By RICHARD DAWKINS - THE TIMES
Updated: Sat, 04 Sep 2010 11:50:58 UTC

This is the transcript from the live webchat with Richard Dawkins, Ruth Gledhill and Hannah Devlin from 2.30pm Wednesday 2nd September 2010, in the wake of Stephen Hawking’s assertion that God played no role in creating the Universe. You can order Stephen Hawking's new book, The Grand Design, here.

Chat originally hosted on The Times here and on this page.

14:24 Hannah Devlin:
Hello everyone. Welcome to the Eureka Live debate, which will begin shortly. 14:26 Richard Dawkins:
Hello this is Richard Dawkins here
14:26 Hannah Devlin:
I'll be joined by Ruth Gledhill, The Times religion correspondent and Richard Dawkins 14:27 Hannah Devlin:
Hello Richard, thank you for joining us, we'll start the discussion shortly. 14:31 Hannah Devlin:
Ruth is just about to join us... but to give some background, we're here to debate whether science has rendered the role of God redundant. 14:32 Hannah Devlin:
The debate was provoked by an extract from Stephen Hawking's forthcoming book, The Grand Design, in which he argues that modern physics leaves no space for God in the creation of the Universe 14:32 Comment From Rakki
hello 14:32 Comment From Nemanja
Hello. Hope to hear an interesting debate. 14:33 Comment From Rodger Skelton
Is there a hash tag to follow this event on twitter? 14:33 Hannah Devlin:
For those who'd like to follow the debate on twitter, or tweet it live, we'll be using GodDebate as the hashtag 14:34 Hannah Devlin:
To kick things off, I'd like to ask Richard what he makes of Hawking's thesis. Is this the new Darwinism? 14:35 Hannah Devlin:
Thank you to all those who have posted questions and comments so far - we'll get to those next! 14:35 Richard Dawkins:
Only the new Darwinism in the sense that it finishes off God. Darwin kicked him out of biology, but physics remained more uncertain. Hawking is now administering the coup de grace

14:36 Richard Dawkins:
It is not like Darwinism in any other very strong sense
14:38 Hannah Devlin:
If physics really has removed the need for a creator, how much does this weigh in on a debate about the possible existence of God - could there be another role for a deity beyond creation? 14:38 Richard Dawkins:
I can't even imagine what that would mean
14:39 Richard Dawkins:
If there is no deity in the first place, what other role could she play? 14:39 Comment From TOMMY GUNN
Hello was just stopping by Richard's site and stumbled upon this. What a treat the sfternoon should fly in now. 14:40 Richard Dawkins:
When people speak of another role for God, they might mean something like a personal role, looking after us, or forgiving our sins. But you can't do that sort of thing at all unless you exist in the first place!
14:40 Hannah Devlin:
I might wait for Ruth to come back on that one.. she will be with us very shortly. But first I've got a question from the floor 14:40 Comment From Tim H
on the basis of the celestial tea pot argument, will science ever be able to 'prove' that God does not exist even if we do find a unified theory or will religion continue to live in the interpretation of the ever smaller gaps 14:41 Richard Dawkins:
oK 14:41 Richard Dawkins:
Is there a key for 'Send' so I don't have to keep reaching for the mouse, which takes time? 14:41 Comment From Jim Grange
Fantastic to be here! Thank you Richard! 14:41 Comment From Ben Turner
Looking forward to this debate! 14:41 Comment From Dennis
hope it will be interesting. greet from Belgium 14:42 Richard Dawkins:
"on the basis of the celestial tea pot argument, will science ever be able to 'prove' that God does not exist even if we do find a unified theory or will religion continue to live in the interpretation of the ever smaller gaps" The ever smaller gaps will seem increasingly desperate as they shrink 14:43 Hannah Devlin:
I don't think there's a send key Richard, sorry.. 14:43 Richard Dawkins:
The celestial teapot really knocks on the head all arguments of the form "You can't disprove God". There's an infinite number of things you can't disprove. Why should we bother? 14:43 Ruth Gledhill:
Tim, I just interviewed David Wilkinson, principal of St John's Durham and astrophysicist, and this is what he said (full interview at my Times blog Articles of Faith):
The science Stephen Hawking uses raises a number of questions which for many opens the door to the possibility of an existence of a creator and for many points to the existence of a creator.

'One would be the the purpose of the universe. Although science might discover the mechanism, we are still left with the question of what is the purpose.

