Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Dawkins Down Under

Categories
Atheism
Philosophy
Religion
Share
Facebook
Twitter/X
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

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?

 

 

 

Comments
Can we not design our society, which has the sort of morality, the sort of society that we want to live in...? Absolutely. Dawkins’ model worked eminently well for Adolf Eichmann; why not for the rest of us too?SteveB
March 9, 2010
March
03
Mar
9
09
2010
05:57 AM
5
05
57
AM
PDT
Nice to see Richard admit that he’s at war with religion. Big Science has been at war with religion for over a century now, but the wolf has always worn sheep’s clothing. Darwin knew better than to attack religion head-on because then it would have become obvious that his theory was not purely disinterested science but was animated at least in part by an animus against religion. So too all of the leading voices of Big Science in the last century were very cautious about religion. They wanted to appeal to their base, but they knew they had to win the minds and hearts of enough people of religious persuasion to maintain their cultural hegemony. Gould even went so far as to propose separate magisteria for science and religion—a promise that he himself could not resist breaking. With Dawkinsharrismyers, this conciliatory feint comes to a close. The enemies of religion in Big Science feel a need to shed their sheep’s clothing and bare their teeth because their hegemony is in peril. The self-evident fact of design and the complexity of life expose the barrenness of Darwin’s theory, leaving them with no choice but to become more openly aggressive in the hope of saving their once-glorious empire. Cultural change is causing Richard to become less and less cautious about allowing his real self be seen. The Age of Science loses its ability to maneuver rhetorically and enters its end-game.allanius
March 9, 2010
March
03
Mar
9
09
2010
04:46 AM
4
04
46
AM
PDT
Dawkins :"Nobody would ever say, “Because I’m an atheist I’m going to kill somebody." Has he never studied history? What about Pol Pot? Was he not an atheist that killed people for opposing his views? If Dawkin was american, I could forgive him for not knowing France history and the massacre done by the Jacobins (the reign of terror) in the name of Atheism. Atheism as an ideology is responsible for the death of more people in the 20th century that all religions all together. Dawkin is in complete denial.Kyrilluk
March 9, 2010
March
03
Mar
9
09
2010
04:15 AM
4
04
15
AM
PDT
1 2

Leave a Reply