39 Replies to “Richard Dawkins: Letting Science Inform Morality”

  1. That question didn't make sense at the end. Who's going to be the first guy to try to go up and torture someone holding a bomb? Not me. My ass will be in a bunker somewhere. lol

  2. There is no dispute between me and Richard Dawkins and there never has been, because he’s a journalist, and journalists are people that report what the scientists have found and the arguments I’ve had have actually been with scientists doing research,” said Wilson during an interview on Newsnight.

  3. See how hard he has to restrain himself from using the very word "religious" and going on a hate tangent? Also, how uncomfortable very real unfortunate truths to his cause makes him? It's actually quite cute to watch.

  4. Ok Morality is easy to understand
    I will dumb it down

    Cruelty-Compassion Slavery-Freedom
    Of course logic or reasoning is needed to understand these words.
    Obviously things become more complicated with billions of humans on this planet living together with different belief systems.
    Analytical thinking is our shield against stupidity lol

  5. You can see your brain evolving energy under your eyelids black and grey and sometimes color with practice. If it resolves into something more intelligent than you can imagine then it's god. God showed me light motor and dinosaur skin dark plant green.
    Natural selection is the character flaw in evil that is integrity is more important than life otherwise evolution is tragic circumstance with nothing intelligent happening.

  6. Morality is too difficult a subject for science because the values for morality are not consistent. What I consider moral might be immoral to you. What one government deems moral might be in stark contrast to another.

    If you took a few examples: corpse snatchers, those cutting open the bodies, testing on animals these are to further knowledge, but using what most people would consider moral these are all wrong. The medical sciences may say such knowledge has saved more lives compared to the original crime. As so much of medicine is based on these tests it might be considered immoral etc.

    Clear cut cases of immorality eg vivisection, testing pathogens on humans, growing disease causing agents, torture are easily seen as immoral, even if they further knowledge.

    Worrying about morals can make a job very difficult. So many scientists follow the process.

  7. Why do animals, "our cousins", doesn't show even a small pinch of morality? Let's say a lion would be happy to eat the arms of a blind man without feeling any guilt! and they have existed probably much longer than human in your view.

  8. There is no such thing as morals according to the atheist religion.

    Atheists believe that we are just a collection of complex chemical reactions that occurred by chance in a universe that was a mistake and which has no ultimate purpose.

    Therefore morals are subjective, relative and arbitrary. There is no right or wrong, there is no good or evil, according to the secular worldview, because there is no supreme authority or ultimate standard from which such notions are based.

    Each collection of complex chemicals determines their own truth.

    We saw how great that worked out in the 20th century… More death caused by the secular ideology in a 100 year span than the previous 3,000 years combined!

  9. Fruit for thought

    If you are confuse and you don’t know what’s going on because it does not make sense it’s happening because the people who we made in charge of our affair they handed it over to Satan in golden plat so let’s go back to the Basic and it goes like this

    If you want to know the hierarchy of our existence, first there is God, then the angels, then the Jin (Demons) and finally the humans.

    God the supreme created all the hierarchy and the the angels have always done what they are told. They were not given the gift of ‘free choice’.

    The Jin(demon) live their lives in a mirror existence to us in a different dimension so we cannot see them. they can see us,
    Born from within the worst of the Jin came Satan and his tribe as they too were gifted with a choice between good and evil.
    Then there are humans who live on earth and they were also gifted to have the choice between good and evil. Animals on earth do not have this choice.

    There is interaction between humans, bad Jin and Satan. Satan and the bad Jinn seek only human destruction and have joined forces with the Jews=(illuminati – Freemason – Zionist- Rothchild and so on) to conspire against humanity. Satan has promised the Jews he will make them rule the world and in return the Jews will make humanity worship Satan instead of God. They call that (The new world order)

    Satan and his tribe have the ability to shape-shift into humans and animals to possess them even though we can’t see them so don’t be fooled by them.

