Richard Dawkins, though perhaps not well
known in Europe, is one of the world’s
most controversial and influential
intellectual figures. He holds the Chair
for the Public Understanding of Science
at Oxford University. His book ‘The
selfish Gene’ published in 1976, in
which he argued that the “the selfish
gene was the basic engine of
evolutionary development.” This book
became one of the most influential
scientific texts of modern times.
Dawkins is a committed atheist, a
scientific rationalist and secular
humanist. In his 2006 book ‘the God
delusion’, he argues that a supernatural
creator almost certainly does not exist
and religious faith is a delusion – as a
fixed false belief. As of November 2007
the English language version had sold
more than 1.5 million copies and has
been translated into 31 other languages.
Professor Richard Dawkins is well known
for his contempt for religious extremism
from Christian fundamentalism to Islamic
terrorism, and has also argued with
liberal believers, religious scientists,
biologists and theologians.
Dawkins arguments aroused great
controversy, especially in the English
speaking world and have been the subject
of debate and argument in the press, the
television and many learned debates.
Inevitably and perhaps disappointingly,
given much of the discussion hinges on
scientific rationalism versus belief
without evidence, of the discussion has
tended to become stultified and
repetitious.
It was with this thought in mind that I
determined to be different and ask
questions that in my interview would
intrigue a priest in Poland and a
socialist in Spain. In fact, Richard
found the questions fascinating.
I asked Professor Dawkins, if it is
still possible to see the utility of
certain psychological aspects in some
religious beliefs or customs. I was
thinking of: comfort to a soldier about
to die, or succour for a mother on the
death of her child or belief in the
after life of a husband who is mourning
the death of his wife?
Richard Dawkins agreed that he did see a
“psychological value", if it does have a
real value, and I would not wish to be
the person who destroys that person’s
psychological succour. But I would not,
however, compromise with my public
speaking out in the public forum and
writing, but if I was visiting someone
who was recently bereaved, I might
dissemble somewhat in what I said, but
would not do so in when writing a
newspaper article. It is also I think
disputable whether it is that
comforting, given that people are
brought up to fear hell for example.
They might actually be comforted by the
lack of religion, depending on their
upbringing. Although many of us fear
death, I think there is something
illogical about it.“
When Richard was asked, does religion,
however misguided, also provide a useful
social mechanism, irrespective of
people’s beliefs by reinforcing social
discipline by using the power of
religious sin to gain reinforce
adherence to man made laws?
Richard Dawkins observed: “that the
religious ‘carrot or stick’ argument for
being good i.e. god will punish you, or
reward you, is not a very, in fact, is
an ignoble reason for being good. A
moral philosopher could write down a
better set of reasons for being good.
Being cynical, one could say, people
need the carrot and the stick to be
good. I told – retold in my book ‘The
God Delusion’ the anecdote by Steven
Pinker, when, in 1969, police went on
strike in Montreal.”
Professor Dawkins likened abolition of
God to a Police strike, if God was a
abolished: “it would be like a police
strike; people would go on a rampage of
immorality. Yet, it does make me wonder
how sincere many of these rioters were;
I suspect many would say they were
religious. It looks like the real flesh
and blood Police acted as a real
deterrent. I find that impressive, as a
Darwinian I think many of us, do have a
built in morality, just like we have
sexual desire built into us, from our
Darwinian past, we do feel a sense of
justice, fairness, empathy and sympathy
for people in trouble or suffering.”
On being asked why many great
scientists, well versed in the
‘scientific method’ still find it
possible to maintain their religious
beliefs? Richard answered: ‘I am not
sure that this is true today. For me the
great watershed would have come with
Darwin and I am utterly unmoved by the
fact that Newton was religious. Anyone
living before Darwin, one might expect
to be religious. As for today, if you
find a great scientist who is religious,
cross question him and ask if he
actually believes in a supernatural
intelligence that listens to your
prayers and reads your thoughts and
forgives your sins. Or whether he is
like Einstein, who believed in using
quasi religious language to express his
feelings for his reverence for the
wonders and mysteries of the universe.
