Beyond Belief 07: Enlightenment 2.0
By THE SCIENCE NETWORK
Added: Mon, 03 Dec 2007 00:00:00 UTC
Thanks to Stephen Reed for the link.
Click here to play videos:
View the list of speakers here
UPDATE: For those of you wanting downloadable videos, I think they are coming soon from The Science Network. It sounds like these links are just the 'first wave.'
As you watch the conversation in Beyond Belief: Enlightenment 2.0, it might help to know about one of the sources that was helpful to me in formulating the agenda, assembling the cast of characters, and setting the tone for the meeting. I quoted this passage from Humanity: A Moral History of the Twentieth Century by Jonathan Glover (who directs the Centre of Medical Law and Ethics at King's College, London):
"Now we tend to see the Enlightenment view of human psychology as thin and mechanical, and Enlightenment hopes of social progress through the spread of humanitarianism and the scientific outlook as naïve...One of this book's aims is to replace the thin, mechanical psychology of the Enlightenment with something more complex, something closer to reality...another aim of the book is to defend the Enlightenment hope of a world that is more peaceful and humane, the hope that by understanding more about ourselves we can do something to create a world with less misery. I have qualified optimism that this hope is well founded..."
I say Amen to that. If Enlightenment 1.0 took a thin and mechanical view of human nature and psychology, I think Enlightenment 2.0 can offer a much 'thicker' and cognitively richer account - less naïve and also, perhaps, less hubristic. If there's one thing we've learned - particularly from cognitive neuroscience - it is that we need to have some strategic humility about the hobby horses we are inclined to ride.
Director, The Science Network
<!-- - <a href="http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4635122028799793682&hl=en" target="_blank">Wednesday, October 31: Session 1 of 2</a><br /> - <a href="http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6062445227399849054&hl=en" target="_blank">Wednesday, October 31: Session 2 of 2</a><br /> - <a href="http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=665877168811573374&hl=en" target="_blank">Thursday, November 1: Session 1 of 2</a><br /> - <a href="http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2777087439256133380&hl=en" target="_blank">Thursday, November 1: Session 2 of 2</a><br /> - <a href="http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6487491195867586354=en" target="_blank">Friday, November 2: Session 1 of 1</a> -->
Kyle Hill - JREF Comments
If we want people to understand the full range of skepticism we have to also stress the affirmatives. We need to live up to the charge of promoting science and critical thinking
Jon White - New Scientist Comments
Indian rationalist Sanal Edamaruku faces a Catholic backlash after insisting that the "holy" water dripping from a statue of Christ came from a leaky drain
Matthew Hutson - Wired Comments
"If there's no obvious responsible party, we find a scapegoat. And what happens if no acceptable scapegoats are in sight? We credit a supernatural one."
Jonah Lehrer - The New Yorker 106 Comments
While philosophers, economists, and social scientists had assumed for centuries that human beings are rational agents—reason was our Promethean gift—Kahneman, the late Amos Tversky, and others demonstrated that we’re not nearly as rational as we like to believe.
Chris Michaud - Reuters 91 Comments
Nearly 15 percent of people worldwide believe the world will end during their lifetime and 10 percent think the Mayan calendar could signify it will happen in 2012.
Daisy Grewal - Scientific American 41 Comments
How Critical Thinkers Lose Their Faith in God