Sunday, July 5, 2009 | Reason : Interviews | print version

Print | Comments |

Interview with Richard Dawkins in Brazil - June 27

by Roberta Jansen - Brazilian newspaper O Globo

Thanks to Layla for the link and translation.

http://oglobo.globo.com/blogs/prosa/posts/2009/06/27/richard-dawkins-um-devoto-do-ateismo-199515.asp

Na esteira do recrudescimento do criacionismo e da propagação das ideias do design inteligente nos Estados Unidos e na Europa, um outro movimento cresceu e apareceu em todo o mundo capitaneado pelo biólogo Richard Dawkins, um dos mais proeminentes evolucionistas da atualidade: o novo ateísmo.

Trata-se de uma defesa ferrenha da ciência e da razão em oposição a toda e qualquer religião, a todo e qualquer deus — e Dawkins é debochado o suficiente para falar em Thor e Apolo. O debate chega por aqui com o próprio Dawkins, um dos grandes nomes da 7 Festa Literária Internacional de Paraty (Flip), que começa na próxima quarta-feira. E, não por acaso, no ano em que se comemoram os 150 anos da publicação de “A origem das espécies”, obra na qual Charles Darwin divulgou para o mundo a Teoria da Evolução — que alteraria para sempre a História ao separar a ciência da religião.
...
Continue reading in Portuguese
http://oglobo.globo.com/blogs/prosa/posts/2009/06/27/richard-dawkins-um-devoto-do-ateismo-199515.asp

A devotee of atheism

by Roberta Jansen

In the wake of the upsurge of creationism and the propagation of intelligent design in the United States and Europe, another movement has appeared and begun to grow around the world, led by the biologist Richard Dawkins, one of today’s most prominent evolutionists: the New Atheism.

It is a very strong defense of science and reason in opposition to any and all religion, to any and all gods – and Dawkins is sardonic enough to speak of Thor and Apollo. The debate arrives here with Dawkins himself, one of the big names at the 7th International Literary Festival of Paraty (Flip), which begins next Wednesday. And, not by chance, this is the year commemorating 150 years since the publication of The Origin of Species, the work in which Charles Darwin told the world about the theory of evolution, which would change history forever by separating science from religion.

Responsible for campaigns such as the one covering buses in London and New York with phrases like “God probably doesn’t exist,” Dawkins has a discussion scheduled for next Thursday at 7 PM with the journalist Silio Boccanera on the topic “Deus, um delirio (The God Delusion)” (the title of the book, published in Brazil by Companhia das Letras in 2007) . The debate promises to be polemical. A practicing atheist, and one of the most committed, the biologist throws out, without blinking, remarks like “the Bible is a horrible book,” “I think that much of the evil in the world comes from religion,” and even “Believing in something without evidence is very pernicious.”

In this interview with The Globe, given in Pirenópolis, in the state of Goiás, where he is attending the annual meeting of the Animal Behavior Society, Dawkins spoke about his atheism in action, about the latest news from Iran, and about Darwin and evolution.

At Flip, the biologist launches A grande história da evolução — Na trilha dos nossos ancestrais (The Ancestor’s Tale), originally published in 2004. The work is a kind of encyclopedia of evolution, which takes humans, going through all their ancestors to the beginning of life. Along the way, Dawkins explains the principal points of Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution:

“I have dedicated myself to atheism, but I return to science in this book,” he says.

In Paraty, the topic of your appearance is The God Delusion. What do you expect the response to be from the audience in Brazil, which, as you know, is the largest Catholic country in the world and notable for its syncretism with African religions?

Richard Dawkins: My experience in the United States is that, even in a very religious country, there are also many people who do not have a religion, who are atheists and who are poorly represented, who don’t have a voice. One of the effects of my books and of my lectures has been to give a voice to these people, to let them speak. Perhaps the same will be true in Brazil, we’ll see.

After the publication of The God Delusion you dedicated yourself to the cause of atheism. Your new book, to be launched worldwide in September, The Greatest Show on Earth, continues the attack on creationism in being dedicated to presenting evidence for the theory of evolution. Why all this dedication?

Dawkins: The God Delusion is an attack on religion. The Greatest Show on Earth is an attack on creationism. It is true that I have dedicated myself a lot to atheism, but I return to science in this book. The same with The Ancestor’s Tale – they are scientific books about evolution, not religion.

Yes, but you have dedicated yourself enormously to the defense of atheism, with websites and debates. And offering scientific evidence for evolution contributes directly to this debate, knocking down religious arguments.

Dawkins: Yes, you’re right. This has to do with the search for truth, and I am always concerned with that when possible. I think that much of the evil in the world comes from religion. Believing in something without evidence is very pernicious.

Some of your critics say that you are as radical as the people you fight against. Even some evolutionists say that, in taking this path, you are giving ammunition to the enemy. How do you respond to these critics?

Dawkins: I don’t believe that there is anything wrong in being radical in seeking the truth. I seek scientific evidence. I seek evidence in order to explain why the universe is as it is – that is something that interests me. Some of these accusations can be explained by political matters. But I’m not interested in politics. Furthermore, I don’t abuse people. Anyone who has read The God Delusion knows that it’s a funny book. Very different from the Bible, which is a horrible book. As an atheist, I like to encourage people to read the Bible to see just how horrible it is.

