Dr. David Berlinski: Human Nature 

Especially impressive given that he is 81 years old, and seemingly as sharp as ever.

@@viktordoe1636 sharp enough to confuse actor Donald Sutherland with Donald Sunderland, whoever the hell that is, while trying and failing to refer to PROFESSOR JOHN SUTHERLAND FRS. Despite failing to get his name right TWICE, Berlinski would like to believe the ludicrous idea that he’s in a position to rate SUTHERLAND as a synthetic chemist. Berlinski raises one question only: how does this preening, pretentious fraud get away with it?

@@viktordoe1636 he’d like you to believe he is also a world class mathematician. His one attempt to discuss advanced mathematics on YT is a comedic train wreck. A clueless, pompous buffoon and nothing more.

@@viktordoe1636 when was he ever sharp? In what subject?

​@@mcmanustony Hey Berlinski fanboy!

Agree

Not me. He was so passive in the discussion and shared almost nothing from his book on Human Nature. He spent most of the time criticizing Mr Metaxas' arguments. I watch almost all of the SITC events and find this one of the worst.

Have you ever tried listening to people who actually know what they're talking about?

@@mcmanustony have you ever tried not being ghey?

Read his “The Devil’s Delusion” book, outstanding

He's usually wrong about the second bit.

​@@mcmanustony True, Muslims know!

@@rcmysm9123 Muslims know what?

@@mcmanustony What David doesn't know and the truth about what he's wrong about anyone else knowing. Basically what you said.

I didn't know he was a secular Jew but I had a strong feeling that he was, after viewing this. They have some of the most hardened hearts toward any notion of a Creator than any other group of people I have ever seen. Perhaps due to things like the Holocaust.

Yes, Berlinski is obviously brilliant and sometimes eloquent, but he does seem kind of like a dilettante----a man who likes to play with ideas as though they were toys, without ever being willing to really take a stand or make a commitment.

As I also do.

He's SOOO close.

Berlinski believes me thinks more than he admits..just a thought

@@jdgarnant I fear his pride would prevent him from admitting it

AHA!!! Eric calling David out on his "coyness" about God!

I think humans can be so complicated, they can also miss the simplest & the basic.

Critical thinking without critical conclusions.

What exactly is he any good at?

As much as I like him, I can't tell if he just doesn't like Eric, or feels a mild contempt for Eric's effort to steer him toward something. He seems overly argumentative, like he's bored and wants to lord it over someone who's not so clever, just because he can.

@@jameseverett4976 What is Berlinski any good at? His academic "career" was a disaster and he's published nothing in the professional literature of any branch of any science at any time.. Why do conservatives drone on and on and on about how clever he is? He can't even distinguish actor Donald Sutherland....and the completely imaginary Donald Sunderland....from British chemist and origins researcher JOHN SUTHERLAND FRS.

What is he any good at?

@@mcmanustony Puncturing the shell of pride that surrounds academia and that, as a result, makes the truth so hard to find.

... and can often give rise to riotous laughter, we're a ridiculous bunch, humans 🖐️🤣

​@@mcmanustonyHe's excellent at living.

What on earth are you talking about? He has almost exclusively conservative and religious guests. Berlinski is not religious- I'd bet my house he's an atheist- but playing the part for ignorant American Christians keeps him in nice suits....

What is he any good at?

"A truly intelligent person!"- he's a pretentious poseur and nothing more.

@@mcmanustony He ought to be right up your alley, then.

@@timducote5713 Based on what? Your inability to address the facts about Berlinski's pretension? Grow up.

@@mcmanustony I think "pretentious poseur" is an adequate description of your remarks that you deem necessary to include on nearly everyone's post. I've read a couple of Berlinski's books and have walked away with something to think about. Your comments? Not so much.

Believing in God the creator is in my opinion rational, due in part to the irrationality of the Darwinian evolution theory. Believing that Jesus is God or Messiah is completely absurd.....