Richard Dawkins next book is out next
summer and about the evidence for
evolution.
Dawkins on Darwin will be shown on
Channel 4 from August 4. Dawkins on
Darwin and The Richard Dawkins
Collection (4DVD, £19.99 and £29.99) are
released on August 25
For more interviews see
http://www.oxfordprospect.co.uk/Oxfordbooks.htm
Richard Dawkins is the well known
advocate of atheism and rationalism and
for his criticism of religion. He holds
the Chair for the Public Understanding
of Science at Oxford University. I
interviewed Richard Dawkins at his
Oxford home recently.
Nicholas Newman
Note: This interview is also available
in Hungarian at Interjú Richard Dawkins-szal
a vallások hasznosságáról | Világi
Figyelő
As a life long atheist, I find myself
almost entirely in agreement with the
views expressed in your writings, but
nevertheless, it is still possible to
see the utility of certain physiological
aspects in some religious beliefs or
customs. I’m thinking of: Comfort to a
soldier about to die, or succour for a
mother on the death of her child or
belief in the after life of a husband
who is mourning the death of his wife?
Such comfort or succour would be called
upon particularly in cases where no
human aid would be available?
Richard Dawkins
Yes, I do see psychological value, if it
does have a real value, and I would not
wish to be the person who destroys that
person’s psychological succour. But I
would not, however, compromise with my
public speaking out in the public forum
and writing, but if I was visiting
someone who was recently bereaved, I
might dissemble somewhat in what I said,
but would not do so in when writing a
newspaper article. It is also I think
disputable whether it is that
comforting, given that people are
brought up to fear hell for example.
They might actually be comforted by the
lack of religion, depending on their
upbringing. Although many of us fear
death, I think there is something
illogical about it. As Mark Twain once
said “I was dead before I was born
without the slightest inconvenience.”
Nicholas Newman
Cannot religion, however misguided, also
provide a useful social mechanism,
irrespective of people’s beliefs by
reinforcing social discipline by using
the power of religious sin to gain
reinforce adherence to man made laws?
E.g. Thou shall not kill? Of course such
beliefs have, throughout history, been
used by rulers to enforce their
particular forms of governance, or lack
of governance. The best example of this
aspect has, perhaps been emperors,
kings, and popes claiming they have been
appointed by a god?
Richard Dawkins
Yes, the first thing I say about that is
that the religious carrot or stick
argument for being good i.e. god will
punish you, or reward you, is not a
very, in fact, is an ignoble reason for
being good. A moral philosopher could
write down a better set of reasons for
being good. Being cynical, one could
say, people need the carrot and the
stick to be good. I told – retold in my
book ‘The God Delusion’ the anecdote by
Steven Pinker, when, in 1969, police
went on strike in Montreal.
Nicholas Newman
Oh you mean when police officers staged
a 16-hour strike in Montreal, which led
to a wave of rioting and looting, which
was only ended when the army was brought
in, because nobody had anything to fear
from the Police?
Richard Dawkins
So you might say if God was suddenly
abolished, it would be like a police
strike; people would go on a rampage of
immorality. Yet, it does make me wonder
how sincere many of these rioters were;
I suspect many would say they were
religious. It looks like the real flesh
and blood Police acted as a real
deterrent. I find that impressive, as a
Darwinian I think many of us, do have a
built in morality, just like we have
sexual desire built into us, from our
Darwinian past, we do feel a sense of
justice, fairness, empathy and sympathy
for people in trouble or suffering.
These are all very powerful emotions,
which I am almost sure have nothing to
do with religion. Like the grief you
feel vicariously when consoling someone
who is bereaved or the sense of
monstrous injustice one feels for a
person who has been framed for a crime
that he did not commit. These are all
emotions that a naive interpretation
that humans are selfish should not be
expected and yet it is there, in all of
us, whether or not we are religious.