'Second is where the laws of physics come from. Science subsumes the laws but we are still left with the question of where the laws come from.

'Third is the intelligibility of the universe. It strikes me as interesting that Stephen Hawking can make it intelligible. Albert Einstein once said that the most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it is comprehensible. For many of us who are struck by the intelligibility of the physical laws, the explanation is that the creator is the force of rationality both for the universe and for our minds.
14:44 Richard Dawkins:
"'One would be the the purpose of the universe. Although science might discover the mechanism, we are still left with the question of what is the purpose"

Why on Earth should anyone assume that there IS a purpose?
14:44 Hannah Devlin:
Good point, Richard, don't we need other modes of thought to answer these more existential questions? 14:45 Hannah Devlin:
Or would you say there is no point in trying to answer the question "why?" 14:45 Richard Dawkins:
"Second is where the laws of physics come from. Science subsumes the laws but we are still left with the question of where the laws come from."

Even if we are left with that question, it is not going to be answered by a God, who raises more questions than he answers
14:45 Ruth Gledhill:
Richard, one might as well ask, equally, why assume there is no purpose? 14:46 Richard Dawkins:
"Third is the intelligibility of the universe. It strikes me as interesting that Stephen Hawking can make it intelligible. Albert Einstein once said that the most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it is comprehensible. For many of us who are struck by the intelligibility of the physical laws, the explanation is that the creator is the force of rationality both for the universe and for our minds. "

What would an unintelligible universe even look like? Why SHOULDN't the universe be intelligible?
14:46 Comment From Anders Emil
Hello. I think science has defeated most of the questions that religion traditionally tried to answer with fables and fiction. The remaining questions are, however, much harder to answer, if at all possible. That is, where do the laws of physics come from, do we live in one universe which is a part of a multi-verse, etc. 14:46 Ruth Gledhill:
Richard, David is not suggesting God will answer the question, more than he could be the answer to the question. 14:47 Richard Dawkins:
"Richard, one might as well ask, equally, why assume there is no purpose?"

What is the purpose of a mountain? What is the purpose of a tsunami? What is the purpose of bubonic plague? Surely you can see that these are just silly questions? Same with the universe
14:47 Ruth Gledhill:
sorry that should be 'more that' not 'more than' #david q number 2 14:48 Comment From philc
Is it ever really possible to "finish off" god, given that the belief is irrational at its core, surely rational argument has no power over that? 14:48 Richard Dawkins:
"Richard, David is not suggesting God will answer the question, more than he could be the answer to the question"

How can it be satisfying to answer a question by postulating something that raises a far bigger question? 14:48 Ruth Gledhill:
To say 'what is the purpose of a tsunami' is a 'silly question' is a silly thing to say, if you will forgive me. if asking questions is silly, what on earth are we all doing here, or anywhere, at all? 14:49 Richard Dawkins:
"To say 'what is the purpose of a tsunami' is a 'silly question' is a silly thing to say, if you will forgive me. if asking questions is silly, what on earth are we all doing here, or anywhere, at all?"

OK then, what do you think is the purpose of a tsunami? Or of bubonic plague?
14:49 Hannah Devlin:
Ruth, Richard, I'd be interested in your views on philc's point - is religious belief irrational? If not, why? 14:49 Ruth Gledhill:
exactly philc. read Tony Blair's memoirs. how many true arguments are truly rational? 14:51 Comment From GfA
Ruth, stop evading! -> "OK then, what do you think is the purpose of a tsunami" 14:51 Richard Dawkins:
Lots of questions are sensible. Like "How do nerve cells work?" "What is the Darwinian survival value of a peacock's tail?" There are huge numbers of sensible questions, which science spends its time answering. "What is the purpose of X?" is sensible only if there is a purposeful entity, such a human, to have that purpose. Tsunamis have no purpose. Or are you going to accept my challenge and tell me what its purpose is?
14:51 Comment From Waleed
@Richard: Why would a God raise more questions than he answers? That implies that you are making the assumption that God needs an explanation. Why would a framework, where God is absolute in that he is the intelligibility behind the laws of the universe and he has always existed complicate the situation rather than solve it 14:52 Richard Dawkins:
Ruth, are you going to answer "What is the purpose of a tsunami?"
14:52 Hannah Devlin:
Richard, are you saying that the only questions worth answering are scientific ones? 14:53 Ruth Gledhill:
Hannah, it depends what you mean by 'rational'. Just as Hawking argues that science will triumph over religion because it works, so I argue that faith will not exactly triumph but will continue because it, also, works. Out there in the blogosphere and on The Times website I am being called a number of names - 'silly' foremost but plenty of others too. And I accept that faith is often sustained by subjective experience. Again, as David Wilkinson said in his interview with me, in full on my blog at this website, 'My own belief in the existence of God does not come from scientific evidence first and foremost, it comes from the belief that God spoke into the universe or revealed Himself as Christians would say, supremely in the life, death and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth.

'It is that perspective that convinces me of the existence of God, rather than arguments to do with the creation of the universe.

'My faith in the resurrection comes from personal religious experience coupled with a judicious assessment of the historicity of the New Testament narratives. 14:53 Hannah Devlin:
What does science have to say about aesthetics or history (religion aside for a moment)? 14:53 Richard Dawkins:
"Why would a God raise more questions than he answers? That implies that you are making the assumption that God needs an explanation. " Yes, I am making exactly that assumption, for the same reason as you (assuming you are a theist) think the universe needs an explanation. Hawking has pointed towards an explanation of the universe. 14:54 Richard Dawkins:
"Richard, are you saying that the only questions worth answering are scientific ones?" No, not at all. But questions that begin "What is the purpose of . . ." require the existence of a purposeful agent. You cannot apply such a question to mountains or avalanches or tsunamis or the universe 14:55 Comment From John
The existence of God can never be disproved; nor can it ever be proved. This is not surprising, as God is invariably defined in such a way as to put Him beyond the reach of rational enquiry. 14:55 Comment From mark stoevelaar
silly questions are do not exist how ever saying that god is the awnser to any question is silly 14:55 Ruth Gledhill:
Richard, #tsunami, i see no divine or godly purpose whatsoever in a tsunami. and as for why would God raise more questions than He answers, He would for exactly the same reason that top scientists do exactly the same, yourself among them. 14:56 Comment From Mike Jackson
I'd like to know what it would take for Ruth to believe that God does not exist. What does Science need to prove for her that there is no God. 14:56 Richard Dawkins:
"What does science have to say about aesthetics or history (religion aside for a moment)?"

Science may not have anything direct to say about them, or about some aspects of them. But that doesn't mean they are in principle beyond science in a supernatural sense. Only that science is not equipped, in practice, to answer detailed questions about history or aesthetics
14:56 Hannah Devlin:
Ruth, an interesting one from Mike... 14:56 Hannah Devlin:
Do you think science can say anything about the possible existence of God or the nature of religious belief? 14:57 Richard Dawkins:
"Richard, #tsunami, i see no divine or godly purpose whatsoever in a tsunami."

Precisely, Ruth, so why did you deny it when I said that asking the purpose of everything was a silly question? 14:58 Hannah Devlin:
Richard might want to weigh in here too... there's been some interesting work, such as brain imaging studies, looking at the evolutionary origin of religious beliefs... what do you think this contributes to the debate? 14:58 Comment From Chris
Science says many things about history. Archaeology and radiometric dating are prime examples. 14:58 Comment From CBBurn
I'd like to know what it would take for Richard to believe that God does exist. What does Science need to prove for him that there is a God. 14:59 Richard Dawkins:
"and as for why would God raise more questions than He answers, He would for exactly the same reason that top scientists do exactly the same, yourself among them."

That doesn't seem to be properly formulated. Something mistyped?
14:59 Hannah Devlin:
A counter-question for Richard. Would anything convince you there was a God? 15:01 Ruth Gledhill:
Mike, I did once believe there was no God. As someone once said, I have tried the way of faith and the way of no faith. I know now which I prefer. If that points to some psychological deficit in me, well so be it. As I said in my commentary today, belief 'works' for some people. This is not at all the same, by the way, as saying that God finds a parking space when you need one or cures illness or anything of that sort at all. I find that faith helps me as an individual remain balanced and thus it makes me a better person and more importantly, better to live with for those I love. Some people, many people, are good enough to be able to manage to live a good life without faith. I'm not one of them. That's why today, I choose to believe. 15:01 Comment From TheRationalizer
Ruth: If science showed that god created the universe I assume you would accept it. If however the same evidence showed that god died in the process would you then reject it? On what basis do you accept/reject evidence? Does it first have to reflect what you want to be true? 15:03 Richard Dawkins:
Ruth, that won't do. Either there is a God or there isn't. You really can't use 'what feels right for me' as an argument. Nor can you use "Lots of good people believe in God". Imagine if somebody said "I believe in the Loch Ness Monster because it feels right to me." You'd answer, 'To hell with what feels right, what is the EVIDENCE that the Loch Ness Monster exists?"
15:03 Ruth Gledhill:
'and as for why would God raise more questions than He answers, He would for exactly the same reason that top scientists do exactly the same, yourself among them.'

