by Vineet Gill
25th January 2011
via The Times of India
Richard Dawkins is amongst the most provocative thinkers of our times. The Oxford University geneticist has waged a blazing intellectual war on religion, calling for the rule of science and rationality. At the recent Jaipur Literature Festival, Dawkins spoke with Vineet Gill about why he prefers science over faith, whether he is an ‘atheist fundamentalist’, – and issues such as immortality:
What are your views on moderate religion today? You’ve earlier called this ‘a seedbed for extremists’?
I have said that I fear it’s true that if children are taught, however moderately, that faith is a virtue, that you don’t need evidence to believe something, then that paves the way for a minority to be extremists. Everybody has been indoctrinated with this view that if it’s their faith, you can’t argue with them. I think that is pernicious. If children are taught they don’t need to defend their beliefs with evidence, that paves the way for extremism, the biggest damage religion does is indoctrinating and brainwashing children.
You believe passionately instead in science – but what happens when science gets it wrong?
Science doesn’t actually claim to know all the truth. It works hard by getting closer and closer to the truth, but of course science learns by its mistakes and advances by disproving hypotheses and getting things wrong. One of the virtues of science is that it is prepared to change its mind when the evidence warrants it. Public sharing is an important part of science. No scientist will ever say – ‘Oh, it’s true for me, it may not be true for you.’
Science gets space for research and development – why can’t we look at religion too as a living laboratory with people developing their thoughts, rather than just dismissing it?
It would be very nice to study religion in anthropological and psychological ways. By the way, I do think children need to be educated about religion. They just shouldn’t be told you belong only to this or that religion. They should be told, there is this religion and that religion. And when you grow up, you may – or may not – choose to join any of those.
If science were to triumph over time, would you like to become immortal with its help?
No. I think if there’s something frightening about death, it is eternity. And it’s equally frightening whether you’re there or not. Actually, it’s more frightening if you are there. Just imagine billions and billions and billions of years – terribly boring! I prefer to spend eternity under a general anaesthetic – and that is exactly what’s going to happen.
Stepping out of science, how do you explain the powerful effect faith has on people?
It is fascinating. What is it about faith that can make somebody kill? Patriotism is another one – people believe my country is right or wrong. In the World Wars, people were perfectly able to shoot other people just because they belonged to the wrong country, without ever asking what their opinions were. Faith too is like that.
Rejecting belief outright, are you an atheist fundamentalist?
The term ‘fundamentalist’ means you stick to a holy book and never change your mind. I will change my mind whenever the evidence warrants it.
Finally, your thoughts on your friend and legendary fellow atheist, the late Christopher Hitchens?
Christopher Hitchens was a great warrior, a magnificent orator, a pugilist and a gentleman. He was kind, but he took no prisoners when arguing with idiots.
Hey guys,
Thanks for the Article, I look forward to seeing him speak in a couple months
.
exactly my sentiment , Put in words i cant always find
I estimate that some 10% of Australians opted for a religion in their census answers solely because they don’t, at first glance, notice the “no religion” option. Furthermore, having the religious question immediately follow the question about ancestry encouraged householders with a European ancestry – even those who never go to church – to tick “Christian” because they believe it is part of their overall cultural identity.
Getting the figures wrong has a direct impact on civil society, such as the millions of dollars of federal government support for and expansion of the National School Chaplaincy Program under both old parties. This money is being channeled to religious organizations by executive fiat, despite our constitution, which states:
“Commonwealth not to legislate in respect of religion – [Constitution]
CHAPTER V THE STATES. Commonwealth not to legislate in respect of religion. 116. The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification.”
When the number of religious people is artificially inflated in the census, then public policy in matters of religion and belief will unduly favour religious lobbies and discriminate against people who do not live their lives under religion.
Despite the problems identified, in multicultural Australia of 2006 18.7% of respondents identified themselves as having “No religion”, 11.7% as “Not stated” and 2.1% as adherents of “Buddhism” – a non-theistic ‘religion’.
