Commonsensianism--If it Makes Sense to Pierce Morgan, it is good Science!
Summary
TLDRIn this thought-provoking debate, Piers Morgan and Richard Dawkins delve into the concept of evolution and the existence of a higher power. Dawkins critiques the 'sky daddy' notion of God as a human construct, while Morgan argues for the plausibility of a divine creator. They discuss the limits of scientific understanding, the role of inference in forming scientific theories, and the philosophical implications of the origin of the universe. The conversation challenges the reliance on common sense in scientific discourse and highlights the complexities in defining what constitutes a scientific explanation.
Takeaways
- 🤔 The debate revolves around the existence of a higher power, with Richard Dawkins suggesting that God is a personification of human desires, while Piers Morgan argues for the existence of God based on personal comfort and the inexplicability of certain phenomena.
- 🧐 Dawkins is criticized for overstepping the boundaries of science by making definitive statements about the nature of God, which some argue is not within the realm of scientific inquiry.
- 🔬 Piers Morgan's belief in God is based on the idea that it provides comfort and explanations for things that science cannot, although this is challenged as not being a valid scientific argument.
- 📚 The concept of 'inference to the best explanation' is discussed, where scientists and philosophers reason from evidence to the most plausible cause, which is used to argue for the existence of a higher power.
- 🤨 The debate touches on the limitations of human understanding and the brain's ability to comprehend complex phenomena like the origin of the universe, suggesting that our perceptions may not align with reality.
- 🌌 The discussion includes the idea that the origin of matter and the universe might be explained by something external to the material universe, which is not bound by time and space.
- 🧠 The role of the brain in simplifying complexity is highlighted, with the suggestion that our cognitive limitations might distort our perception of reality.
- 🔍 The debate critiques the use of common sense as a criterion for truth, especially in the context of scientific theories that defy common sense, such as those in quantum physics.
- 📈 The script also points out the potential fallacy in assuming that the universe must have a beginning or that matter must be caused by something non-material, suggesting that these are not necessarily scientific truths.
- 📚 The importance of evidence in scientific theories is emphasized, contrasting the collection of evidence with the concept of absolute proof, and how scientific theories are built on the best available evidence rather than irrefutable proof.
Q & A
What is the main topic of the debate between Piers Morgan and Richard Dawkins?
-The main topic of the debate is the concept of God and the existence of a higher power in relation to human desires and the theory of evolution.
How does Richard Dawkins view the personification of God according to the transcript?
-Richard Dawkins views the personification of God as a 'supernatural Sky daddy' and suggests it is a product of human desires and cultural constructs, not necessarily reflective of a higher power.
What does the speaker criticize about Dawkins' approach to discussing God?
-The speaker criticizes Dawkins for overstepping the boundaries of science by making definitive statements about what God 'really is,' which is not within the domain of scientific inquiry.
What is Piers Morgan's stance on the existence of God and why does he hold this belief?
-Piers Morgan believes in God and an afterlife, finding the idea comforting and explaining things that would otherwise be inexplicable.
How does the speaker evaluate the argument that belief in God provides comfort as evidence for God's existence?
-The speaker argues that comfort does not provide evidence for the truth of God's existence, comparing it to false beliefs people might hold for comfort, such as believing they don't have cancer.
What is the 'inference to the best explanation' mentioned in the transcript?
-The 'inference to the best explanation' is a method of reasoning where scientists and philosophers use the most plausible explanation for a phenomenon, invoking a cause with the required powers to explain the observed effects.
What does the speaker suggest about the nature of scientific theories and their development?
-The speaker suggests that scientific theories are not always clear or simple, and that they often involve complex inferences and the collection of evidence over time, as seen in the development of Darwin's theory of evolution.
What is the 'genetic Book of the Dead' mentioned by Piers Morgan, and what does it signify?
-The 'genetic Book of the Dead' is a reference to a book by Richard Dawkins that discusses the continuity of life through genetics, suggesting that each part of existence feeds into the next.
How does the speaker address the concept of 'common sense' in the context of scientific theories?
