Richard Baffled by ‘Spiritual Environmentalists’ Word Salad! 

The inherent "Richardness" of this conversation has an intrinsic wholistic quality that elevates its spirit.

Stay healthy R.D

What I find very scary is the realisation that Satish Kumar isn't an exception as an unrealistic thinker. 3/4 of this planet is actually like him. It is only a small minority who are well educated and thinking in a realistic, scientific way. And I say that without arrogance but just as an objective observation.

I enjoy listening to you Richard I was a fundamental brainwashed christian... Atheism feel so liberating logic and reason is peace

Dear Richard Dawkins , you are the most patient person I know. This man ....🤦‍♀ and this holistic! smile on his face.

Japanese used to believe that rocks and trees have a spirit (Shinto), that didn't stop them from destroying things...

Nothing like listening to a 'spiritual' person full of certainty and passion and verbal nonsense to check my tolerance levels.

Pretending to know things one can't possibly know isn't 'open and humble.' It's the complete opposite!

Interesting conversation but I am left with the feeling that nothing has been added to my understanding of the World.

I have schizo-affective disorder so i am fluent in the finest word salad when inspired.

The argumentation of Satish Kumar reminds me of a sentence by Heidegger: "The jugness of the jug lies in the gift of the pouring."

Another name for Spiritual Environmentalist`s Crystal Balls (plural) Crystal Bollocks!

It's Jordan Peterson's dad.

"Did you try any of that on Bertrand Russell , if I may ask" lol

His spirit is just another name for quality.

"We must use the matter with respect" is my new favorite word salad ingredient

It seems to me there's a worthwhile distiction to be made here between belief and behavior. Consider another question: What is the meaning of life? As asked, the answer to the question is easy: There is none. There is no inherent meaning, we CREATE the meaning. Indeed, there is a term used to describe people who have lost the ability to create meaning. We call them 'depressed.' I don't believe there is any inherent meaning in life, but I BEHAVE as if there is. Because to behave as if life has meaning is the best way to lead a functional and satisfying life. So, do rocks have spirits? No, I don't think so. But, arguably, to behave as if they do changes our realtionship to the world in ways that might lead to a better existence.

Thank you dear Dawkins I always love watching your videos since it started from God delusion..... Thank you so much Sir

You can be an absolute materialist and still have care, respect, admiration for a tree, for a rock, for a river, without asigning an entity (spirit) which those things do not have.....The very assumption that pure materialism is resulting in carelessness towards things, all things, is wrong because it is assumes by a default, that only people who see "" spiritual" can have the right attitude and the right relationship to either living or non living things.......His spirituality is just another religion, as according to him everyone else that does not see the way he sees things is wrong, but not only wrong, but the cause of the problems that humanity faces......No matter how hard he tried to explain what he means by the "spirit" the concept was still left vague, muddled and without the true meaning...... Once people start using words and terms looselly, as he does, the result is a mumbo jumbo, which really is a metaphysical nonsense that does not translate into knowledge, but raher into airy fairy fiction for the children's books......

Satish Kumar, a “hardcore” follower of Jainism (one of the most ascetic and religious religions of India), bravely confronts the atheistic rationalism of Richard. Satish successfully survives, smiling with Richard. Kumar was a student of Gandhi’s spiritual successor, Vinoba Bhave. Great interview!

We used to call this type of cliche, pseudo profound babel " dorm room bong hits" in college. As in " bro do you ever think how hierarchies don't exist and everything's a network?" " Nah man that straight dorm room bong hits".

Richard Dawkins VS woo woo and other bollocks.

He gives it away at the end. The director asks "how do you know this?" and he responds that he doesn't know. Could have saved the whole conversation if they led with this.

You don’t need a forester to have a tree. The tree and the forest existed before the forester.