The misleading structuring of the religion question in the 2006 census thus resulted in 64 % of people being classed as Christians – a figure which is much higher than in other surveys.
As the couple who were first able to achieve a civil wedding outside a registry office – on 21 December 1969 – my wife, Rosemary, and I have been monitoring the extent of civil weddings. This, we submit, gives a better indication of the extent of religious commitment in Australia, as the second item of the hatch, match and dispatch trio. By 1999 this had risen to 51.3 %, by 2009 to 66.9 %.
I am a non believer, not an atheist, atheism is fast becoming the new religion. Non believers are disliked and distrusted lets work on that, let us improve and let religion continue to show it’s true colours in fundamentalism everywhere.
Psalm 14:1 “The fool hath said in his heart, there is no God.”
Faith in God is always built on evidence readily available to us.
Hebrews 11:1 “Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the EVIDENCE of things not seen.”
God never asks us for blind faith but calls us to believe in him based on logical reasoning and evidence.
Isaiah 1:18 “Come let us reason together, saith the Lord”
This is why I believe in a creator God as I don’t have the blind faith to follow Atheism.
In fact in early primary school I learnt in biology class that life produces life. Amazing how science and religion support each other.
People don’t ‘follow’ atheism Aaron, atheism is the lack of a belief in a god or gods, simple as that. The same reason you don’t believe in many other gods is the reason I don’t believe in yours.
As an atheist, I just don’t believe your claims. Just because you claim you have the answer, doesn’t mean it is a better position that saying ‘we don’t know … yet.’
Faith is belief despite the lack of evidence, the Hebrews quote doesn’t make sense. Faith is not evidence.
I have seen Him.Yet you will mock because in your mind you “KNOW” it isnt true.I have seen Him and soon you all will but most will not be ready or prepared for what occurs.The Book of Daniel speaks of 70 weeks.A week is 7 years.You are in the last week now but again you will mock and jeer.Thankfully not for too much longer.
It’s not that I ‘know’ it is not true, anymore than someone claiming they saw Elvis working at a 7-Eleven.
I just see no sufficient evidence to believe your claims.
I don’t mock you Graeme but I am somewhat disturbed by the tone of your comment. What does “Thankfully not for too much longer” mean. You seem to be very intolerant of those who do not share your views.
I would choose the word pity over mock.
Stopping the unconstitutional Government funding of religious organisations (churches, schools, clubs, businesses*, etc., but particularly schools) by giving them tax-free status** and direct funding is the best way to stop the indoctrination of our children. This funding is costing taxpayers about $32 billion per year. (See ‘The Purple Economy’ by Max Wallace.)
Religious doctrine is tantamount to FRAUD and should be treated as such.
*Hope you’ve stopped drinking Gloria Jeans coffee and having WeetBix for breakfast.
** Search for ‘supernatural’ on the ATO website to find out how to become a tax-free religion!
Agreed! Where are the actions happening to do something about this? Also the abiliuty of the catholic church to avoid being sued for the crimes of it’s priests?
I hope this Conference can help focus the Humanist/Athiest populace to an agenda and key actions that we can all participate/help to right some of these wrongs in our society….
Aaron.
I tried my best to understand what you were on about – but failed. I just can’t find a meaningful link between the quotes and your conclusions.
You did, however, spell ‘evidence’ correctly. Full marks for that.
Andrew
Perhaps it is the religious minded who prefer to class Atheism as a relgion. That way the religious minded can declare it as merely another competitor in the ‘faith based’ market. Unfortunately for them, Atheism is not a religion; it is merely a word to describe the absence of religion. There are no rules or creeds to Atheism; there is no rule book which says you can or cannot do this or that. Instead, Atheism insists that people make decisions for themselves and take responsibility for the decisions they make; there is no such luxury as deferring responsibility on to invisible third party entities.
Well stated John, Atheism is an absence of making a decision. As there is only 2 options in this life, God either exists or this is just an incredibly mathematically impossible continuous serious of ongoing random but strangely organised series of events. Atheism is unique in that it offers the luxury of being able to sit on the fence and ignore the evidence.