-The speaker argues that common sense is not always a reliable criterion for evaluating scientific theories, as many scientific concepts, like those in quantum physics, defy common sense yet are supported by evidence and mathematical reasoning.
What is the significance of the discussion about the Big Bang and the concept of 'before' in the context of the debate?
-The discussion about the Big Bang and the concept of 'before' highlights the limitations of human understanding and the challenge of applying everyday concepts like time to phenomena that are beyond common experience, such as the origin of the universe.
Outlines
🗣️ Debate on Evolution and God's Existence
The paragraph introduces a debate between Piers Morgan and Richard Dawkins on the topic of evolution. Dawkins critiques the concept of God as a 'sky daddy' and a human desire, suggesting that while cultures may invent God for their purposes, it doesn't negate the possibility of a higher power. The paragraph emphasizes the importance of scientific caution in making definitive statements about God, and it points out that Dawkins may have overstepped the boundaries of science by making such assertions. It also highlights Piers Morgan's belief in God and his reasons, which are based on personal comfort and the idea that belief in God explains phenomena that science cannot.
🧠 The Role of Inference in Science and Theism
This section delves into the scientific method, particularly the use of 'inference to the best explanation,' which is a method of reasoning from evidence to the most plausible explanation. It discusses how scientists, like Darwin, use this method to formulate theories. The paragraph also touches on the limitations of relying solely on plausibility and the potential for confirmation bias. It contrasts this with the argument for a theistic explanation, suggesting that a divine creator is a sufficient cause for the origin of the universe, which is external to the material world and not bound by time and space.
🌌 The Plausibility Fallacy and the Origin of the Universe
The paragraph critiques the 'plausibility theory' by pointing out that logical or plausible arguments do not necessarily equate to truth. It discusses the assumption that the universe consists of matter and that matter requires a cause, questioning the need for a divine creator and considering alternative explanations such as a probabilistic universe. The paragraph also addresses the concept of 'before' in relation to the Big Bang, suggesting that the idea of a beginning is not necessarily a given and that the traditional understanding of causality may not apply to the origins of the universe.
🧬 The Complexity of Evolution and the Limits of Human Understanding
This section discusses the complexity of evolutionary theory and how it is supported by evidence rather than mere logical plausibility. It highlights the difficulty in observing evolutionary processes due to their timescale and the need for a mathematical synthesis to understand them. The paragraph also addresses the limitations of human understanding and the brain's ability to simplify reality, suggesting that our perception of the universe may be distorted. It touches on the debate between internalism and externalism in philosophy and the idea that common sense is not always a reliable criterion for truth, especially in the context of scientific theories that defy intuition.
📚 The Relevance of Common Sense in Science
The final paragraph reflects on the role of common sense in scientific discourse, contrasting Piers Morgan's reliance on it with his acceptance of non-intuitive scientific theories. It points out the irony of using common sense to critique scientific concepts while also benefiting from their advancements. The paragraph concludes by emphasizing the importance of questioning popular positions and understanding the nature of scientific inquiry, suggesting that common sense is not a definitive measure of a theory's validity.
Mindmap
Keywords
💡Evolution
💡God
💡Science
💡Intelligent Design
💡Confirmation Bias
💡Big Bang
💡Materialism
💡Inference to the Best Explanation
💡Genome
💡Common Sense
Highlights
Dawkins suggests that the concept of God is a personification of human desires and a cultural construct.
The debate discusses the limitations of science and the need for caution in scientific assertions about the existence of a higher power.
Piers Morgan expresses his belief in God and an afterlife, citing personal comfort as a reason.
Morgan argues that belief in God provides explanations for phenomena that science cannot yet explain.
The conversation touches on the idea that just because a belief is comforting or plausible does not make it scientifically valid.
Stephen Meyer's perspective on intelligent design is mentioned, advocating for a cause with the powers necessary to explain phenomena.
Dawkins is criticized for overstepping the boundaries of science by making definitive statements about God.