Thanks Kumar🕺🏼

Thanks for your work Richard

I feel that Richard Dawkins and Satish Kumar were so close to agreement, and got stuck on Satish Kumar's definition of spirit. I can agree with his "loose" usage of the term, which RD took umbrage with, if the sense is that "rockness" or "the spirit of rock" is to say that the rock is everything naturual that we currently understand about rocks, as well as everything natural about rocks which we may have yet to discover or understand, as unlikely as that may or may not be. At the end I think they got wrapped around the axle when Satish Kumar asserted that science may yet discover that rocks are alive or what have you. That pushed the nearness of their union of perspective back apart. If Satish Kumar had instead brought up the point which was treated as subsequent and was brought up by RD, that his definition of spirit is to say that one accepts that the rock is everything that it is naturally, whether or not we understand it, this ties his point about humility directly into his point about spirit. I really do think RD believes in Satish Kumar's concept of spirit, though they didn't quite get there linguistically.

Satish said a few times that he is not a scientist, he is a philosopher. Hence his point of view was poetic and his understanding was based on feelings. He pointed out that without feelings for what we do everything becomes motivated by utilitarian dictom, he gave an example of how we treat nature. Also what some words mean in English have a different sense in a different language, for example Spirit means Atma= characteristics that make you you. If Satish is trying to tell you to same thing, you don't have to be a stuck up. He only wanted you to understand that everything needs to be respected. If a scientist was arguing the same way as Satish did I'd probably side Richard. Also I noticed that Richard may be atheist but his thought process is 100% governed by the same principles as that of Abrahamic religion. He left Christianity but Christianity did not leave him.

i completely understand the guest. Brilliant!

Science never says "this is the final theory", I'm thinking his whole premise rest on very flawed understandings.

Sounds like a politician. Talks a lot, but says nothing.

The spirit of imagination anyway. I know that feeling actually. I experienced that in my 20's. Never been religious but did think of myself as 'spiritual'. To me that meant engaging w/the mystery of my own being. I didnt believe in any dogma or theology. Thought all religions fundamentally the same. I spent a good number of years meditating on a daily basis during that time. The first amazing thing that happens when you meditate (nullification type mediation) is that your normal sense of self awareness seems to suddenly disappear while awareness remains. The field radically changes and feels almost like its greatly expanded. You also feel a tremendous sense of well being at the same time. People w/ magical worldviews are going to interpret that in a pantheistic way.

Only science has the power to make this world beautiful and perpetual and educating people about moral obligation that they owe towards nature could make them humble and kind .I don't believe in spirits its energy thats responsible for living and shaping our life ❤Richard dawkins has all the answers to my queries ❤

The big problem in "Spiritual" being assigning future results to what he promotes primarily as love and a positive mental relationship. Separating it from the "material", "matter", ... Yet every positive effort needed to work on the listed issues such as the environment, is physical, materialistic, based on matter,.... while all the nice thoughts, spiritual alignments, ... solve nothing other than warm fuzzy feel goods.

Enjoyed listening to the two perspectives. It's interesting to observe the differing palettes of people.

Oh my god my head...

Accepting tickets is the same as accepting money to buy tickets.

People have a strange kind of resistence when we say "words NEED to have precise meanings", right?

My mind tolerance level reached one level higher

thank you again (and again)

👌 Propos apprécié 💝 Grand Merci , de Québec , Canada ‼😉

I personally liked both viewpoints of yourself Richard and Satish from a viewpoint of respect towards nature as we are part of nature itself and I see you both agree on that. I agree with you Richard that the use of spirit is misleading because of its many connotations . Great video and interview, thank you. To myself Atheist only means not being in agreement with the creationist viewpoint, however it doesn’t mean rejecting all philosophical viewpoints, so I enjoy listening to Richard Dawkins agreements with his interpretations.

This guy is mentally exhausting and I bet there was more to the "interview" Richard has the patience of a saint lol

cracking up at the fact that 'Cultural Amnesia' is on the shelf twice

Still more bearable than Chopra

Wonderful interview. Like you, precision in the use of language and therefore the meaning of what’s being said and describes is vital. Your discussion was difficult because you weren’t able to pin down what to examine. One a side note, I’d like to hear how you might interpret the inherent substance of something that you would freely say you love, like music or art. If not spirit, what?

I agree that we need to examines things on many scales in order to really understand them.

Anything that breathes air and moves has spirits.

