Dawkins on Newstalk (Autobiography)

IamtheWalrus

Pat Kenny Show

http://www.newstalk.ie/patkennyshow

iDave

Tweeted he was talking to Pat Kenny on RTE Radio. oops.

IamtheWalrus

Light-hearted, enjoyable chat. I find listening to clever, rational people comforting.

GK1001

Look forward to giving it a listen later, assume it's on a podcast?

IamtheWalrus

GK1001 wrote: »

Look forward to giving it a listen later, assume it's on a podcast?

You can stream the chat on the Newstalk site. Only 20mins long.

Peregrinus

IamtheWalrus wrote: »

Light-hearted, enjoyable chat. I find listening to clever, rational people comforting.

Pat Kenny?

Dades

Peregrinus wrote: »

Pat Kenny?

Of all the radio presenters I could imagine, Kenny would be the one I'd envisage would not be encumbered with misconceptions and straw-men that many people demonstrate when interviewing atheists (Tubridy - I'm looking at you). He does his homework, to be fair to him.

IamtheWalrus

Dades wrote: »

Of all the radio presenters I could imagine, Kenny would be the one I'd envisage would not be encumbered with misconceptions and straw-men that many people demonstrate when interviewing atheists (Tubridy - I'm looking at you). He does his homework, to be fair to him.

I get the impression Pat is an atheist.

sephir0th

37 mins in: http://www.newstalk.ie/player/listen_back/13240/4021/12th_September_2013_-_The_Pat_Kenny_Show_Part_1

Jimmy444

IamtheWalrus wrote: »

I get the impression Pat is an atheist.

Not so sure about that. While talking to Brian Cox on Friday he said the problem he has with this question of a complete atheistic approach to things is who laid down the rules about gravity, neutrinos etc., could that be God? Maybe as a presenter he was playing Devil's Advocate but I don't think so.

Hotblack Desiato

Devil's advocate perhaps, or ignorant perhaps?

If the universe requires a creator, then why doesn't the creator require a creator? It's a fundamental fallacy of religion.

The 'fine tuning' argument is a fallacy also.

wretcheddomain

ninja900 wrote: »

If the universe requires a creator, then why doesn't the creator require a creator? It's a fundamental fallacy of religion.

...and if nothing created something as more complex as a God then why couldn't nothing create something much simpler as a Universe, as science is now demonstrating.

Geomy

wretcheddomain wrote: »

...and if nothing created something as more complex as a God then why couldn't nothing create something much simpler as a Universe, as science is now demonstrating.

The only problem is to translate that nothing has to be something.

Im not of the scientific persuasion so am not good at putting it down on paper.

Or is it more philosophical than scientific ?

Zillah

Dades wrote: »

(Tubridy - I'm looking at you)

Eugh, what an unendurable cretin.

IamtheWalrus

Geomy wrote: »

The only problem is to translate that nothing has to be something.

I am of a scientific persuasion and don't get that bit either. Laurence Krauss 'addresses' criticism of that at the start of his book 'A universe from nothing' but I still don't get it.

nagirrac

The concept of a universe from nothing only makes sense if you redefine "nothing" to mean absence of what we would think of as normal matter rather than the absence of anything. Its all a bit moot considering we can only account for 4% of the universe based on the baryonic matter we can currently measure (protons, neutrons, etc.). Even if all of that 4% disappeared for some reason we would still have 96% that clearly is not "nothing".

IamtheWalrus

nagirrac wrote: »

The concept of a universe from nothing only makes sense if you redefine "nothing" to mean absence of what we would think of as normal matter rather than the absence of anything. Its all a bit moot considering we can only account for 4% of the universe based on the baryonic matter we can currently measure (protons, neutrons, etc.). Even if all of that 4% disappeared for some reason we would still have 96% that clearly is not "nothing".

The way I see it is, there is nothing, literally absence of any concept, structure, logic, nothing. Krauss claims this 'nothing' is actually a hot-bed of potential activity where particles, including our early universe, came into being.

Therefore this 'hot-bed' is actually something really. It's a medium where particles can spring from. So what created this hot-bed? If Krauss isn't yet going that far; if he's merely giving an explanation of the first particles, then that's fine. But if he's saying that this was the beginning of everything (universe + everything else), then he's not convincing me.