The debate highlights the difference between evidence and proof in scientific theories, using evolution as an example.
The concept of 'inference to the best explanation' is discussed as a method scientists use to reason from evidence.
The conversation questions the necessity of a divine creator, considering alternative explanations for the universe's origin.
Dawkins discusses the limitations of human understanding and the brain's ability to comprehend reality.
The debate challenges the idea that common sense is a reliable criterion for truth, especially in the context of scientific theories.
The discussion addresses the philosophical question of the origin of the universe and the concept of 'before' the Big Bang.
Piers Morgan is critiqued for relying on common sense while also accepting non-intuitive scientific theories.
The debate concludes with a call for a more nuanced understanding of science and its methods, beyond simplistic notions of common sense.
Transcripts
hello everyone I want to watch a debate
between Piers Morgan and Richard doring
regarding Evolution so let's listen into
it there has to be a power that is
greater than the human brain God is just
a a personification of human desires a
supernatural Sky daddy you so that's an
interesting utterance here by Dawkin
right because that's basically an
assumption
that can be traced back to some evidence
of how we work in our cultures but I
don't think it's ultimately secured so
it is for sure that some cultures use
God as a sky daddy as a Divine Garden Of
Evolution or whatever uh but just
because we invent God for our own
purposes or we have a fantasy product of
God doesn't mean that there isn't a
higher power but this is not my point
here of the discussion
so I very much believe in
evolution I very much believe
in what we call Modern Sciences although
it's unclear what that ultimately is a
lot of people say like ah science is
clear science is clear we know what we
do no I don't think like science has yet
found its final form to use a hegelian
phrase um but yeah I think that also
people who Proclaim themselves to be
scientists have to be careful with their
utterances if they are really scientific
ific and I think Dawkin here in these
statements actually
extends the or he
passes over the boundaries that are
drawn for Science and that is explicitly
to
make statements determined statements
about what God really is now can you say
something like that God that human
cultures use images of God sure is it
like somehow bound to our how our brain
works how our anxieties work sure um but
does it mean that the reference to God
has no real reference point well I mean
that's much more complicated but this is
not the major Point here of the debate I
actually find way more interesting how
Piers Morgan argues and I think we can
learn something about science if we look
into that so let's come to the first
utterance he makes in that regard so
okay the first point here is that P
Morgan clarifies his position that he
believes in God and gives us some
reasons why let's look if these reasons
that he gives us are good reasons I do
believe uh for what it's worth I do
believe in God I do believe in an
afterlife I find it comforting I also
find so is the idea of
comfort giving us any hints about the
truth of God obviously not right uh we
may betray ourselves say we don't have
cancer where we actually have cancer we
may say it's good to believe in God
therefore God exists not a good argument
so but I think his argument goes a bit
further let's listen
more I said to you last time I find it
explains things which are otherwise
completely
inexplicable so okay believing in God
explains things which are otherwise
inexplicable so I think if I have a
medical condition in my body uh I might
come up with a theory that sounds
plausible
but which is not true let's say sugar
nourishes cancer or you have to
do rinsing of the body because you ate
too much basil stuff and therefore you
have all these conditions like these are
theories that are plausible they may
even be coherent and logical but that
doesn't make them true so just because
we have an explanation for something why
we cannot find another explanation
is not a good model of how to do
sciences we need something that confirms
it with evidence although and I talk
about that later we also have to be
careful about possible confirmation
biases but this is a very difficult
Topic in the theory of
science um and we had a a guest on
recently Professor Stephen C Meyer who's
a pro prominent believer in intelligent
design or what he calls a god hypothesis
he watched our last interview that you
and I had and this is what he said about
it dawet wants to portray theistic
belief as if it's equivalent to belief
in fairies and and he'll concede that
well it's possible but I think there's a
stronger argument for the the the
theistic case and that is that when
scientists and philosophers reason from
evidence they typically use a method of
reasoning that has a technical name it's
called inferring to the best explanation