God never had as much publishing appeal as you, Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens have had since the beginning of your crusade for atheism. Do you think this is good or bad?

Dawkins: It’s true, our books have sold very well. There is something in the opposition to God that sells well. And there have been at least 20 books published that have attempted to respond to my book. There is an industry on the religious side that was stirred up by the publicity. I don’t know if that’s good or bad. I believe that everybody has the right to publish books, I don’t know if they are good or if they sell well.

Some critics have also said that the New Atheism, as this movement is called, is a religion. A religion without a formal God but, even so, a religion replete with icons.

Dawkins: We don’t believe in God, the same way that people don’t believe in fairies. There’s a whole series of things we don’t believe in. We don’t need to create a religion for things in which we don’t believe. I don’t believe in Apollo, Thor, or any other god. I believe in science, in rationality, in a way of looking at the world that clearly works, that can be proven scientifically.

Charles Darwin’s The Origin of Species was published in 1859. Since then, evolution has been accepted as a fact by all scientists. Even so, millions of people all over the world continue to question its truth. Why? What is so powerful in the arguments of creationists and intelligent design proponents?

Dawkins: The ignorance of the population. Which is not a crime. People, in general, don’t know anything about evolution. If you look at the educational system in most countries, you’ll see that it is very bad. So people are against something they don’t know anything about.

Is this why you decided to write The Greatest Show on Earth? To offer those answers?

Dawkins: Yes, that is why I decided to write about the evidence for evolution. And the book is written for laypeople, in a style that I think is very interesting and fun.

In the new book, you explain the importance of the fossil record and how molecular biology and genetics confirm Darwin’s theory. But one of the religious fundamentalists’ favorite arguments for attacking evolution is the origin of life. They argue that science has not succeeded in reproducing this event yet. Recently, a study came very close to creating parts of RNA, but not life itself. How do you respond to this in your new book?

Dawkins: The origin of life is the starting point, not the same thing as evolution. And it is not a very common phenomenon. In truth it is a very rare, improbable event, which happened once in 4 billion years. Something that might have happened only once in the entire universe – we don’t know yet, but if the advent of life were so common, we probably would have already discovered something or been discovered. It’s a common argument, but I think it’s very silly. It’s the God of the gaps: when they can’t explain something, they say that it was God. But then they still have to explain God.

Human groups in whatever time or place, in completely isolated areas, always have some type of faith in the supernatural. Do you believe that faith has a genetic basis? That it’s a product of evolution?

Dawkins: Yes, I do. Probably not directly. I think that human beings have a psychological predisposition for religious faith and that this must have a genetic basis. And that people, under certain conditions, develop religions because, in some way, they help them to survive.

In the last few thousand years religion has, directly or indirectly, been the cause of many different wars and atrocities. How do you see what is happening now in Iran?

Dawkins: My Iranian friends think that what is happening now is symptomatic of a revolt against Islam which oppresses women and forces people to live under a theocracy. There is intelligence in Iran far away from mullahs and ayatollahs.

Many of your critics recall that atheists, in secular states, have also committed great atrocities, as in some communist regimes. Are such atrocities linked to religion or just to human nature?

Dawkins: It’s not just human nature. You are probably thinking of Stalin, who developed a kind of atheist, totalitarian, Marxist religion. But he was not motivated by atheism, which is very different. Crusaders were motivated by religion. The September 11th hijackers were motivated by religion. The wars in the Middle East as well. So were many of the wars in Europe, but not all, not the First and Second World Wars. There is a logical path that leads from religious faith to very bad things like violence and wars. And this is logical when we accept the premise that we are dealing with the will of God. For the hijackers of September 11, that was good logic. I do not think that there is a logical path from atheism to such atrocities.

What are you doing in Pirenópolis?

Dawkins: I am participating in the annual conference of the Animal Behavior Society, which is paying tribute to me. It’s the first meeting of the Society in Latin America. I am very honored to be so recognized and so I accepted the invitation to come. And my editor kindly convinced me to go to Paraty, also.

Posted: Sunday, July 5, 2009 | Permalink

Comments 1 - 50 of 121 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #393598 by Mbee on July 5, 2009 at 4:32 pm

Thanks for posting. Good to see that that Richard is taking the facts to all corners of the world. The more that the general population see others not believing in god and speaking about it the more likely it is that they will start to wonder themselves.
Education is key.

Other Comments by Mbee

2. Comment #393600 by Red Devil on July 5, 2009 at 4:42 pm

Yep, Dawkins is spreading the gospel.

Other Comments by Red Devil

3. Comment #393606 by SmartLX on July 5, 2009 at 5:07 pm

Eughh, enough with the religious terminology Red. It's annoying enough when journalists apply words like "gospel" and "evangelist" to Dawkins, thinking they're clever and original.

That said, I agree with you.

Other Comments by SmartLX

4. Comment #393612 by Red Devil on July 5, 2009 at 5:28 pm

And, what about that New Atheist thing? That was the trigger.