    Judaism equal Kabbalah equal Freemason equal Zionist equal illuminati equal Rockafella equal Rothchild they all descendent Of the Jewish ideology and they are conspiring with Satan to take over the world there is no aliens

    if you wondering where I got my hypothesis it comes from the specific guidance from God within the Quran and a lifetime of practical observation of many cultures, the demise of the family and worsening behaviours in society. The Jin are known as ‘demons’ or ‘ghosts' in western culture and God has told us via the Quran that they live just like us but in a parallel dimension (similar to the multi-verse that eminent physicists now proclaim to be logical).

    Denying the facts will not make them go away. Let me give you an example: if you go to University you have to obey their laws and conduct yourself according to the rules and regulations of the University in order for you to achieve a degree. In these Universities there are bad people and good people; good professors and bad professors. You wouldn’t normally wish to let these bad people distract you from achieving your degree so why is it so easy for a person to accept man-made laws but reject the fundamental Laws of God? If you consider the analogy that the whole world is a University and we are all in it for a short period of time as students and we have to obey the rules and regulations of God in order for us to go Heaven then this is the fundamental position we each have to deliberate upon. It’s essential though for you first to believe in God.

    Therefore, the choice is simple: do we accept only man-made Laws simply because they are recent and developed by legal systems supposedly designed to keep us ‘civilised’ or do we notice that despite our man-made Laws we are drifting further and further into inequality, injustice, war, envy and wars? Should we not recognise the wisdom and intent of God’s fundamental Laws, which are aligned within the Holy Quran as well as the Bible (where the text has not been changed by man)? These Laws when followed, result in tolerance, respect for others, sharing of resources and peace. Each of us has the freedom of choice.

    We all belong to God and to God we shall return.

    AJ

  10. This right here… if conservative Republicans has this way of thinking…. and we’re all atheist… there votes would skyrocket

  11. Science and locic totally destroys morality. Every "living" thing is just a biological machine composed of tiny, mindless cells, all working together to continue the endless and meaningless cycle of life. These cells die by the billions each day, and are simply replaced. Every second you are no longer the same exact organism that you were a second ago. In a way you die every time a cell dies and are soon replaced by a new organism that resembles you. What we consider death is just the end to all your cells replicating themselves

    Morals are completely subjective and just don't apply in a world where we know that we're nothing but moving particles. Knowing this, the only reason to keep on living, instead of laying down and letting yourself die, would be to ask yourself what is your function; to which the only answer is to reproduce and make sure your offspring succeeds. If you're to justify doing anything it would be by using utilitarianism. Utilitarianism ensures that your offspring and fellow species succeeds

  12. What he is referring to as "scientific thinking" is actually philosophy. Consistency is a principle of logic, and these problems are in the realm of philosophy of ethics. Moreover, the scientific method is a part of what we call philosophy of science. Of course we should use scientific data when dealing with such issues, but it's so unfortunate to see eminent scientists exaggerating the role of science and devaluing philosophy which it relies on.
    By the way Richard seems like he isn't aware that utilitarianism is also a type of moral absolutism. He is a moral relativist, because he defends that morality changes over. He even has a name for it: the moral zeitgeist. He argues that humanity improved morally by abolishing slavery, promoting women rights etc. My question goes as fallows: If morality is relative to time and culture, i.e. there's no absolute standart, then why is is a specific understanding of morality superior to others?
    There are tons of more examples to Dawkins' logical fallacies and inconsistencies.Hey, what happened to scientific thinking and all that stuff??

  13. wow I thought I'd never say this but man this guy is whacked out of his mind. he just compared a human embryo with a cow merely based on the size of the nervous system. that is absolutely absurd.

  14. What science has done for morality is show morality is pointless.

    Humans have a trait no other animal has, that's the ability to think and reason philosophically. Humans could conceivable contribute to the betterment of mankind, cows can't.

    Science informs us, morality is restricted to what helps the human race advance. Using this concept, then it's immoral not to euthanize some people. Wasn't this what Hitler was trying to accomplish? All he wanted to do was eliminate what he perceived as "bad genes" out of the gene pool. Hitler should be a hero to Dawkins.

