Classic: Richard Dawkins' Response to "What if You're Wrong?"

[Rational Agnostic]

For my 500th post, I thought I would link to this brief, brilliant video from 2006 in which Dr. Dawkins responds to the classic question and gives a simple, succinct, and brilliant answer.

 

[Laika]

For my 500th post, I thought I would link to this brief, brilliant video from 2006 in which Dr. Dawkins responds to the classic question and gives a simple, succinct, and brilliant answer.

Congrats on your 500th Post. I hope you have many more here.

I'm not going to try and judge the man on a few minutes of video, but I think Dawkins missed an opportunity to open up. The nature of his answer very neatly sums up my (perhaps prejudicial) discomfort with the New Atheists as thinkers. He could admit "yes, I am human, I am limited, I am vulnerable, I don't know everything, I could be wrong and that's something we all have to live with". His Audience would not have been any worse off for it and it could well have been an important experience to hear someone they respect admit the possibility they could be wrong.

All belief comes with the risk of error, even scientific belief, and I would have trusted and respected his judgement more if he could have admitted that. Accepting the tragedy of risking your beliefs only to find them wanting and showing that he is as capable of doing what he would expect others to do would have made for a much more useful exchange. I don't know if there is a more substantive point hiding in there or simply a personal preference but I'm more of a Carl Sagan guy myself.

 

[Skwim]

All belief comes with the risk of error, even scientific belief, and I would have trusted and respected his judgement more if he could have admitted that.

In as much as not all belief comes with the risk of error, I respect his judgment not to admit such a thing. That said, I was hoping he would address the consequences as outlined in Christianity, but because this was a Q and A session perhaps he didn't want to waste time on it.

.

 

[Katzpur]

For my 500th post, I thought I would link to this brief, brilliant video from 2006 in which Dr. Dawkins responds to the classic question and gives a simple, succinct, and brilliant answer.

That was neither succinct nor brilliant. He didn't even answer the question, for crying out loud. If that's the best he can do, I'm very, very unimpressed.

 

[Katzpur]

I'm not going to try and judge the man on a few minutes of video, but I think Dawkins missed an opportunity to open up. The nature of his answer very neatly sums up my (perhaps prejudicial) discomfort with the New Atheists as thinkers. He could admit "yes, I am human, I am limited, I am vulnerable, I don't know everything, I could be wrong and that's something we all have to live with". His Audience would not have been any worse off for it and it could well have been an important experience to hear someone they respect admit the possibility they could be wrong.

Amen! Now that would have been a good answer.

 

[Twilight Hue]

You can't really apply " what if" type questions for something that's established by unresponsiveness and silence.

I do like Bill Nye's answer with Ken Ham by which if a God established a presence in a convincing manner beyond all doubt, it's existence, then of course God would be acknowledged.

Ken Ham wasn't as open a person as Nye was when the inverse was proposed.

I'm thinking Dawkins didn't feel the substance of the question was relevant as it applies to what we do know on the matter and remained reserved. "What if" questions do seem to be taken out of context from time to time as they are answered.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

Congrats on your 500th Post. I hope you have many more here.

I'm not going to try and judge the man on a few minutes of video, but I think Dawkins missed an opportunity to open up. The nature of his answer very neatly sums up my (perhaps prejudicial) discomfort with the New Atheists as thinkers. He could admit "yes, I am human, I am limited, I am vulnerable, I don't know everything, I could be wrong and that's something we all have to live with". His Audience would not have been any worse off for it and it could well have been an important experience to hear someone they respect admit the possibility they could be wrong.

Hmmm......actually he did admit he could be wrong at the outset of the video (watch again if you don't remember). His point was that he is no more concerned about the consequences of his being wrong than he is about the consequences of his being wrong about Zeus, Thor, etc.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

That was neither succinct nor brilliant. He didn't even answer the question, for crying out loud. If that's the best he can do, I'm very, very unimpressed.

Some questions are better answered with a question instead of an answer, which is what he did here. I recommend you watch some more of his video debates. He is a highly intelligent man and is very knowledgeable in his field of evolutionary biology. Also his book River Out of Eden is an excellent, brief introduction to how evolution works if you don't have time to read his longer books.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

All belief comes with the risk of error, even scientific belief, and I would have trusted and respected his judgement more if he could have admitted that. Accepting the tragedy of risking your beliefs only to find them wanting and showing that he is as capable of doing what he would expect others to do would have made for a much more useful exchange. I don't know if there is a more substantive point hiding in there or simply a personal preference but I'm more of a Carl Sagan guy myself.

Yes, Carl Sagan was also a brilliant man. This is one of my favorite of his speeches as well.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

For my 500th post, I thought I would link to this brief, brilliant video from 2006 in which Dr. Dawkins responds to the classic question and gives a simple, succinct, and brilliant answer.

The problem with "what if you're wrong?" is that it assumes everyone has been raised in a god-view way and when we get to a certain age, we deviate from that view. I have never talked with any person of any god-faith that genuinely understands a world that makes sense without any type of god however defined and named.

The question is addressing what the theist perceives as doubt from the atheist not genuine non-belief in god. Since that is not in their worldview, that's, to them, like asking you "what if you're wrong about the sun existing." It's an alright question but since they know the sun exist for all people, it's not a question of existence to them-they can't perceive the sun not existing to ask the question-but a question of denial or rejection of what's "common sense."

So I never really liked a lot of arguments from Richard because he has bias already of the christian faith and in his speech that from hearing him awhile back, like many, he seems to have an agressive view against christianity not trying to genuinely explain how god does not exist without being defensive about it.

