Home » Atheism, Philosophy, Religion » Dawkins Down Under

Dawkins Down Under

March 9, 2010 Posted by idnet.com.au under Atheism, Philosophy, Religion
33 Comments

Richard Dawkins on Australian TV waxes lyrical on science and religion, morality, the cross of Christ and the afterlife.

SCIENCE AND RELIGION

RICHARD DAWKINS: The implication you make is that there’s something about religion which is personal and upon which evidence doesn’t have any bearing. Now, as I scientist I care passionately about the truth. I think that the existence of a supreme being – a supernatural supreme being – is a scientific issue. Either there is a God or there isn’t. Either there are gods or there are no gods. That is a scientific issue. Yes, it’s a supremely important scientific question. If the universe was created by an intelligence, then we are looking at an entirely different kind of scientific theory than if the universe came into existence by natural means. If God or gods had something to do with the creation of life, then we’re looking at a totally different kind of biology.

So I think you can’t just say religion and science have nothing to do with each other. Science can get on and you let people have their own religious – of course you let people believe whatever they like. But you cannot say that science and religion are completely separate because religion makes scientific claims. It certainly makes scientific claims about miracles, and you cannot reconcile an authentic approach to science with a belief in miracles or, I suspect, with a belief in supernatural creation. At least the very least you should say is that this is a scientific question.

MORALITY

RICHARD DAWKINS: I don’t think I want an absolute morality. I think I want a morality that is thought out, reasoned, argued, discussed and based upon, I’d almost say, intelligent design. Can we not design our society, which has the sort of morality, the sort of society that we want to live in – if you actually look at the moralities that are accepted among modern people, among 21st century people, we don’t believe in slavery anymore. We believe in equality of women. We believe in being gentle. We believe in being kind to animals. These are all things which are entirely recent. They have very little basis in Biblical or Quranic scripture. They are things that have developed over historical time through a consensus of reasoning, of sober discussion, argument, legal theory, political and moral philosophy. These do not come from religion. To the extent that you can find the good bits in religious scriptures, you have to cherry pick. You search your way though the Bible or the Quran and you find the occasional verse that is an acceptable profession of morality and you say, “Look at that. That’s religion,” and you leave out all the horrible bits and you say, “Oh, we don’t believe that anymore. We’ve grown out of that.” Well, of course we’ve grown out it. We’ve grown out of it because of secular moral philosophy and rational discussion. Jesus said some wonderful things and the sermon on the mount is terrific. Modern morality goes back to that and says, yes, that’ll do. That’s very good.

We are not counting up the number of good things and bad things that have been done by people who happen to be religious or who happen to be atheist. We’re looking at whether there are religious or atheistic motives for doing good or bad things. Is there a logical pathway that leads from religious faith to doing bad things? Sure as hell there is. Is there a logical pathway that leads from atheism to doing bad things? No, you cannot make a logical pathway that way. Nobody would ever say, “Because I’m an atheist I’m going to kill somebody.” You could very well say, “Because I am a Christian I’m going to go and kills Muslims.” “Because I’m a Muslim I’m going to go to kill Christians.” This is something that’s happened throughout history.
 
Nobody has ever said, “Because I’m an atheist, I’m going to go and kill somebody.”
 
 THE CROSS OF CHRIST
 
RICHARD DAWKINS: The New Testament – you believe, if you believe in the New Testament, that God, the all powerful creator of the universe couldn’t think of a better way to forgive humanity’s sins than to have himself put on earth, tortured and executed in atonement for the sins of humanity? What kind of a horrible, depraved notion is that?
 
RICHARD DAWKINS: But the extreme is in the New Testament. I simply told you what is New Testament doctrine. That is St Paul’s view, which is accepted by Christianity. That’s why Christ came to earth, in order to atone for humanity’s sins. If it’s extreme, it’s not me that’s being extreme, it’s the new testament that’s being extreme. Do you think it’s admirable? You think it’s admirable that God actually had himself tortured for the sins of humanity? That is the Christian view. If you think that’s admirable, you can keep it!
AFTERLIFE

RICHARD DAWKINS: Let’s be realistic about this. We have brains. It’s brains that do the thinking. Our brains are going to decay. That will be that. But when you say, “Is this it?” How much more do you want? I mean this is wonderful. Wouldn’t an afterlife be incredibly tedious after the first thousand years or so?

