Ask Richard Dawkins About Evolution, Religion, and Science Education 1142
Richard Dawkins is an author and an evolutionary biologist. For 13 years, he held the Simonyi Professorship at the University of Oxford. His 1976 book The Selfish Gene helped popularize the gene-centric view of evolution and coined the word "meme." Several other of his books, including Climbing Mount Improbable, River Out of Eden, and The Greatest Show on Earth have helped to explain aspects of evolution in a way non-scientists can more easily understand. Dawkins is a frequent opponent of creationism and intelligent design, and he generated widespread controversy and debate in 2006 with The God Delusion, a book that subjected common religious beliefs to unyielding scientific scrutiny. He wrote, "One of the truly bad effects of religion is that it teaches us that it is a virtue to be satisfied with not understanding." Most recently, Dawkins wrote The Magic of Reality: How We Know What's Really True, a graphic book that aims to introduce kids to science. He's also recently begun a video series titled "Sex, Death, and the Meaning of Life" about how our world would look without religion. Mr. Dawkins has graciously agreed to answer some questions for us. Post your suggestions in the comments below, but please limit yourself to one question per post. We'll post his responses sometime next week.
Your Favorite Misunderstanding of Your Own Work? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Your Favorite Misunderstanding of Your Own Work (Score:5, Insightful)
How about the religions that are believed by the young earth creationists (which includes all three of the religions you mentioned)? Or the religion that persecuted Galileo? Or the religions which refuse to acknowledge the over whelming evidence in support of evolution? It's nice that the old book has those passages, but it has a lot of passages that people ignore these days, the fact is that a sizable percentage of religious people do reject scientific evidence when it disagrees with their faith. That's not to say everyone who is religious does so, only that it's far more common in people who are heavily religious.
Re: (Score:3)
It all comes down to how one interprets the Bible. One can hardly fault the Bible for giving a worldview that was current at the time it was written. The problems all start when people read it as if it is some direct revelation to us in the 21st century, and ignore all the history from when it was written until now.
Then people also read it as if it is a science textbook, or as if it exists to teach us scientific things. The bible does not claim to be/do any of this.
Re: (Score:3)
Yours, apparently. Proverbs 1:7 actually begins "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge". The context you so duplicitously leave out is that Proverbs is only concerned with moral instruction, and it is really more about relaying the punishment for not obeying its "wisdom".
Re:Your Favorite Misunderstanding of Your Own Work (Score:5, Insightful)
Indirectly, they all do. They are based on the idea that you are supposed to believe in some things, and are not allowed to doubt them. Only then you are virtuous. But, well, that is ignorance.
Every time you hear a religious person complain that Darwin's theories are the work of the devil or somesuch, then they are saying that ignorance is good.
A lot of information is supposed to be kept away from certain groups of people (women, children) to keep them docile. This is considered a good thing, and yes, this *is* valuing ignorance.
Re:Your Favorite Misunderstanding of Your Own Work (Score:4, Insightful)
My bible says "fools despise wisdom and instruction" (Proverbs 1:7). "Doth not wisdom cry? and understanding put forth her voice? She standeth in the top of high places, by the way in the places of the paths. She crieth at the gates, at the entry of the city, at the coming in at the doors. Unto you, O men, I call; and my voice is to the sons of man. O ye simple, understand wisdom: and, ye fools, be ye of an understanding heart."
I think the modern scientific concept of "wisdom" and the religious/biblical meaning of "wisdom" differ greatly.
I don't know Prof. Dawkins, however I'll assume his definition of "wisdom" is along the lines of "being informed by current scientific theories that bear the preponderance of evidence, eschewing concepts for which there is no evidence, while being open to changes as more evidence and better models present themselves."
Unfortunately, the religious definition of "wisdom" typically winds up meaning "is able to quote bible/torah/koran verses verbatim".
The point being, "wisdom" is a very slippery word with a very nebulous definition that changes depending on who you're talking to. Which one do the verses you quote above refer to? Probably depends on who you ask, but I suspect most "experts" in this area would point towards religious wisdom rather than rationality.
Yaz
Re:Your Favorite Misunderstanding of Your Own Work (Score:5, Insightful)
Friend, I consider myself a Christian, but these days, there are so many who have a fundamentalist belief system, and take every word of the Gospel as basic fact without the faintest consideration for context, physics or the nature of the conversations contained in both the Old and New Testaments. That the entire world was flooded when Naoh saved the animals... where did enough water to flood the world come from and where did it go to? The magical thinking is shocking. That the world is thousands of years old and that people lived with the dinosaurs like the Flintstones. These too are beliefs grounded in the same scriptures that you quote, and these good and decent people have given up all rational consideration to instead cling to mysticism and magical thinking. The universe is so vast in size and time and we can see such a precious small slice of that eternity, that is it perfectly appropriate for men of knowledge to probe the mysteries and hold faith in those places for which answers may forever exceed our grasp. I am simply concerned that too many would avoid the light of simple truth, for fear that it would threaten their clockwork belief of God and this universe.