Geomy

Maybe we just don't have the senses and cognitive ability to understand,experience, and see certain things around us....

Just like a horse that can sense danger, such as a quick stall before a broken down bridge in twilight....

Sarky

You did not just cite Twilight in order to argue for ESP.

Gumbi

IamtheWalrus wrote: »

The way I see it is, there is nothing, literally absence of any concept, structure, logic, nothing. Krauss claims this 'nothing' is actually a hot-bed of potential activity where particles, including our early universe, came into being.

Therefore this 'hot-bed' is actually something really. It's a medium where particles can spring from. So what created this hot-bed? If Krauss isn't yet going that far; if he's merely giving an explanation of the first particles, then that's fine. But if he's saying that this was the beginning of everything (universe + everything else), then he's not convincing me.

What he's saying is that by the most rigorously scientific definition of nothing to date, it is possible to have a universe from nothing. Not that it did come from nothing. He has never argued that.

Geomy

Sarky wrote: »

You did not just cite Twilight in order to argue for ESP.

I didn't even think of that.

keane2097

Gumbi wrote: »

What he's saying is that by the most rigorously scientific definition of nothing to date, it is possible to have a universe from nothing. Not that it did come from nothing. He has never argued that.

That's closer to the point.

nagirrac was talking about Krauss as having redefined "nothing", but a more accurate way of saying it would be that Krauss has talked about what happens in one kind of nothing - there's no coherent definition of what "nothing" really means that everyone agrees on.

There's an interesting discussion of it here featuring Krauss, Neil De Grasse Tyson and others if anyone is interested:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1OLz6uUuMp8

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1OLz6uUuM

The hands behind the head analogy is probably my favourite.

Brian Shanahan

ninja900 wrote: »

Devil's advocate perhaps, or ignorant perhaps?

If the universe requires a creator, then why doesn't the creator require a creator? It's a fundamental fallacy of religion.

Most definitely

The 'fine tuning' argument is a fallacy also.

Recent research is saying that the "fine tuning" or anthropogenic argument is looking at the various contstants only in isolation, that when worked in tandem the range is actually much greater, because when one constant is changed the others will tend to balance to an equilibrium which make most processes (like e.g. star formation or the triple alpha process of carbon formation which takes place inside stars) possible.

wretcheddomain

Don't the terms 'nothing' and 'full' mean nothing anyway?

I mean, in ordinary usage we say things like 'There's nothing in the box' --> When clearly according to the scientific perspective there are many particles hovering around and so forth.

In addition, in ordinary usage we also say things like 'The box is full' when technically there is always empty space in whatever is placed inside the box, even at an atomic level.

So, we can clearly see that we cannot equivocate ordinary terms with their scientific counterparts.

In this sense, don't the terms 'nothing' and 'full' only have a meaning in ordinary usage but by using them in scientific language such as that used by Lawrence Krauss, it naturally creates confusion.

Usually the fallacious argument is along the lines of: 'I don't understand how something can come from nothing, and because it doesn't make sense personally to me, I reject the conclusion and additionally conclude a God created the Universe'.

I mean, seriously?

nagirrac

wretcheddomain wrote: »

Don't the terms 'nothing' and 'full' mean nothing anyway?

In this sense, don't the terms 'nothing' and 'full' only have a meaning in ordinary usage but by using them in scientific language such as that used by Lawrence Krauss, it naturally creates confusion.

They take on serious meaning when you just drank the last beer in the fridge and the off license is closed :P

Specifically on Krauss, considering his book is mainly targeted at a lay audience i.e. those interested in science rather than scientists, it is a very misleading title, and at the end of the day is using speculative science as a theist bashing exercise. This point was made by David Albert in a review of the book which prompted Krauss to refer to Albert as a moron in several interviews. Considering Albert and Krauss are about the same level in term of scientific accomplishment (both professors, both popular science writers, neither have done any significant original work or proposed new hypotheses of their own) this confirms that Krauss has left science behind and is now a full time religion basher like Dawkins. Both however are excellent pop science writers.

wretcheddomain

nagirrac wrote: »