Nicholas Newman
I was asking about the role of religion
in reinforcing the laws of society. In
respect of your answer it is hard to
draw such conclusions from such a short
event which took place against a
background of serious industrial
disputes prior to the Montreal police
strike. Surely such rioting would not
have continued indefinitely, before the
population would have restored order, to
ensure the continuation of civil life?
Turning to the next question. Do you not
find it ironic, that many great
scientists, well versed in the
‘scientific method’ still find it
possible to maintain their religious
beliefs?
Richard Dawkins
I am not sure that this is true today.
For me the great watershed would have
come with Darwin and I am utterly
unmoved by the fact that Newton was
religious. Anyone living before Darwin,
one might expect to be religious. As for
today, if you find a great scientist who
is religious, cross question him and ask
if he actually believes in a
supernatural intelligence that listens
to your prayers and reads your thoughts
and forgives your sins. Or whether he is
like Einstein, who believed in using
quasi religious language to express his
feelings for his reverence for the
wonders and mysteries of the universe.
Einstein liked to use the word of God to
explain his reverence, while I don’t. I
think today to use God in this sense is
confusing, but was less confusing in
Einstein’s time. But nevertheless, there
are a few scientists who are full blown
religious in their beliefs and believe
in the sense of the Trinity,
transubstantiation etc, and I think they
are rather few. I think such scientists
are an anomaly, I think it must be
possible for the human mind to
compartmentalize in a way I would find
difficult in my head. Though, if I
really try, I suspect I would find other
ways of compartmentalizing such idea in
my brain.
Nicholas Newman
I could not agree more. Though, when I
recently interviewed Bjorn Lomborg,
Bjorn accepts the reality of climate
change, but he questions the proposals
put forward by environmentalists with a
scientific background, who put forward
their solutions as if they were
religious dogma, and thereby not subject
to vigorous scientific analysis.
At your recent talk at the Oxford
Literary Festival, you expressed your
sorrow at the popularity of pseudo
science at the expense of real science.
Would you not agree that much of the
blame can be laid at the influential
people and writers who dominate the
media, and seem even proud that they can
boast that they are ignorant of science?
Richard Dawkins
I fully agree there are such people,
though I am not sure that the popularity
of pseudo science like homeopathy and
UFOs can be blamed on them. Are those
people interested in pseudo science
really influenced by the influential
people and writers who dominate the
media?
Nicholas Newman
I was thinking of people like Prince
Charles, as an exponent of homeopathy
for instance.
Richard Dawkins
I certainly believe that if those people
who love pseudo science needed an
intellectual justification they could
find it amongst the literati. Though, I
am not sure, but they no doubt foster a
kind of climate where such opinion is
favoured, and where your opinion is as
good as mine. Where questioning of
pseudo science is frowned upon.
Nicholas Newman
Why are there so few good communicators
of science like you, Jacob Bronowski,
Bjorn Lomborg, Carl Sagan and Peter
Atkins who have the gift to express
clearly the joys of science?
Richard Dawkins
I love there to be more – there are more
probably – but many don’t bother to
leave the comfort of their laboratories
to express themselves. I wish more
would. Perhaps we should think of an
inducement to do so. Perhaps the
scientific culture should value those
who express themselves to lay people.
Nicholas Newman
The trouble is science, unlike the
media, has not attracted the people to
join the scientific world that are
clever persuasive communicators?
Your wife has played an important role
in your academic life?
Richard Dawkins
Yes, my wife, Lalla Ward does play an
important part in my work. She
participates in the production of audio
books, and the public talks I give about
my work, in fact we act as a double act.
I think the audiences like the double
act, at least it prevents them going to
sleep. She has taught me how to speak in
public, read out aloud, and talks to the
public. At home she acts as a copy
editor who proof reads my work, checks
when I repeat myself and makes it a more
readable read.
Nicholas Newman
And finally. What is your next book
about?
Richard Dawkins
It will be about the evidence for
evolution.
|
|
