Richard Dawkins Interview and my disagreements

[Rational Agnostic]

Here is an interesting recent interview with Richard Dawkins, apparently done by a British news station. I'm a big fan of Dawkins and his work and I think he made great points in this video, especially with regard to morality and Islam, but found two points of disagreement with him in this video.

(1) Around the 12:00-14:00 minute section, he seems to claim that because evolution by natural selection explains apparent design of living things, we can just wave our hands at the origins of the universe and dismiss it as a "little problem." I disagree with this idea, and I think that explaining the origin of the universe is still a big problem, though of course not a reason to assume a god created it. He seems to imply that because Darwin explained the apparent design in living things, we no longer have any reason to believe in the supernatural, yet before Darwin he couldn't have been an atheist. But, clearly, apparent design of living things is not the only big problem in science.

(2) Around 33:00-35:00 he claims that extraterrestrial life is "likely" to exist on the grounds of the "laws of probability and statistics" or something like that. This is an obviously fallacious claim, as we have no data about life on planets other than our own solar system. We cannot use "statistics" to deduce the likelihood of life on other planets since we have never observed life on other planets and thus have no idea how common it is for life to develop. If I had to bet, I'd agree that extraterrestrial life probably exists, but that's just a guess, and to invoke the "laws of probability" as a justification is logically invalid.

 

[joe1776]

Here is an interesting recent interview with Richard Dawkins, apparently done by a British news station. I'm a big fan of Dawkins and his work and I think he made great points in this video, especially with regard to morality and Islam, but found two points of disagreement with him in this video.

(1) Around the 12:00-14:00 minute section, he seems to claim that because evolution by natural selection explains apparent design of living things, we can just wave our hands at the origins of the universe and dismiss it as a "little problem." I disagree with this idea, and I think that explaining the origin of the universe is still a big problem, though of course not a reason to assume a god created it. He seems to imply that because Darwin explained the apparent design in living things, we no longer have any reason to believe in the supernatural, yet before Darwin he couldn't have been an atheist. But, clearly, apparent design of living things is not the only big problem in science.

(2) Around 33:00-35:00 he claims that extraterrestrial life is "likely" to exist on the grounds of the "laws of probability and statistics" or something like that. This is an obviously fallacious claim, as we have no data about life on planets other than our own solar system. We cannot use "statistics" to deduce the likelihood of life on other planets since we have never observed life on other planets and thus have no idea how common it is for life to develop. If I had to bet, I'd agree that extraterrestrial life probably exists, but that's just a guess, and to invoke the "laws of probability" as a justification is logically invalid.

Back in 1966, Walter Sullivan, then the science editor for the New York Times wrote a book entitled We Are Not Alone.

His basic argument was that in an infinite universe, if intelligent life happened once, it's likely to have happened elsewhere several times. So, not only is it unlikely that we're alone but it's unlikely that we are the most intelligent life.

https://www.amazon.com/Are-Not-Alone-Signet-Books/dp/0451081684

 

[Skwim]

(1) Around the 12:00-14:00 minute section, he seems to claim that because evolution by natural selection explains apparent design of living things, we can just wave our hands at the origins of the universe and dismiss it as a "little problem."

I didn't see that cause-effect claim made at all. Care to point it out?

He seems to imply that because Darwin explained the apparent design in living things, we no longer have any reason to believe in the supernatural, yet before Darwin he couldn't have been an atheist.

It was religion's position that there was no better explanation for the diversity of life than the hand of god, particularly as it was stated in the book of Genesis. Their challenge was: "If you disagree then give us a better explanation." Well, Darwin did just that, which made god irrelevant to the issue.

But, clearly, apparent design of living things is not the only big problem in science.

So what is the first problem with the design of living things?

(2) Around 33:00-35:00 he claims that extraterrestrial life is "likely" to exist on the grounds of the "laws of probability and statistics" or something like that. This is an obviously fallacious claim, as we have no data about life on planets other than our own solar system.