They take on serious meaning when you just drank the last beer in the fridge and the off license is closed :P

Specifically on Krauss, considering his book is mainly targeted at a lay audience i.e. those interested in science rather than scientists, it is a very misleading title, and at the end of the day is using speculative science as a theist bashing exercise. This point was made by David Albert in a review of the book which prompted Krauss to refer to Albert as a moron in several interviews. Considering Albert and Krauss are about the same level in term of scientific accomplishment (both professors, both popular science writers, neither have done any significant original work or proposed new hypotheses of their own) this confirms that Krauss has left science behind and is now a full time religion basher like Dawkins. Both however are excellent pop science writers.

Intellectually, I find Krauss extremely disappointing. When he isn't paraphrasing Dawkins or Hitchens, he waffles or insults religion.

robindch

wretcheddomain wrote: »

[...] Krauss [...] insults religion.

I'm sure religion feels as thoroughly insulted as it's capable of feeling.

wretcheddomain

robindch wrote: »

I'm sure religion feels as thoroughly insulted as it's capable of feeling.

I mean, I'm not against the concept of ridiculing religion, I think that's a positively good thing. But if you're trying to communicate arguments or positions against the existence of God then trying to make those you're communicating to feel stupid is counter to the aim.

nagirrac

wretcheddomain wrote: »

I mean, I'm not against the concept of ridiculing religion, I think that's a positively good thing. But if you're trying to communicate arguments or positions against the existence of God then trying to make those you're communicating to feel stupid is counter to the aim.

Especially if, as in Ireland currently, you are trying to promote secularism. If atheists want to promote secularism the way to do it is to advocate for the fairness, basic human rights, and equal opportunity associated with secularism. Mocking theists by calling them primitive and delusional when you are in a minority will get one result, which is to be ignored.

Nodin

Sarky wrote: »

You did not just cite Twilight in order to argue for ESP.

...thus damning himself and you in the eyes of god and man.

Soul Winner

The trouble with 'Nothing'.

If you begin your "definition" of 'nothing' with the words: "Nothing is...etc etc..." then what comes next in your sentence will invariably be a 'something'. And anything that is a 'something' is not 'nothing'. So the best way to describe 'nothing' is that you can't describe it at all because it simply isn't. It's not just that it isn't 'anything', rather it simply isn't. Its' not even an 'it' when you think about it. So basically 'nothing' isn't. There is no such thing as 'nothing' because 'nothing' is no-thing, not an atom, not a quark, not a particle, not an electron, not the space between electrons, not a gluon, not a neutrino, not even a Higgs boson. The only time there will be such a 'thing' (for want of a better word) as 'nothing' is when there isn't anything in existence at all and even at that time there will be no time either because time is something too.

So if the universe really did come from genuine 'nothing' (no space, no time, no matter, no energy etc etc) then it's explanation is not a natural explanation because there was no nature before there was nature, hence it's explanation is beyond even nature, hence it's explanation must be a Supernatural explanation. So the questions remains. Where did the universe come from? And if it's part of a multiverse ensemble then where did the multiverse ensemble come from? and so on and so on....

robindch

Soul Winner wrote: »

Where did the universe come from? And if it's part of a multiverse ensemble then where did the multiverse ensemble come from? and so on and so on....

And if it's impossible for something to come from nothing, then where did your chosen deity come from?

Soul Winner

robindch wrote: »

And if it's impossible for something to come from nothing, then where did your chosen deity come from?

The deity I believe in (if He truly does exist) is eternal, i.e. has no beginning and no end. He has been described as such long before science ever heard of the big bang theory. How can He be eternal you might ask? The same way some would say a multiverse is eternal The same way Fred Hoyle used to believe the universe was eternal.

robindch

Soul Winner wrote: »

The deity I believe in (if He truly does exist) is eternal, i.e. has no beginning and no end.

The physical universe has no beginning and no end either.

You don't need to conjure up a deity to create it.

Soul Winner

robindch wrote: »

The physical universe has no beginning and no end either.

You don't need to conjure up a deity to create it.