    If Darwin had been aborted, Dawkins would be washing dishes in a country club somewhere. Killing cows wouldn't have that effect. Killing cows can help feed people who can't feed themselves, but if they can't feed themselves, they are a drain on the human race, so feeding such people is not moral at all, if morality is defined as what betters the human race's chances of survival.

    Drawing the line of what is moral and what isn't isn't that difficult, if a person tries to noodle it out. The greatest mind of all time might be being thrown in the trash right now, because his or her birth would be an inconvenience to the mother.

    For those faithful followers of Dawkins, consider where you would be if his mother aborted him.

  15. In the dictionary, under "Sophistry", they should have a picture of Dawkins–he embodies sophistry because he does not believe in 10 commandments. Rationalism alone proves anything, idiot. That's what Aristotle was afraid of–immorality leading to irrationality, which he called "Knavery". Dawkins is a "Knave". So is Obama, etc.

  16. A knave or sophist according to Aristotle. Immorality (Darwin), no 10 commandments, yields irrationality, knavery. Aristotle proved it. Darwin, ultimately destroys planet by immorality/irrationality paradigm. Dawkins is a rogue and rogues are irrational. Rationalist ethics is sophistry because anything can be proven by reason (man/boy relations, etc).

  17. if you study biology right, the goal of life is to continue living, eternity. but since we can't achieve that, that's we we procreate.

    now, based on biology, we should do the things to protect our genes as a species. there you go, a perfect religion

  18. 3:57 "should you torture the guy or not?" this is not a matter of right and wrong but a matter of which is the lesser evil. let's be clear about this. both options are wrong. but the choice has to be made.

  19. 2:20 "at what point of evolution do you say ok they're humans now?" moment they are able to communicate their feelings

  20. I read somewhere "compassion comes from understanding", which I find to be accurate and since science gives us understanding, science is the greatest single driver of morality.

  21. Nice to see how he is babbling like a Baboon when for once he is not bashing scriptures. He has actually nothing to say.

  22. Complete bullshit. This nonsense gives Atheists a bad name. Before the vile commis Atheism was reserved for dignified philosophers, who wouldn't dream of spewing such stupidities (ah, the good old days)….

  23. I think he misses the point in the last question. In the example he sets, society wouldn't get harmed but saved, whereas the question wonders whether scientific reasons could lead to a harm of society. I think it's quite a good question, by the way.

  24. Talking about morality Mr Dawkins, what a stupid, disgusting thing to say aborting babies with down syndrome, this guy definitely has no morality. And a baby is not  a "it" it is a human being Mr Dawkins, what utter foolishness, makes me angry all human life is valuable no matter what, evolution at its finest.

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/richard-dawkins-on-babies-with-down-syndrome-abort-it-and-try-again-it-would-be-immoral-to-bring-it-into-the-world-9681549.html

  25. Extremely well put by Dawkins as always… it's funny but unfortunately typical to notice so many people reacting pretty irrationally negative to him in a way not even others with similar views such as Neil DeGrasse Tyson get. In a way, you can't blame people for getting angry at Dawkins – his clarity and authoritative way of presenting his ideas can be VERY threatening to people who can never hope to present their own ideas with nearly as much efficiency. In other words, they're jealous, and for good reason XD

  26. Dawkins, Bush, Obama, aliens all of them, human clonebodies controlled by aliens to program you thru the propagandabox called tv.. Main objective -get humanity to ignore they are children of the sun, get humanity to ignore aliens, get humanity to stop thinkin logicaly, let humanity kill themselves thru addatives in foods, skies and ocean..They are humans Dawkins say, shut your beek alieninsect I say!!

  27. The aliens do not want you to know about the most high or that humans are children of the most high with powers to crush them like bugs.. So they programmed you thru schoolprogramming and mediaprogramming and you swallowed every lie they had, and now you repeat the lies like they are true, you cant confirm it yet you BELIEVE since that is what they told you to do.. Believe and shut up, dont hink so much its boring to think and search for truths.. There is no meaning of life. Now reapeat that.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *