Richard Dawkins explains the related egg-laying habits of Nazca Boobies, Blue Footed Boobies and Gannetts. These evolved adaptations may seem cruel to us, but the genes for these varying insurance policies get passed on through the surviving chicks to future generations. Download Quicktime: iPhone: c0116791.cdn.cloudfiles.rackspacecloud.com 720p HD: c0116791.cdn.cloudfiles.rackspacecloud.com Get the RDF TV podcast through iTunes! itunes.apple.com “In May 2007 Josh and I were among those who went to Galapagos with a large group from the Center for Inquiry. As we walked with the guided parties over the islands, Josh took every opportunity to film the wildlife. Occasionally he would turn the camera on me, and I would ad lib a few words about whatever animals we were looking at. These ‘vignettes’ were unscripted and unrehearsed, and there was no time for any “Take 2″ repetitions, because the guided walk was moving on.” Richard If you enjoy the video, and would like to help us make more videos like this, please consider donating $1 (or any other amount you’d like) to The Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science: richarddawkinsfoundation.org Camera & Music by JOSH TIMONEN Presented by THE RICHARD DAWKINS FOUNDATION FOR REASON AND SCIENCE
@Zoofnick: But to your final question; I had some annoying discussion with one of his votaries a while ago, who tried to tell me that all opinions and believes have to be based on such vulgar science as one can see here; and as it heated up I decided to take some vengeance at his master; so your question is wrongly asked: As I did gain all I wanted to gain by my first statement and if such disciples of his like you are enraged by this I will defy their fury and rage.
@Zoofnick: Nope, you do not understand Nietzsche correctly as he clearly says that the blind believe in truth is no less a metaphysical believe and therefore science cannot act as an antagonist to religion as they are based on the same sort of believe; besides I never asked to have any discussion with you but I am bound to the commandment of the poet: “The sum of all our answer is but this: We would not seek a battle, as we are; Nor, as we are, we say we will not shun it.”
… for example it is probable that treating a patient with diabetes with insulin is going to be beneficial to his health and it is not probable that the earth is 6000 years old and was created by a wizard, this based on what can be observed.
If you for some reason feel that you need to know the absolute truth before you can act on something then you’re never going to get anywhere.
Life ultimately comes down to what is probable and what is not.
Just because we cannot make absolute statements of truth should that stop us from trying to get at the truth in whatever way we can?
No, of course not.
To me saying that critisising religion is wrong because we cannot be certain of the truth is like saying that treating a diabetes patient with insulin is wrong because we cannot be certain that the insulin will help.
Even though we do not possess the ability to discern absolute truth we can asses the probability of things…
… scientists cannot make absolute statements of truth in the sense that you refer to truth but I fail to see why that would make critisising religion wrong.
Even if we cannot make absolute statements of truth we can sure as hell try to get as close as possible to the truth in order to better our understanding of the universe, something that science has been extremely successful in doing over the last hundred years.
@GreatGrumbledook If all you can come up with is some long winded quote
by Nietzche as opposed to clearly and concisely stating your argument yourself then I have no intrerest in further discussing this with you.
If I’m interpreting Nietzsche correctly here he seems to argue that science cannot stand on its own, that it needs some sort of absolute ground on which to stand (I suppose one that is supernatural?).
I do understand what you’re getting at with this…
…fundamentally opposed to the ascetic ideal than is science: that’s what Plato’s instinct experienced the greatest enemy of art which Europe has produced up to this point. Plato versus Homer: that’s the entire, the true antagonism on one side, the “beyond” of the best will, the great slanderer of life; on the other side, life’s unintentional worshipper, the golden nature.”