No end yes as far as physics goes, but no beginning? i.e eternal in the past? If that is so then I agree with you there would be no need to conjure up a creator for it (if that is what theist are indeed doing). Has this been scientifically proven to be the case though? And if so then by whom? And does he/she have any evidence to back up this claim? I know some scientists take the position that the singularity is eternal in the past and everything that the universe is now came from this singularity. But what was the singularity? Now it is just an idea in our heads, a present imaginary yet past real point in space and time at which there was 'nothing'.

wretcheddomain

Soul Winner wrote: »

No end yes as far as physics goes, but no beginning? i.e eternal in the past? If that is so then I agree with you there would be no need to conjure up a creator for it (if that is what theist are indeed doing). Has this been scientifically proven to be the case though? And if so then by whom? And does he/she have any evidence to back up this claim? I know some scientists take the position that the singularity is eternal in the past and everything that the universe is now came from this singularity. But what was the singularity? Now it is just an idea in our heads, a present imaginary yet past real point in space and time at which there was 'nothing'.

Too many theists talk about the early Universe as if everything that could be discovered has been discovered. The fact is that it's still in its very early stages and to draw massive conclusions on such shaky ground only reflects the weakness of your position rather than your strength. In other words, you're being premature.

Soul Winner

wretcheddomain wrote: »

Too many theists talk about the early Universe as if everything that could be discovered has been discovered. The fact is that it's still in its very early stages and to draw massive conclusions on such shaky ground only reflects the weakness of your position rather than your strength. In other words, you're being premature.

I did use the word 'if'.

robindch

Soul Winner wrote: »

No end yes as far as physics goes, but no beginning? i.e eternal in the past? If that is so then I agree with you there would be no need to conjure up a creator for it (if that is what theist are indeed doing). Has this been scientifically proven to be the case though?

You don't "prove" things with science -- instead, one has differing degrees of confidence in different conclusions.

Current front-running theories suggest that the time could have began when the universe did or that the universe was spawned from another, earlier one.

In either case, the universe turns out to be effectively "eternal" in the meaning of the word that you appear to be using.

Mark Hamill

Soul Winner wrote: »

No end yes as far as physics goes, but no beginning? i.e eternal in the past? If that is so then I agree with you there would be no need to conjure up a creator for it (if that is what theist are indeed doing). Has this been scientifically proven to be the case though? And if so then by whom? And does he/she have any evidence to back up this claim? I know some scientists take the position that the singularity is eternal in the past and everything that the universe is now came from this singularity. But what was the singularity? Now it is just an idea in our heads, a present imaginary yet past real point in space and time at which there was 'nothing'.

Space/Time has a beginning, but the universe is not just space/time. As the singularity that the universe expanded from (more really than just an idea in our heads) produced space/time, it does not make sense to talk about it in terms of its past. At best all you can say is that an expandable singularity is simply extant, but only for a given value of existence that is not in any way tied to space/time.

That was the scientific debunking of your argument. However your argument is just a "god of the gaps" fallacy, so a response on a more equal footing with it (intellectually and logically) is that your god did not create the universe, I did. If we agree that something can't come from nothing, then I am clearly that something that everything came from, as I unambiguously exist and therefore am not at all "nothing". If you have scientific evidence to contradict me, then I eagerly await it.

Balaclava1991

Dawkins is an public intellectual who popularizes the work and the writings of scientists and thinkers smarter and more modest than himself but whose writings and ideas are obscure or too refined for the common dullard even the undergraduate or post graduate grazer who is a cut above the swine and bovines who are too immersed in pop culture swill to give a damn.
Dawkins was one of the angry young men who fired the starting gun of late 20th century and early 21 century new atheism which has been gleeful at falling church attendances and falling numbers entering the religious life since the end of World War 2 and the physical decline of titans such as Pope John Paul II who were the last stubborn rearguard of a church dying on its feet.
Western Christianity is now on life support and new atheism hopes to capture the soul of the post-Christian West.
It is not enough as the new atheists see it for atheists to just lack believe in God and leave politics out of it.
The new atheism is political and all encompassing for the true non-believers.
They want to clear away the teeming mental slums and rebuild new capitals with geometrically designed streets and magnificent gilded edifices.
Dawkins is of course attempting to become a secular Pope and already missionaries of the new atheism are engaging in brutal wrestling matches with the technologically savvy neo-medievalist Christian fundamentalists in the trenches of the internet.
The new atheism seeks to take the place of the Catholic Church and the various Protestant faiths.
The danger is that the new orthodoxy will become just as suffocating, insipid and controlling as the very thing it seeks to overthrow.
Peter O'Toole, the hell raising legend of the silver screen, read Dawkins' God Delusion and said that while he agreed with everything Dawkins had to say in his book he felt that he was shouting at him.
I am a freethinker and an atheist to the hilt but Dawkins is a fanatic who roars from the pulpit.
He serves is purpose in popularizing the debate but he nonetheless is a bore and an insufferable one at that.
Reading his books is like having a stranger on a train jabbing you with his finger and browbeating you into submission.
I do not wish to be herded into a megachurch of atheism by this secular Billy Graham.