where the best explanation is one that
where you're invoking a cause which has
the kind of powers that would be
required to explain the phenomenon of
Interest so I always have a lot of
commentators who say well nowadays we
have science and we know how science
work Sciences work well I don't think
it's that clear so I think we observe
indeed that scientists every off
every or often do something that is
inferenced to the best cause and then
use that as an hypothesis to either
falsify it
which seems to be a very productive
method or to build a theory on the basis
of confirmation with regard to this best
CA which is not such a good attempt but
which usually works to build new
theories if we for example look for
Darwin uh he first falsified a lot of
other theories of Lamar and maybe also
under the influence of Li um but then he
tried to formulate a theory that was
like something like the inference to the
best cause and he sought a lot of
evidence that would support his theory
so he tried to make his hypothesis
lining up uh with the evidence that was
available at that time now this may be
exposed to a confirmation hypothesis
which is a fallacy in inductive
reasoning and which never gives us
necessary knowledge so this is
especially problematic if you try to
prove for example that climate change
does not exist and then you go to Google
and you just find like a lot of examples
that climate change does not exist or
let's say you wanted to show that Santa
Claus exists and you come up with ideas
like that a lot of children get presen
the next day on uh Christmas day now is
that inference to the best cause well
that is debatable but here is like
something that we can say is a
confirmation bias that plays a role so I
think in that regard science has many
problems s and for I have forgotten his
name stating that scientists usually
simply do an inference to the best CES
largely oversimplifying the way Sciences
work and you correctly pointed out in
your conversation with him that when you
get back to that what physicists of
often call The Singularity the point
where matter space time and energy begin
to exist the materialist is really up
against a huge conundrum because prior
to the origin of matter there is no
matter to do the causing that's what we
mean by the origin of matter that's
where it starts and so we have to say
here one thing the idea that there is an
origin of the universe like the big bang
seems to me a hypothesis that is in line
with a lot of theories uh where as we
have to keep in mind that that is also
one theory that is falsifiable I mean it
seems to be fairly well tested with
regard to all the equations that we have
but there are some caveats and we could
also say that the universe may be
infinite infinite in whatever has
happened before and so therefore like
bringing it down to the straw man of
what we have in science and then
probably pointing out some bad popular
scientists who adamantly defend this
thesis against like let's say
creationists is misleading it it is
really misleading and so I think we
should have the discourse on that in
another way now let's look at the kind
of argument that he does in favor of
sufficient
reason so I'm sorry sufficient reason is
certainly an interesting argument
because we can say that
whenever something gets caused by
something else that which causes it must
be similar in kind so material gets
caused by material but what happens if
we say if we ask what is the sufficient
reason for material well obviously it
cannot be material itself because then
we hadn't
explained where material comes from so
there must be something different than
material if we want to go that far now I
know for a fact that in like the
physical theories nowadays there is a
claim that something can come from
nothing but we also have to keep in mind
that this is not the absolute or
philosophical nothing but the nothing
that is the determined in physical terms
so that we then have an equation where
we can say well that's how matter is
generated from whatever this physical
nothing is so indeed I think we have
here metaphysical problems but to say
that there must be a Divine Creator uh
that is more powerful than us and like
dismissing the hypothesis that it could
also be just chaos that created this
universe and that there is no further
meaning to it
uh like dismissing this thesis is also a
little bit uh sloppy and not
scientific so if you want to invoke a
cause which is sufficient to explain the
origin of matter you can't invoke matter
it's in principle materialistic
explanations are in principle
insufficient so you need to invoke
something which is external to the
material universe and is not bounded by
time and space as well and that starts
to paint so we have a typical problem of
a certain kind of fallacy here let's
call it the plausibility theory where we
have like the Assumption of a few
premises that are taken to be true and
then of course the conclusion uh that
they draw namely that God exists cannot
be false right so it's true by necessity
but it all depends on the uh premises
that they have stated here namely that
