‘The Unbelievers’ and science

The World Premiere of  the film “The Unbelievers” took place on Monday in Toronto.

The YouTube site for the film’s trailer describes it this way:

“‘The Unbelievers’ follows renowned scientists Richard Dawkins and Lawrence Krauss across the globe as they speak publicly about the importance of science and reason in the modern world – encouraging others to cast off antiquated religious and politically motivated approaches toward important current issues. The film includes interviews with celebrities and other influential people who support the work of these controversial speakers,trailer of the film”

The premiere, and the three later screenings were sold out. I posted the trailer for the film at The “dynamic duo” of science? Richard Dawkins and Lawrence Krauss spoke at the Premiere. But they were also interviewed by Global’s The Morning Show, on Monday morning.

It’s an excellent interview – they were not heckled in the way many US interviewers do. And they managed to calmly present their story about science, and describe their attitude to religion.

Only 12 minutes long its worth  watching. Click on the image below to go to the Global New’s Video.

Credit: Dawkins, Krauss have faith in ‘The Unbelievers’ | Globalnews.ca.

2012 Global Atheist Convention – Melbourne

The organisers of the 2012 Global Atheist Convention in Melbourne have announced that tickets will go on sale from September 1st. If you are planning to go I recommend an early purchase as they did sell out quickly last time. And successful as the 2010 Convention was this one is shaping up to be even better.

Convention organisers are announcing confirmed speakers one at a time – The latest is Ayan Hirsi Ali who is certainly going to be a crowd drawer. She is one of my heroines.

Photos of the other speakers so far announced are below. Click on the individual photos to go to their details.

Where did we come from?

Anyone interested in this question (and aren’t most of us) could not do better than watch the videos coming out of the Origins symposium. With a mission statement of “Exploring Questions at the Edge of Knowledge: From the Universe to Humanity” this has got to be fascinating.

Add to this the high calibre of the participants. These include names like Lawrence Krauss, Steven Weinberg, Brian Greene, Stephen Hawking, Andrei Linde, Richard Dawkins, Alan Guth, David Gross, Alex Vilenkin, Peter Ward, Steven Pinker, VS Ramachandran, Paul Davies, Patricia Churchland, AC Grayling, J. Craig Venter, Frank Wilczek, and many more.

The Symposium Sessions include:

1. The Universe, Multiverse, Physical Laws
2. The Galaxies, Planets, Life
3. Origin of species, Evolution, Human Origins
4. Consciousness, Complex Cognition, Language to Culture, Cooperation, Morality and Institutions.

The Science Network is currently uploading videos – pretty efficient seeing the Symposium occurred over April 3 – 6. Currently five videos are online (introductions and panel on “How Far Can we go Back?”)

I know what I will be watching over the next week or so.

Permalink

Similar articles

Prostituting science

One thing that disappoints me is the way that some scientists prostitute their science. The way that some scientists use their academic qualifications or reputation to support unscientific messages. I realise that everybody who does this has their own reasons and these are usually related to ego, ideology or money.

This is something we should all be aware of when “experts” are rolled out to support questionable or controversial causes, as well as when they are used to advertise commercial products. A blatant example of this was revealed in a blog report on a recent debate about intelligent design (ID) (see ID Was Spanked In Fort Worth). The main speakers were Dr. Lawrence Krauss (opposing ID) and  Dr. David Berlinski (supporting ID). After the debate an audience member:

“heard Krauss ask Berlinski why he wasted his intellect advocating for intelligent design. To which Berlinski replied that he doesn’t believe a word of it, but is happy to cash the checks the Discovery Institute writes him. Strangely enough, this would be consistent with Berlinski’s odd statement early on in which he admitted that his own ethical orientation was focused on living as contentedly and as selfishly as possible. It was a weird aside at the time; realizing that he could be exercising that ethic by making chumps of the Discovery Institute seems somehow poetically appropriate.”

I realise that this is hearsay – and Berlinski may well deny these comments whether he made them or not. However, I think the report does illustrate the problem.

Lawrence Krauss – Richard Dawkins discussion

Richard Dawkins seems to be promoting a new form of public discussion with minimum moderation. This gets away from the adversary type of public debate which often provides more heat than light. At the same time it can allow for presentation of different viewpoints in a non-antagonistic way. The video on my post Richard Dawkins in Inverness is an example of how effective this can be.

Richarddawkins.net has now put up another inspiring example of this form of discussion. They are videos taken when Richard Dawkins and Lawrence Krauss sat down for a public discussion at Stanford University on Sunday, March 9th 2008. The focus was on Science education, but the discussion also covered religion, physics, evolution and more.

Issues discussed include:

• the question of utility or knowledge of scientific research;
• Darwins place in science history;
• quantum mechanics;
• the issue of evolution teaching schools;
• “teaching the controversy” propaganda;
• the “seduction” apporoach of Krauss vs the “abrasiveness” of Dawkins;
• incorporation of science into culture, TV and films, and
• the intimidation of teachers into downplaying evolution education.

Two quotes I liked:

Dawkins’ response to “teach the controversy” ploy- “The purpose of education is not to validate ignorance but to overcome it.”

Krauss’ belief that in science education all students should have “an experience where a firmly or profoundly held belief is proved to be wrong.”

Discussion part 1 (23 min)

Discussion part 2 (30 min)

Questions & Answers (with subtitled questions because of audio quality): Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6

Similar articles:
Richard Dawkins in Inverness
Debating science and religion
Can science enrich faith?
Most ideas in science are wrong!
Dealing with Dawkins
Changing your mind

Most ideas in science are wrong!

A recent comment on my post, Isaac Newton and intelligent design, implied that scientific explanations are seen as facts. This attitude might be true for some people – after all the scientific method has a good track record in producing theories which enable humanity to understand its surroundings, develop sophisticated technology and improve the quality of life. But describing scientific ideas or theories as facts, or attributing that belief to supporters of science (as the comment did), is a misrepresentation of science.