tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15453937.post6416126502754005875..comments2024-01-10T17:36:15.040-07:00Comments on The Lippard Blog: Richard Dawkins lecture at ASULippardhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16826768452963498005noreply@blogger.comBlogger15125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15453937.post-77297918156986423222008-03-15T12:48:00.000-07:002008-03-15T12:48:00.000-07:00The system, as it were, is known as a stenotype, m...The system, as it were, is known as a stenotype, manufactured by a company known as stenograph. I wouldn't exactly call it a system, because it's basically a keyboard that inputs to paper, or a laptop. I couldn't tell you much more than that, I'm not an expert on the machines, but knowing the names should allow you to find some information to satisfy your curiosity.<BR/><BR/>Regarding Dawkin's talk, it was entirely out of the God Delusion. But even then, in 1996 he made a speech that basically laid out the God Delusion, so it's not like he's restricting his remarks to the book, he's just making his argument as always.<BR/><BR/>If you want to hear more from Dawkins, you should check out his site, or do a Google Video search for him. There is a lot of information specifically because he's trying to get it out there. He's doing this not to sell books, but to motivate change.<BR/><BR/>Here's one of Dawkins reciting the preface to the paperback edition. I would recommend listening to the audio book version of "The God Delusion," because there's so much tone of voice that you just don't get from reading. He reads the book himself, along with his wife.<BR/><BR/>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGmALkvcG2MMikehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16428035403162408150noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15453937.post-34775898114846177682008-03-15T07:16:00.000-07:002008-03-15T07:16:00.000-07:00Mike: Thanks for the info about the typist... do ...Mike: Thanks for the info about the typist... do you know if the system uses software to convert the phonetics to normal English spelling? It seemed to frequently start to write out one word and then change the spelling, and it was remarkably good at spelling some pretty long and unusually spelled names, which suggested to me that there was a system that had been pre-loaded with a dictionary of words likely to occur in the talk.<BR/><BR/>BTW, I'd still call it voice recognition, just using traditional wetware...Lippardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16826768452963498005noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15453937.post-24681381630333408202008-03-15T01:42:00.000-07:002008-03-15T01:42:00.000-07:00Um, sorry to burst your bubble regarding voice rec...Um, sorry to burst your bubble regarding voice recognition... But that was a person typing. I go to ASU, and I was at the Beyond Center Lecture 2 previous, in which they first introduced the feature upon request. It's a person, same type that do court reporting, and although he was plainly in sight for the past 2 lectures, he/she was not for Richard Dawkins. I'm guessing that the person was having problems due to Richard Dawkins accent. Keep in mind that a recorder's keyboard is not Qwerty, but one based upon phonetic sounds....<BR/><BR/>Regarding commenters... The Beyond center will post video of the lecture on their site when it becomes available... Otherwise, many presentations similar are on YouTube and Google Video.Mikehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16428035403162408150noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15453937.post-82326678052027082412008-03-08T13:04:00.000-07:002008-03-08T13:04:00.000-07:00George Smith uses similar definitions in Atheism: ...George Smith uses similar definitions in Atheism: The Case Against God, though Smith argues that agnosticism is not a philosophically tenable position.Hume's Ghosthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13551684109760430351noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15453937.post-30596904771986518152008-03-08T07:12:00.000-07:002008-03-08T07:12:00.000-07:00Steven:Your definitions aren't universally accepte...Steven:<BR/><BR/>Your definitions aren't universally accepted (and usually "gnostic" means something quite different), but I think your position given your definitions is quite reasonable and quite similar to my own.<BR/><BR/>There might be other ways to disprove the existence of an alien with 25 asses in the shape of your head other than actually visiting all potential inhabited planets, though.<BR/><BR/>See <A HREF="http://www.discord.org/~lippard/debiak.html" REL="nofollow">my brief article about proving negatives</A>, as well as the links in it to others.Lippardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16826768452963498005noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15453937.post-28439096655875158802008-03-07T22:21:00.000-07:002008-03-07T22:21:00.000-07:00Theist or Atheist denotes belief or lack of belief...Theist or Atheist denotes belief or lack of belief. Gnostic or Agnostic denotes knowledge or lack of. You can be an agnostic atheist. In other words you don't know there is no god(it is impossible to know even every definition of that word) but you just don't believe there is. I haven't visited everyone planet(or even one) in the Andromeda galaxy so I don't know there isn't an alien with 25 arses in the shape of my head that lives on one of those planets. However I don't believe there is.<BR/><BR/>I am an agnostic atheist when it comes to a deistic type of god.<BR/><BR/>I am a gnostic atheist when it comes to the Abrahamic gods because they actually posit claims about that god and they are easy to debunk.Stevenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16288874559622643188noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15453937.post-19513530323315845192008-03-07T13:19:00.000-07:002008-03-07T13:19:00.000-07:00For Dawkins, having better social consequences is ...<I>For Dawkins, having better social consequences is not a reason to believe in religion if the religion is not true--it's truth that is the closest thing to sacred for Dawkins.