Brief Candle in the Dark: My Life in Science | Richard Dawkins | Talks at Google

Richard Dawkins visited Google’s office in Kirkland, WA to discuss his book “Brief Candle in the Dark: My Life in Science”.

From 1995 to 2008 Richard Dawkins was the Charles Simonyi Professor of the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University. He is an internationally best-selling author. Among his books are The Ancestor’s Tale, The Selfish Gene, The Blind Watchmaker, Climbing Mount Improbable, Unweaving the Rainbow, A Devil’s Chaplain, The God Delusion, The Greatest Show on Earth and The Magic of Reality. His most recent books are his two-part autobiography. Part 1, An Appetite for Wonder, released in 2013 and A Brief Candle in the Dark released in 2015.

[GegoXaren]

Why do they never use those "behind the ear" microphones? Google can afford a set of those, right?

[Szemichaza]

I am currently working on a translation and listening to that. I heard someone's voice in 33:26 and I wasn't watching the video, just listening to the audio. I was surprised to see it was Mister Dawkins himself. Such a talented man, he could do voiceovers 😳

[eugenerasband]

I found this discussion very interesting. I certainly find myself in agreement with Mr. Dawkins on many points, even though I do believe in God. I think we must be much more accepting of other person's right to believe as they wish. I was particularly impressed with the portion of his presentation concerning discussion vs. debate. We all should be growing in intelligence, and we cannot unless we admit that none of us is infallible!

[bellarosalarsen]

Lots of people don't like you, not surprised you are a really different, kind inspiring man. Thank you for the wonderful talks and the amazing bravery Professor Dawkins.

[louisehaley]

I can’t wait to see the movie of his life, I wonder who would play the lead role ?
So sad to think he and Lalla are now divorced. 😢

[bluelotus]

"Nature is not cruel, only pitilessly indifferent. This is one of the hardest lessons for humans to learn. We cannot admit that things might be neither good nor evil, neither cruel nor kind, but simply callous--indifferent to all suffering." Richard Dawkins

Ask the Candle in the Dark to scientifically enlighten us on WHICH selfish gene is responsible for human suffering and WHAT genetic mutation makes it so hard for humans to learn that nature is not cruel, only pitilessly indifferent.

[yndr]

When you make the conscient decision to move your eyeball, why wouldn't your brain send a copy of that expectation to your brain so that you didn't see 'earthquakes'?

[susangoss]

+Jon Fiss I would take Francis Collin's work over Richard Dawkins any day of the week...he has mapped the human genome and yet helped to explain the existence of a creator and and dares to question without demoralizing everyone who believes in an intelligent designer and creation. Collins is a true investigator and Dawkins is an angry man taking jabs at the Bible. Francis Collins wrote many books, one The Language of God, just to name one...best seller. As for Ken Ham in Kentucky, I am not impressed with him either...so we agree on that point.

[MissWordek]

I wish Dawkins would stay away from religion and just stick to things he understand like bilogy. All his stuff on genes are amazing but all his philosophical stuff is embarasing and shows lack of knowledge on the subject.

[rontee]

I’ve been quite familiar with Richard Dawkins over the years. I hope Richard Dawkins fans realize that most of his claims in his “God Delusion” book have been debunked in other books with equally powerful arguments. It is just that his book has been enormously more popular than the others and don’t get as many hits. But here a few things I discovered about his book that you may find interesting:

1. Dawkins attempts to convert his audience to atheism. What? It’s okay for Dawkins to convert Christians to atheism, but wrong for Christians to convert atheists to Christianity just because he believes there is no God. That suggestion seems a bit unfair and elitist to me with illogical expectations. .

2. Dawkins arguments are old philosophical ideas that have been debated for hundreds of years. He just markets himself good for a good price. He’s recycling other people’s ideas and claiming them as his own.

3. Dawkins says natural selection explains the variety of life forms we know today and science demonstrates that God has no role in our creation. He is correct, science only “demonstrates” the explanation of the origin of life, but science does not prove the origin of life. Interesting that atheists say the simple cannot give rise to the complex except when it comes to evolution.

4. Dawkins fails to mention that Darwin considered his theory of evolution perfectly compatible with a belief in God. Darwin wrote “I am aware that the conclusions arrived at in this work will be denounced by some as highly irreligious; but he who denounces them is bound to shew why it is more irreligious to explain the origin of man as a distinct species by descent from some lower form, through the laws of variation and natural selection, than to explain the birth of the individual through the laws of ordinary reproduction. The birth of both species and of the individual are equally parts of that grand sequence of events, which our minds refuse to accept as the result of blind chance."

5. Dawkins says scientific conclusions are solid, yet admits that 'paradigm shifts' occur in science and large chunks of theory are unavoidably jettisoned as new findings expose inconstancies and flaws in the old science. Then, how does he know his current scientific theories and paradigms are correct?

6. Dawkins uses mere rhetoric to make his case, not necessarily science. He artificially creates straw men out of other scientists and philosophers before knocking them down (cheap shots).

7. Dawkins draws irrelevant conclusions from partial data, and makes repetitious taunts at imaginary opponents as if foolish opponents had stated a foolish opposite position.

8. Dawkins book is braggadocios citing his own academic achievements and proudly reports on himself but eventually gets around to discussing conventional arguments for God’s existence.

9. Dawkins idea of a 'first mover' rests on the assumption that we can see movement in the universe and that we know nothing moves unless it is moved by something else. This is a regress and unconvincing since things in the universe move unless they are stopped. Dawkins uses this outdated argument that was developed by Aquinas from the bad science of Aristotle. And what do we know about Aristotle? That he was not a religious believer but a biologist with philosophical leanings. Dawkins is a biologist with philosophical leanings.

10. Dawkins assumes the Big Bang singularity needs nothing to create it; even if it isn’t God, it still needs a first cause. You can’t create something from nothing.

11. Dawkins said in the introduction to his book that he doesn't bother reading or understanding theological arguments since he thinks they're wrong anyway. How logical is that? If you are going to argue against a position it is logical to know your “enemy.”

12. Dawkins dismisses the “Ontological Argument” that everyone can imagine a perfect being, all powerful, all good et cetera, even if they do not know whether such a being really exists, it follows that in order to be perfect, such a being must also exist, as to exist is better than not to exist. So Dawkins is incapable of visualizing any kind of perfection. Even if you accept the ontological argument in part it would still say that God could at least exist in the abstract rather than exist in grubby reality. But Dawkins’ blind prejudice toward demolishing God as a concept would prevent him from seeing this conclusion. .

13. Dawkins dismisses intelligent design claiming that a designer would have to be unimaginably complex. It does not seem to occur to Dawkins that the most elegant designs are those requiring the fewest rules or procedures, and that “God” could have designed the universe (as Darwin himself suggests) to operate using a system prescribed by evolutionary theory. Why shouldn't the evidence that the entire biological world be reducible to a few microbes that randomly mutate not jive equally well with the idea of efficient design?

14. Dawkins makes strange claims that can’t be proven such as specialized organs like eyes and bird wings seem to be useless until after many supposed cycles of evolutionary refinement, he says that animals might have found 'half a wing' useful even before they could fly. He says that it might slow their descent if they fell from a tree. Well, then how did all those flightless birds get up in the trees in the first place?

15 Dawkins discusses the concept of original sin as mentioned in the Bible. Original sin is not mentioned anywhere in the Bible.

16. Dawkins says rhetorical things he cannot possible know as true such as Jesus was NOT born in Bethlehem but was merely dragged there, so to speak, by later writers in order to fit with ancient predictions.

THE LAUGHABLE RICHARD DAWKINS: In 2012 atheist Richard Dawkins was on a live radio program and quoted from a poll that reportedly measured Christianity in Britain. The poll suggested nearly 66% of individuals couldn’t name the first book of the New Testament. Despite the vague intention of this survey Dawkins arbitrarily concluded that Christianity was declining in Europe; but when Dawkins was asked if he could name the full title of Darwin’s On the Origin of Species (his own “holy book”), Dawkins faltered and uttered, “Uh, ” before saying, “Oh God.” He couldn’t remember the full title. This was definitely laughable coming from an atheist. I believe there is a subliminal voice inside all of us telling us inherently there is a God. When Dawkins uttered, “Oh God, ” it was that inherent voice bubbling to the top. And by-the-way, that survey Dawkins quoted was commissioned by the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science (wink). The full name of Darwin’s book is “On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Race in the Struggle for Life.” And no, I couldn’t have named the full title either, even though I studied it in college, but the first book of the New Testament is Matthew. I guess since I was able to name the first book of the New Testament I have single handedly reversed the decline of Christianity (chuckle).

[amishron]

The fool has said in his heart there is no God. Ps. 14:1.