In the last national census conducted by the Australian Bureau of Statistics there was a question about religious following and it then gave a choice of (about 10, I think) religions and and one of these was 'Atheism'. Now that is idiocy. (They had been 'got at' by the religious leaders so that when the aggregates were compiled there would be more people listed as being religious and it would look better for them). As we know, the prefix 'a' means without and theism is a belief in one or more supernatural deities which deity/deities are an essential part of relious belief. I asked on the ABS fb page for that particular census that if there were to be a question about pet owneship with a list of possible pets to choose, would they include 'pet rock.' Someone replied, in all seriousness, that they believed there was a life spirit in every item of matter and therefore of course a 'pet rock' would be a valid item to choose. Supreme idiocy.

Science has made us humble, Mr. Kumar. It is one of its many achievements.

The more complex and profound a thing gets, the harder it is for language (which is an abstraction from reality) to adequately describe it

"Spirits don't exist" said a spirit. lol

This philosopher is extraordinary and incredible

To the holism angle and RD's response at 6:04, I'm not sure I understand the meaning of holism in the modern parlance (nor in any historical one, really) but I do think of all of existence as being related, right - anything that we name and label, we sort of arbitrarily give distinctive status to, as though it has clean borders that separate it from other things, but this isn't really so. For example, there's "me" but I'm a collection of organisms, a collection of biomes even, each with unique flora and fauna, as well as constant eb and flow of cells dying, being cast off, dividing, etc, even the statefulness of what is me can only be strictly defined in an immeasurably small unit of time we might call an "instant," and then it is different. Just as those flora and fauna are part of the biomes of my body, I'm also part of a biome I reside in, and it in the planet, with parts living and dying, multiplying and being cast off, and it in the universe, in which more of the same goes on at grand cosmological scales. So at once I say that it is all connected, and to RD's point at 6:00 ish, yeah, I mean analysis and synthesis is at the heart of science, and that means taking things apart, examining structure, causality, and sometimes finding new ways to utilize the parts, perhaps in some novel recombination. It improves both our abilities and our understanding, and that's all good and welcome. So i don't really see any discord between that kind of holism and science - we can at once recognize the interconnectedness of all, and at the same time pick things apart and figure out exactly how they're connected and what the dependencies are and what makes them tick, so to speak. One is sort of a macro view and the other is sort of a micro view, but I don't see that they necessarily contraindicate each other. Obviously this starts to fall apart when and if claims of spirituality are introduced, but I hold these aren't necessary to support a holistic view. So I'm just saying I don't think there is a scientific argument against the idea that the natural world and everything in it are deeply interconnected, both in the planetary sense and even in the cosmologic sense. Obviously the significance of one thing to another on temporal basis sometimes becomes hard to reflect on through the lens of human longevity, but we can kind of see that it's all part of a system, which is inevitably itself part of a bigger system and so on, which seems to quite strongly suggest that all that there is can be attributed to one over-arching system - a holistic one, containing the whole body of existence. Not only do I think there's really no scientific argument against that, I think the body of scientific knowledge seems to support it, even to suppose it inevitable. The more we find out, the more we find sort of echos of what we might call micro systems present within macro systems, and so on and so on. With that said, RD's point about how pragmatic it is to think hierarchically and to frame examinations within the proper level of abstraction is quite apt. The atomic composition of silicon or of the other materials used in the computer are of no interest to me whatsoever when assembling a computer, I'm just interested in the major components and their performance metrics, to borrow his example but to take it from a slightly different angle. Still, that doesn't negate the observation of the objective reality of the wholeness of reality, that the distinction of things within it is more conceptual as a practical matter than it is real in a physical and an atemporal sense. For example, my body is real in a physical sense, but it's only my body in a temporal sense, that's just a temporary configuration of this material, which will inevitably still exist but reconfigure again and again over time. The label of "me" is therefore a conceptual utility, not anything inherent to existence, except in a stateful sense - completely itinerant. Likewise for all things, part of a greater whole and constantly changing. That doesn't invalidate science, which derives valuable and useful insights through the examination of both the states and the statefulness itself of nature, and all the causality found therein.

Wooo he’s coming to Milwaukee, i shall be there!

Dressing is the context of the salad.

30:17 "We are not going to get anywhere" 😂

very good

Thanks D.😅

Dear, mr. Dawkins, I wish I had your patience...

That dry and pointed "Or the rock-ness" had me laughing out loud. Richard you cad!