How do you reconcile Georgia Rep. Paul Broun saying in videotaped remarks that evolution, embryology and the Big Bang theory are "lies straight from the pit of hell" meant to convince people that they do not need a savior? Worse, that this man has immediate and direct influence on the future of scientific research in the United States. Do you question his faith, his understanding of his religion, his sect or orthodoxy, his belief or his sanity? I appreciate that there is a critical need for ethicists in the science community, to look at the impact of our growing technological information and how we can best apply our growing understanding to serve the greater interests of humanity. That neither explains or excuses a growing number of people who have turned away from truth and wisdom in the name of religion, or the religious leaders who would have them behave this way. Part of the problem, is that the Bible is a book, most of which was written in a context specific to a rowdy dessert people living in the Sinai Peninsula 5 to 2 millennia ago. The amazing thing is that so much of the human content is so completely valid and appropriate thousands of years later. The prophesies, that are only now coming to pass. Most amazing is the amazing accuracy of the historical content as every year archeologist discover some new dig which validates the descriptions portrayed in the Bible. That said, the book is a gift from God, and even contains the fascinating process by which men gathered the Word and selected from all the Christian writings to come to a place where it was decided this is our religious text. It reflects the strong Jewish influence in the early church, and the desire to keep the early church as close as possible to Jewish faith, so the Gospel of Mary was left out. The most powerful thing about Christianity, has been its spiritual core of Love and Service. As it spread its ability to coop pagan culture and symbols and still pass the core belief along intact and healthy.
Its time for Christians and all other religions that are the children of Abraham, to let go of the dogma. Stop trying to force people to obey your beliefs on threat of death. Its time to honor the Prince of Peace, by really being peaceful.
Re: (Score:3)
My favourite example from the Bible is the Marriage at Cana. The whole water to wine magical stuff which obviously is considered quite a feat. The way I interpret it is an even bigger feat.
In those days and in that culture the newlyweds and their family were expected to throw a world class kegger for anybody who showed up. If it wasn't the party of the century they'd be viewed as
Hitch (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Hitch (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Hitch (Score:5, Funny)
And of course, what is your sexiest memory of Christopher Hitchens? :)
Widespread religion (Score:5, Interesting)
The God Delusion helped me make explicit several inchoate ideas I had about why a belief in a god is not necessary to explain the world around us. Why do you think that so many people around the world still feel the need to rely on a personal god?
Re:Widespread religion (Score:4, Insightful)
Dawkin's books discuss this at length. It comes down to education in logical thinking and taking a scientific, evidence based approach to things. At the same time people try to indoctrinate children with religion before they develop these skills and come to naturally reject it.
My father was indoctrinated as a child and despite being a software engineer and so demonstrably more than capable of logical thinking and understanding he could never abandon Islam. Are people like that beyond help, I wonder.
Re:Widespread religion (Score:5, Interesting)
My father was indoctrinated as a child and despite being a software engineer and so demonstrably more than capable of logical thinking and understanding he could never abandon Islam. Are people like that beyond help, I wonder.
No. I know a man who was raised as an athiest and who swears that God touched him; he's now a Christian. On the other hand, I know another man who was raised in a strict Christian family in Kentucky (Bible Belt) who is now a die-hard athiest. A woman I know was raised as a Catholic and still considers herself a Catholic, yet believes that God doesn't exist (now there's a logical disconnect if I ever saw one).
I would bet that most athiests were raised in religious families. People tend to rebel against their parents and their beliefs at a point in their lives.
Re:Widespread religion (Score:4, Interesting)
My father was indoctrinated as a child and despite being a software engineer and so demonstrably more than capable of logical thinking and understanding he could never abandon Islam. Are people like that beyond help, I wonder.
sounds like a healthy survival instinct. A large portion of western Muslims (30%) believe that apostasy should be punished by death.
While Jehovah's witnesses may annoy you, Scientology and Islam are cults with dangerous followers. Safest not to piss them off.
Re:Widespread religion (Score:5, Interesting)
Atheists today start with the dogma of no God, and then work backwards to find any possibility that such a being does not exist.
No, they don't. Don't be such an asshole.
You are left with either God, or a complete lack of causality
First, you don't need a complete lack of causality, you need a specific lack of causality, which is a huge difference. I know you're using this as a rhetorical device but you really need to be precise here.
That's not a dichotomy at all. Both options are a lack of causality. One has God as a specifically uncaused entity.
You can't have it both ways.
Choosing the uncaused God is having it both ways, so you're basically saying you can't believe in God.
The two actual options are:
1. Infinite regress
2. Uncaused cause
The two options are basically orthogonal to whether you believe in a creator. You could argue for an infinite regress of creators just like an infinite regress of time, and either way it's turtles all the way down. Uncaused cause is popular these days with Christians because it lines up with their religion, and many others because of entropy / arrow of time arguments. There are also some religious and nonreligious arguments for infinite regress.
Neither of those options are particularly satisfying to anybody who thinks about them hard enough, but I've never seen one that I wouldn't classify as one of the above. You could even argue that the infinite regress needs an uncaused meta-cause, collapsing it down to one option.
Good one (Score:5, Interesting)
So why does god get a free pass to come from nothing?
The anthropic principle does not mean what you think it means.
And what, exactly, is your basis for postulating that life is rare?
It's not an explanation. Even if you accept it as one, you still have to explain where god came from.
I'd give your apologetics a 1 out 10. Try harder.
Re:Good one (Score:5, Insightful)
We have yet to find any. It's pretty rare right here in the solar system.
That's pretty egotistical to assume that since we haven't detected it, that it has never existed and still doesn't exist anywhere else in the solar system. It may be in 10 other places in the solar system, for all we know. We aren't exactly accomplished explorers in space.
A certain Discovery channel show I was watching made a really good point that sort of blew my mind. They had a scale model of the solar system that was large enough such that "Neptune" was positioned about a mile from the "sun". In this model, the Earth was about the size of a marble, and the moon was just a little bead on a toothpick. They go through the process of walking down the model measuring distance, and at each planet they would look back at the sun and see how far away everything looks, just to make the point that distances in space are larger than anything we have a reference for. The mind-blowing part was when they pointed out that, out of this entire mile full of planets and moons, that the maximum distance that humans have traveled is those 2 inches between the Earth marble and the moon bead. And you want to sit here and say that, since we haven't found other life in all of our ingenuity and awesomeness, that it must be rare. That's pretty egotistical. Give humanity another 10,000 years of exploration before we start deciding how rare life in the universe is.
Re:Good one (Score:4, Informative)
Indeed. For just our known solar system, these are known, believed or considered to have current liquid water oceans:
* Earth (obviously)
* Europa
* Calysto
* Rhea
* Titania
* Oberon
* Triton
* Pluto
* Eris
* Sedna
* Orca
* Enceladus
* Titan
* Uranus
* Neptune
And liquid water droplet clouds:
* Venus
* Jupiter
* Saturn
And believed to have past liquid water for a non-insignificant length of time:
* Mars
* Venus
* Ceres
* Wild-2 (and thus probably many other comets)
Apart from Earth, how many have we done sufficient analysis on that water? If *any* analysis on? And that's even assuming that life inherently requires water.
We know so damned little even about our own solar system. Heck, we're already finding extrasolars which are believed to have liquid water (in some cases, multiples in a given system), but *good luck* getting a probe out there...
Re:Good one (Score:5, Insightful)
"I find it odd that so many believe without doubt that there is extraterrestrial life despite no indication that there is (note, I think there there probably is, considering how many planets there must be, but accept that this rock may possibly be the only one alive), yet are just as certain that God doesn't exist, despite witnesses to the contrary."
I believe it very likely that extra-terrestrial life exists because i have unambiguous proof that life exists, and I see no reason to think Earth is somehow unique as a harbor for life in the entire huge universe.
I do not believe in god or gods because I have never seen ANY evidence what-so-ever for the existence of ANY god, and thus see no reason to invoke one.
If you can show me unambiguous proof that even one bona fide god exists, I will consider the possibility that other gods, even yours, may exist.
Re: (Score:3)
So how do you define the Anthropic Principle?
I'll let Richard Feynman explain, considering he was able to explain anything better than I possibly could:
You know, the most amazing thing happened to me tonight. I was coming here, on the way to the lecture, and I came in through the parking lot. And you won't believe what happened. I saw a car with the license plate ARW 357. Can you imagine? Of all the millions of license plates in the state, what was the chance that I would see that particular one tonight? Amazing!
The anthropic principle is the observation that the question, "what are the odds the universe would have this particular state" after it already has that state is irrelevant. The odds for any particular lottery number are extremely low, which is why you can't win. However, that doesn't mean some number won't come up every week. And given enough people playing, people win all the time. It doesn't me
Re:Widespread religion (Score:5, Interesting)
Perhaps you should read The Selfish Gene more carefully. Life doesn't "begin" like song on the radio. The idea that life is statistically unlikely is only true if you mean "life as we know it after billions of years of evolution." Which, I agree, would be absurdly unlikely to spring into existence by random combinations in primordial soup.
What happened in the soup was about replicator protien chains. Not life. These chains were behaving no more magically than the letters that clump together in your alphabet soup. But somewhere, in a huge ocean with a density near 6.02 X 10^23 particles per 18 grams, there was a combination of alphabets that was stable, and that attracted "letters" to it, that would create another chain like it on the outside, and with a bit of wave action, split and repeat the process. Still, not life, but a replicator protien that (if you read the book) would one day become life through a gradual series small changes.
If you read the book and understand the basics of organic chemistry, it not only seems plausible, but unavoidable.
____________________
As for the beginning of the universe. Quantum mechanics seems to suggest that the fabric of the universe is inherently unstable, like a 54 inch pant, taped at the ends to a 52 inch ironing board. Every section of flat (void) will evenually be blanced out by a lump (matter). You can push it around, but you can never make it all flat. The universe shares this principal, and all the ironing does is spread out or clump-together the lumps.
Though this may explain why God made sweatpants.
I wasn't there. I'm not old enough to testify that this happened. Today, in the universe that matters, really people are being killed over these non-sense explanations derived from ancient tomes by kind but ignorant people. If you are a philosopher, and aware that these things are not worth murdering children for, then I wish you luck in your quest for the truth. Decent atheists would never want to interfere with your quest. They seem to oppose you only because they're tired of seeing news images of dead children killed by people who assume that it will prove their non-sense is the best non-sense.
Re:Widespread religion (Score:5, Informative)
There is absolutely no relation between thermodynamics laws and the need of an external entity. There is no guarantee that the universe is eternal and not even that it had a beginning, but even if any of these concepts could be proved it wouldn't still imply in the existence of any external factor.
Your limited understanding of physics makes you jump into conclusions that just aren't there. The Anthropic Principle, for example has absolutely no implication regarding the existence of a God.
Oh, and citing Spitzer as a valuable reference is a joke. Spitzer has written nothing of value in his whole career. He is just a mediocre philosopher who naively tries to interpret complex physical theories of which he has absolutely no understanding with the predictable result of reaching absurd conclusions, much like you did here. It is no surprise you like him so much.
Re:Widespread religion (Score:5, Insightful)
If this were true, then something would have had to have created The Creator as well. I posit that the same malfunctioning part of your brain that believes in God has also attempted (poorly) to impose your human interpretation of your surroundings upon the actual functioning of the Universe, thus dumbing down its laws to your level of intellect. In this simplistic view of the Universe (where something all powerful created it, yet is not also subject to having been created by something even more powerful) the existence of God is of course possible, but only because you said so!
In reality, life and death are purely human concepts. Nothing is actually completely destroyed, merely converted to another state. The Universe had no beginning and it will have no end. Using this more general concept of the functioning of the Universe, where we do not impose our beliefs upon it, it is clear that God, in the form of The Creator, does not exist.
Re:Widespread religion (Score:5, Insightful)
Because of the laws of thermodynamics.
The laws of thermodynamics are convenient aren't they? They're so poorly understood by most people that it's easy to claim that things are impossible due to the laws of thermodynamics, even when they aren't, and people have a hard time arguing back. The best part is, you don't really need to understand the laws of thermodynamics yourself in order to claim that they make something impossible.
The universe isn't a perpetual motion machine - it needs something outside itself to come into existence.
A. The universe may, in fact, be a perpetual motion machine. It depends on a number of factors, such as whether or not the laws of conservation of matter and energy are true and exactly how you define motion (for example, do photons move?). Understand that the heat death of the universe does not mean an entire universe at absolute zero, it just means an entire universe in which you can no longer exploit energy to do work.
B. Why would a non-perpetual motion machine need something outside itself to come into existence, and how do you resolve the obvious paradox of how that something itself came into existence?
Something outside of space and time - therefore something immaterial and eternal - and powerful. I'm speaking of space-time itself and even the laws of physics. Particles can't come from a void without physical laws.
It's curious that you say that particles can't come from a void without physical laws. It seems that you're strongly suggesting that whatever the universe arose from is governed by some sort of physical laws. If that's the case, you've just offloaded the mysteries of the universe onto a mysterious extra-universal thing which itself must have some sort of origin governed by some sort of physical laws. This sort of thing either requires an infinite series of creative forces: creator, then meta-creator, meta-meta-creator and so on, or it requires that, somewhere along the chain, something simply came into being or somehow created itself. If you can believe that about some sort of extra-universal creator, then why can't you believe it about the universe itself?
Also, if you need another reason - the anthropic principle. There are not enough sub atomic particles in the universe for there to be a life-possible planet statistically - the numbers will blow your mind if you look at them.
Oh please. We don't have the kind of information to realistically calculate those statistical odds. Even with the size of the universe truly known, depending on your base assumptions, the estimates can be off by hundreds of orders of magnitude. Even if we actually had some clue on those base assumptions, we don't even have any real clue how big the universe is. We are pretty sure that the universe is so big that there are parts of it expanding away from us so fast that the light from them will never reach us though. If the universe actually is infinite, then that means that statistical probabilities of life evolving are meaningless and it simply has to happen somewhere. If it's not infinite, it's still of mind-boggling and unknowable size so we can't realistically ever give the odds of life springing up somewhere. The fact that it sprang up on Earth rather than somewhere else is meaningless statistically. Wherever you go, there you are.
Anyone with an open mind will see that God is really the only rational, logical explanation
What about pantheons of gods? Cosmic eggs? Various kinds of heavenly cow? Flying spaghetti Monsters? Unfathomable cosmic horrors from beyond the gulfs of space and time? Ascended lower life-forms from the far future travelling outside of time to create their own past? The universe being sneezed into existence by the Great Green Arkleseizure? Self-transforming machine elves? It's all just a simulation (hey look, another explanation that just shifts the question to where did the m
Re:Widespread religion (Score:4, Interesting)
I tried searching for these numbers but couldn't find what you're referring to here. Perhaps I wasn't looking in the right corner of the internet.
At any rate, the only way I can see interpreting this claim is if you meant that with a higher density universe there would be more chances for a life-supporting planet to form. With our universe as it is, however, these odds are astronomically (pun?) low.
If this is what you're referring to then I HAVE seen this claim presented before. What's interesting is every time I've seen it presented it's actually been a, relatively, small number. Again, I wasn't able to find the numbers YOU are referring to, but in the past I've faced lines such as, "The chance of a planet being able to support life is literally TENS OF BILLIONS to one!". Well, considering that the Milky Way alone is estimated at 300-400 billion stars and that something such as the Hubble Deep Field can take a picture of a TINY arch of the night sky and find 3000 OTHER galaxies...eventually life is going to happen SOMEWHERE. Why not here?
And by the way, filling in a knowledge void with a wild, off the top of your head, "stop looking now I have the answer" answer is NOT what anyone with an open mind would do. And to clarify it is really that third "stop looking now!" aspect that I really hold issue with. It is OK to say "I don't know"! Many people do it everyday. There are many more everyday who prefer to find a place holder for it. They recognize that there are things they don't, and probably never will, understand and thus find something to plug the wholes with so they can get on with their life. Done responsibly, this is fine. People have their lives to live and it can be complicated enough without staying up wondering what was before there was anything.
However, there ARE others who are looking. They're looking, and solving puzzles, and unraveling mysteries. THESE are the open minded people. The people with no sacred cows. To walk up to these people and say, "Don't worry, you can stop looking. I have a gut feeling on this" is just irresponsible.
If we come to the end of it, the real end of it, and we come up with very real and hard proven data that there is what we call a God* then I will genuflect, pray and then take a leaf from Tim Minchin's book and carve "FANCY THAT!" on the side of my cock.
*I qualify God as such because if we turn out to just be in some sort of cosmic petri dish I don't think I'd call that being a God so much as "the asshole who dropped us in the bucket".
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Dawkins was an amateur compared to Spitzer.
Yes, Spitzer was the genius who proposed that, "...highly motivated gay and lesbian people could change their sexual orientation."
I'm sure he knows more about evolutionary biology than Dawkins [wikipedia.org]
Re:Widespread religion (Score:5, Funny)
Anyone with an open mind will see that God is really the only rational, logical explanation.
Anyone with an open mind will see that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is really the only rational, logical explanation.
FTFY
Re: (Score:3)
God is infinite; no one made Him. He transcends physical laws (indeed, He is the origin of them).
Re:Widespread religion (Score:4, Insightful)
So which is more logical - we live in a universe with a basic set of rules that "just happens to be", or we live in a universe created by an infinitely more complex deity who "just happens to be"?
poss
Occam's Razor, anyone?
Honestly, my view is, the reason for the universe is: "Everything" Existence, yes or no? "Everything". By the anthropic principle, we can only exist in the scenario where the universe exists, so we don't percieve the scenario where it doesn't. What rules to the universe? "Everything". All happen. Any possible scenario where nothing comes into existence to perceive it, it's like it never even happened. We perceive this universe only because it made us.
But hey, if you think a sentient being just happening to exist is simpler than the rule "Everything"....
Democratic society without religion? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Democratic society without religion? (Score:4, Interesting)
Do you believe a democratic society can exist which has no form of religion in its laws, or within government?
I think a better question is, can a democratic society exist with any form of religion in its laws or government?
(I say better as in more practical. I don't think we'll ever see a society without some aspect of religion enshrined into law (considering the cult of personality around a dictator or monarch as a form of religion).)
Re: (Score:3)
Do you believe a democratic society can exist which has no form of religion in its laws, or within government?
They say there's no such thing as a stupid question and I've always said that myself, but you've proven me wrong. It's Richard Dawkins, fergawdsake. Of course he believes a democratic society can exist which has no form of religion in its laws, or within government.
And even though I'm Christian, I would agree with him on this. The US laws aren't religious and the US isn't a Christian nation, or mari
Re:Democratic society without religion? (Score:5, Interesting)
" Atheists seem to be very, very angry at everything even remotely related to a religion "
Tat's becasue you only know of the ones who are very angry. It's a bias, look it up.
I have noticed that even in the most polite conversation atheist get tagged with 'Angry' by people who loose a debate.
" only difference between a fetus and a baby is which end of the vagina you're looking at."
and you would be wrong. Sorry. You probably should let you emotional based bias guide actual science or policy.
" If I even suggest that it shouldn't be legal in a society to reach through that vagina with a knife and a hose to suck out his brain, again, I'm labelled a religious fanatic."
no, the fact that you go to such ridiculous extremes and emotion verbiage to try and make a point is why you get labeled as fanatic.
No that you ego centric bias an even for a moment let you consider that maybe it's you that's the issue.
Re:Democratic society without religion? (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh, that is wonderful. My first child is due next month. You commented on the difference between a just-about-to-be-born fetus and a just-recently-born baby; would you also comment on the difference between a blastocyst and a baby? In my experience as an expectant father, there seems to be a big difference between a blastocyst and a near-term fetus, so there must be an even bigger one compared to a fully born baby. For me, the important distinction is that when it's inside a woman, it's part of the woman, literally and figuratively and legally; and women are empowered to do as they choose with their bodies.
It's not really a religious issue, though, from my perspective -- not for Christians anyway. The Bible defines life as beginning with breath [biblegateway.com], while tattoos are explicitly prohibited [bible.cc]. It's not clear to me why Christians get so bothered about abortion, which is not prohibited in their holy book, but never seem to spend much energy picketing tattoo parlors.
Re:Democratic society without religion? (Score:5, Insightful)
"why do you think you can twist what the bible says?"
Why do I think I can? Hardly, I'm sure that I can twist what the Bible says! I mean, I'm not as good at it as Christians are, but at least I can try. It's really hard for Christians to turn "love your neighbor" into "hate fags", but they manage to do it. The real underlying point is that if you can twist a text into either of two opposite conclusions, then you can simply skip the text in the first place and focus on the actual issue without all the religious nonsense clouding things.
