Richard Dawkins Q&A | Aliens, God, Transgenderism, Science and more
In my latest episode, I have answered a list of intriguing questions suggested by our audience, and put to me by Taryn Southern. You can watch it here:
Discussion about this post
No posts
Re fine tuning and the anthropic principle, it is often forgotten that the universe and our mathematical representations of it are separate and distinct entities. Some, like Roger Penrose, argue that if a particular mathematical description applies to one aspect, it must be universal, while others like David Hawking, assert that the universe feels no obligation to be governed by a particular set of axioms (I paraphrase.) The physical constants are in other words tied to our mathematicalrepresentations. There is no reason to think those representations are unique.
Also, on another topic, I can think of no body less qualified to render a judgement on UFOs than the assemblage of scientific ignoramuses that is the US Congress.
Here's mine for next time:
Can you elaborate on your view of assisted dying, and where the line is in the rights of others preventing you dying and the right of wanting to die yourself. Somebody could contribute a lot to the world and but is simply not aware of their quality but then dies and it is a waste. Shouldnt there be laws preventing wanting to die over a trivial matter as people need to be patient so they can adapt into this new undesirable situation as its better than nothing. I personally think unless you are being tortured in a basement every night or are in a paralysed disabled like situation you shouldn't be able to die. I also understand that assisted dying is of great benefit to suicidal people that would kill themselves anyway in very painful ways. One objection I have of assisted dying is that you arent getting out or rid of your problems by killing yourself as you are not alive to witness change youve got rid of everything, good and the bad. Also the meaning of life is to survive in a scientific sense and a social sense as we adapt to our new inferior predicament rather than die because their is always something to live for.
What do you think?
You have briefly touched on transgenderism, do you think the best method of help is to get them therapy to convince them that they arent the opposite sex or to help them get surgery to become an artifical version of the opposite sex? Is there evidence of gender dysphoria in the brain or is it simply a perception?
What do you think of trans people who transition yet never do it fully, leaving remnants of their old sex like stuble etc. Doesnt that defeat the purpose of transitioning? Isnt it restricting my free speech if I have to call a person she although the person looks like neither sex or half and half. Being demanded to call someone "they" or anything other than she/her and he/him is narcissistic controlling and immoral especially "zie/zir" and "Non binary" or so called neo pronouns. There is no other example in language you can think off that goes more against truth and is more accomodating for somone who doesnt deserve it. You might not even talk to or like or even be in their presence at the time you refer to them. The rights of the majority to free speech and free expression should always supersede the minority trans rights of wanting to be called something they arent. Pronouns arent exclusive to an individual. Its not the same as wanting to be called a nickname as nicknames dont label a fact like a persons sex. Do you agree?
If climate change and global warming isnt stopped or minimized how will this make us evolve assuming it can?
Do you agree that the simulation theory undermines science and how is it similar to the god idea?
Why are you in favour of calling mankind humankind but not in favor of calling mother nature just nature? Are you biased in favor of women in human rights? Dont you agree there should be equality of opportunity but let nature take its course and people be hired based on merit and if that means most women are hired then tough?
Are you in favor of non religious people to get legally married without a humanist ceremony simply for childrens surnames? On that note shouldnt humanist marriage only be for having children as that is only when it is important for commitment in a moral sense. If its not about the reering off children, what is the point of a humanist marriage? As there is no vow mentioning staying together until death like a religious marriage as the ceremonies are famously flexible in vow choices.
What specific fact about evolution do you like the most?
Is Dr Who your favourite sci-fi programme and which doctor is your favourite? Do you think its misandry turning the doctor female?
On the "this statement is false" paradox my answer is that its true, do you agree? It can either be true or there is no answer. Is this a good test and conclusion in reason and why am I right?
Why was your book the selfish gene so revolutionary? And something about the genes? Ive only started on the flights of fancy and outgrowing god.
Youve tackled Jordan Peterson so will you visit the american right wing religous Daily Wire that Peterson set up and tell Ben Shaprio, Matt Walsh etc on why they are wrong about god.
What is the most interesting things that non human animals have, that we dont or vice versa in conciousness?
Are there any lifeforms that have a component without a clear purpose? As an addition to something or attached to something but also as a complete thing on its own?
What is your favourite animal other than us?
If you think gay incest should be legal because it cant procreate and create a deformed child then why do you think procreation from an old woman should be legal because of creating a down syndrome child?
What do the words natural and unnatural mean - not supernatural, if they have nothing to do with morality. For example someone objects to gay relationships because they are unnatural as they cant procreate but if they exist then from a non moral view being gay is natural because anything that scientifically exists is natural. So is killing unnatural because its wrong most of the times?
Can you elaborate on your slippery slope argument you made in outgrowing god?
Are you going to do a adult book on morality and putting everything you think in there? Criticising moral theories, the shifting moral zeitgeist, etc? Because you have only briefly touched on it for kids in outgrowing god. And do you like superheros, whos your favourite?
Is the "shifting moral zeitgeist" the shifting deconditioning improving moral zeitgeist? You have been rather vague in your meaning of the phrase. Is it purely a defense so that people dont disregard historical figures of great quality that were racist too? And that the defense is that they couldnt help there immoral views because of the social norms and conditioning were so strong it didnt occur to them to question them? Isnt this conditioning true for non moral views too? And is humanity gradually getting better because pioneers break this conditioning but not hard enough to sort out society completely from day 10 but rather at day 1000 which we havent reached yet. They build upon previous pioneers until the perfect society? How can people who dont come up with whats right and wrong from thinking themselves and are conditioned, have a conscience? Of course independent minded people want to fit into society and be loved and not to be lonely too. So a individual challenging social norms may not challenge another type of social norm?
Why do scientists get kudos for being wrong? It it because the aim is to get to the truth rather than being right.
What lifeform existed first on the food chain if they all need each other to survive? Why did the earliest living things come from the sea? Did the plants come before the fish?
How and why did our species or our predecessors become more Intelligent than all other species to build roads and create art? Is that conciousness? Where did conciousness or our intelligence come from and how do you define it?
How many mysterious of evolution are left and what are they? And for biology too? Which aspect of science should get the most attention to get answers, physics?
Isnt the problem of whats before the big bang more of a problem in reason than science and of course not in religion or any other fiction. Because if evidence is discovered of something before the big bang then we just ask what was there before that evidence and so on. Do you think there are aliens out there that have cracked all the mysterious of the universe?
What do you think of scientific language that is misleading only to stupid people? For example the word law in the laws of physics has a different meaning to the word law in the legal system. Thats true for the word theory too like the theory of gravity. They point out that evolution isnt true because of this. Do you suggest inventing new words just for science that has a more accurate meaning? Ive heard you say "changing facts" to avoid saying theory but isnt the fear of that, is that it will eradicate the meaning of a fact and thus scientific truth?