Richard Dawkins in conversation with Julia Sweeney June 9, 2015 at the Mayo Civic Center in Rochester, MN. Thanks to Glenn Gaunt for the video. Music credit: freemusicarchive.org
I was in a café when a man sitting next to me berated me for reading Richard's 'The Ancestor's Tale' because Richard Dawkins knew nothing of philosophy or theology. I told him the book I was reading is a science book and not about religion and did he mean 'The God Delusion' by the same author. He said 'yes that's the one'. He said it was a very bad book, poorly written and argued. I said I had not read it, had he? He said 'no, a well respected friend had told me about it'. I rest my case.
+Seamus Griffin I have read "The God Delusion". A very good book! I still have to read "The Ancestors Tale", though. I liked especially "River out of Eden".
+dewinthemorning Hi Roseta, just a general question, do you get a notification from google + if somebody replies to you?, it seems they don't always show up in my comment box now, i cannot read these comments on my tablet now, i have to revert to my laptop, and even then i now have to click on the "view all comments" button which is a new feature, i wish google/youtube would stop meddling !!!
+bonnie43uk Hi, bonnie43uk, Today, suddenly, I get 10 notifications from google. And you are right, I can't read replies there, I must go to the video itself. On the tablet, I can read replies only if they are short. At Google, they are constantly making changes, and we can only adapt to them. :)
I followed Richard Dawkins briefly on Twitter but stopped when his tweets became very angry and hostile. It's hard to connect that person with the one sitting on the stage. I thought he was doing more harm than good by insulting people.
TyDie85 One of the reasons for not being appropriate to dismiss the idea of loss is the average atheist, almost all atheists really, have next to nothing in terms of symbolism knowledge even within the bible. If you ask an atheist what the swastika symbolism means, he'll probably say some ordinary profane thing like "it's a symbol of power", or will typically observe he doesn't give a rat's ass. Atheists are simply people that for some reason or another have not been initiated in certain set of metaphysical knowledge. As René Guénon said, sacredness by itself, without the help of anything else, escapes profane curiosity. See it this way: a jackass will never stop to wonder what is the meaning of life; so too an atheist will never wonder whether there are inner esoteric layers of meaning in the bible, that were purposefully veiled in allegory for various reasons.
@@PedroHLima-ss7hy Do you always talk like this? "Almost all..." "...he'll probably say..." "...are simply people..." "...a jackass...will never wonder..." Not a single thing that you wrote describes me. All false assumptions. Hmmm. I'm seeing a trend. An assumption is a thing that is accepted as true or as certain to happen, without proof. Just like your religious belief. I hate to tell you, but you need a lot more world experience and critical thinking before making an accurate conclusion. Good luck with all that.
Sandra Slow down. If what you are saying were true you would be able to answer a question such as "what does the swastika symbolism mean?" and if you are either uninterested in knowing or do not know, I did not assume anything wrong. Reread my first comment and you will find out that is what I tried to say. Abd of course you have no interest in this question or have absolutely no clue what this symbolism, packed with correspondence within the bible, means. That is what I meant.
I'm dismayed at the number of negative comments regarding Julia Sweeney. She's a brilliant woman and Dawkins is clearly a fan of her one woman show, Letting Go of God. She contributes a great deal to the conversation here.
Hippie Dachshunds any time a woman speaks , there will be several misogynists saying her voice is too high or something. I ask those people to stay away from children, if his voices bother them
@@scienceexplains302 I am a woman, a feminist, and an atheist. It is not Sweeney's high pitched voice that grates on my nerves, rather it is her inappropriate and constant laughter.
@@longtermcareexperiences-bi5685 (Just to clarify, I was not claiming that the only people who don't like Julia Sweeney are sexist.) I just listened to the first two minutes of the interview and did not hear one inappropriate laugh. Maybe a bit of nervousness or relief, but it all sounds good to me.
Julia Sweeney is peppy and laughs as a reaction to humor, thought, and discomfort, as many people do. She makes this subject more approachable to many people, and that is positive, as some people will not sit through a Dawkins or Hitchens lecture. I agree that she contributes insights and a different perspective to the conversation.
"I'd take the awe of understanding over the awe of ignorance any day."--Douglas Adam Thank you so much Julia. I swear you and I had very similar journeys. I think I may tell my family to watch this if they ask how I lost my faith. You pretty much captures my story in a nutshell.
I love to hear Richard Dawkins. He helps me feel very secure in my belief, or lack thereof. He totally opens his audiences eyes to the fact that religion is bogus.
Great. He believes we got all this by "literally nothing." Show how smart you are to back that up. What's off is your brain. The 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. It is clear creation had to be done supernaturally at some point yet it is still denied because people are just too proud to accept that, among other things.
I agree. I love her, but after seeing her one-woman show, Letting Go of God, and other interviews, I was sadly disappointed with her reversal, and seeming ignorance, here.
