Sex, Death And The Meaning Of Life

[plwk]

Interesting... what thinkest thou?
Note: Found another youtube user who has all three parts, adjusted videos accordingly. Thank you.

[Astus]

Interesting show. It makes me ask how it could have happened that while Buddhism have had these ideas about exchanging oneself with another, empathy, removing the concept of identity, that Dawkins gives as sources of making life better, never really became the norm in any Buddhist country or region.

[Karma Dondrup Tashi]

I'd like to put Dawkins in a room with Alan Wallace and see him reduced to a quivering pile of jello.

[Lhug-Pa]

I'd like to put Dawkins in a room with Alan Wallace and see him reduced to a quivering pile of jello.

[catmoon]

Who do you mean? Which one is supposed to get jell-oed?

[Lhug-Pa]

Who do you mean? Which one is supposed to get jell-oed?

Stephen Batchelor

[steveb1]

Heh. Yes, Dawkins, Bachelor and Sam Harris could use a dose of B. Alan Wallace, as could Susan Blackmore, materialist "Zen practitioner". Raymond Tallis also comes highly recommended. Although not a Buddhist or even a theist, Tallis makes some striking critiques of people who hold views the same and similar to the folks mentioned thus far. Ken Wilber also has some pertinent things to say.

[catmoon]

I'd like to put Dawkins in a room with Alan Wallace and see him reduced to a quivering pile of jello.

Do you honestly believe that Wallace would have even a ghost of a chance debating a man with a Ph.D from Oxford University and no less than thirteen honorary doctorates from other Universities? A man who has been rated as #20 on the list of greatest living geniuses? Are you serious? Wallace would have as much chance as a pig in a horse race!

[greentara]

Catmoon, Are you serious? You're really dazzled by Dawkins and his various degrees! I've seen him debate a Catholic Arch Bishop, Dawkins became quite testy and lost his cool a couple of times and then put it down to jet lag....poor lamb.

[catmoon]

Catmoon, Are you serious? You're really dazzled by Dawkins and his various degrees! I've seen him debate a Catholic Arch Bishop, Dawkins became quite testy and lost his cool a couple of times and then put it down to jet lag....poor lamb.

And why did he find himself in deep waters? Why did the debate not go entirely his way? Because the Archbishop of Canterbury is damn near his intellectual equal and interestingly enough he also has a Ph.D from Oxford University. That chunk of paper is hard to get for the very good reason that you have to be able to outthink 99% of humanity just to TRY to get one. And the two men in that debate not only have that chunk of paper. They are both widely acknowledged to be among the best and brightest of those who have attained the Oxford Ph.D degree.

Some may sneer and say well what's in a piece of paper? But I think to do so is to vastly underestimate just how capable these people are. We listen to their debate and we think we understand it, but that's kind of like watching a grandmaster game of chess and thinking you know what is going on. I don't know if you have ever spoken to a Nobel Prize winner or a Fields Medal winner, but I have, and I would like to say that it was a very very humbling experience. Imagine stepping onto the ice with Wayne Gretzky. Its like that. You can't even touch the guy.

[futerko]

Surely there is no doubting Dawkins expertise in zoology, ethology, and evolutionary biology - his writings on philosophy and theology are no doubt superior to Wallace's understanding of animal behaviour.

[greentara]

Catmoon, I was talking about Archbishop Pell and he doesn't have a Phd and yet I found Dawkins struggling at certain points in the debate. I know a few people who have doctorates, whilst certainly clever and diligent I would be hard pressed to call them brilliant. Dawkins says "How much of what we believe about our world is the result of what we have been conditioned or told to think? To what extent are we influenced by our parents and our surroundings? Or do we believe what we believe because we have actually and quite independently thought it through?" How many of us on this forum come from a Buddhist background? My parents were not Buddhists.
Dawkins has now gathered a huge following and is quite thin skinned, he bristles when challenged. Does he think he's a superstar? I suspect he does. His reaction to criticism shows his flawed nature.

[lobster]

Sadly the videos are blocked in the UK.
Which is a shame because I have seen very few debates with non straw men.

Frankly I find anyone countering bad education, misinformation and the other excesses of rampant bigotry as a religion is quite right to address these 'debates' first and foremost.

If someone keeps quoting a book of rules, the Bible as 'self evidential'
you are working with very poor debaters. I hope the above videos were of a higher quality

[futerko]

Sadly the videos are blocked in the UK.
Which is a shame because I have seen very few debates with non straw men.