@@scout2469 I can see not believing it, but why is it 'absurd'? While I don't believe in Leprechauns, I don't see the idea as absurd. Mainly because the internet was 'absurd' as recently as the 70s. And photography was absurd in the 1700's. A 'square circle' would be absurd, but if you use such a word for anything you think is just not walking around presently, it's like using the word "awesome" when your kid makes a mediocre drawing.

@@jameseverett4976 I used the word absurd to describe it as being illogical. Perhaps I was exaggerating.

Try to raise your standards. Here's the great "intellectual" on one of the leading researchers in Origin of Life Berlinski- "James Tour thinks Donald Sutherland is a great synthetic chemist" Metaxas- "Who?" Berlinski- "Donald Sunderland" Metaxas- "I thought you said Donald Sutherland"- [he did say Donald Sutherland] Berlinski - "Donald Sunderland" He is trying, and failing, to refer to JOHN SUTHERLAND FRS who has established plausible prebiotic synthesis of RNA nucleotides.

What would two glorified maths teachers know about the origin of life?

​@@derhafia mathematical probability of molecules self assembly.

I knoooww😂....it would be mind blowing

Trolls everywhere😅

Why?

Just to annoy you

Yeah, the whole thing was so frustrating to watch. What a waste

@@Melkor3001 I even feel sorry for that guy, he shouldn’t even be on stage with Berlinski. But he got him on, just be prudent and let him talk, and ask a few general questions, and let the audience have questions.

" someone of Berlinski’s stature "- a failed academic who pays the bills lying about scientists and sneering for money.

@@mcmanustony it seems you could apply your quote to yourself by simply removing the 'for money' part

@@lukesturgess8190 Regarding your other, possibly wisely deleted, comment. Mathematics? Berlinski?? He has contributed precisely nothing to any branch of any science at any time. That includes mathematics. He has a basic bachelors degree and nothing more- some pretentious, godawful pop books, riddled with errors, that have two things in common: they are full of pompous prose where Berlinski tries to show off rather than illuminate, and they are all out of print. There is one video on TY where he tries to discuss advanced mathematics (The Riemann Hypothesis) and it's a train wreck of hysterical proportions: he waffles about the nature of "conjecture" missing entirely the significance of "HYPOTHESIS", misidentifies the branch of mathematics involved (number theory), drops the painfully cultured and irrelevant nugget that poor tragic Riemann died at the same age as poor tragic Schubert (they didn't 31=/=39), totally mangles the statement of the RH, throws around technical terms the actual meaning of which he's long forgotten if he ever knew, drops some utter nonsense about proofs being submitted and not agreed upon (this is 100% false)....and then offers his weighty opinion that the RH is true. He can't even state the thing but he thinks it's true!! So, no- mathematics isn't it. Logic? You can't be serious..... Philosophy: he wrote a thesis on Wittgenstein 50 odd years ago. It has has ZERO impact on scholarship on poor tragic Ludwig. He failed to find an academic job as a philosopher and his peer reviewed output seems to consist of one short note 50 years ago on WVO Quine. So, he's as significant in philosophy as he is in Swedish Death Metal. If you are genuinely curious about what I'm good at all you have to do is click your mouse. I've been a professional musician for 30 years. My career has not depended on posturing and lying about my betters, unlike Berlinski's. I don't need to lie about associations with more famous peers, as Berlinski does. I continue to teach at several universities around the world and have never been fired- unlike Berlinski. Before making a living in music I was doing research in mathematics. I've worked in the subject at a far higher level than DB- unlike him I can actually point to original work in pure mathematics- and can therefore spot a mile off that he's a pretentious fraud with an ego visible from space. Try to raise your standards.

To anyone complaining about the argument towards the ends where Metaxas (admirably) attempts to compel Berlinski into the faith- mourn the result, and learn from the process.

@@adamsmith-wi3qg Metaxas reminded me of this: Hannibal Lecter: Ah, yes, Dr. Chilton. Gruesome, isn't he? Fumbles at your head like a freshman at a panty girdle.

What is Berlinski any good at?

@@mcmanustony his CV would indicate that he's good at writing, teaching and speaking about mathematics, philosophy and religion.