The freedom that you feel when you finally "let go" as Julia so beautifully addresses, is the most amazing sense of clarity and contentedness I've known. Education and curiosity will set you free.
I do not have the ability to let go of an almighty power in the spectrum of life (the kind we don't understand as life) that has something to do with how the cosmos runs and knows about us on this pale blue dot
@@anitareasontobelieve7375 okay well that is good and you have your rights to it but dont try and tell people how to think, what they can do with their bodies, be against stem cell research, special tax free church, anti evolution, anti scientific method, cutting penis and clits of babies, telling people birth control is bad, creating laws based on ass derived religious texts, etc etc. no atheist is forcing you to not have your god.
The key to the atheist movement is similar to what religions have relied on for years. We need to raise our children to be critical thinkers and don't pass on supernatural myths. If that means you need to outwardly claim to be 'Catholic' or whatever, that is fine; just don't indoctrinate the children. Religion will evaporate exponentially especially with resources like the internet.
+Thomas H i love that religious people cry about having the right to raise their children in their "culture". While atheists want to raise their children to help them find their own path. Religious parents teach children what to think, atheists teach their children how to think.
+Thomas H It's the reason all ideology based religious institutions/people are so intent on getting to the children before they learn to think critically. And why they tend to use such exaggerated "carrot and stick" methods. They realise the importance. If childhood indoctrination and coercion were to be outlawed, I doubt very much the numbers would remain so high. It would be the "death knell" of widespread religion. It would become a very minority "activity".
+rationalmartian I agree, I would be in favour of banning childhood indoctrination of religion but it would be impossible to enforce. But I think what is wonderful is that the Internet more than anything has been a catalyst for people to be exposed to information, particularly to opinions and facts that challenge religious dogma.
+rationalmartian what I am referring to is those people who don't really believe anymore but feel obligated to raise their children in the religion of their youth. I have a sister who did this exactly. She did not believe but kept it private with me. She raised her daughter Catholic because it was expected. Now that daughter is an adult and popping out Catholic children like a pezz dispenser simply because the church got their grip on her. The world would have been better off if she simply taught her to think for herself.
Two of my favorites. I absolutely loved the actual God Delusion book. Another spectacular book by Dawkins is " The Greatest Show on Earth", for those who have the insatiable hunger I have for the fact of Evolution. Ohhh, such a mind-blowing, fascinating book!
What's even more annoying, sad really, are how many people complaining on this comment board. There IS a valuable message to this debate. Stop being trolls.
professor dawkins, I sincerely hope you come to Amsterdam so i can see you in person at a maybe a lecture. I hope to one day be able to attend one of your marvellous interviews or lectures.
Enrique Gesta, In that case, Richard Dawkins coming to Amsterdam, In y part of Amsterdameven Islam seems to be in rapid decline, he should talk about about homeopathy and other kinds of obvious bullshit.
Yasssss. I was so excited when this popped up in my suggestions. Love these two! I'm a huge fan of both, and a "strident naturalist" myself, hahah. What a great conversation. Truly inspirational!
A very nice talk. I found Julia's ideas to be thought provoking and good for debate. Richard certainly enjoys her company and discussing her ideas. Well done.
One of the biggest problems with being part of Christianity/Catholicism when you don’t share the beliefs is the willingness to associate oneself with the ideology that if someone does not share in this specific religion then they are going to hell. Christianity and Catholicism are exclusive religions (the only way to heaven is through belief in Jesus Christ). This is a cruel and offensive message, and in my opinion does not lend itself to creating such wonderful “community” (as Julia seems to think it does), except among its own of course... Churches are not simply feel good, do good, service clubs with happy traditions and nice songs. They carry a divisive, judgmental message from prideful people who see everyone on the outside as deceived and going to hell. Why anyone who does not hold these beliefs would want to associate themselves with it is beyond my personal comprehension.
Ten or so years ago, the openly secular campaign among other things was a catalyst for me to not only come out about being a non believer but to also finally relocate from the Bible Belt to California. I couldn’t be happier.
Being a "Blasphemer" myself, it was far from a bumpy ride and much more a comfortable confirmation that all that I feel about this subject is nail on the head right.Btw, my cats are also non believers in "Religious dogma" though it could be because they just don't belive in dogs but anyway I have gotten more love and TRUTH from two cats than I could ever get from "religion".
Ms Sweeney made a lot of valid points. Until there are easily accessible secular organizations which fullfill all of the non-religious but important church functions in people's lives, churches, synagogues, temples and mosques will continue to be popular institutions. She was presenting facts about how attending church supports church-goers that Dawkins really doesn't have a valid response for. He says some of the same things, but often dismisses the secular functions of churches etc out of hand, as easily replaceable, without acknowledging their extreme importance to church-goers.