</I><BR/><BR/>As it is for me. One approach to getting across this point would be to ask: if the questioner considers social consequences to be an important benefit of religion, would he switch to a different religion if it were proven to have better social consequences?<BR/><BR/>Because everyone knows that "Jainism is the best religion."Bayesian Bouffant, FCDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01222489273569890090noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15453937.post-41701767442814918142008-03-07T11:47:00.000-07:002008-03-07T11:47:00.000-07:00I thoroughly enjoyed spending my evening with Rich...I thoroughly enjoyed spending my evening with Richard Dawkins last night <BR/><BR/>I brought a friend that's evolving out of his religious mentality and slowly emerging into a freethinker.<BR/>Dawkins helped him in the evolution last night. <BR/><BR/>Servetus <BR/>www.KickGasAtThePump.comServetushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03623940401784580193noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15453937.post-16434948571354598532008-03-07T10:59:00.000-07:002008-03-07T10:59:00.000-07:00Tangential, but I've got a copy of I don't Believe...Tangential, but I've got a copy of I don't Believe in Atheists by Chris Hedges (whose previous book American Fascists argued that Christian Domininionists are nascent totalitarians) on hold at my local library. In it he argues that Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens are atheist fundamentalists and what not.<BR/><BR/>I tend to disagree although I noticed that some of the same things that bothered me about Harris are what bothered him; I find the charges towards Dawkins and Hitchens more absurd....Hume's Ghosthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13551684109760430351noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15453937.post-80214670474587645392008-03-07T09:31:00.000-07:002008-03-07T09:31:00.000-07:00Richard:The event was videotaped, presumably by th...Richard:<BR/><BR/>The event was videotaped, presumably by the Beyond Center.Lippardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16826768452963498005noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15453937.post-74622923908326203892008-03-07T08:59:00.000-07:002008-03-07T08:59:00.000-07:00I was hoping that Dawkins would travel through Atl...I was hoping that Dawkins would travel through Atlanta this time. We really need him.<BR/><BR/>Did anyone video the event? I would love to see it on YouTube.<BR/><BR/>Richard<BR/><A>http://lifewithoutfaith.com</A>Brother Richardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13304387672247690270noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15453937.post-11062184546282687842008-03-07T08:53:00.000-07:002008-03-07T08:53:00.000-07:00RBH: I see that it was my poor wording that caused...RBH: I see that it was my poor wording that caused you to attribute the WWI/II claims to the questioner--I've slightly changed the wording to eliminate that source of confusion.Lippardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16826768452963498005noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15453937.post-76633458410805449412008-03-07T08:51:00.000-07:002008-03-07T08:51:00.000-07:00RBH: Good to see you here. Dawkins made exactly th...RBH: Good to see you here. Dawkins made exactly the point you describe in his lecture.<BR/><BR/>Out of fairness to the questioner, he did not say anything in particular about WWI or WWII, or attribute claims about those wars to Dawkins. Rather, he attributed to Dawkins the view that religions are a primary cause of wars (and perhaps implicitly that if we abandoned religion we wouldn't have as many wars), and argued that this is a question that can be studied and answered empirically, and we might find that religion is not a significant cause of wars. It was Dawkins who brought up WWI and WWII in his response to the questioner, in agreement that wars and killing can occur independently of religion motivation. I also agree with the questioner on that point, while also agreeing, but not completely, with Dawkins. Where I disagree is that religion can often be an *excuse* or a *rallying cry* for bad acts which in fact have other motivations, such as political power grabbing. In such cases it isn't the *real* cause of the bad acts.Lippardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16826768452963498005noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15453937.post-60669397469745574322008-03-07T08:40:00.000-07:002008-03-07T08:40:00.000-07:00Much as they do with The Selfish Gene, people read...Much as they do with <I>The Selfish Gene</I>, people read into Dawkins' <I>The God Delusion</I> notions that simply aren't in the book. Dawkins once characterized a review of <I>The Selfish Gene</I> as having been written by someone who apparently got no further in reading it than the title, and recommended reading the actual book, "an extended footnote to the title."<BR/><BR/>In particular, the questioner who objected that Dawkins attributed WWI and WWII to religion cannot have read the book.<BR/><BR/>Dawkins' core argument is that both atheists and religionists do evil things, but religious people often do evil things precisely on account of their religiousity. The same is not true (he argues) of atheists (<I>e.g.</I>, the usual suspects -- Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot). While they did evil, it was not (Dawkins argues) <I>on account of</I> their (purported) atheism; atheism was incidental to the evil they did. The same cannot be said of, say, the Inquisition; religion was central to that evil.RBHhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13562135000111792590noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15453937.post-19580430766314093412008-03-07T06:09:00.000-07:002008-03-07T06:09:00.000-07:00It sounds like an interesting evening. Thanks for ...It sounds like an interesting evening. Thanks for sharing your experienceMichaelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15410092136057119995noreply@blogger.com