@@mcmanustony Annoying you?

Why?

Felt the same

Same here

Jousting that keeps flipping into convoluted resistance and flexing. A wrestling match where Berlinski uses illegal holds. Frustrating.

Same

You are dead on. He was not the intellect in this interview that I came to respect after reading his books and listening to past lectures. I witnessed a mind in decline. So sad.

I told berlinski what you said and got a response: "who tha fooq is that guy?"

@@brandonmacey964 DAAAANNAAAAA!

"David Berlinski is truly one of the most talented writers alive today"- odd that his books are almost entirely out of print.

@@mcmanustony you may be right, I should rather have said I'm a fan of his work and in particular his style of skepticism, which is very unique. His writing dialed right in to me, it resonated powerfully. I'm a fan, that's all.

@@EricJohnsa He’s a failed academic with bills to pay. He does this by pandering to the Christian right in the US who will lap up his nonsense regarding evolution and his repulsive sneering at scientists. This isn’t scepticism.

@@EricJohnsa on the existence of god: I’m an agnostic. On the theory of evolution: I’m a agnostic (though his “critique would embarrass a child) On intelligent design: I’m an agnostic- though he rather likes the welfare cheques from the “Discovery Institute “ On whether Wahhabism is preferable to atheism: it is not a question of compelling urgency - he’s an agnostic. Actually he was skewered by the question posed by Hitchens On any question where he’d have to articulate and defend a position: I’m agnostic ….. He’s working up to taking a firm position on what day of the week it is, but for now he’s agnostic. Not a form of scepticism I recognize.

@@mcmanustony thank you DawkinsBot 101. You seem to follow me everywhere on the internet where I leave a comment about this writer, lol. He is right to point out that the desperate adherents to the religion of atheism are quick to cling to something that answers to the name of science.

“We started off trying to set up a small anarchist community, but people wouldn't obey the rules.” ― Alan Bennett

There will always be wars.

What is he any good at? Berlinski- "James Tour thinks Donald Sutherland is a great synthetic chemist" Metaxas- "Who?" Berlinski- "Donald Sunderland" Metaxas- "I thought you said Donald Sutherland"- [he did] Berlinski - "Donald Sunderland" He is trying, and failing, to refer to JOHN SUTHERLAND FRS who has established plausible prebiotic synthesis of RNA nucleotides. How in the name of sanity does anyone become convinced that that pompous, vacuous fraud Berlinski is some class of intellectual?

What with?

What courage is involved in a failed academic sneering at scientists working in fields he's never studied?

@@mcmanustony Failed academic? This from a guy who bombed out of grad school.

@@Jim-mn7yq Here’s a comprehensive list of all academic institutions from which I’ve been fired. 1.

In what sense? He’s contributed nothing to any of the areas of scholarship where he feigns authority and outside of the right wing Christian circuit in the US he’s totally unknown. What is he any good at?

Working backwards, he obviously lives in your head rent free!!!

What exactly is he any good at? His attempt at an academic career was a disaster and his book are out of print. What’s his field of expertise?

Still awaiting some indication of what this "intellectual" is good at....

Very well put. I kept wondering how to describe this.

Eric was not feeling well.

My brother is tops in his field,but as his lawyer told him,I have no business in your field,you have no business in mine.

Hugh Ross is tops in his field,David would be completely lost in his field,and the same would be true if Ross goes into David's field. Any fool would know this.

Romans 1:22 KJV [22] Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, 1 Corinthians 3:18-19 KJV [18] Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you seemeth to be wise in this world, let him become a fool, that he may be wise. [19] For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness.

Very sadly, I can only conclude that Berlinski is not included in the elect. So, no amount of persuasion can change his hardened heart towards the gospel. Even the obvious isn’t acceptable to him. Romans 1:20 KJV [20] For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

He's taken the cowerds road!!!!!yet I have some limited respect for him!!!!! Jesus is lord and that will never change!!!