The atoms of our body originated from the universe and have the same age and the same life. Satish Kumar is saying things that I at 86, have said most of my life and I have been laughed at.' In my life I melt through my vision of life, with everything. Let me tell you a little poem that I wrote some fifty years ago, I am 86 now. The title is ETERNITY. It goes like this : I have been the sky and the sea, I have been the wind and the tree. This is why I know that I was, that I am and that after I die, through the atoms of my body, in infinite forms and in infinite millennia, I will always be. Thank you for reading.

I think the holistic perspective is definitely a rational one (let`s call it ``wholistic``), but it requires a great deal of intelligence to avoid the interference of beliefs.

He says using the word tree for simply a tree is too simplistic, but he clearly continues to use "tree" to mean simply a tree. ~_~ And his "spirit" of the rocks, and character of a room is simply a human perceiving something.

What I find most disturbing is Satish's growing anger at other's not wanting to blindly accept how wonderful being Spiritual is! The obvious lack in of internal consistency of it causing animosity while claiming to solve it.

Although I'm with Richard 100%, it was certainly a thought provoking discussion, and polite too. But that 'ness' business is a deep beast. No wonder they call it the Loch Ness monster...

Spirits exist, if course! The best ones are 40 degrees and made of fermented potatoes 😂

Im starting a biology degree soon but I also have a great love for nature. I befriend animals and I feel at home among trees and boulders. Warm with the light of the sun. I can vaguely sense the history of the rocks came to be. The natural history of the location. And I also feel there’s a spirit behind it all. Or at least it all exudes life. However, I don’t see how spirit could ever be proven, nor do I believe that is the task of science. Looking forward to becoming a conservation biologist. Btw, No, its not out of fear that a non believer would not want to pollute the environment. It’s out of love for nature, not out of fear.

Obviously most people here are rationalists and think much like Dawkins - hence being here. The approach Satish is using, is more along the lines of the experience of self and reality, rather than Dawkins whom wants to understand the fundamentals of 'how and why it works the way it does'. They are different tools for different purposes.

This was real torture, could not watch the complete video. How did Richard manage to complete the video

I'm an agnostic person and I believe science is a way for understanding reality. But as an agnostic I didn't reject any opinions of someone about deity, God, spirit as I don't have an evidence to prove and disprove that statement. I'm always open for the miniscule possibilities. Try to be open and understand their own perspective, which shaped by their own culture , beliefs , friends , social status , environments and etc. Richard Dawkins being a scientist also has his own perspective shaped by his own job as a scientist which his understanding is supportive by empirical data, scientific facts and experiments. Remember understanding universe and is beyond or trascend physical realm and we still really don't know everything.

The Indian gentleman seems to say that if you remove the tree from the contexts, the context is no longer there or so active. If I understand him correctly, this is wrong because the sun will still shine when the tree is gone. The water will still nourish when the tree is gone. The air will still stay low and be there when the tree is gone. There are many places where there can be trees or no trees and the context doesn't change except for the fact that there are trees or no trees.

He seems to be equating "spirit" with meaning. I like that idea of spiritual. A spiritual experience is meanningful to the one experiencing it. The spirit of the tree is the meaning of that tree in the context of its existence.

Yes I am open minded but not for that spirit less rock

Interesting contrast between experience (seeing the whole in context) and the reductive analysis required for a scientific understanding. The latter lets us understand how something works, but not its relationship to its environment and other entities. I agree with Richard about our designation of "tree" having specific semantics, but also see that a tree does not exist in isolation. That designation is subjective -- a "tree" has no status in the absence of conscious entities, and even a person is composed of many essential lifeforms (e.g. microbes), which in turn affects the definition of "living" -- and yet the whole is still an important aspect. When the conversation got to spirituality, I dropped out :-)

Satish reminds me of the reason I stopped smoking marijuana and got a career. Edit: Having now finished the video, I think Richard himself is quite surprised at how well he wrapped it all up so politely. This is both a fantastic conversation and a complete waste of time, but I did at least enjoy it.

Bertrand Russel was brilliant. Have you comsidered William Blake? Many criticized him for "Living in Two Worlds". But I suspect he was "Scryimg Along Seven Dimensions" at all times. In that sense, he was like Saint Peter.

can't help myself, but that intro always makes me want to play skyrim.