No it isn't. Claims of probability always rest in likelihood. How likely is it that in the whole of the observable universe, which has approximately 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 (that's 1 billion trillion) stars, there isn't another planet is capable of harboring life?
If you're at all aware of the Drake Equation, which calculated the probable number of active, communicative civilizations in our galaxy, you'd understand that Dawkins has every reason to believe that extraterrestrial life is "likely" to exist in the universe.

We cannot use "statistics" to deduce the likelihood of life on other planets since we have never observed life on other planets and thus have no idea how common it is for life to develop.

Don't need to observe life on other planets. We have our own planet to show just how possible it is.

If I had to bet, I'd agree that extraterrestrial life probably exists, but that's just a guess, and to invoke the "laws of probability" as a justification is logically invalid.

Too tell you the truth, I doubt that you even know what the term "logically invalid" means.

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

FYI:

The Drake Equation

where:

N = the number of civilizations in our galaxy with which communication might be possible (i.e. which are on our current past light cone);​

and

R∗ = the average rate of star formation in our galaxy
fp = the fraction of those stars that have planets
ne = the average number of planets that can potentially support life per star that has planets
fl = the fraction of planets that could support life that actually develop life at some point
fi = the fraction of planets with life that actually go on to develop intelligent life (civilizations)
fc = the fraction of civilizations that develop a technology that releases detectable signs of their existence into space
L = the length of time for which such civilizations release detectable signals into space​

And as it stands, the likelihood of extraterrestrial life, in just the Milky Way Galaxy alone, is huge.

.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

I didn't see that cause-effect claim made at all. Care to point it out?



It was religion's position that there was no better explanation for the diversity of life than the hand of god, particularly as it was stated in the book of Genesis. Their challenge was: "If you disagree then give us a better explanation." Well, Darwin did just that, which made god irrelevant to the issue.


So what is the first problem with the design of living things?

.

I realize now that I wrote that too quickly. There is no problem anymore now that Darwin solved it. My point is that the origin of the universe isn't a "little problem." Of course, saying "Gawddidit" doesn't solve anything, but, it's still a big problem for science, as is the origin of consciousness and how unconscious matter arranged in a certain way can somehow develop consciousness and a sense of self.

No it isn't. Claims of probability always rest in likelihood. How likely is it that in the whole of the observable universe, which has approximately 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 (that's 1 billion trillion) stars, there isn't another planet is capable of harboring life?
If you're at all aware of the Drake Equation, which calculated the probable number of active, communicative civilizations in our galaxy, you'd understand that Dawkins has every reason to believe that extraterrestrial life is "likely" to exist in the universe.



Don't need to observe life on other planets. We have our own planet to show just how possible it is.



Too tell you the truth, I doubt that you even know what the term "logically invalid" means.

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

FYI:

The Drake Equation

where:

N = the number of civilizations in our galaxy with which communication might be possible (i.e. which are on our current past light cone);​

and

R∗ = the average rate of star formation in our galaxy
fp = the fraction of those stars that have planets
ne = the average number of planets that can potentially support life per star that has planets
fl = the fraction of planets that could support life that actually develop life at some point
fi = the fraction of planets with life that actually go on to develop intelligent life (civilizations)
fc = the fraction of civilizations that develop a technology that releases detectable signs of their existence into space
L = the length of time for which such civilizations release detectable signals into space​

And as it stands, the likelihood of extraterrestrial life, in just the Milky Way Galaxy alone, is huge.