...another movement has appeared and begun to grow around the world, led by the biologist Richard Dawkins, one of today’s most prominent evolutionists: the New Atheism.
...It is a very strong defense of science and reason in opposition to any and all religion, to any and all gods

I don't know if Dawkins does this at all. I think he only opposes the labbeling of children and the interference of religious dogma in science and other sensible issues. It's not like he's throwing the lions to religious people...

Other Comments by Red Devil

5. Comment #393626 by Dr. Hameer on July 5, 2009 at 6:24 pm

Many of your critics recall that atheists, in secular states, have also committed great atrocities, as in some communist regimes. Are such atrocities linked to religion or just to human nature?

Dawkins: It’s not just human nature. You are probably thinking of Stalin, who developed a kind of atheist, totalitarian, Marxist religion. But he was not motivated by atheism, which is very different. Crusaders were motivated by religion. The September 11th hijackers were motivated by religion. The wars in the Middle East as well. So were many of the wars in Europe, but not all, not the First and Second World Wars. There is a logical path that leads from religious faith to very bad things like violence and wars. And this is logical when we accept the premise that we are dealing with the will of God. For the hijackers of September 11, that was good logic. I do not think that there is a logical path from atheism to such atrocities.

Saying atheism cannot lead to violence is naive at best. What's to stop a fervent atheist (and there are loads of them!) from having strong disdain of religious people (something they already do)? What's to stop that disdain leading to intolerance and hatred? Nothing. How can Dawkins be 100% sure that the horrors of Stalin, Marx and Pol Pot were not motivated by their atheistic drive to rid the world of religion? He can't. This is the atheist's delusion.

Other Comments by Dr. Hameer

6. Comment #393627 by Red Devil on July 5, 2009 at 6:31 pm

Because Guys like Stalin and Pol Pot (Marx was only an intellectual that lived in poverty)... were in the business of Political Power. And to achieve that... they had to eliminate the other power... Religion. If an atheist league was the dominant power... Bishops would be Stalin advisors...

Other Comments by Red Devil

7. Comment #393628 by critica on July 5, 2009 at 6:31 pm

I do not think that there is a logical path from atheism to such atrocities.

It's not just religion, it's ideology of any sort which does not submit to the arguments of reason. I think this is one of the fundamental tenents active rationalists need to have their focus on. Well said.

Other Comments by critica

8. Comment #393629 by Squigit on July 5, 2009 at 6:38 pm

Guys, the statement reads: "I do not THINK there is a LOGICAL path...." not: "Atheists don't commit such atrocites"

And in those cases, the atrocites were a result of religion: self(ruler) worship. Religion does not require a supernatural being/entity for worship for it to be considered a religion. The line of reasoning is that there aren't any KNOWN (atleast not to me) cases of people commiting horrible acts IN THE NAME of atheism...someone kills someone and the killer happens to be an atheist does not mean he did it BECAUSE he is an atheist..on the other hand, a man who kills a doctor who provides abortions who also happens to be a theist, later declares that he did it for God, did kill BECAUSE he is a theist...

Other Comments by Squigit

9. Comment #393631 by Goldy on July 5, 2009 at 6:50 pm

Saying atheism cannot lead to violence is naive at best. What's to stop a fervent atheist (and there are loads of them!) from having strong disdain of religious people (something they already do)? What's to stop that disdain leading to intolerance and hatred? Nothing. How can Dawkins be 100% sure that the horrors of Stalin, Marx and Pol Pot were not motivated by their atheistic drive to rid the world of religion? He can't. This is the atheist's delusion.

Only Marx was motivated to rid the world of religion and if i recall correctly he didn't kill anyone - merely wrote a manifesto outlining his thoughts. The other two, as history has noted, didn't care so much about world religon as they cared about holding on to power and being gods themselves.
As Dawkins says, there's no LOGICAL (I capitalised so the religious can understand) reason to commit atrocities. As religion isn't logical, there's more scope to commit atrocities.

Other Comments by Goldy

10. Comment #393632 by prolibertas on July 5, 2009 at 7:23 pm

All the 'new atheism' really is, is anti-dogmatism. Stalinism was just another manifestation of dogmatism, so not only is it the case that we shouldn't have to answer for it, but it is representative of the very thing that we are arguing against in the first place. Even if an atheist did do something bad 'because of atheism', that would just make them a dogmatist as well, and so they would still be on the opposing side in this debate. Religion just happens to be another manifestation of dogmatism, and so we argue against that as well.

But so long as we are true to the anti-dogmatist definition of 'new atheism', we can never be 'as bad as the people we target', unless someone wants to argue that the criticism of dogmatism is, itself, a manifestation of dogmatism (in which case, our critics would also be dogmatists, in criticising our dogmatism) Good luck with that one!

Other Comments by prolibertas

11. Comment #393633 by Cartomancer on July 5, 2009 at 7:32 pm

Actually, I find the "well Stalin and Mao and Pol Pot did their crimes because they were atheists" fallacy part of a distressingly common mode of antithetical thinking. Such people assume that because someone does not believe in something or do something they are therefore violently opposed to it - as if there were no middle ground at all and everything were a black and white choice between outright support and outright hostility.

Another area this comes up in is homophobia. There are plenty of deluded people out there who assume that because someone is a homosexual they are therefore intrinsically opposed to heterosexual behaviour, and if allowed to will try to stop it happening. These are the sorts of people who argue that the species will die out if we accept gay people in our societies. They also tend to assume that they themselves have to be opposed to homosexuality simply because they are heterosexual - and stare blank-faced when they encounter heterosexuals who are not homophobic.

Both fallacies are very stupid. It would be equivalent to thinking that just because you don't eat cheese you are, necessarily, determined to have all cheese banned forever, or because you don't listen to classical music you therefore think everyone who plays in an orchestra should be rounded up and shot.

Other Comments by Cartomancer

12. Comment #393635 by Cartomancer on July 5, 2009 at 7:43 pm

Furthermore, even if someone IS vehemently opposed to something, that in no way means they will be violent in acting on that opposition. I am vehemently anti-smoking, but neither I nor anyone else who is vehemently anti-smoking would go around murdering smokers, blowing up cigarette company offices or founding death camps for unrepentant neighbourhood tobacconists.

To be violent in one's actions two conditions must apply - the opposition one feels must be strong enough, and one must be convinced that violence is the right way to go about expressing that opposition. Religion can convince an individual that both of these conditions are fulfilled quite easily, because it overrides the normal modes of rational thought that people use to determine the issue. "god says it's right", "The pope says it's justified", "our scriptures tell us it is an abomination".

Atheism, on the other hand, provides no such thing on either count. It certainly doesn't affect people's attitudes towards the use of violence, and it doesn't even make people opposed to religion per se - there are plenty of atheists who just don't care about the evils of religion and get on with life regardless.

Other Comments by Cartomancer

13. Comment #393638 by mordacious1 on July 5, 2009 at 8:49 pm

I hope Richard has brushed up on his Spanish before his trip to Brazil, as Richard Feynman is said to have done.

Other Comments by mordacious1

14. Comment #393640 by Hellene on July 5, 2009 at 9:05 pm

5. Comment #393626 by Dr. Hameer

Stalin, Pol-pot, Mao...

The larger part of the suffering they caused was due not to intolerance of religion, but to the implementation of pseudo-science, anti-intellectualism, and unrealistic economic policy.

Other Comments by Hellene

15. Comment #393642 by Prieten on July 5, 2009 at 9:22 pm

Brazilians speak Portuguese.

Other Comments by Prieten

16. Comment #393643 by Frankus1122 on July 5, 2009 at 9:23 pm

mordacious

I hope Richard has brushed up on his Spanish before his trip to Brazil, as Richard Feynman is said to have done.

Did Feynman have difficulty being understood by the Portuguese speaking Brazilians?
Why would you wish the same fate on Richard?;)

Other Comments by Frankus1122

17. Comment #393644 by mordacious1 on July 5, 2009 at 9:36 pm

Hey, stuff like that is what made Feynman so endearing.

[edit] Yes, I know they speak Portuguese in Brazil, that's why it was funny when Feynman did it.

Other Comments by mordacious1

18. Comment #393648 by Roland_F on July 5, 2009 at 10:44 pm

Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot ... once again!

Dr. Hammer: How can Dawkins be 100% sure that the horrors of Stalin, Marx and Pol Pot were not motivated by their atheistic drive to rid the world of religion? He can't. This is the atheist's delusion.

All dictators main concern is to stay in power. This can be best achieved by terminating all opposition, which might be sometimes strong churches, but which are always intellectuals.
So Pol Pot was targeting all intellectuals, e.g. teachers, scientists, doctors and dump down the population. This is very similar to the 2000 year history of Christianity, the religion of the dispossessed poor peasants. As soon they gained power and became official state religion (end of the 4th century) libraries were burned, Greek philosophy and science banned and more than a millennium of dark ages followed.

Hitler did the same, so claiming that Nietzsche and German intellectuals were the basis of the Nazi movement is also ridiculous.

Also in the Soviet system intellectuals were disadvantaged. I just spoke this weekend with someone who’s parents as doctors in the ex-Soviet Union were paid less (only 1/3) of the salary like a simple bus driver for example, just to discourage intellectuals.

So skepticism, rationality and reason are the enemies of absolute power regimes – whether theocratic or other regimes.

Other Comments by Roland_F

19. Comment #393652 by Steve Zara on July 5, 2009 at 11:38 pm

Comment #393626 by Dr. Hameer

Dawkins be 100% sure that the horrors of Stalin, Marx and Pol Pot were not motivated by their atheistic drive to rid the world of religion? He can't. This is the atheist's delusion.

What is this 'athestic drive'? Could I have one outside my house? Does it look stylish?

I really think people misunderstand Stalin et al. They were not Raelians. It was their desire to rid the world of belief in the Elohim that lead to such tragedies.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

20. Comment #393653 by phil rimmer on July 6, 2009 at 12:12 am

The best that Dr Hameer can do with Stalin and Pol Pot is claim that as individuals in positions of power they were able to systematically oppress anyone of a religious disposition for being so. Where are the movements, the groundswell of MURDEROUS ATHEIST discontent that were corralled by these tyrants for their own wicked ways? There never were any such movements. No manifestos, no literature, no philosophical papers. The only such materials are those in the possession of other religions. Rampant, wild, self justifying murderous religious poison.

To re-state the stunningly obvious a tyrant needs absolute control, and ALL other sources of influence, religious political, social, that may run counter to his interests are a target for suppression.

EDIT murderous capitalised and added

Other Comments by phil rimmer

21. Comment #393656 by Quetzalcoatl on July 6, 2009 at 12:55 am

Dr Hameer-

Marx wrote a book. Unless he used said book to beat people to death with, it's fair to say that he wasn't guilty of committing any atrocities.

Any evidence to back up your position?

Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl

22. Comment #393657 by Mark Jones on July 6, 2009 at 1:06 am

How can Dawkins be 100% sure that the horrors of Stalin, Marx and Pol Pot were not motivated by their atheistic drive to rid the world of religion? He can't. This is the atheist's delusion.

Indeed; and how can Dawkins be 100% sure that the horrors of Stalin, Marx and Pol Pot were not motivated by their ateapotist drive to rid the world of tea? He can't. This is the anti-tea-drinker's delusion.

Other Comments by Mark Jones

23. Comment #393658 by andersemil on July 6, 2009 at 1:15 am

There is intelligence in Iran far away from mullahs and ayatollahs.

LOL excellent remark!

You are probably thinking of Stalin, who developed a kind of atheist, totalitarian, Marxist religion. But he was not motivated by atheism, which is very different.

I think it is very, very important in this debate to stress the fact that you do not need to be a theist or deist to be religious. All it takes is some stupid doctrine which people take for granted without questioning and let it control their lives.

Other Comments by andersemil

24. Comment #393659 by Quetzalcoatl on July 6, 2009 at 1:26 am

Mark Jones-

The Soviets ran several advertising campaigns linking tea-drinking with decadent capitalism.

Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl

25. Comment #393660 by Mark Jones on July 6, 2009 at 1:28 am

Comment #393659 by Quetzalcoatl

I think we can all be sure of the link between tea-drinking and turpitude!

*sips coffee*

Other Comments by Mark Jones

26. Comment #393662 by Quetzalcoatl on July 6, 2009 at 1:32 am

Mark Jones-

Filthy Communist. Go back to Russia.

Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl

27. Comment #393668 by Tyler Durden on July 6, 2009 at 2:12 am

Saying atheism cannot lead to violence is naive at best. What's to stop a fervent atheist (and there are loads of them!) from having strong disdain of religious people (something they already do)? What's to stop that disdain leading to intolerance and hatred? Nothing.

Nice little Straw Man there - "strong disdain" and "intolerance and hatred" are not violent acts. I can easily have strong disdain and intolerance for many a issue without resorting to violence.

Other Comments by Tyler Durden

28. Comment #393669 by AfraidToDie on July 6, 2009 at 2:14 am

Saying atheism cannot lead to violence is naive at best.

I would venture to guess that the ratio of pacifist to atheist is much higher than the ratio of pacifist to theist, especially to xtion and zlam theists. If indeed true, it would mean that atheism would statistically be less likely to lead to violence. Of course, xtion and zlam theists might profess to be pacifists until it comes time to meat out a death penalty for disobeying a tenant of their silly book.

Other Comments by AfraidToDie

29. Comment #393670 by Bernard Hurley on July 6, 2009 at 2:20 am

Comment #393626 by Dr. Hameer on July 5, 2009 at 6:24 pm

Consider this Dr Hameer: what's to stop a chess player from having a strong disdain for non-chess players? What's to stop that disdain leading to intolerance and hatred? Nothing. However there is nothing in the rules of chess or the rules of any chess club I have ever been a member of that would mandate such intolerance and hatred. The same cannot be said for most religions in which the "holy" books not only mandate intolerance and hatred, but prescribe in detail how it should be worked out in practice.

In the case of atheism, there are no "holy books" there are no "rules". It is merely an opinion about the existence of a certain entity.

The good doctor's final question seems to be riddled with muddled thinking. For instance: what does it mean to be "motivated" by a "drive"; what is it for a "drive" to be "atheistic"; and what is the relevance of the question of whether Richard Dawkins can be 100% sure of something? Perhaps, Dr Hameer, you could enlighten us.

Other Comments by Bernard Hurley

30. Comment #393672 by alovrin on July 6, 2009 at 2:38 am

Ah, Dr Hameer feels the wrath of atheist disdain, by asking him to back up his rhetoric with facts.
Muwhahahahahaha.

Other Comments by alovrin

31. Comment #393674 by mira on July 6, 2009 at 2:52 am

It wasn't just tea drinking that lead to decadent capitalism, to be true I had not heard about it. But it runs well with quite well known soviet slogan:
"Today it is jazz he plays, tomorrow the motherland he betrays."

Other Comments by mira

32. Comment #393675 by Tyler Durden on July 6, 2009 at 2:53 am

Fair play to Richard for keeping his answers on-topic without being distracted by the obvious bias of the questioner:

"you dedicated yourself to the cause of atheism"

"since the beginning of your crusade for atheism"

"Some critics have also said that the New Atheism, as this movement is called, is a religion"

"atheists, in secular states, have also committed great atrocities"

"Some of your critics say that you are as radical as the people you fight against"

Atheism a crusade? Say it ain't so Richard :)

Other Comments by Tyler Durden

33. Comment #393676 by Steve Zara on July 6, 2009 at 3:43 am

And it is not a very common phenomenon. In truth it is a very rare, improbable event, which happened once in 4 billion years.

That is an interesting statement. I am not sure we have evidence either way about this.

It seems that life got started on Earth very soon after it formed. Having no competition, it may have spread very rapidly, so changing the environment that another origin of life was no longer possible.

It may be that an origin of our kind of life can happen only once on a given planet. But that does not necessarily mean it is highly improbable.

What I have said could be nonsense, but I think it is too soon to talk about how unlikely the origin of life was.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

34. Comment #393677 by Vadjong on July 6, 2009 at 4:04 am

#32. Tyler Durden
Aah, now you're just quote mining.
My impression was more that the interviewer was rather well informed and set up all the routine targets that Richard is well versed in to shoot down.
Remember this may all be pretty new for the intended audience.

Other Comments by Vadjong

35. Comment #393680 by Roland_F on July 6, 2009 at 4:22 am

Steve Zara: It seems that life got started on Earth very soon after it formed

Indeed the 4 billon years is wrong, as life started very soon after planet earth cooled down enough and heavy hits from meteor showers were not that frequent any more (4 BYA ??). So the time span between possible replicators could emerge and the time they emerged (3.8 BYA) is just a few hundred million years not 4 billion years.
Of course replicators might be also formed on other planets and seeded earth.

Other Comments by Roland_F

36. Comment #393681 by Roger Stanyard on July 6, 2009 at 4:26 am

Dr hammer claims

There isn't any evidence that atheism leads to violence. The alledged links are of no more substance than claiming that a computer mouse leads to violence.

marx was not involved in organised violence. Alas, much of the "philosophy" behind the Nazis in Germany was directly based on christianity (much can also be said about Marxist-Leninism). Not surprisingly Hitler got huge support from Christians, especially Protestants.

Let's spell it out to you simply. The majority of people do not, in practice, accept the existance of a deity yet the vaste majority of people are not violent, criminal, morons.

Disdain for religion is largely brought on by the actions of the religious. In my case, the disdain is for the fundamentalists, perhaps 20% of the population of the USA. If you think I should respect people who believe the world is 6,000 years old, all I can say is that you are raging bonkers.

Other Comments by Roger Stanyard

37. Comment #393682 by Roger Stanyard on July 6, 2009 at 4:32 am

I must admit I am dead pleased to hear that Richard's new book, the Greatest Show on Earth, is an attack on the idiocy of creationism.

I wasn't aware that he had such a book in the pipeline.

Let's hope that it causes a lot of "debate"*, which will allow the creationists to demonstrate to the world just how utterly stupid they are.

* i.e. hot air from creationists.

Other Comments by Roger Stanyard

38. Comment #393683 by Sally Luxmoore on July 6, 2009 at 4:39 am

A practicing atheist

Yawn. Not again. (At least this time it wasn't 'militant')

He's very good at it by now, anyway! ;)

Other Comments by Sally Luxmoore

39. Comment #393685 by hungarianelephant on July 6, 2009 at 4:45 am

Crusaders were motivated by religion. The September 11th hijackers were motivated by religion. The wars in the Middle East as well. So were many of the wars in Europe, but not all, not the First and Second World Wars. There is a logical path that leads from religious faith to very bad things like violence and wars. And this is logical when we accept the premise that we are dealing with the will of God. For the hijackers of September 11, that was good logic. I do not think that there is a logical path from atheism to such atrocities.

I see what Richard is driving at here. He has distilled a lot of complexity into a media-friendly answer. But I think it misses the target nonetheless.

Many of the "religious" wars aren't religious at all. They are political disputes dressed in religious clothes, and often not very convincingly. Even the paradigmatic cases like the Thirty Years War, or the Puritan Revolution, or Palestine, or Northern Ireland, have at their core a dispute about something else: political hegemony, territory and/or access to resources.

What religion does very well is to draw artificial boundaries around a group or its practices, and create a strong sense of division with the "other". It was able to tell two basically identical groups in Ulster that they were not the same as their neighbours, and that their neighbours were oppressing them. Take it away and there would still be a stupid, 17th century tribal dispute, but too much common ground for it to last long. If every Jew in Palestine converted to Islam this afternoon, there would still be a disagreement over land and resources, but no doctrinal support for continuing it as an absolutist cause. (It may become like the disputes over water between various US states, over which precisely no one has yet been hurt.)

Religion even gets co-opted into disputes which are outwardly not about religion. Amongst the most powerful propaganda at the outset of WW1 were the stories of German soldiers raping Belgian nuns on tables. Orwell once remarked that he didn't see why the tables made it worse, but he might equally have wondered why the fact that the women were nuns made it worse. Perhaps because, even in vaguely Protestant England, it denoted a violation of an area of special integrity: religious piety.

I would think that many of the target audience realise this, at least in a fuzzy sort of way. They will answer the charge with a McGrathesque "that's not my religion", just as after 7/7 Tony Blair raced to the nearest mosque in order to make some banal speech about the "perversion" of Islam by a handful of fanatics.

Logical paths barely come into it.