So I guess Atheists are just people who have not made up their minds yet as to which side of the fence they belong.
“Well stated John, Atheism is an absence of making a decision.”
Atheism is not capitalised unless at the beginning of a sentence. But no, it does not mean this, as some atheists do say there is no god.
Atheism itself simply means a lack of a belief in a god, that is all.
“God either exists or this is just an incredibly mathematically impossible continuous serious of ongoing random but strangely organised series of events”
No, this is a false dichotomy. Either god exists or it doesn’t.
There is nothing mathematically impossible about a god not existing, I would love to see you show that the case. There is nothing random about such things as natural selection, it is a process that can be predicted as well. For instance we breed animals and the effects of such on traits can be predicted, just as environmental effects can help in predicting traits, in fact a great example of this was Darwin himself with Xanthopan morgani praedicta.
Atheism is not unique in regard ‘sitting on the fence and ignoring the evidence’, in fact it is the lack of evidence that has atheists not believe in the claims of the religious.
It is not unique as the same process has not simply just take someones word for it when a person claims they have a talking giraffe in their backyard, or that fairies live in their pumpkin patch, or that Elvis is alive and working in a 7-Eleven.
It is not a good thing to simply believe something despite the lack of evidence for it, one can be so open minded ones brains fall out.
As to ‘side of the fence’, I simply do not accept the claims of the religious that ‘goddidit’ as an answer. It doesn’t answer anything and over the whole of history and time we have not found anything to suggest that a god is required.
The universe behaves exactly as we would expect it too given there was no god.
Here’s a thing, I call myself an atheist (agnostic at worst) but as Christopher Hitchens said “I like surprises”, so if there is/are a god/gods, doesn’t really bother me because I WILL NOT be told how to live my life, I WILL make my own decisions and I am NOT AFRAID of what might happen to me after I die for doing so.
Brother let me ask you, do you play the lottery?
Would you purchase a lottery ticket for a $1 Billion dollar jackpot if the odds of winning were 50:50?
In this life there are only 2 sides of the argument. God exists or he does not.
And a worst case scenario is a 50:50 chance either way let us say.
Now ask yourself this question, would you accept the FREE gift of eternal life and happiness which is an infinite amount larger than $1 billion dollars for a 50:50 chance of winning it?
An INFINITELY valuable prize for a 50:50 chance of winning it!
Now to say I don’t care about a $1 billion dollar prize is crazy, but imagine if you said you don’t care about an infinitely valuable prize!
The great Blaise Pascal, mathematician, philosopher and physicist thought this over in his mind for many years and came to a logical conclusion on the matter. I challenge you to read “Pascals Wager”.
No.
What about an evil god? What about a god that is jealous and not the christian god? What if this god was an unjust god and just sent people to hell regardless? What if this god detested those that gave up everything it had given them to work out, think about and come to decisions about by themselves for some written text telling them what to do?
You could say there are 4 options, the christian God and afterlife, some other god and afterlife, atheism with afterlife, and atheism without afterlife.
It’s not 50/50
It’s not ‘free’, it’s about giving up free will and reasoning to follow 2000 year old scriptures of dubious origin. It is about subjecting oneself for this life.
Pascal’s Wager is full of holes. Try actually reading about the critiques of it.
One is that there’s over are an almost infinite amount of possible gods (the concepts of a god), if you choose one, the others get pissed off, so in your lottery analogy, your better off not choosing one and trusting in just living your life based on using your reason and good judgment with that thing in your head your supposed god gave you.
You surely cannot expect anyone with a mind of their own to admire those who support religious leaders guilty of horrific crimes on the basis of “hedging their bets”?
It is your opinion that God either exists or “he” does not. You adhere to a particular supernatural belief. Many do not. Some prefer a different supernatural belief. There is no argument. Except when one group refuses to respect anyone else’s opinion and tries to impose their superstition on others.
It is your opinion, not a fact, that religion delivers a valuable prize. I happen to disagree, as is my right in a country still technically free of religious oppression.