I'm also a pretty big fan of Jesus Claus.​@@WilliamMartinez-vq2bn

It's like he has half the gift of discernment. Able to see and critique bad science and unattenable theories, yet unable (or unwilling) to go where things like intelligent design.seem to lead to..a creator.

Intelligent enough to be fired from a succession of part time teaching assistant jobs at various colleges? Intelligent enough to pose as an authority on subjects he knows next to nothing about? He’s not a sceptic. He’s a failed academic with bills to pay which he does pandering to the science denying religious right in the US.

Eric's at his best when he's the only one doing the talking. Thete's no struggle to be the center of attention. He's already there. Eric's talks on Os Guinness's theory of the "Golden Triangle of Freedom", and on the related idea of American exceptualism, have greatly enhanced my understanding of the history of my country.

So very very sharp.....as a brick. "Berlinski- "James Tour thinks Donald Sutherland is a great synthetic chemist" Metaxas- "Who?" Berlinski- "Donald Sunderland" Metaxas- "I thought you said Donald Sutherland"- [he did] Berlinski - "Donald Sunderland" He is trying, and failing, to refer to JOHN SUTHERLAND FRS who has established plausible prebiotic synthesis of RNA nucleotides. How in the name of sanity does anyone become convinced that that pompous, vacuous fraud Berlinski is some class of intellectual?

He's 81. Everyone does that. Grandma called my brother uncle Marlowe

More stimulating that listening to people who actually know what they're talking about?

What flaw?

​@BugMateo The fact that he didn't separate people from culture. Culture has an historical development. People have a biological one.

I doubt it.

"Mathematical Challenges to Darwin’s Theory of Evolution" in which a non mathematician interviews three non mathematicians who present no mathematical challenges to anything- comments disabled of course. Speciation has been observed repeatedly. The three non biologists are wrong. So are you.

@@mcmanustony Of course, your a musician I presume, that probably didn't actually even watch 3 of the smartest scientists in their fields, completely destroy the mathematical probability of Darwins Theory.. Now if you've got some details that prove they're wrong and Darwins right... THE WORLD would really like to hear them.. Evolutionists especially..

@@scooteranthony6297 Its "you're". Take a seat Yes, I'm a professional musician. Prior to my current career I was doing research in mathematics at the University of Exeter after my masters at The University of Glasgow where I'm invited back to present a talk on mathematics and music. I'll send you the details. Berlinski has lied that he has a PhD in mathematics. He has no such degree and doesn't remember much of the bachelors he actually has. He is not and never has been a mathematician. I have heard him once try to discuss advanced mathematics. It was a comedic train wreck of cosmic proportions: pretentious drivel about the Riemann Hypothesis - where he waffled endlessly about the nature of "conjecture"- stuff that could have been said in one sentence. He failed to mention HYPOTHESIS: the crucial, relevant notion being that there is a HUGE body of work predicated on the RH being true- but unproven. He then droned on and on about poor tragic Riemann dying at the same age as poor tragic Schubert- they didn't as 31=/= 39 but how painfully cultured he sounded. Irrelevant tripe. "it is a problem in complex function theory"- WRONG it involves a complex function, the Riemann zeta function, but the RH has implications for the distribution of the primes- it is a problem in NUMBER THEORY. He then talks about "the upper half plane"....misremembering some pop account of Wiles' proof of Fermat's Last Theorem- a TOTALLY different problem. Modular forms, involved in FLT, are defined on the upper half plane. The zeta function is defined on *C*\{1}. "either the zeroes line up on a pole"....WHAAAAT??? A "pole" in complex analysis is a singularity, a POINT. Nothing lines up on a pole. The zeta function has a pole at 1 corresponding to the divergence of the harmonic series, the LINE involved is Re(z)=1/2 which he fails to mention- as he hasn't a fucking clue. ".....or they are all over the place..." illustrated with wild arm gestures. The fact is that ALL the nontrivial zeroes are known to lie within a tiny strip of Re(z)=1/2. The RH states that they are all ON the line. We are then informed that a couple of proofs are being considered but not agreed on. This is rubbish. The last serious candidate was Atiyah's and a flaw was found quickly. Pretentious, pompous horseshit....delivered with an ego fit for a mediaeval pope and all the arrogance of the true, polished fraud. His academic career was a disaster with him failing to find a full time job anywhere and being routinely fired from one temp assistant gig after another. He has published NOTHING in the research literature of any branch of any science at any time. You should note: proving the Riemann Hypothesis is regarded as the biggest unsolved problem in pure mathematics. The smartest scientists in this field would be: Terry Tao, Jacob Lurie, Peter Scholz.....not some narcissistic wanker with nice cufflinks. Berlinski lacks the knowledge to have a mathematical objection to anything. Try to raise your standards.