apologies. I was not very articulate there. my keyboard is not working well. what I was trying to say is that one of the hugely exciting things about science, about the books that you and Hawking and others in your league write, is the immense questions that are raised by the answers you discover. 15:03 Comment From Jerry Coyne
Question to Ruth: If faith helps you, then does it make any difference to you whether what you believe about God, Jesus, the Resurrection, and the like is true? Devout Muslims, for example, are also consoled by their faith, but their beliefs about Jesus, Mohamed, etc. are completely contradictory to those of Christianity. Both can't be true. 15:03 Comment From Douglas Leckie
Ruth: You are right to say that ultimately faith makes sense of our lived experience. However can you not go further and say also that it makes sense of the gospel records? And indeed that the gospel records make sense of us in a much more holistic way than any purely "scientific" approach to life can? (Which is not to say that a scientific approach to life does not have a great deal to contribute...) 15:04 Comment From danoprey
How can you 'choose to believe'? 15:05 Richard Dawkins:
" what I was trying to say is that one of the hugely exciting things about science, about the books that you and Hawking and others in your league write, is the immense questions that are raised by the answers you discover."

Of course. Science is hugely exciting. What has that got to do with God?
15:06 Hannah Devlin:
We've got a lot of questions coming in on why it is possible to "choose" to believe. Wrapping these into one, is religious belief the same as scientific belief or does the word have an entirely different meaning depending on context Ruth? 15:06 Richard Dawkins:
"How can you 'choose to believe'?"

Yes indeed, how can you? Either the evidence supports something or it does not. Choice shouldn't come into belief

15:08 Hannah Devlin:
Richard, as far as I know the word belief has a root in the verb "to love" - isn't there another sort of belief to the scientific kind? 15:08 Hannah Devlin:
Thank you to all those who have joined the debate 15:08 Hannah Devlin:
We've got a huge number of questions coming in and I'll try to get to as many as possible! 15:09 Comment From Adam
'I know which I prefer'. Just proves that religion is driven by wish-thinking. 15:09 Richard Dawkins:
"Comment From Jerry Coyne
Question to Ruth: If faith helps you, then does it make any difference to you whether what you believe about God, Jesus, the Resurrection, and the like is true? Devout Muslims, for example, are also consoled by their faith, but their beliefs about Jesus, Mohamed, etc. are completely contradictory to those of Christianity. Both can't be true."

Quite right, Jerry. And even if there is some similarity between the Abrahamic religions, the Greeks believed just as sincerely in their pantheon. I agree with Dan Dennett that universal education in comparative religion would be a hammer blow to religious faith. 15:10 Ruth Gledhill:
@TheRationalizer. If science came up with a proof for either of those, then of course I would accept it, but science would have to prove a lot of other unprovable things first before it got to either of those unlikely points. Believing in God is not the same as believing that God created the universe, by the way.
@Richard Dawkins I would never use 'lots of people believe in God' as an argument! As for believing in 'what feels right for me', it is too simplistic to dismiss that. Agreed, feelings are not facts. But if believing in God works for me, just as setting my alarm in the morning to get to work on time works, and if not believing in God leads to - well whatever it leads to - I don't see why I should stop believing, just because someone thinks I should. 15:10 Richard Dawkins:
"Richard, as far as I know the word belief has a root in the verb "to love" - isn't there another sort of belief to the scientific kind?"

I think the root is irrelevant. To believe P is to think that P is true. The only good grounds for thinking P is true is that there is some evidence for P
15:12 Richard Dawkins:
"Works for me? Works for me?" What are you talking about? A lunatic who believes he is Napoleon could say, "My belief that I am Napoleon WORKS FOR ME". Who is supposed to be convinced?
15:13 Ruth Gledhill:
Jerry, in some liberal theological circles, it is not regarded as impossible that there is truth in both Islam and Christianity. 15:13 Hannah Devlin:
Bringing the discussion back to Hawking's latest views... I'd be interested in what you both think this means for organised religion... The Chief Rabbi has already given his response. 15:13 Richard Dawkins:
"Jerry, in some liberal theological circles, it is not regarded as impossible that there is truth in both Islam and Christianity."