The “prize” is freedom from responsibility for your own actions, a refuge for moral cowards in the skirts of your choice of power obsessed religious hierarchy. And an all powerful imaginary friend to destroy arguments against any nonsense you choose to subscribe to (as long as you liberally sprinkle on the magic words “Jesus”, “Allah”, “Zeus” etc).
Not only is your prize worthless and undesirable to any rational thinker, the cost is unbearably high.
I will never willingly surrender my right to think and decide for myself. I will never mindlessly obey criminals who believe that raping children is acceptable, that torture and murder can be holy if done by the right brand of psychopath, and that vicious discrimination against individuals on the basis of gender or sexual preference is an indisputable good.
So, not only do I not care for your “infinitely valuable” prize, I consider your attempt to manipulate me into accepting it offensive.
But luckily I am not religious, so you will not be subjected to a hate campaign or jihad.
Hopefully one day you will be open minded enough to realise all humans are equally valuable, and no longer hide behind “us” vs “them”.
Aaron, or any other person of Faith.
Once you have read the book “The God Delusion” and can mount a rational (non-faith based ie evidence based) arguement or perspective to ANY of the points in the book, then the Athiests/Humanists would gladly receive your input to the debate as to whether the populace at large should respect religions. Till then, please can you refrain from “faith-based” statements of “fact”. It’s just not rational or helpful. ie “The Great Pink Elephant who created the universe exists! You will know it when you burn for not believing this! All you non-believers or believers of other faiths should contribute your tax dollars to help me spread the not for profit word of the pink elephant!”
I agree with you Brian, that faith based statements are not helpful. I am a believer though, and i would really like to hear what are some of the most prominent arguments against the existence of God to have a good-natured discussion.
If atheism is the rejection of belief in the existence of deities (wiki), do you suppose that atheists have a valid and true (sound) argument to say God does not exist? you may have to agree with me that you will reach a point where you fold your arms and say ‘ok, i’ll believe if you can show me.’ or ‘i don’t believe because i don’t think God is necessary’ (necessity isn’t an indicator of truth). and of course, i will have to slip my hands in my pockets too, and say ‘i can’t do anything for you. but God will, someday, or somehow if you let Him.’
in defending my faith, i’m not trying to prove myself right. i believe in my God, Jesus Christ, because ____. (here will be another faith based statement, so i left it blank) many arguments against God talks about it being the cause for violence, or believers reacting badly to criticism, and more. but can we say because of this, hence religion brings more harm than good, which contradicts itself, and hence is nonsensical? i think it is an ad hominem fallacy, ‘poisoning the well’, and this is why: an ex-convict marries a prostitute and gives birth to a thug who marries a drug peddler, who’s parents are ex-convicts, will you say their child will necessarily be innately bad? are you right to say every mistake he makes, being late for class, or viewing pornography, is due to his innately bad character for the fact of his lineage, even if there is nothing wrong with his upbringing? my religion has had its share of disgraceful, even immoral pasts. but if you are really interested in the truth, you can’t simply refute the fact that many Christians believe in a loving God, who did not come to frighten His people into submission, but to save them from sin and its penalty by His sacrifice on the cross. my purpose in this comment is really just to point out that any atheists should discern arguments of such type more carefully. i don’t find it within my duty to defend other faiths which i know little about, but i believe they are victims of the same fallacy. still, i believe in my God only.
There-in lies a problem shiwei. Imagine trying to list the reasonings you do not believe that a family of super-leprechauns created the universe?
That is the position atheists are put in. I do not find sufficient evidence to believe the claims that a god is required, let alone the claims that a particular god is the one that is the requirement.
So yes I can rattle off many of the reasonings as to why I do not believe, the same way you could over not believing in Vishnu or Odin, or the aforementioned leprechauns, but it is tiring and frustrating to have to justify such things as morality to those that claim the only way someone can be moral is if the leprechauns created morality. At some point the disassociation does reflect itself in much the same way. What is the benefit of trying to continually outline your reasonings to a leprechaun believer? They aren’t going to change, they are continually going to have the same arguments any theist puts forward and it ultimately comes down to faith. Faith in the position despite the lack of evidence to show the position is truth.