the Universe consists of matter whatever
that is and that matter needs a CA I
mean like B back to aquinus for example
he States also that the Universe could
be infinite without a beginning in time
but that time goes infinitely back and
that God is so powerful that he even
creates an infinite Universe of no
beginning so like the assumption that
there must be a beginning is already
problematic in itself and then to say
that matter must be caused by something
that is not matter uh that's like an
operation of plausibility of how causes
work but what about the Universe just
being a probabilistic universe and the
kind of causalities that we assume for
our normal day of life don't work so
yeah so we have here again a
plausibility fallacy and I want to say
just because something is logical or
plausible doesn't mean it's
true a picture of the kind of cause you
would need that has the the sort of
attributes the traditional theist of
traditionally associated with
God you see Rich this is the the n I
think my whole issue with your position
on this and you can respond obviously to
what you just heard in a moment but
given your new book is about the genetic
Book of the Dead and it effectively
takes us from here to in perpetuity on a
genetic Trail where each part of
existence feeds the next and so on and I
totally subscribe to that the Genome of
every body and every uh organization and
so on so he subscribes to the genome and
like basic evolutionary theory maybe
he's not a believer in uh Creative
Design but he says here basically that
it's logical now davin's theory is not
true because it's logical but because
it's like covered by evidence moreover
it is not like a theory that simply
makes sense like in Pierce Morgan's mind
he says it simply makes sense but if we
look into Darwin's biography how
complicated it was to actually come up
with this kind of theory that is not
simply observable but that until the 50s
of the 20th century needed a
mathematical synthesis that also showed
in probabalistic causes that this is
very likely the case until that happened
like that theory was based on
the like complicated very complicated
inference to what is the best cause and
this best cause like in terms of
evolution could not be simply observed
or was not some simply something that is
Meaningful so again why is that the case
because Evolution happens probably I
mean I'm not complete expert on it but
happens in many many millions of years
with many many many tiny mutations and
variations and selection processes that
happen all the time so but these
processes we just cannot observe them
Darin didn't have like uh striking
examples that why that's why he came up
with so many examples in his book The
Origin of Species where many people even
criticized that it was too detailed and
Darin took 15 years to collect this
evidence there was not like
the the the like the the fingerprint of
nature on The Smoking Gun anywhere there
was not like the last kind of proof
there were just like many many tiny
evidences and keep you in mind what's
the difference between evidence and TR
proof right a proof shows without
any doubt that something must be true
evidence is something that is collected
so that we create a complete picture on
the base of that we do the most likely
explanation creates as you say a
comprehensive dossier on all the world
as it moves forward I get it but when
you go back to the very
start what is there before that and that
I think I asked you last time and
Professor Meer brought that up again as
being the floor in your position
which is oh the FL he
knows starts what is it's possibly the
flaw this is a question for a physicist
not a biologist but what I would answer
to Professor Meer is that we need to
explain complexity in terms of
Simplicity and of course it's true that
I cannot say what was there before the
Big Bang so dkin alludes here to the
fact that we have brains and that our
brains work in a s certain way namely
reducing complexity to Simplicity and so
the limitations of the brain then depict
the reality in a distorted sense now
however I want to point out that we
never know how much of reality we
actually grasp and it could be that we
have a pretty good grasp that our brain
developed in a spiritual sense in a way
that it indeed grasps more than just a
picture that is simplified and has no
resemblance to Nature anymore now
however that's a difficult internalist
externalist debate in philosophy and I'm
on the internalist side that I say we
should um expel the term of Mind
external reality and rather deal with
the position that Dawkin um provides
although I want to say this is not
scientifically secured but it's I think
the pragmatically most wise
decision physicist sometimes tell us
that the word for before doesn't even
mean anything before the Big Bang but
whatever it was it but it has to doesn't
itly invoke doesn't it have to someone
someone as logical as you are I believe
you are logical you know you've think
about this all very logically a logical
surely has to appreciate that before the