The Islamic penalty for converting to Christianity is what, Ruth, perhaps you know?

15:14 Ruth Gledhill:
Douglas, certainly to many people such as the principal of St John's in Durham, the gospel records make sense of faith and vice versa. 15:14 Richard Dawkins:
"Bringing the discussion back to Hawking's latest views... I'd be interested in what you both think this means for organised religion... The Chief Rabbi has already given his response."
I haven't seen the Chief Rabbi's response. Is it possible to precis it?
15:15 Ruth Gledhill:
@danoprey

How can you choose to believe, you ask.

Sometimes, you don't have much choice, admittedly. But I don't see why you should regard such a choice as not possible. 15:15 Richard Dawkins:
"Douglas, certainly to many people such as the principal of St John's in Durham, the gospel records make sense of faith and vice versa."

I'm sure they make sense of faith, but do they make sense of reality?
15:16 Comment From GfA
You might call it "Hawkinism" 15:16 Comment From Andrew K
If Darwin removed God from biology and physiology, and now Hawking is attempting a similar approach in Physics, is there room for a God in Chemistry? Wierd question, but there still is very little explanation for naturally occuring elements, such as nitrogen, that has no human use, but still exists. 15:17 Richard Dawkins:
"How can you choose to believe, you ask.

Sometimes, you don't have much choice, admittedly. But I don't see why you should regard such a choice as not possible."

See Douglas Adams's wonderful creation, the Electric Monk, which you buy to do your believing for you. The Mark 2 De Luxe model "Is capable of believing things they wouldn't believe in Salt Lake City."
15:17 Ruth Gledhill:
@richard dawkins

I know you are not one of them but some people find God hugely exciting as well. And there are some scientists who in the excitement of their work see something of the mystery of God (sorry I know that word mystery will annoy you I will probably regret using it.....) 15:17 Comment From thelighthouse
Creationists frequently compare the big bang theory to Darwinism, despite the fact that these are not only seperate theories but seperate sciences. I'm so glad to find that Hawking denied God's involvement, his Brief History of Time quote has always been used in favour of Creationism so we can see an end to that. 15:17 Comment From Shuaib
'Darwinism' is a redundant term to be honest. It's akin to calling someone a 'Newtonian' or an 'Einstenian' for accepting their views on gravitation or calling someone a 'Russellian' for accepting that Russell's paradox is true. 15:18 Richard Dawkins:
"I know you are not one of them but some people find God hugely exciting as well. And there are some scientists who in the excitement of their work see something of the mystery of God (sorry I know that word mystery will annoy you I will probably regret using it.....)"

Exciting it may be, but is it TRUE?
15:19 Richard Dawkins:
"Comment From Andrew K
If Darwin removed God from biology and physiology, and now Hawking is attempting a similar approach in Physics, is there room for a God in Chemistry? Wierd question, but there still is very little explanation for naturally occuring elements, such as nitrogen, that has no human use, but still exists."

Oh wonderful. Another gap? Is God now hiding among the test-tubes having been driven out of everywhere else?
15:19 Hannah Devlin:
A lot of comments coming in on the idea of "Hawkingism" - is this going to be difficult for the church to contend with? 15:20 Ruth Gledhill:
Hannah, I think religious belief is not the same as scientific belief as science is clearly based on ontological proofs, nevertheless there are some scientific beliefs at the furthest ends of quantum physicis for example and as detailed in Eureka today that do demand a leap of what might be described as faith. What we are getting onto here with the question of 'choosing to believe' is of course the age-old question of free will. And yes, I believe humans have free will, hence we are free to choose to believe, or not to believe. 15:21 Hannah Devlin:
Richard, Lord Sacks' piece is here:
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/opinion/columnists/article2711505.ece
15:21 Richard Dawkins:
"A lot of comments coming in on the idea of "Hawkingism" - is this going to be difficult for the church to contend with?"

Yes, I think so, because for years they have been using his famous last line of his first book, "For then we would know the mind of God" as though he really meant "God" in their sense, when he obviously meant it in the Einsteinian sense, and, like Einstein, was an atheist all along
15:22 Hannah Devlin:
Richard, some consolation at ten minutes to go.. but our readers tell us that you can avoid pressing the send key by pressing 'tab, enter' or 'alt, enter'... 15:22 Ruth Gledhill:
Richard said: 'I agree with Dan Dennett that universal education in comparative religion would be a hammer blow to religious faith.'