I'd defend Dawkins by saying he has helped setup and supports organisation that support fellow atheists. The lack of community outside of religion is a problem that I hope can improve but I think it needs an awakening to overcome religions almost monopoly on those aspects. Maybe if we all wore symbolic jewellery? 😁
I live in Canada where religion is slowly dying, thankfully. Maybe my generation had higher IQ or better teaching? The new immigrants, on the other hand are more involved with their own personal bat-shit crazy cult behaviors (such as turbans). This was supposed to be the country where you could escape religion....
@@jwb52z9 This is a very presumptuous, as well as incorrect statement. Presenting things in an objective tone does not equate to absence of emotion. Far from the truth and full of bias - which, by the way, is promoted by the far right.
Sounds a bit like Julia is trying to have her cake and eat it too... Sorry Julia, you can't have the ritual without the myth and you can't have the myth without the lie.
Well religion itself as it is presented today is fundamentally flawed, but maybe what needs to happen is something fundamental about religion needs to change in the near tomorrow. Religious stories, artwork and philosophies are a good gateway into traditional culture and a pre-modern era. We do needa understand where we've been to know where we needa go. Humans are pattern-seeking creatures and innately irrational, it's how we survived by running when we hear a crackle in a bush, and an extension of that is a sort of artistic expression that is a by-product of the part of our brain that uses imagination and pattern seeking to survive in the wild. I think we should focus on that part, the part of understanding where our ancestors came from with the caveat that we know how far the expression of their ideas in terms of factuality goes so that we as a species can move forward as well. It's why pop culture is so widely accepted now. We can have stories that are some good some bad, but we know the extent of what's fact and what's fiction and can judge accordingly what's worth learning (morals, structure, character etc.) with our own crticial thinking and at the same time embracing the artistic expression that led to its conception in the first place.
In school I had a chemistry teacher who was really pedantic about the way you would describe a chemical or physical process. He didn´t want you to say "the water molecules want to stick together". His determination seemed somewhat over-ambitious back then, but I guess that way of thinking helped me to some more profound understandings of complicated processes. After all, the implication of purpose behind the natural existence lead to the idea of an allmighty god in the first place.
I LOVE Julia and her story. I just wish Julia would get with a speech coach and learn to moderate the "screech"....keep the enthusiasm but lose the high pitch.
I really enjoy hearing these experiences of realization and coming to reason (or out of faith, away from god, etc.). I was fortunate enough to not be 'given' religion as a young, impressionable child. I sort of discovered science and reason and philosophy through books and study, or even curiosity. I would read and study science and also learn the history of the world and religion and religious belief/history. I was able to develop my mind with critical thinking by comparing religion and science on my own. I think it's a privileged position I had, and I want to salute and congratulate those of you who had to be drawn out from desert revelations through sheer will and a fighting spirit. You had a fight and I think that's wonderful. Let reason prevail. Reason prevails.
Novel concept: What about critically evaluating and discussing the content of what Julia Sweeney has to say rather than critiquing how her voice sounds? Ad. Ho. Min. Em. I would like to think people watching a video from the Richard Dawkins Foundation would be more intelligent than all these comments seem to suggest, but this is still the internet I suppose.
People are shallow and want to see their exact views parroted by a woman with a deeper voice. Critiquing her natural voice is actually not excepting her as she is and VERY snobby and exclusionary.
16:20 I grew up Mormon. At one point we had a missionary (who are called "Elder") named Bishop and a Bishop (head of a ward) named Elder. so we had Elder Bishop and Bishop Elder.
As someone who was raised in an Anglican school, it's probably the only form of Christianity I can respect. Mind you, it's primarily due to their passiveness.
When I was in Christian Science Sunday School, I think I was about 10 when I questioned why there were so many other religions. My teacher was so kind and thoughtful when trying to answer me. And he answered me honestly by saying something along the lines of how no one knows for certain which religion is the true religion. They may very well all be wrong. But the religion of Christian Science after much deliberating seemed to be the one that made the most sense to him. I don't know if that was a good answer or a very dangerous one.
Daniel • She is so intelligent and engaging, though! I personally love listening to her speak, I think she is an amazing woman and a pioneer for this great cause :o) Do you like Professor Dawkins? I'm just curious, friend
Adrian D I love what she says and she seems to have a great personality, but her voice is sometimes stinging in my ears. I wish she would speak in a more composed and calm manner in situations like these and save her vocal range for her comedy show :)
@@spaceghost8995 It makes a big difference to know someone. I listened for the first time to her, so I was not used to her voice. And just because I criticize a person's feature I don't want him/her to be another person ;) That's not how criticism works.
'whether it is true or not, that's like the least interesting thing'. thanks for saying that Julia, because now i won't have to waste my mind or time on your ideas. i think and hope that when people leave their religion it is for the sake of truth not for emotional reasons.