Re: (Score:3)
Not specifically answering the parent.
What about the time that Scott Peterson was charged with double homicide (as a special circumstance) because Lacy was pregnant and yet an abortion is NOT murder? What is the difference between a late term abortion and an early preemie? (the love of the mother). What do you do to stop the aborted "fetus" from crying?
In what nightmare do you want us to live, where the lives of tiny children can be snuffed out for the convenience of those that are too stupid to properly
Re: (Score:3)
Being chosen, as the Jews might tell you, does not always mean privileged. You can be chosen to become King of a tribe, which is a great honor until you become a sacrifice when the rains don't come.
In short, with the Jews it is much is given to those of which much is expected. When they obeyed God, they got loot. When they strayed, they got smitten.
Christians, one way of the other, are not that type of Chosen people. Jesus specifically stated that there was an old covenant and an new one. You still hav
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Setting aside any other issues:
What is the essential moral difference between killing someone outright and giving them a minute chance of living? Is any amount of wasteful expenditure justifiable? It is doubtful that any artificial gestational environment would be perfect, or that the transition would be without trauma. How are you on the possibility of condemning a person to a wide spectrum of disorders? [sciencedaily.com]
Re:Democratic society without religion? (Score:4, Informative)
I once proposed here that not having sex is a pretty good way to stay clear of HIV and was immediately bashed as a religious zealot.
Because you are proposing abstinence, a religious concept that goes against human nature and anecdotally seems to lead to priests becoming dangerous perverts.
If I even suggest that it shouldn't be legal in a society to reach through that vagina with a knife and a hose to suck out his brain, again, I'm labelled a religious fanatic.
Because
a) You are proposing to force your beliefs on others through the law
b) Your point of view appears to be based on your emotional reaction to your son and other unknown biases, rather than any kind of rational or scientific argument about the nature of the foetus.
c) You are clearly quite emotional about this issue, judging by the language you use. Again, not a rational or considered argument.
Re:Democratic society without religion? (Score:5, Insightful)
I once proposed here that not having sex is a pretty good way to stay clear of HIV and was immediately bashed as a religious zealot.
I'm not religious and I have no problem with that sentence as stated, although in a different context I'd probably assume it's a joke, due to impracticality of asking people not to have sex. What was the context? Were you promoting teaching abstinence instead of teaching safe sex?
The reason that abstinence is labelled as the strategy proposed by religious fanatics is because it doesn't work. It's not that being abstinent won't make you safe from STDs, it's that teaching abstinence doesn't actually make teens abstinent.
I'm perfectly fine with teaching kids to wait until they're ready, just so long as you also teach them to have safe sex once they decide to stop waiting.
Re: (Score:3)
Turkey and India are secular? bwahahaha. Compared to the US even? Bwahahahaha. France, I would agree with.
I am not a Turk... but I've spoken with a few...
My impression is that Turkey used to have a a very strong belief in the separation of church and state, and they took it far more seriously than the U.S. politicians do. Religion was seen as personal, and had no place in politics and government. Turkey used to be a good example of a reasonably of a a mostly Muslim country that was reasonably progressive and democratic.
However, my understanding is that there's been a bit of religion that has been slowly seepi
What do you think of the currentuse of "meme"? (Score:3, Interesting)
Thank you very much in advance for taking your time to answer my questions.
Re: (Score:2)
And how do you pronounce it yourself?
It's pronounced "meem". That's the only way I've ever heard it pronounced, and even by Dawkins himself.
Re: (Score:3)
DNA Methylation (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
If there are two genes, identical in terms of base pairs but with some form of activation that makes them express differently, and that difference is inheritable, then I would contend that they are, in fact, two different genes for the purposes of evolution. Genes, after all, were a concept that was understood well before the structure of DNA was understood or even before DNA was discovered. We decided that genes meant particular sequences of DNA due to better understanding of DNA. With even greater underst
Predisposition to non-scientific beliefs (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Given that it took us many years to come up with the scientific method, I'm pretty sure that would be a yes.
Considering that your response lacks anything so much as resembling a tribute to the scientific method, I'm inclined to agree... But will abstain for lack of proper experimentation :P
Re:Predisposition to non-scientific beliefs (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
In contrast it's harder to self-administer the placebo effect if you're a 100% strict atheist. So even if God doesn't exist, if the placebo effect exists, it could be evolutionary advantageous to believe in at least one God (and a helpful one
And to the people who think the answer
Can a society with no religion exist? (Score:5, Interesting)
Gallup poll (Score:4, Interesting)
In a recent Gallup poll it has been shown that there has been no change in 30 years of Americans accepting evolution as truth. What do you think are the major factors for this?
Re:Gallup poll (Score:4, Interesting)
In a recent Gallup poll it has been shown that there has been no change in 30 years of Americans accepting evolution as truth. What do you think are the major factors for this?
At the same time, it's now OK to be an atheist in the US [pewforum.org]. What does Dawkins think of it ?
How to argue against fiction (Score:5, Interesting)
Religion separable from mystical states? (Score:3)
While the theological propositions of most religions are laughable, the empirical neurophysiological techniques for the induction of mystical states can be quite useful as a means of inducing subjective feelings of happiness, satisfaction and stress relief. If "mystical" state induction techniques (e.g. breathing, sustained attention) were generalized, codified and distributed widely, do you think that these would work against religious organizations and their more deplorable behaviors? Religious history suggests this, as almost every religious organization eventually suppresses the actual practice of inducing mystical states.