Sarky

This is the first I've heard of it. Are you sure you're not just, I dunno, ranting?

wretcheddomain

Balaclava1991 wrote: »

Dawkins is an public intellectual who popularizes the work and the writings of scientists and thinkers smarter and more modest than himself but whose writings and ideas are obscure or too refined for the common dullard even the undergraduate or post graduate grazer who is a cut above the swine and bovines who are too immersed in pop culture swill to give a damn.
Dawkins was one of the angry young men who fired the starting gun of late 20th century and early 21 century new atheism which has been gleeful at falling church attendances and falling numbers entering the religious life since the end of World War 2 and the physical decline of titans such as Pope John Paul II who were the last stubborn rearguard of a church dying on its feet.
Western Christianity is now on life support and new atheism hopes to capture the soul of the post-Christian West.
It is not enough as the new atheists see it for atheists to just lack believe in God and leave politics out of it.
The new atheism is political and all encompassing for the true non-believers.
They want to clear away the teeming mental slums and rebuild new capitals with geometrically designed streets and magnificent gilded edifices.
Dawkins is of course attempting to become a secular Pope and already missionaries of the new atheism are engaging in brutal wrestling matches with the technologically savvy neo-medievalist Christian fundamentalists in the trenches of the internet.
The new atheism seeks to take the place of the Catholic Church and the various Protestant faiths.
The danger is that the new orthodoxy will become just as suffocating, insipid and controlling as the very thing it seeks to overthrow.
Peter O'Toole, the hell raising legend of the silver screen, read Dawkins' God Delusion and said that while he agreed with everything Dawkins had to say in his book he felt that he was shouting at him.
I am a freethinker and an atheist to the hilt but Dawkins is a fanatic who roars from the pulpit.
He serves is purpose in popularizing the debate but he nonetheless is a bore and an insufferable one at that.
Reading his books is like having a stranger on a train jabbing you with his finger and browbeating you into submission.
I do not wish to be herded into a megachurch of atheism by this secular Billy Graham.

I agree with the previous poster that this appears just to be another baseless rant.

But, I have to say, I gave up half way through as it was so terribly written and awkward to read.

robindch

Balaclava1991 wrote: »

Dawkins [...] Graham.

As part of A+A's public service remit, please let me offer the following:

mewso

Balaclava1991 wrote: »

Reading his books is like having a stranger on a train jabbing you with his finger and browbeating you into submission.

People have some really laughable issues with Dawkins. I'd rather quote what I said in the past about him:-

The whole preachy Dawkins thing is something I really wonder about. There is no disputing that he is an outspoken Atheist but preachy? He wrote a book that people can read or ignore, debates religious folk which you can attend or ignore, can be viewed on youtube or ignored, gets interviewed on programs that either share his views or want to belittle his views (think Tubridy) but at no point does he go out on the street and try to preach to anyone.

I've said it before that he is very direct when responding to religious people but the key word here is responding. His directness winds people up and it's from there that it gets turned into preaching in certain peoples' minds in my opinion. He may not be everyone's cup of tea but is he really preaching. I don't think so.

So in essence the correct comparison is that he is more like that stranger on a train that you asked to jab you with his finger.