…fight them together and place them both in question. An appraisal of the value of the ascetic ideal unavoidably also involves an appraisal of the value of science; while there’s still time people should to keep their eyes open for that, their ears alert! (As for art let me offer a preliminary remark, for I’ll be coming back to it at some point or other at greater length the very art in which the lie sanctifies itself and the will to deceive has good conscience on its side is much more…
…petrifaction, dogma. Science makes the life in this ideal free again, since it denies what is exoteric in it. These two things, science and the ascetic ideal they really stand on a single foundation I’ve just clarified the point namely, on the same overvaluing of the truth (or more correctly, on the same faith in the inestimable value of the truth, which is beyond criticism). In that very claim they are necessarily allies so that, if someone is going to fight against them, he can only…
…could have faith in itself science is never in itself something which creates values. Its relationship to the ascetic ideal is still not inherently antagonistic at all. It’s even more that case that, for the most part, it represents the forward-driving force in the inner development of this ideal. Its resistance and struggle, when we inspect more closely, are not concerned in any way with the ideal itself, but only with its external trappings, clothing, masquerade, its temporary hardening,…
@Zoofnick: And by admitting that your idol does believe in truth I am able to entrap him with some fancy Nietzsche quote:
“No! People should not come at me with science when I am looking for the natural antagonist of the ascetic ideal, when I ask, “Where is the opposing will, in which an opposing ideal expresses itself?” For that purpose, science does not stand sufficiently on its own, not nearly; for that it first requires an value ideal, a power to make value, in whose service it …
@GreatGrumbledook Certainly he believes in truth, who doesn’t? My point was simply that he never claims to know it with absolute certainty like some religious people do.
Also; how can you criticise his efforts to promote reason and understanding over
blind faith?
The way I see it RD is the very definition of a nice and harmless person.
@Zoofnick: Nope, as persistent is too nice and harmless there should be used a prerogative word for his behaviour and all the more for that of his votaries; and besides: Do you deny that he believes in truth?
@GreatGrumbledook I think you’re using aggressive in the loosest possible form here, prehaps the word you’re lookning for is “persistent”.
He’s never claimed to know the truth in the same way jehova’s wittnesses claim to know it, effectively making him an agnostic atheist, nor does he seek out people with differing opinions in the hope of converting them.
All he does is question religion and call it out on the plethora of logical inconsistencies it presents in a precise and calm manner.
@Zoofnick: Well, not all aggression involves the usage of force or violence! Just ask the English: Their great foe Gandhi never was aggressive in that strict meaning of the word but still annoying beyond any decent restrain of human behaviour; and so are these pseudo-atheists; therefore my comparison with the witnesses of Jehovah, as their egomaniac believe to be in possession of the truth and their missionary zeal equals each other.
@GreatGrumbledook Aggressive?
How was that video in any way aggressive?
Or prehaps more to the point, when has RD ever been aggressive in his critique of religion?
Boobies
Dear goodness! This aggressive-religious atheism of late is as boring and lousy as any visit by the witnesses of Jehovah is! Some pseudo-scientific quack preaching no religion as religion, based on a blind belief in the vulgar perception of modern science! Claiming the objectivity of things and even the human reasons in a way no scientist or philosopher would ever do; but I wonder if this is as lousy as it seems to be, why do they do it? The girls? The rubber? The machismo?
Hey nice video, the true is you can buy USA iTunes gift cards at this store iTunesgiftScards at COM
@swiggydiggy lol particularly in his nice rp accent
To richardaberdeen, you CANNOT move the goal post on what evolution means you twit. It’s called a dictionary, get one. Evolution is the Mirco AND Macro changes that happen overtime. You cannot change the def. of species either, speciation DOES occure, and it can happen in under 3 generations. You are uneducated in the field, and as such have no bearings when criticizing it, you sound like and absolute nob. It would be the equivalent to stating that you think God sneezed out the Universe.
dawkins saying “boobies” is just fantastic,
@richardaberdeen name your explanation for the boobie problem a
adressed in the video above.
@richardaberdeen actually the fossil discoveries in ETHIOPIA happened..look up LEAKEY and see..
@richardaberdeen Name your alternative , and name your reason for tossing it out…that means actually addressing and refuting the case for evolution.YOU HAVE NOT DONe THAT YET..i.e Why are the chromozones FUZED ? Why are the cannine teeth moving through the fosil records, why the hominid links..why the DNA geneology…why the DNA similarity? Why the coccyx, why the ape hair , why the similar bone structure …What could possibly be the other explanation? please name it and offer evidnce