental disorder?", sixty years ago the scientists studying this question all agreed it was, now, in the West at least they agree it is not. We have not learned anything objective about homosexuality to change this view, the culture changed and the scientists changed to align themselves with it.
ReplyVote up (184)down (124)
Original comment
An example of a scientific question which has social implications would be "is homosexuality a mental disorder?", sixty years ago the scientists studying this question all agreed it was, now, in the West at least they agree it is not. We have not learned anything objective about homosexuality to change this view, the culture changed and the scientists changed to align themselves with it.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: j (2229 days ago)
Latest comment: Some interesting comments here. However; Dawkins denies the existence of God ( yes I believe in God ) while really it seems to me that it's religion that is the problem. Religion; any religion, is a human idea and therefore fraught with all the problems that are associated with human thought. Religions, and the belief in one religion over another are the cause of many of the worlds problems. Religion therefore, is the problem. Not belief in God. These are two seperate concepts although one admittedly follows from the other. No one can prove their claims for the existence of God but that does not preclude the possibility of his existence. When I look at life and the universe I find it hard to deny to myself that there must be a creative force behind it. You may argue that I am wrong and I can't prove that I'm not. For now we will just have to leave it at that. It was a humorous presentation to watch. I'll give Dawkins that. One last thought. What did the dinosaurs believe in?
ReplyVote up (102)down (122)
Original comment
Latest comment: Some interesting comments here. However; Dawkins denies the existence of God ( yes I believe in God ) while really it seems to me that it's religion that is the problem. Religion; any religion, is a human idea and therefore fraught with all the problems that are associated with human thought. Religions, and the belief in one religion over another are the cause of many of the worlds problems. Religion therefore, is the problem. Not belief in God. These are two seperate concepts although one admittedly follows from the other. No one can prove their claims for the existence of God but that does not preclude the possibility of his existence. When I look at life and the universe I find it hard to deny to myself that there must be a creative force behind it. You may argue that I am wrong and I can't prove that I'm not. For now we will just have to leave it at that. It was a humorous presentation to watch. I'll give Dawkins that. One last thought. What did the dinosaurs believe in?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (2498 days ago)
having read a lot of the posts here i now know why this site is called boreme. may i suggest changing it to shootme
ReplyVote up (123)down (158)
Original comment
having read a lot of the posts here i now know why this site is called boreme. may i suggest changing it to shootme
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Woodi (2498 days ago)
If we're going to start changing names, let's just call it f*ckme and watch some decent clips.
ReplyVote up (127)down (160)
Original comment
If we're going to start changing names, let's just call it f*ckme and watch some decent clips.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
RELATED POSTS
Joe Rogan and Brian Cox discuss monkeys in an infinite universe?
Joe Rogan and Brian Cox discuss monkeys in an infinite universe?
The Science of Thinking
The Science of Thinking
NASA, SpaceX, and Blue Origin's rockets compared
NASA, SpaceX, and Blue Origin's rockets compared
Answers with Joe - Bitcoin, world-changer or another bubble?
Answers with Joe - Bitcoin, world-changer or another bubble?
Brian Cox - Is time travel to the past possible?
Brian Cox - Is time travel to the past possible?