 

 

 

  • Delicious
  • Facebook
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Twitter
  • RSS Feed

33 Responses to Dawkins Down Under

1 2
  1. 31
    BarbMarch 11, 2010 at 5:57 pm

    hrun0815 @ 30: “Are you asserting that there are more atheists in prison than christians in general?Are there more atheits than christians based on their distribution in the actual population? Or are you simply making these things up and you actually don’t have numbers?”

    I am asserting that atheists commit crimes. Please prove otherwise.

  2. 32
    Upright BiPedMarch 11, 2010 at 8:14 pm

    #28

    Yes JDH, that about covers it.

    I particularly liked this jewel of empericism:

    We don’t need fossils in order to demonstrate that evolution is a fact. We, I mean, it would be an obviously true fact even if not a single fossil had ever been formed.

    This, of course, can be read to mean:

    1) Fossils show things, and I dont like them.

    2) I am a professor and a teen idol; I cannot be distracted by evidence.

    3) My shoulders disappear in the general vicinity of my gluteus maximus.

    - – - – - –

    And if empiricism is not his strong suit, then it helps to keep in mind that this towering intellect is also the stage manager of a book about delusion:

    HH: But the universe is itself awfully complicated, Professor Dawkins. Where did it come from?

    RD: Well, the universe is not awfully complicated at the beginning. It has become very complicated through such processes as evolution by natural selection.

    HH: No, I’m talking about the whole cosmos. Where did that come from, 13 billion years ago?

    RD: It came from the big bang, which is not a complex process. It’s a simple process.

    HH: And what preceded the big bang?

    RD: Well, physicists won’t answer that question. They will say that time itself began in the big bang, and so the question what preceded it is illegitimate.

    HH: What do you think?

    RD: I’m not enough of a physicist to understand what I’m saying, but I have to say that that’s what physicists say.

    Isn’t this the same mahatma who thrilled his audiences by saying a Creator couldn’t exist because he would have to be more complicated than his creations?

    Ah well….I’m sure there is a compliment to either Steven Weinberg or Stephen Hawking in there somewhere.

  3. 33
    JDHMarch 12, 2010 at 12:25 am

    “We believe in being gentle. ”

    Nothing is as full of pablum as an atheist explaining an amoral morality.

    Morality is not about who I decide to be gentle to. That is a non starter. Thinking man’s morality is about who do we need to be non-gentle to. I think both atheists and theists would claim we should not be gentle to child molesters, murderers, thieves, rapists, etc.

    But morality is not as simple as just that. Its not just about imprisoning the violent. Its about providing positive guidance for youth.

    I am tolerant and gentle to those who choose to lead alternative life styles. Many people limit their sin to their private lives and their sin has limited public effect. But that stops when they choose to advocate their perversions or say that I can not publicly denounce their sin, or worse yet, the state has to officially sanction it and decree it as equal to other lifestyles.

    Making the decision to punish the violent is easy. Making real moral distinctions about what behaviors should be publicly encouraged and what behaviors should be shamed is the difficult part. Dr. Dawkins is a moral wimp. In a cowardly manner he proclaims “good” a consensus viewpoint which only makes a decision about what is easy.

    We don’t kill.

    Ok, good. Now what do you proscribe Dr. Dawkins for the people who have to make real decisions about how they live their lives. What moral instruction do you have Dr. Dawkins? “Be gentle” is no moral principle. It is dodging the issue. It is standing morality on its head and proclaiming tolerance as the only virtue.

    And the disaster waiting to happen is that a society which only thinks of tolerance and does not stand up against moral evil is exactly the kind of morality that allows a whole society to be led astray by the evil.

    Oh, but we don’t have to worry about that. Rationality will save us. There is just no way that following the scientific principles of Darwinism with no moral backing could ever lead an educated nation to commit great evil. Well maybe ein Zeit.

1 2

Leave a Reply