You fail to address the fact that speciation has been observed repeatedly. Have you ever considered the option of learning about biology by listening to ....y'know....BIOLOGISTS?

@@mcmanustony speciation within the same species is the only thing that is observable, which is not disputed because it STAYs the same species.. A bird, is still bird, a frog is still a frog.. a fish is still a fish... etc.. . there is not one shred of proof of changing from one species.to completely different and distinct species. . Say a dog to a cat.. or an Ape to a man.. And also, it has never been observed unless there's been someone around, maybe you,, for 100's of millions years to observe it. Just the ever narrowing window of the Cambrian explosion was enough for even Darwin to realized while he still alive (which was then thought to be only 70 million years) that the mathematical possibility of his theory was in deep trouble. Now that window has been narrowed to between 10 and 23 million years.. Which pretty much ends the debate as for as true Scientists are concerned.. like these.. Darwins Theory takes more faith than creation ever did..But it's blind faith.. .. The more true science that is done... The more God's creation is being revealed.. Oh and btw.. Speaking of Biologists.. Ask any Biologists now where life begins.. They'll tell now without hesitating.. At Conception.. The science proved God right again... Which is why the Pro-Abortion movement doesn't used that argument anymore... They use the right to privacy now..

David Berlinksi is a lot of things - and I have always enjoyed his interviews - but humble ain't one of them, haha.

@@magnuscroify Got you! But I think, deep inside he is in a good terms with reality, for the lack of a better term. Anyway, he gives “hope” to those “science disbelievers”.

💯

Unfortunately, you're so very right.

He's a powerful jew. Big brain. He needs that staff to hold up his balls.

Shame about the lack of substance.

You just hit the nail on the head. He fears losing credibility because the bias in the so-called scientific community is ubiquitous. If you acknowledge the obvious signs of intelligence you are automatically designated a "creationist" and therefore have no "scientific "standing. The whole field is corrupt as the day is long.

Yes, that’s a good observation, but it could be to his detriment if he stays this way as he breathes his last- he May fare no better than Christopher Hitchens

What is he any good at?

@@mcmanustony Hahaha I think I understand your point. Is it because he's just written popular scientific books? I think he is good at representing skepticism in the front of the battle of ideas between unphilosophical people. Take Hitchens or Dawkins or Steven Pinker. They are not pursuers of truth, they are not thinkers, they are merely authorities who represent cultural positions on philosophical questions. In which Berlinski is the representation of skepticism, which I like.

He through you off at 1:02:32

Wow! What pompous tripe

@@mcmanustony compelling counter.

@@caleb.lindsay It's an accurate description. What it there to counter? Strip away the pretentious verbiage (maybe you're channeling Berlinski) and you're left with: I believe...and I like sneering at those who don't.

@@mcmanustony there is nothing to brag about in Christ except for what He’s accomplished. And if you think I’m bragging, I think you’re sorely mistaken. I blame no one for not believing. I think that lies are the fundamental root of all wickedness. They disarm you and cloud your ability to see. I lament that there is judgment and the promise of a mind given over to complete disunion from truth. CS Lewis stated it best, and I don’t blame you for disliking it or finding it objectionable but it’s wonderful if you can understand the axiomatic nature of it: “I believe in Christianity as I believe that the Sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.”

@@caleb.lindsay I don't know or care if you're "bragging". What I said, and will say again, is that your posts are pompous incoherent tripe.

Yep, it's without doubt his pride.