Big Bang that has to have been something
before then otherwise what is
nothing a physicist will tell you that
they that what do you what do you tell
tell
you I'm trying to tell you what a
physicist would say first of all he
defeats him and distracts him with pure
logic they would say that you cannot use
the word before for the Big Bang time
began at the Big Bang there was no
before before the Big Bang I know it's
contrary to Common Sense physicists
don't necessarily deal with common sense
so this turns into debate about common
sensan ISM well if it makes no sense
does it and that's what I mean you're a
logical man that cannot make sense to
you the idea not even allowed to use the
word before the Big Bang when everything
every part of both of our brains tells
us that that's obviously nonsensical
doesn't that make you think again we are
not physicists I I like you am
completely baffled by what physicist say
to me which is that you cannot use the
word before for for before the Big Bang
time itself began in at the at the Big
Bang now that is totally
counterintuitive it's counterintuitive
to me it's counterintuitive to you it's
counterintuitive to Steven Meyer but we
are not physicists and you need to talk
to a physicist talk to a physicist about
that and they will tell you that you
cannot use the word before for the Big
Bang Yeah but you think that's as
Preposterous
I I do because I'm not a physicist
you've just written a book as a
biologist called the genetic Book of the
Dead in which you talk about the body
and the g genome comprehensive and so on
so you're prepared to expound a
philosophy based on that as a biologist
which I completely respect and it makes
perfect sense the book the book makes
perfect sense so his Criterion is
something making logical logically
perfect sense but this is not a
Criterion of Truth and he also hints
here to something that I would like to
call common sensan ISM he says like your
points make no sense that contradicts
with common sense
and first of all the problem of Common
Sense is if we all rely on what is
called common sense then what to do if
somebody says well that but that is my
common sense then no this cannot be
common sense so yeah so and let's ask
the question when Einstein Einstein came
up with the theory which I don't
understand completely but the time and
space are not absolute Pierce Morgan
would have said but Professor Einstein
your theory makes no common sense it
doesn't make Common Sense there must be
be of before like time cannot stand
still time must always be absolute and
be the same it must be everywhere at all
time that does not make sense it does
not make sense so this is the problem
with these Mak sense arguments and I
think there are in especially in
Sciences a lot of things that go against
common sense right I mean quantum theory
makes sense in mathematical terms where
we have to train ourselves in using
these logical instruments and accept a
lot of hypothesis but then suddenly it
makes makes sense in terms of
mathematics but not in terms of the
phenomenal qualities of space and time
that surround us so why is pi Morgan so
much insisting here on Common Sense
while he at the same time relies on the
results of a non-common sensical science
anyway we finished this here I think we
learned a lot about common sense by the
way this also reminds me of the article
about Collective knowledge that does not
relate to the individual anymore where
we just produce knowledge that goes
beyond the mind of the individual that
is also something that should be
considered now if you like this uh kind
of debate I think there is a lot to be
learned when we take especially these
popular positions and really dissect
them then maybe you subscribe to the
channel and I do that a little bit more
so this was not assisted reading it was
just assisted watching uh yeah and what
what do you think uh I mean I have to
say about this uh like my first book
that will come out in the brill in
November it somehow discusses like the
question of what is a science and how
does a good science have to start right
so I think like to a certain degree I'm
an expert on that although of course I
don't know any like not everything that
is in the field anymore but I think it's
quite debatable first of all what makes
the sense sorry what makes the signs uh
but I think it's less so debatable that
common sense is not a Criterion of a
good theory anymore so I think Dawkins
just finds himself in the wrong
discussion with P Morgans who says well
everything needs to make sense to me
otherwise it must be wrong okay so thank
you very much for watching uh so live
long uh do more science learn more about
science and prosper bye-bye
Посмотреть больше похожих видео
PAANO NAGSIMULA ANG MUNDO? | Iba't ibang Paniniwala sa pinagmulan ng Mundo
Stephen Hawking view on God | Science vs God
Science Proves Hinduism? | Hashim
Can Scientists and Religious Leaders See Eye to Eye? | Middle Ground
"you have LESS than 1 week” - Terrance Howard
UNIVERSITY DEBATE: MUSLIM VERSUS PHILOSOPHER | DOES GOD EXIST?
5.0 / 5 (0 votes)