Other Comments by hungarianelephant

40. Comment #393736 by Ignorant Amos on July 6, 2009 at 8:13 am

39. Comment #393685 by hungarianelephant

Not that it makes any difference to the debate, I feel it is just a point on which I would differ. The Northern Ireland issue was very much a religious conflict at grass roots. Most of the imbeciles involved in terrorisim had little or no education and spawned from the poverty stricken, poor enclaves of the urban areas of Northern Ireland. Granted that the pre partition struggle for Irish independance was wholly political, the modern troubles, that is, post 1969, was ignited through sectarinism and has been as such until the Good Friday agreement. The Sein Fein leadership only got their thorough education in Irish politics while incarcerated in prison on terrorist charges or internment. Thats why when it comes to anything other than local politics they tend to flounder.

Religious indoctrination and the subsequent vitriolic hatred of the "the other side", orange v green, starts well before the child has any concept of politics in Ulster. The sectarian school system only assissts in the corruption of the young person.

Other Comments by Ignorant Amos

41. Comment #393738 by Ignorant Amos on July 6, 2009 at 8:20 am

None the less.....it should be noted that those of us in Ireland that are less likely to be entraped by the religious zealots from either side, are the folk who get along together famously, that must say something for the morality of religion v non religion types.

Other Comments by Ignorant Amos

42. Comment #393739 by hungarianelephant on July 6, 2009 at 8:32 am

40. Comment #393736 by Ignorant Amos

I don't think we're much in disagreement. It's my point that religion allows sectarianism to thrive, when it might otherwise wither away.

Part of the tragedy of the general stupidity of 1918-23 was that it came to identify religious positions with political ones. Nationalism was identified with Catholicism and Unionism with Protestantism. There's no doubt that Northern Catholics came off worst from this and were on the receiving end of discrimination.

Where did this discrimination come from? They looked the same, sounded the same, acted the same. They may have had slightly different names, but without a religious label there was nothing else of substance to discriminate against. When the civil rights movement started, it was a political protest - albeit largely by one religious group. It didn't really have anything to do with religion - that was just the reason why you ended up in one camp rather than the other. Chances are, without religion, large scale discrimination against those of a nationalist persuasion would never have got going in the first place. Come to that, chances are that without religion partition would never have got onto the menu.

I hear your point that indoctrination begins early, but do you think there are any better policies than getting rid of faith schools in the province?

41 - dead right.

Other Comments by hungarianelephant

43. Comment #393746 by Roger Stanyard on July 6, 2009 at 8:55 am

I don't think we can get away from the issue that religion is a lead problem in the troubles in Northern Ireland.

It's a fact of life that the protestant politicians that controlled the province from day one saw at as a "protestant province for a protestant people".

Nor is it easy to walk away from the the issue that the head of the largest political party in the province was, until very recently, an out and out hardline fundamentalist protestant bigot and also head of his own church.

Other Comments by Roger Stanyard

44. Comment #393755 by Dr. Hameer on July 6, 2009 at 9:37 am

You guys are missing the point. See the documentary by Rod Liddle "The trouble with atheism" and you will see an atheist nut-head walking on the streets chanting 'no God' just like those nut head Jesus freaks. You are all assuming that everyone who is going to be an atheist are intelligent and sensible people like you lot. Most people are not and there are many illiterates out there who will embrace the ideology of atheism with the same zest and fervor as that of the evangelists. And there is nothing to stop violence from breeding itself. Given our pathetic history of quarrels over petty things, this is a very likely possibility.

And while religion has had a role in violence thanks to its crazy theology, what atheists fail to acknowledge is religion has contributed directly to goodness and virtues as well. The following words of religious figures give profound and sublime notions of moral conduct for people:

The Sermon on the Mount (Jesus)
The Bhaghvad Gita (Krishna)
The Upanishads (the ancient mystics called the 'rishis')
The Dhammapada (Buddha)

It is true that many parts of the Old Testament and the Koran do incite intolerance and violence. But to lump ALL religious philosophies and texts under one category that needs to be gotten rid off (and being totally ignorant of the differences between them), is stupidity at its best.

Other Comments by Dr. Hameer

45. Comment #393756 by Steve Zara on July 6, 2009 at 9:40 am

Comment #393755 by Dr. Hameer

The Dhammapada (Buddha)

Buddhism is atheistic. You have neatly destroyed your entire argument.

You have used an atheistic text as a source for 'profound and sublime notions of moral conduct'.

Well done.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

46. Comment #393757 by Cartomancer on July 6, 2009 at 9:49 am

But there is no "ideology of atheism". It is simply a conclusion one comes to about the nature of reality. That's it. Nothing else. Nothing else at all. Believing the simple proposition that there are no gods in no way affects someone's behaviour.

Similarly, it doesn't matter what the contents of religious texts are, good, bad or indifferent. How do we KNOW which texts have good bits in the first place? We use our own secular, independent reason. The suggestions would be good whether they were made in a religious text or any other text.

Inasmuch as a text is religious, it has no mechanism by which to distinguish good from bad tenets. We must impose selective moral judgements from outside. Inasmuch as we distinguish good from bad effectively, we are not religious.