Frankly I find anyone countering bad education, misinformation and the other excesses of rampant bigotry as a religion is quite right to address these 'debates' first and foremost.

If someone keeps quoting a book of rules, the Bible as 'self evidential'
you are working with very poor debaters. I hope the above videos were of a higher quality

They're actually pretty good, as Astus says, "ideas about exchanging oneself with another, empathy, removing the concept of identity, that Dawkins gives as sources of making life better"

Ch 4 still have some clips - http://www.channel4.com/programmes/sex- ... o/series-1

Episode 2 is still on dailymotion http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xuk4zb ... shortfilms

And vimeo http://vimeo.com/52138918

But I guess Channel 4 are clamping down fast - I guess they’re planning to re-show it.

[catmoon]

Catmoon, I was talking about Archbishop Pell and he doesn't have a Phd and yet I found Dawkins struggling at certain points in the debate. I know a few people who have doctorates, whilst certainly clever and diligent I would be hard pressed to call them brilliant. Dawkins says "How much of what we believe about our world is the result of what we have been conditioned or told to think? To what extent are we influenced by our parents and our surroundings? Or do we believe what we believe because we have actually and quite independently thought it through?" How many of us on this forum come from a Buddhist background? My parents were not Buddhists.
Dawkins has now gathered a huge following and is quite thin skinned, he bristles when challenged. Does he think he's a superstar? I suspect he does. His reaction to criticism shows his flawed nature.

LOL how many archbishops has this guy debated, anyways? Sry about the mistaken ID. But I did watch the entire debate with Archbishop Rowan Williams who does have an Oxford Ph.D, and the debate was calm and civil throughout with significant points being scored by both sides.

It's true not every Ph.D is brilliant, but if you take all Ph.D's in the world, select for the best universities, then select those who went on to professorships at those universities, and again select out those professors who have attained broad recognition as brighter than even most professors from the best universities, gaining global recognition, you are down to perhaps the 100 most brilliant people in the world, and that is the category in which Richard Dawkins sits.

If he is thin skinned and a bit bristly, I don't see how that bears on the truth or falsity of what he says. It may just be as he said, he was having a bad day.

BTW I assume you are speaking of George Pell, Archbishop of Sydney. If so you will find that he too has a Ph.D from Oxford- a DPhil in church history, to be exact, and it was earned in 1971.

[lobster]

Thanks futerko, could not even view the clips, this computer has no flash support. Thank you for the links will check them later. I have seen two debates with Richard Dawkins, one with the Vatican's scientific advisor and another with the UK's chief rabbi that showed another side. prof. Dawkins mostly listened (and rightly so) to the priest from Rome and was friendly towards the good Rabbi. I hope he continues to find worthy advocates of religion as there is a genuine search for Truth on both sides . . .

Long live the Flying Speghetti Monster

[Johnny Dangerous]

the New Athiests - ugh.

Have my issues with organized religion too, but why is it that guys like Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens always seem to make their way to the ugly side of a position as a result of their supposed "humanism"?

I've seen Dawkins belittle all religious as morons, Harris support racial profiling, and Hitchen's support the Iraq war with an argument that sounds straight out of White Man's Burden. For guys that are supposed to be such revolutionary thinkers, they often seem intent on enforcing the status quo to me. they are all far better educated than I will ever, or could ever hope to be, but it doesn't seem to them that much good in some cases.

They are certainly experts in their given fields, and tremendously intelligent people..but they are all also the last people I'd listen to on questions like "the meaning of life".

[greentara]

Johnny, I certainly agree with you. Dawkins and the other 'mouths' would be the last people I'd listen to on the meaning of life. Dawkins having read a book too many, attending far too many chat shows, has now got a barrow to push and a position to defend. For all the gab he hasn't a clue about the nature of existence. If he even had a trace of humility he'd admit it.

[undefineable]

Surely there is no doubting Dawkins expertise in zoology, ethology, and evolutionary biology - his writings on philosophy and theology are no doubt superior to Wallace's understanding of animal behaviour.

In 'The God Delusion' he dismisses philosophy (as well as theology) as not being a genuine pursuit _ _ _

[lobster]

For all the gab he hasn't a clue about the nature of existence.

He seems to be doing OK, maybe some prefer a dharma bus/raft . . .