Re: (Score:3)
Which god? There are so many of them. I don't have time and resources to hate each of them, so to be fair, I decided to just ignore them all.
The Altered Route of a Scientist? (Score:3)
Interacion (Score:2)
Historically entrenched Mysticism has reacted poorly to the thoughts of Scientific minds.
Do you think there might be better ways to approach this communication that would improve the rate of Scientific progress and do you think that this interaction might be amenable to Scientific study?
Do you also feel that this debate that rages between those that would manipulate mysticism to gain power over others and Science can ever be won or is it a battle that must be fought for every succeeding generation?
A lot of effort (Score:5, Interesting)
Circumcision (Score:3, Interesting)
Kind of an oddball question for you - What are your thoughts on circumcision? The reason I ask is because, according to the World Health Organization, about 30% of males on the planet are circumcised and 70% of those are Muslim. It appears that the decision to circumcise is heavily influenced by religious beliefs, but the WHO also states that circumcision helps reduce the risk of contracting and spreading sexually transmitted diseases. Christopher Hitchens, a man who I loved and respected, thought it was a barbaric practice. Being another person I love and respect, I would like to hear your thoughts on the subject.
Cognitive Dissonance (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
The Münchhausen Trilemma says that we will never ever achieve absolute certainty. Which is what makes the scientific method so utterly unattractive to people who live comfortably with dogma. Which offers certainty by default.
La
Selective advantage of religion (Score:5, Interesting)
Given that religion is present in every society, and by far the norm in almost every society, it stands to reason that we are genetically disposed to be religious. That would imply that religion has some evolutionary benefits.
Do you agree? If not, why not? If so, what are those benefits, and how can they be provided by a fully secular society?
religion built-in? (Score:2)
Being a Symbol (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Being a Symbol (Score:5, Insightful)
in others you're quoted without question like a religious prophet.
When does this actually happen? I see the assertion a lot, but I've never seen it happen.
Re: (Score:3)
You know that in the [bible.cc] source [bible.cc] document, [bible.cc] the term "antichrist" just meant anyone who denied Christ, right? "Anti-" like anticlockwise or antifreeze, or antidisestablishmentarianism. Dunno why you guys need to demonize anyone.
Anyone who ascribes religious fervor to someone quoting Dawkins is projecting. There are more things in Heaven and Earth, Horatio...
The carrot or the stick? (Score:4, Interesting)
Hi Professor Dawkins and thanks for offering to answer some of our questions.
In the past, some science educators (Dr. Tyson for example) have criticised what they perceived to be your overuse of the stick in promoting rationalism and fact-based decision making where they considered the carrot to be a better tool. There is some evidence that simply stating the facts may actually be counter-productive: http://www.dartmouth.edu/~nyhan/nyhan-reifler.pdf [dartmouth.edu]
Would you mind talking about the efficacy of both approaches to the greater understanding of the value of fact-based decision making?
Re: (Score:2)
Is it genetic? (Score:2)
Environmentalism/global warming? (Score:3)
You have spent a lot of time debunking religion and thinking about how to think rationally - something that I have come to appreciate immensely. I'm curious what your take on climate change/global warming is. Is it happening? What does it mean for it to be happening? Is it caused by humans? It would be rather ironic if I were simply asking you so I could then take your word for it and believe whatever you say, so I'm curious about your thought processes as well. Contrary to the "there is no debate; the scientific community 100% agrees on this issue and the only ones who disagree are funded by oil companies" line the pro-global-warming crowd says, I see much evidence [middlebury.net] that not all scientists agree, and not all the ones that disagree have hideous ulterior motives. Further, I see similarities between the religious preachings of doomsday scenarios and the claims that the world is going to explode soon unless we do something right now.
How can I separate the BS claims and the politicization of the issue from what the factual data actually is?
Re: (Score:3)
He is an evolutionary biologist, and a climatologist.
So, ask the experts. Well, you don't need to ask becasue scientific consensus among the experts clearly say yes, it is real, and yes we are the cause for temperature changes on top of normal cycles.
No one else has presented in credible argument to the contrary in decades.
"How can I separate the BS claims and the politicization of the issue from what the factual data actually is?"
Read the data and not the media reports? Try to remember the the media makes
The Flock (Score:2, Interesting)
Teaching the Documentary Hypothesis (Score:5, Interesting)
The Bits and Bytes of Memes? (Score:5, Interesting)
Interaction with Christians Evolutionists (Score:5, Interesting)
what about educated believers? (Score:3, Interesting)
I am a christian catholic. I do not go to the church very often, but I pray every single day.
As an educated believer and a scientist, I know that evolution is a fact and intelligent design is such a stupidity that it doesn't even need to be debated. To be very clear, if I would know *for sure* that only one of the following sentence is true:
(a) God exists
(b) evolution exists
then I would immediately abandon my religion. Still, I believe both exists, although for (a) I cannot have a proof.