Couple that with the issues of these beliefs then requiring that you respect the persons belief in leprechauns, that they have rights above and beyond others in our society based on those beliefs and the situation calls for rightly exposing the position as simply one of faith that has no place in defining decision making for others that are not of that belief (as we have currently going on in Australia and other parts of the world)
An interesting read that I think really puts forward how many atheists feel is this one : http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/11/15/165089/-What-it-s-Like-to-be-an-Atheist
I hope that gives you some insight into what it is like to be an atheist.
Fact: No science or scientist can disprove that God created the world.
Faith is not belief without proof it is belief that proof exists and we will find it.
Realism and pragmatism have not evolved over time they have been the human character from the beginning. From the mockers of Noah to those who would later crucify Jesus we find generation after generation seeking to dethrone God.
None of us were here 100 yrs ago so we rely on history to teach us of the past. In Moses day people were tending to sheep not concerned about writing doctrine.
We don’t evolve from primitive species to advance intellectual species we simply revolve in cycles of Golliaths and Pharohs and God uses little boys with a simple stone or illiterate and incompetent to prove his supremacy over us. What’s primitive is our understanding of God as a force in heaven ready to burn and destroy all who apose him that’s not our God. He created every one of us, and whether we choose to hear that still small voice within or not he speaks. We get to choose and that’s just how it is. For those who choose not to listen I can only tell you what he says to those who do. “I am God, I formed you in the womb and knew who you were before you were born.” I created you to be free an happy to live and to fill the earth with who you are. So everyone of us tries to spread our selves around the world seeking to get others to share our opinions. The design is the same the choices vary.
And probably never will, as the claim is unfalsifiable, just as is the claim that a super-magical penguin that always existed did it.
Science most probably will be able to show that a god is not required however. We can see this in the simple fact that things pop in and out of existence at the quantum level all the time, from nothing.
The problem theists have is not only do they have to show that the universe needed to be ’caused’, but that the cause itself was not a mindless force that has always existed, and is a highly intelligent more complex thing that is the god that they claim.
Simply not true, of course they have evolved over time, do a simple search on the web and you will see the many differing thoughts encompassed in these words, such as Platonic realism, Cornell realism even Australian realism. Analytical, neoclassical and neopragmatism, the list goes on.
Not sure what you are saying here, if in reference to evolution, evolution does not say things evolve from primitive to advanced intellectual species. It simply says that things evolve to fill a niche. Hence we have highly specialised creatures that fulfill their niches extremely well, there is nothing that puts pressure on them evolving differently. We see this also cause problems when that niche drastically changes and they cannot adapt fast enough.
outside of the rest of your diatribe, which I don’t really understand (anymore than someone coming up to me in an airport telling me the Great Green Arkleseizure sneezed me into existence, and here have a flower!) I find it odd that this supposed god of yours that you claim the above, sits back and watches 35,000 children under the age of 5 die from starvation every day, so that those in the privileged west have the free will to help them or not.
Hi Davo,
Very nice responses, keep up the good work
God is a hypothesis and prayer is a self hypnosis, so only fools believe in a paranormal, omnipotent,omnipresent thing called a diety. If there is a thing called a God, then who made God as it takes two to make one therfore polytheism makes more sense according to thiests.
As someone who believes in scientific analysis rather than faith-based superstitions, I regard the existence of supernatural beings such as gods to be inconceivable, even absurd. Also to expect scientists to disprove the existence of gods is as silly as expecting them to disprove the existence of The Flying Spaghetti Monster. While I acknowledge that religion brings comfort to many people. it is also inevitable that it will breed fundamentalist extremists who are prepared to kill in the name of their religion.
Watch Monday’s newspapers (20th February 2012) for details on the Gonski Review into religious school funding. I suspect they will receive millions of taxpayers dollars for the continuing indoctrination of our children.
Thanks for answering questions davo.