 |
|
|
|
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
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 DawkinsYes, 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 NewmanCannot 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
Nicholas NewmanOh 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 DawkinsSo 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 NewmanI 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 DawkinsI 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 NewmanI 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 DawkinsI 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 NewmanI was thinking of people like Prince Charles, as an exponent of homeopathy for instance. Richard DawkinsI 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 NewmanWhy 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 DawkinsI 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 NewmanThe 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 DawkinsYes, 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 NewmanAnd finally. What is your next book about? Richard DawkinsIt will be about the evidence for evolution.
|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Send Email:
# with questions or comments about
this web site.
|
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 ‘