It would certainly be a hammer blow to sectarian violence and possibly even religious division and I wish as much as anyone that this could be introduced to every school everywhere in the world. 15:22 Richard Dawkins:
Hannah has just sent the Chief Rabbi's article, I'm trying to skim it quickly while answering questions 15:24 Richard Dawkins:
Here's a quote from the Chief Rabbi: "Science takes things apart to see how they work. Religion puts things together to see what they mean."

But what does mean MEAN? Why be so presumptuous as to think that everything has to mean something? 15:24 Hannah Devlin:
Richard, could you maybe come back on Ruth's point that the furthest reaches of science require a leap of faith (in that they cannot be tested experimentall). Would you through out some of the theories for which there is currently no conceivable test? 15:24 Comment From Vanessa
"... there are some scientific beliefs at the furthest ends of quantum physicis for example and as detailed in Eureka today that do demand a leap of what might be described as faith." Great point Ruth! Bu 15:25 Comment From Glen
People didn't call it "Hawkingism" when he talked about "the mind of god" now he's saying there is no place for a god in the big bang why all the debate. both uses were metaphorical 15:25 Ruth Gledhill:
Richard says: 'A lunatic who believes he is Napoleon could say, "My belief that I am Napoleon WORKS FOR ME".

Oh dear. I wondered if doing this debate might be a mistake. My answer to such challenges is usually this: 'The only thing I know for certain about God is that I am not it.' The same could be said for Napoleon I suppose.... 15:25 Comment From Deen
@Andrew K: Chemistry reduces to physics. Nuclear physics tells you what elements can form (including nitrogen) and quantum mechanics how elements combine to molecules. 15:25 Richard Dawkins:
"Richard, could you maybe come back on Ruth's point that the furthest reaches of science require a leap of faith (in that they cannot be tested experimentall). Would you through out some of the theories for which there is currently no conceivable test?"
Sorry I didn't see it before.

Science has a long way to go. There is lots more to find out and science is working on it. But that is not a leap of faith in Ruth's sense at all. It is only faith in the scientific method, which has, to put it mildly, a good track record
15:25 Comment From zirconPhil
Ruth: Quantum physics is a sound system that is proven with mathematics. We also know that the currently accepted subatomic particles exist by extensive testing. Note: Nuclear energy rests alot on Quantum physics, and it works. Believing it requires no faith. 15:25 Comment From Steve
No test and it's a theory 15:27 Hannah Devlin:
Approaching the close of the debate here... thank you for all your questions, again, I'll get to as many as possible before the finish 15:27 Richard Dawkins:
"Comment From zirconPhil
Ruth: Quantum physics is a sound system that is proven with mathematics. We also know that the currently accepted subatomic particles exist by extensive testing. Note: Nuclear energy rests alot on Quantum physics, and it works. Believing it requires no faith."

Theists sometimes compare the 'mystery' of the Trinity or the Transubstantiation to the mysteries of quantum physics. But quantum physics is proven by experiment, to the umpteenth decimal place. There is a huge difference 15:28 Comment From David Fagan
All Chemistry is covered by physics....and without quantum mechanics we wouldn't be able to enjoy this debate... 15:28 Comment From Simon F
Steve: gravity is a theory 15:28 Comment From Papalinton
To Hannah: "... Ruth's point that the furthest reaches of science require a leap of faith ..." No, not a leap of faith but a leap of the imagination with a bunch of inferences derived from the data that may point to the way ahead in uncharted edges of science knowledge. 15:29 Comment From TheRationalizer
Quantum mechanics is an approximation of reality. It tells us that if we do X then Y will happen. The computer you are using now is testimony that it is useful. However, if you get on your knees and pray to god your legs will not grow back. 15:29 Comment From Douglas Leckie
The key point Lord Sacks makes is an important one - science cannot provide the matrix of meaning which constitutes the fabric of our daily lives. Science has contributed great things to our understanding of processes, but it can't account for our feelings of significance, our innate sense of morality, or the wonder of relationships. 15:30 Richard Dawkins:
"The key point Lord Sacks makes is an important one - science cannot provide the matrix of meaning which constitutes the fabric of our daily lives. Science has contributed great things to our understanding of processes, but it can't account for our feelings of significance, our innate sense of morality, or the wonder of relationships."