+Quantum Axe Quantum, perhaps emotional reasons are why people stay trapped in the superstitious nonsense of religion? Actual truth is the least of their concerns ... this becomes obvious when one attempts to have a rational discussion with one of them.
her shrill voice and laughter are appalling!!! but it yet did not destruct enough from her simple-mindedness. respect to Richard for his patience and risking getting tinnitus with this one.
+spoddie yes, and she really suffers from cognitive dissonance. her statement in the beginning that what led her to atheism was not critical thinking made it very clear to me what her thought process might have been. this was clearly shown when she said that she finds that religions are fine because they give people delusions. it was not objectivism but emotional thinking that led her out of her religion which i think is a big problem for many people and especially seen in women. i am sure i will get hate for this comment but that is what i have seen.
+Quantum Axe How can emotional thinking lead one out of religion? Fear (an emotion) is used to draw people into a religion. Please tell me more about women being more emotional. I'm not hateful, i want to understand.
Ayanda Khumalo there are many people who become anti-religious when they grow up just because they were mentally or physically abused in their religious faith when young. i think this is also the reason why many people think that atheists must have had a bad childhood. they think of it as some kind of rebellion rather than a result of critical thinking, not just about the contradictions in the religions themselves but also by understanding science and facts. sadly it is also true in many cases and probably the reason why many people leave their own religion to adopt another when they grow up or invent one themselves.
I have a friend who is a Mormon (I myself am an atheist) and we get along very good together. We have fun, can laugh or play games together but religion is really the only thing where we can not get along. We keep on arguing and keep on disagreeing about it, but my point is that you can still be friends and get along just fine even though one is a well believing religious person and the other is a full time atheist.
1:15:28 - "My student asked, "My faith says one thing but science says another. What do you say?" ... How do you think I should respond...?" To this question, I'm disappointed at the responses from both Richard and Julia. At least one of them should have pointed out that all the teacher needed to say to the student is that she's there (at school) to teach science and not to discuss religion or religious belief.
BTW, if you're that person and happen to read this post, PM me. There's lots of really great atheist in MN - also teachers - who have good answers to that question.
I was studying theology but I didn't finish the degree when I started learning the errors of the SDA church. Then I started to think critically about the philosophy religion employs and I realized that it literally hedged believers in from examining critical opposition to the christian and religious worldview. However, living in Jamaica and with the prevalence of religious views around, I have not and cannot come out openly as being atheist. What I need to know is if the clergy project is for me as well?
Fellowship means a lot to me. I like that aspect within an atheist group. I wish we could have a bunch of atheist "sites" that anyone could go to to connect with others the same way that people of faith can go to the local church.
By the way, for those who don't know, Richard Dawkins features a story form Julia in one of his books. A famous story now. Exceprt from THe God Delusion: "Chapter 9 quotes the comedian Julia Sweeney’s tragi-comic story of her parents’ discovery, through reading a newspaper, that she had become an atheist. Not believing in God they could just about take, but an atheist! An ATHEIST? (The mother’s voice rose to a scream.)"
46:50 Julia, my dear, the same can be said about popular music or professional sports. Rock concerts raise money for good causes and professional sports team are involved in all sorts of charities. Steven Colbert raised a great deal of money on his cable show but I think it's spurious to say late night shows or celebrity status push people to behave better. I think there are also many people involved in the music or sports business who clearly aren't fantastic human beings. I don't think what motivates people to be involved with their church is all that different from what motivates them to be in a band or the basketball team.
+Edwin Luciano wasn't that a typical rant from an SJW? i was not surprised that she said what she did because as she had already said it in the beginning, her atheism was not really a result of critical thinking and scepticism.
@@SandraLovesRoses It wasn't fine. It was annoying I LOVED her one person monologues, but for the love of Spam, she sounds like a teenager in this video.
Men bond over doing things eg. working in the back yard on a car. Women bond over creating things for the group. These are stereotypes but we all need something to bond over. I personally would bond over someone who like to read and can talk to me about what they are reading and listen to me about what I am reading and be able to share books by mutual agreements.
For me, science can answer "how" and religion tries to answer "why". One audience member put it quite well. "Why is not a relevant question" He said quote: "There is no why"
Unfortunately this lady had absolutely no perception of how irksome she was. It is a Dawkins trait to sometimes pause after making one point in order to think for a couple of seconds or to let the audience consider one point before he embarks on another. At such moments the lady would leap in with her crass opinion. When this had happened a few times Dawkins just did not bother finishing his answer. The pitch / timbre of her voice was a burden on the ears.
I LOVED her in SNL, Saying Good Bye To God and God Said Ha, but she was way too giggly to stay interested in this video. I would like to know what a conversation would have been like if it hadn't been in front of a live audience.