Most of the terms in the Drake equation are based on pure speculation which is based on unfounded assumptions about how frequently life develops with no data to base these assumptions on. In other words, it's based upon pure bullsh*t. Don't get me wrong, I agree there are probably extraterrestrial life forms in the universe. But the Drake equation is essentially meaningless.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

R∗ = the average rate of star formation in our galaxy
fp = the fraction of those stars that have planets
ne = the average number of planets that can potentially support life per star that has planets

We now have some data that can allow us to answer these three variables

The rate of star formation has varied over the history of the Milky Way. It is currently estimated at about 1 solar mass of stars per year. I probably peaked at about 100 solar masses per year around 8 to 10 billion years ago. Most of the stars in the Milky Way are older than Sol.

The fraction of stars that have planets is apparently very high, indeed very old stars have been shown to have planets. Perhaps 80 to 90 percent of all stars end up with planetary systems. Only the most massive stars, with very short lifetimes, might not build planetary systems, and even if they do, they do not survive long enough to support life. Other stars, in unusual binary situations, might not have planets form or remain stable. If there are 400 billion stars, there might be about 340 billion with planets. I saw a recent estimated, based on Kepler and other data, that suggests that the average system has six planets. Therefore there might be 2 trillion planets.

Based on our current understanding of conditions under which life could survive in multicellular form, it would appear that fewer than one planet in 10, and perhaps fewer than one planet in 100, could even potentially support such life. Some have been much more optimistic, however, and estimated that two or three planets per system could potentially support life. If we go with the 1-in-10 planets, then there might be 200 billion...if we go with 1 percent, then 20 billion...

The other variables remain more or less educated speculation.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

(1) Around the 12:00-14:00 minute section, he seems to claim that because evolution by natural selection explains apparent design of living things, we can just wave our hands at the origins of the universe and dismiss it as a "little problem." I disagree with this idea, and I think that explaining the origin of the universe is still a big problem, though of course not a reason to assume a god created it. He seems to imply that because Darwin explained the apparent design in living things, we no longer have any reason to believe in the supernatural, yet before Darwin he couldn't have been an atheist. But, clearly, apparent design of living things is not the only big problem in science.

You might have misunderstood his point. I didn't watch the specific video, but I've seen him make that argument many times. In a nutshell, he means that what Darwinian evolution showed us, is that no matter how "design with purpose" something looks, it doesn't have to mean at all that it actually was designed.

While merely asserting design was never a rational thing to do in the first place, the discovery of evolution serves as hard evidence of how it was never rational to do so.

I don't think he would ever say that any one theory about anything would completely disprove or exclude any such explanations - especially not for other things. Just that the discovery of evolution provides hard evidence of how irrational it is to simply assert it.

(2) Around 33:00-35:00 he claims that extraterrestrial life is "likely" to exist on the grounds of the "laws of probability and statistics" or something like that. This is an obviously fallacious claim, as we have no data about life on planets other than our own solar system.

If we WOULD have data about life on other planets, then we wouldn't need to express the likelyhood thereof in probabilities, now would we? Then we'ld know for a fact that life exists.

The high probability here, is based on what we DO know about life (on this planet, obviously) AND what we know about the universe (the sheer amount of stars out there, each with n planets orbitting them, the many planets we already discovered - many of them earth-like, etc).

And what we DO know about life is that:
- it shows up on earth pretty much the moment that it could.. Around 4 billion years ago. Before that, earth was a molten rock. So life formed relatively fast after the environment was able to sustain it.
- life is made up of the most common elements in the universe
- we find organic molecules, life's building blocks, even in space rocks.
- ...

All such stuff combined and keeping in mind the vastness of the cosmos, it becomes practically irrational / unreasonable to assume that life only exists on our planet.

We cannot use "statistics" to deduce the likelihood of life on other planets since we have never observed life on other planets and thus have no idea how common it is for life to develop.

And as explained, that's not what it is based on either.
It's based on what we know about life on this planet and about the composition of stars and planets out there, that we did study through astronomy etc.

If I had to bet, I'd agree that extraterrestrial life probably exists, but that's just a guess

An informed guess.
If you say "it probably exists", surely you have your reasoning of what makes it "probable", right? Likely, it's the same reasoning as I outlined.