Other Comments by Cartomancer

47. Comment #393759 by Jos Gibbons on July 6, 2009 at 9:53 am

Comment #393755 by Dr. Hameer

I can't speak for everyon, but I've seen Liddle's documentary, which is riddled with errors. Having defined atheism as the view that theists "are wrong and must be punished", when just their being wrong is more accurate (and, best, atheism is NOT thinking theists are RIGHT), he then labels the Jacobins as atheists, even though they weren't, and in fact attacked atheists. The protester you mentioned, assuming you meant the guy who called himself Darwin, was in between. Let's suppose we can blame atheism (as opposed to evolutionary biology!) for his being so ... well ... in your face. No guy with a megaphone or sandwichboard is comparable, however, to anyone trying to exact, either through or outside law, any kind of discrimination. From "Darwin" (the modern guy) to Stalin goes through several intermediates of cruelty.

And the Sermon, Bhagavad Gita and Upanishads all have plenty of bad bits. Google viraswargam if you need an example. As for the Sermon, Matthew 6:25 - 34 is especially bad advice. But even if the Sermon, as an excerpt of Matthew, was faultless, what about the rest of Matthew, or the NT, or the Bible? Cherry-picking has to presuppose good judgement; it can't yield it. Those believers who don't cherry-pick are the dangers here. We can't afford to cherry-pick which consequences to notice.

Other Comments by Jos Gibbons

48. Comment #393762 by Bonzai on July 6, 2009 at 10:01 am

Dr. Hameer,

"Theism" is meaningless unless you can say something specific about your God.

If theists claim only that some God somehow exists and works in some ways which we have no clue about and cannot describe then it is practically atheistic, because believing in such a God really has no impact whatsoever intellectually or practically.

The only theistic beliefs with contents are those which are specific enough to come with dogmas about what this God is like, what he did and what he expects of us.

This is idealogy.

On the other hand, it is not ideological to place the onus on the theists who make those specific, ideological claims and rejecting them because there is no convincing evidence to back them up.

Thus, atheism cannot be an ideology. It is just an unfortunate feature of the English language that it is called an '-ism'.

Other Comments by Bonzai

49. Comment #393763 by Tyler Durden on July 6, 2009 at 10:06 am

You guys are missing the point.

Pot. Kettle. Black.

And there is nothing to stop violence from breeding itself. Given our pathetic history of quarrels over petty things, this is a very likely possibility.

Pure speculation on your part. Please show how not believing in gods leads to violence. I don't want your opinion, I would like examples, a mechanism for how this would happen.

Most people are not and there are many illiterates out there who will embrace the ideology of atheism with the same zest and fervor as that of the evangelists.

"There is no god" therefore I would choose to commit violence? Against what? Against whom?

It is true that many parts of the Old Testament and the Koran do incite intolerance and violence...

Books that purportedly speak for "The Creator of the known Universe". The reason religion sparks such violence is that these people believe they have the ultimate force on their side, so of course they can do anything in his name, commit countless atrocities in his name, even lie. If "The Creator of the known Universe" wills it, then it must be done.

The non-belief in gods does not have such a parameter or variable.

Other Comments by Tyler Durden

50. Comment #393766 by phatbat on July 6, 2009 at 10:16 am

44. Comment #393755 by Dr. Hameer

....embrace the ideology of atheism

There is no ideology of atheism, it entails nothing other than a disbelief in all gods. Anything on top of this is not atheism nor an atheist ideology anymore than it would be an a-astrologist ideology.

No matter how hard you try, you cannot "hammer" atheism into being the equal and opposite of theism, it is just something that we are correct about and you are wrong about.

And while religion has had a role in violence thanks to its crazy theology, what atheists fail to acknowledge is religion has contributed directly to goodness and virtues as well. The following words of religious figures give profound and sublime notions of moral conduct for people:

Apart from Steve's excellent point, people who are religious can indeed do good things and come up with great moral preaching, no atheist here would deny that, it is trivialy true. Our position has always been that good people will do good and bad people will do bad. But a lot (not all) of good people can be persuaded to do bad things while thinking they are doing good, if they have been told that it is god's will, and the rest of the good people in society don't act like the mere suggestion that anyone on this planet has the slightest inkling what this god wants is a ridiculous and embarrassing thing.

Also, is your position that there would be less nice people in this world if religion died out?

It is true that many parts of the Old Testament and the Koran do incite intolerance and violence. But to lump ALL religious philosophies and texts under one category that needs to be gotten rid off (and being totally ignorant of the differences between them), is stupidity at its best.

The new testament does seem to incite intolerance too though.

Who is ignorant of the differences between them then? These differences are there but they are are far smaller in significance than the position that to entertain the notion that anyone has any idea as to the mind of god is an extremely dangerous one. Unfortunately these texts have now been written and recorded and they are just too ambiguous and down right nasty to be reliably interpreted in the "nice" way. There will always be someone who will hijack societies unquestioning acceptance of the idea that some people know god's mind to point out what the texts actually say and it is no more difficult to interpret them as divine sanction to do horrible things than it is to show that 1 plus 1 equals 2. Where-as, to interpret them in a nice way, apparently takes a lot of work.

Other Comments by phatbat

Reload Comments | Back to Top

More Comments: 1 2 3 | Next | Last