IamtheWalrus

People read too much into Dawkins the man 'oh he's shrill'. Who gives a fudge? It's his message that is important. And that message is that the only way to progress as a human race, to understand how and why we exist, is via the scientific method and anything that hinders that (religion) can go fukk itself.

robindch

IamtheWalrus wrote: »

And that message is that the only way to progress as a human race, to understand how and why we exist, is via the scientific method and anything that hinders that (religion) can go fukk itself.

I don't recall Dawkins ever saying that science is the only way forward. Quite the opposite, since he's talked at length about the wisdom and beauty of literature (including the bible), art and music, none of which are especially scientific.

I do, however, recall him objecting -- as do most people here -- to a set of silly bronze-age beliefs concerning a malevolent, invisible deity continuing to influence public policy in many areas.

Soul Winner

robindch wrote: »

Current front-running theories suggest that the time could have began when the universe did or that the universe was spawned from another, earlier one.

I know there are plenty of theories but no evidence to back any of them up. And there is only so far back that psychics can go before even physics starts to break down so maybe we'll always just have theories in Science about how the universe came into being.

Gumbi

Soul Winner wrote: »

I know there are plenty of theories but no evidence to back any of them up. And there is only so far back that psychics can go before even physics starts to break down so maybe we'll always just have theories in Science about how the universe came into being.

Theories actually have weight behind them you know. Actual evidence. There is a theory of gravitation. A germ theory of disease (upon which we base our knowledge of medicine). It's not a catch all term to include any number of arbitrary hypotheses.

oldrnwisr

Soul Winner wrote: »

I know there are plenty of theories but no evidence to back any of them up. And there is only so far back that psychics can go before even physics starts to break down so maybe we'll always just have theories in Science about how the universe came into being.

That's not strictly true.

One of the cosmogonical theories that has been suggested is that the heat death that our universe will eventually undergo will lead to conformal rescaling. As Morbert previously described:

"In the distant future, the universe will only consist of massless particles travelling at the speed of light (assuming black-holes evaporate, which we have good reason to believe they do). This "very boring era" will stretch on for eternity, as the temperature of the universe cools to zero, and the density approaches zero. But if you are travelling at the speed of light, an eternity is no different from an instant. Time, as a scale of duration, is physically meaningless. The big big bang may simply be the infinite future of a previous universe."

The idea is one explored by Roger Penrose in his book Cycles of Time. You can also read a basic primer on the topic here.

Penrose has published a paper showing experimental data which could support his hypothesis but there is some disagreement over his approach in analysing the data.

Concentric circles in WMAP data may provide evidence of violent pre-Big Bang activity


I'm inclined to agree with you though about your suggestion that all we may ever have are hypotheses. From my perspective, this is like abiogenesis. It's like trying to determine whether a murder victim was strangled or drowned, after he's been cremated. You can suggest any number of plausible hypotheses but it's unlikely you'll ever be able to discern which one is correct.

robindch

Soul Winner wrote: »

I know there are plenty of theories but no evidence to back any of them up.

There are vast libraries full of evidence which backs up the current cosmological understanding and there are speculations, based upon current and past research, which greatly narrow the number of possible mechanisms by which the observable universe came into existence.

You are seeing the word "theory" and reading it and using it in its non-scientific sense, while I'm using it in its scientific meaning. From here:

AAAS wrote:

In detective novels, a "theory" is little more than an educated guess, often based on a few circumstantial facts. In science, the word "theory" means much more. A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world. The theory of biological evolution is more than "just a theory." It is as factual an explanation of the universe as the atomic theory of matter or the germ theory of disease. Our understanding of gravity is still a work in progress. But the phenomenon of gravity, like evolution, is an accepted fact.

Hope this helps.

IamtheWalrus

robindch wrote: »

There are vast libraries full of evidence which backs up the current cosmological understanding and there are speculations, based upon current and past research, which greatly narrow the number of possible mechanisms by which the observable universe came into existence.

You are seeing the word "theory" and reading it and using it in its non-scientific sense, while I'm using it in its scientific meaning. From here:Hope this helps.

Yes Soul Winner, I know you mean well but you'd really need to re-evaluate your 'just a theory' argument. Read up on it and you'll see that stance holds no water. Theories in science aren't what you'd expect.