Is there a place for people like me, in your view of a "good" society?
reductio ad deum (Score:5, Interesting)
Rational arguments with religious people. (Score:5, Interesting)
Fictional doctor House M.D. is famously quoted as saying, "If you could reason with religious people, there would be no religious people." Is this your experience? If religious people are immune to rational arguments, how do we have a productive discussion with them? How do you impress on a religious person the importance of evidence and reason?
Re:Rational arguments with religious people. (Score:5, Insightful)
That's unfortunate. Because a critical thinker is likely not to stop at religion, but think critically about all of our institutions. Once you do that, you see that essentially everything mainstream society values is worthless at best, and most likely fraudulent. This leads to marginalization and unhappiness.
It's not that there's anything inherently depressing about thinking critically. It's that the society we live in can only be tolerated with large amounts of self-delusion.
Comment removed (Score:3)
Can't agree with Dr Dawkins on this (Score:3)
"One of the truly bad effects of religion is that it teaches us that it is a virtue to be satisfied with not understanding."
Religion is a system that takes advantage of people not being satisfied with not understanding. It scratches that itch by giving its adherents a false understanding of the world.
No one in the real world can understand everything, so to not be comfortable accepting not understanding a good share of reality is folly.
Different Strategies of Persuasion? (Score:5, Interesting)
My wife and I attended the Reason Rally [reasonrally.org] on the National Mall this year, which was billed as a positive expression of non-theistic secular thought. We met many wonderful people there and were truly inspired by Adam Savage's [youtube.com] incredibly positive and inspiring speech on the wonders of science, Nate Phelps [latimes.com] remarkably eloquent denunciation of his father's Westboro Baptist Church, and your own speech [youtube.com] highlighting the absurdity of having to hold such a rally at all; however, I we were also incredibly put off by vitriol on display by so many other speakers who were entirely focused on the evils of religion rather than the good science and rationality brings to civilized life. We ended up leaving the rally in the middle of PZ Meyer's speech because we found it so distressing in its Rush Limbaugh-esque tone.
It bothers me that so many of us define ourselves by what we don't believe rather than what we do [ideonexus.com]. As Carolyn Porco elucidated so concisely at a talk you were involved in, I am not an atheist, I am a scientist [youtube.com]. Like Carl Sagan [goodreads.com], I get a profound sense of spirituality from science that I want to desperately for everyone in the world to open their own eyes and discover.
My attempts to get people to read your book The God Delusion [wikipedia.org] were met with strong resistance, people were very turned off to its tone, but those same individuals loved your book The Magic of Reality [wikipedia.org]. As someone who has pursued both the strategy of being highly critical of religion in one work, while apparently softening that criticism in your latter work in exchange for focusing on the wonders of the natural world, could you speak to pros and cons of these different strategies of persuasion, not just in your own work but in the efforts of others like Adam Savage and PZ Meyers?
Thank you so much for your taking the time to interact with us on /.! This really is an exciting development and an honor.
Naturalism, Agnosticism, and Atheism (Score:3)
You've been described as a 'militant atheist', but do you consider yourself to be certainly atheist or rather technically agnostic, in the same sense that Bertrand Russell described himself as in his essay "Am I Atheist or Agnostic?"
Gender equality (Score:4, Insightful)
How serious of a problem do you think gender inequality is in the scientific academic world? What would you do to correct it?
Follow up:
You caught a lot of heat for the "Dear Muslima" episode last year. Do you feel you were misinterpreted or misrepresented? Is there anything you regret or would have said differently in retrospect?
Nowak et al and the Extended Phenotype (Score:3)
Teaching evolution and science to young children (Score:3)
I cannot stop religion-related things from coming to my children ears. Even though they are not baptised, some teachers, grandmothers, etc. _will_ talk about god and will do so without appropriate distance to the matter. I do not want to force my kids to "believe" in science or evolution, but I would love to balance what they will learn about god with what _I_ and my wife consider truth and I would love my kids to respect science and think critically. Do You have any insights about raising children to be like that?
Also, You have written in God Delusion that if just one person is "cured" of religious faith (I don't remember the exact phrasing), You will consider the book successful. Well, Selfish Gene and Extended Phenotype were more eye-opening for me, but I'd like to thank You for all of them :-) They surely cured me.
Being an "anti-religion scientist" (Score:4, Interesting)
Lalla Ward (Score:3)
How cool is it being married to Dr. Who's companion, the Time Lady Romana?
Do you think finding life outside of earth (Score:3)
Evolution of intelligent life (Score:3)
Re:Why do you deny God? (Score:4, Insightful)
Great question! We should ask him if he's jealous of Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny as well!
Re: (Score:2)
Is it because you are jealous of Him?
Being jelous of an entity that doesn't exist would be difficult at best. I think Dawkins is above such oddly conflicting and confusing opinions.
Re:AC from work (Score:5, Insightful)
Isn't it the case that anything could have unforeseen consequences? Related to this, if that avoiding unforeseen consequences were a requirement, how would you show that something does not have any unforeseen consequences?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
There is nothing to be gained to compromise on that.
There are three enemies of knowledge:
Circular reasoning. Regressive argument. Dogma.
You chose yours. And I'm offended by your lazy choice. Regressive argument is ours. At least we get closer to knowledge whereas you are stumped by something as simple as evolution.
Re: (Score:3)
If Evolutionary Theory disappeared however, you'd lose antibiotics, vaccines, ins