, and to invoke the "laws of probability" as a justification is logically invalid.

You yourself are invoking the laws of probability, when you say that "extraterrestrial life probably exists".

 

[ChristineM]

Here is an interesting recent interview with Richard Dawkins, apparently done by a British news station. I'm a big fan of Dawkins and his work and I think he made great points in this video, especially with regard to morality and Islam, but found two points of disagreement with him in this video.

(1) Around the 12:00-14:00 minute section, he seems to claim that because evolution by natural selection explains apparent design of living things, we can just wave our hands at the origins of the universe and dismiss it as a "little problem." I disagree with this idea, and I think that explaining the origin of the universe is still a big problem, though of course not a reason to assume a god created it. He seems to imply that because Darwin explained the apparent design in living things, we no longer have any reason to believe in the supernatural, yet before Darwin he couldn't have been an atheist. But, clearly, apparent design of living things is not the only big problem in science.

(2) Around 33:00-35:00 he claims that extraterrestrial life is "likely" to exist on the grounds of the "laws of probability and statistics" or something like that. This is an obviously fallacious claim, as we have no data about life on planets other than our own solar system. We cannot use "statistics" to deduce the likelihood of life on other planets since we have never observed life on other planets and thus have no idea how common it is for life to develop. If I had to bet, I'd agree that extraterrestrial life probably exists, but that's just a guess, and to invoke the "laws of probability" as a justification is logically invalid.

Not watched the video, i find Dawkins quite boring and whish he would stick to his chosen subject rather than sticking his nose in sciences he is hardly qualified to comment on.

However, going from the OP

If what he said is what you suggest then...

Evolution has nothing to do with cosmology, (an example of him sticking his nose in). There are many hypothesis on how the universe formed, every one must either be mathematically sound or have a basis in observed phenomena. And yes, it is a big problem fir cosmology, knowing how things began could answer many questions is seemingly unrelated fields and open new fields to investigate!

Actually there were atheists as far back as ancient Greece, the word itself derived from the ancient greek for without god. And of course evolutionary hypothesis have been around since ancient Greece.

And can i add that not believing in evolution does not automatically make you atheist. The majority of the christian church accept evolution.

We can use probability to estimate the likelihood of life elsewhere in the universe. And i am pretty sure a statistician can calculate that probability statistically. Given recent findings that up to 10% of exoplanets are potentially suitable for life, the miniscule volume of space searched and the aparant ease that life can form given the correct conditions. Then the probably of life on other planets is quite high. However it is something that perhaps we will never know for sure

 

[HonestJoe]

I'm a big fan of Dawkins and his work and I think he made great points in this video, especially with regard to morality and Islam, but found two points of disagreement with him in this video.

For context, I’m not a great fan of Dawkins. I feel he pushes too hard to come up with definite answers and assertions, not better than the theists he opposes.

(1) Around the 12:00-14:00 minute section, he seems to claim that because evolution by natural selection explains apparent design of living things, we can just wave our hands at the origins of the universe and dismiss it as a "little problem."

He wasn’t making a gender comment but one in specific context. The question was about evolution being the key in removing the need for a creator as that covers a major step from simple to complex whereas the he suggest the creation of the universe doesn’t involve the same kind of shift. I’m not sure I agree with him on that point but the “littleness” of the question was only in the context of its relevance to the specific question, not anything else.

(2) Around 33:00-35:00 he claims that extraterrestrial life is "likely" to exist on the grounds of the "laws of probability and statistics" or something like that. This is an obviously fallacious claim, as we have no data about life on planets other than our own solar system.

Obviously such assessments require speculation but he is far from the first person to suggest this. I think there is basic logic that on the basis that life came about on Earth somehow and that there are billions of other planets, there would have to be some special reason that life didn’t come about on some other planets by similar means. Basically, if something can happen, however low the odds, if you have enough opportunities it will eventually happen again.