To tell you honestly, when I saw him debate with a Catholic priest or bishop, can't remember which, I sided on the theist side. Not because I agreed with the theist argument as objective truth, it's that they expressed their point of view with less argumentative bias than Richard does on his side. Also, it has to do with one's morals. Many religious who are very devout in the humility of their teachings won't get defensive as another whose morals are not seen as a devotional lifestyle because they connect it with the word religion and dogma. It takes out the structure of that person's life thereby, it's hard to find the foundation of their beliefs when they don't want to associate with the words to have mutual understanding of the topic at hand.

 

[Debater Slayer]

For my 500th post, I thought I would link to this brief, brilliant video from 2006 in which Dr. Dawkins responds to the classic question and gives a simple, succinct, and brilliant answer.

Congratulations on your 500th post!

Great choice of a post for the occasion, too. That video almost never gets old for me. He didn't waste any time and just cut to the chase there.

 

[Father]

 

[Kuzcotopia]

That was neither succinct nor brilliant. He didn't even answer the question, for crying out loud. If that's the best he can do, I'm very, very unimpressed.

I think his point was that if your going to ask the question "what if your wrong?," then you have to ask it for every possible interpretation of every possible diety.

To properly answer her specific questions for her particular god, he would have required an hour-long breakdown of the properties of the god she believed in, the specific interpretations lf doctrine her specific god requires, the moral values/duties that her interpretation of god requires, and a breakdown of the various consequences and reward that her particular god requires.

Only then, could he actually answer that question, and then, only for her. Other theists in the room will have a variety of different answers for all of that. He is simply saying that she would also have to answer "what if your wrong?" for every different set of gods, doctrines, interpretations of moral values/duties, and punishments/reward for every other god concept that exists.

How could he do that? He couldn't possibly know what specific set of loaded god concept she was referring to in advance.

She asked an impossible question, and he answered with some perspective on why that question is ridiculous.

 

[Katzpur]

She asked an impossible question, and he answered with some perspective on why that question is ridiculous.

I disagree. I someone were to ask me that question, ("What if you're wrong?), I wouldn't just try to deflect. If it turns out I was wrong, and there was a Higher Power that was clearly not the one I'd been worshiping, the first thing I would do was acknowledge my error and then ask him what my next step should be. If I was wrong, and there was no Higher Power at all, I guess I'd pretty much be off the hook.

 

[Kuzcotopia]

I disagree. I someone were to ask me that question, ("What if you're wrong?), I wouldn't just try to deflect. If it turns out I was wrong, and there was a Higher Power that was clearly not the one I'd been worshiping, the first thing I would do was acknowledge my error and then ask him what my next step should be. If I was wrong, and there was no Higher Power at all, I guess I'd pretty much be off the hook.

Which higher power was the girl referring to?

 

[Katzpur]

Some questions are better answered with a question instead of an answer, which is what he did here. I recommend you watch some more of his video debates. He is a highly intelligent man and is very knowledgeable in his field of evolutionary biology. Also his book River Out of Eden is an excellent, brief introduction to how evolution works if you don't have time to read his longer books.

I don't doubt his intelligence at all, and I can practically guarantee that pretty much anything he has written concerning evolutionary biology would be way, way over my head.

 

[Katzpur]

Which higher power was the girl referring to?

That's immaterial. He believes no Higher Power exists, and she merely asked him, "What if you're wrong?" That sounds like a reasonable question to me. He merely sidestepped the question by his non-answer.

 

[Kuzcotopia]

That's immaterial. He believes no Higher Power exists, and she merely asked him, "What if you're wrong?" That sounds like a reasonable question to me. He merely sidestepped the question by his non-answer.

No it isn't immaterial. How could he answer?

If a specifc version of Allah exists, he burns for eternity, having his burned flesh replaced every so often with fresh skins so he can feel the pain more.

If a specific version of the Catholic god exists, he could be purged of his sins in purgatory.

If a specific version of the modern, toothless christian who doesn't believe in hell, he may just be dead, or "seperate from god," whatever that means.

If a specific version of the Hindu gods exist, he'll be reborn again because he failed to become one with Brahman.

And so on. Endless possible doctrines and consequences for "what if you're wrong?"

So let me ask you, if this girl's version of a higher power was correct, then how can you answer "what if you're wrong?" Would you even get the opportunity to acknowledge your mistake? It totally depends on the higher power's properties, doctrines, duties, and consequences. . . None of which you know when asked that question.

Because the interations of belief are as endless as a particular believer's imagination, their unique upbringing, and the peculiarities of whatever church they attended/attend. . . How could he honestly answer?

I couldn't possibly. . . until I knew all those answers of properties, doctrines, duties, and consequences. And only then, for that person who asked the question, would I be able to respond. And my response would be perfectly aligned with that individuals beliefs and expectations, because I finally understand their hypothetical.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

I don't doubt his intelligence at all, and I can practically guarantee that pretty much anything he has written concerning evolutionary biology would be way, way over my head.

Some of his writing is difficult to understand, but I found River Out of Eden to be fairly easy to understand, and very interesting. Why Evolution is True by Jerry Coyne is a fascinating book on evolution that almost anyone could understand, and is even more persuasive and to the point than many of Dawkins' works. I definitely recommend it.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

Congratulations on your 500th post!

Great choice of a post for the occasion, too. That video almost never gets old for me. He didn't waste any time and just cut to the chase there.

I love watching Richard Dawkins videos, especially his face-to-face discussions/debates on religion or biology. You can always tell in those types of debates that the person he is debating becomes uncomfortable and nervous, because they can immediately sense that he is intellectually superior (and considerably wittier) than they are.