Whats described as spirit ends at the point of ♾️ into finite invisibility of nothing 🤔

I have no idea if spirits exist or not

I'm surprised of the title of this video. That was an extremely interesting conversation, full of respect and open-mindedness despite different views, and yet the title bears a lot of condescension. I feel it contrasts distastefully with the name of the channel. I don't mind discussions with confronting ideas and even welcome them of course. I just wish we could move on from that clickbait BS and arrogant intellectual competitiveness. It shows a lack of understanding (or quality or spirit, wink wink). I still find this channel extremely valuable of course, precisely because they offer great discussions about challenging views. Just wanted to express my deception.

he thinks himself as the heir of Aristoteles ... his ideas would have been dated even back then.

I really wanted to like this guy, but oopha it just got more painful as the minutes went by. Woowoo on a grand level...

Dear Richard, how can anyone, whatching this on RU-vid, notice, that this episode (or any of the other episodes where you mention this) is a week delayed? Its here when its here. I dont see any information, when the editing was finished and it was ready to air.

Earth is a Living Being, Life-Unit, Mountains is skeleton Poles is gristle. Our hair skin nails is part of Mineral-kingdom, When cutting nails, We care Not to get too close to the Nerves, the cutted nails and hair, become free stuff, goes back to the Stuff-Circuit, gets re-used by Life-Units.

Without a *source* no material object can come to existence. *Only* existing material can be *recycled* to form new objects, Then, when there was no material how did it come into existence? What was its source? Satish knows it.

Twenty minutes iDawkins nails it: The word character works better than the word spirit. You could say everything has its unique character .

This is an interesting clash between two world views. What Satish Kumar says about the tree reminds me of the Buddhist Tittha Sutta - the parable of the blind men and an elephant. But when this moves on to discuss "spirit" it is hampered by the way the term is loaded. I wonder if what he is talking about is energy? The danger is that the concept of metaphysical moves this beyond what is knowable - only implied or sensed. Surely though the idea of "what is alive" is as intangible as the notion of "spirit" in this context?

I mean despite the differences and potential word salad, this was a sweet conversation. I enjoy seeing friendly people talk to eachother. However, I am annoyed by the unwillingness to clearly define words within an argument only to win the argument just by confusing your opponent. That’s not an intellectual conversation.

He leaned the word "intrinsic" and ran with it

All forms of environmentalism is word salad! From those featured in this video to so-called "climate science"

As a philosophy goes it’s not a bad one I think he was quite clear that it was a view and how he understands the world Thinking on it…

Sigh. What would Occam say about this word salad?

Explaining the world without a scientific background may drive to language riddles. Can we measure the 'spirit' of a rock? Does it explain how the rock moves or erodes?

Rock has no spirit. A tree grows. It doesn't have a perceivable spirit. A crocodile has a very tiny amount of spirit if it can have an attachment to another creature - but only because it's needs are served by that creature feeding it meat of other creatures. Dogs have visible spirit by affections and emotions, also connected with their needs. Humans are attached to this concept of spirit, but relationships are also malleable. We also regard our needs as significant, as well as familial attachments. Humans will disregard what we need to do and are influenced by what we should do. For example, we don't need to support a disabled person, but there's an attachment to what we should do. That also goes for caring for an elderly family member - if we had no shared connection, we don't have any need to do it except as a paid service. Spirit is an enveloping manifestation of emotion.

What is this title? We all saw this interview 20 years ago or whatever

Honestly this reminds me of Sean Carrolls notion of freewill being emergent.

If you cease identifying with the incessant internal monologue of you as a character within a culturally-defined story, it becomes crystal clear. Within that presence your consciousness is realised as universal, not only that all exists within your consciousness and within you, but all shares of the same consciousness. The realisation is unmistakeable. It is the Dao. It is the animated within Animism. It is the enlightenment within Buddhism. Any attempt to explain this non-dual realisation is thwarted and disrespected as 'word salad' because language itself has its utility only in the construction of the culturally-defined story.

Information is neither matter nor energy ,information is information.v.k.bhalla

This guy gives Deepak Chopra a run for his money. He reminds me of Professor Irwin Cory.