Like any other phenomenon in psychology, these feelings will be accounted for in terms of brain physiology. Ultimately, that is. It may be hard in practice
15:31 Ruth Gledhill:
Lord Sacks says: 'There is more to wisdom than science. It cannot tell us why we are here or how we should live. Science masquerading as religion is as unseemly as religion masquerading as science. I will continue to believe that God who created one or an infinity of universes in love and forgiveness continues to ask us to create, to love and to forgive.' 15:32 Hannah Devlin:
One last question for each of you (wrapping together questions coming in on the discussion board)... Ruth, does the possibility that religious belief has a biological basis make any difference? 15:32 Richard Dawkins:
"Lord Sacks says: 'There is more to wisdom than science. It cannot tell us why we are here or how we should live"

Once again, you are assuming that the 'why' question is a sensible or legitimate question.Not all questions are. You have no right to expect an answer to a silly question 15:33 Richard Dawkins:
As for "how we should live" I sincerely hope Lord Sacks does not get his answers from the Bible! Or the Koran!
15:33 Hannah Devlin:
Richard, why do you think there are a lot of scientists out there who argue that science and religion are compatible? Would you put it down to human weakness? 15:34 Comment From papillon
"Lord Sacks says: 'There is more to wisdom than science. It cannot tell us why we are here or how we should live" 15:34 Comment From Greg
God completely defies the scientific method. I don't see how they're compatible. 15:35 Comment From Anon
How anyone can believe science and religion are compatible is beyond me. Science is based on evidence, Religion is based on nothing but faith. 15:35 Comment From Paul
Hannah, science and a belief in leprechauns are compatible, doesn't make them any more real. 15:35 Ruth Gledhill:
Hannah, I have long believed that this might ultimately be 'proven' as Richard suggests and that religion might be a phenomenon because it confers some evolutionary advantage. Frazer in his Golden Bough and William James in his Varieties both seem to suggest as much. But that does not stop me believing. I guess I just want to evolve. 15:35 Richard Dawkins:
"Richard, why do you think there are a lot of scientists out there who argue that science and religion are compatible? Would you put it down to human weakness?"

If you look a the Felllows of the Royal Society, or the American equivalent, the National Academy, the number of theists is tiny. You keep hearing the same small number of names: Collins, Polkinghorne . . .
15:35 Comment From John Flemming
"are a lot of scientists out there who argue that science and religion are compatible? " 15:35 Comment From Sachin
Science cannot displace God 15:35 Comment From Vanessa
Do you hear yourself Hannah? "... science and religion are compatible? Would you put it down to human weakness?" How about a deep human understanding on the limits of both? 15:37 Hannah Devlin:
Thank you very much for a very lively discussion! 15:38 Richard Dawkins:
Thank you very much. I've enjoyed it very much
15:38 Hannah Devlin:
Unfortunately we're going to have to wrap up now... 15:38 Comment From Chris Wilkinson
Thanks for you're insightful comments 15:38 Comment From GlasgowSkeptics
Thanks to all involved :) 15:40 Hannah Devlin:
The full extract from Stephen Hawking's book, The Grand Design, is published in today's issue of Eureka, free with The Times 15:41 Hannah Devlin:
Stephen Hawking will also be appearing for a one-off interview at the Albert Hall on October 20 and you can buy tickets via the Times Tickets site - www.timestickets.co.uk or call 0871 620 4025 15:41 Comment From zirconPhil
Thanks Hannah! 15:41 Comment From Greg
Thanks Richard, Ruth, and Hannah 15:43 Hannah Devlin:
Thank you very much to Ruth Gledhill, who you can follow at www.thetimes.co.uk/articlesoffaith... 15:43 Hannah Devlin:
... and very special thanks to Richard Dawkins for joining us at Eureka Live! 15:44 Comment From Nemanja Skoric
There should be more debates like this. I have enjoyed it. 15:44 Comment From Munshi
Always a pleasure, Hannah, Ruth and Richard. 15:44 Comment From Martijn (Netherlands)
@bad no comments got through, next time a bit longer please :) 15:44 Comment From Sandrine Lopez
Thank you to all here. I especially liked Professor Dawkins' responses. 15:44 Comment From Johnny Lup.
And thanks Richard Dawkins. ;) 15:44 Comment From David Fagan
Thanks for the debate. 15:45 Comment From Sun
Thanks Ruth and Hannah, Dawkins is God! #Legend 15:45 Comment From God
Am I too late? 15:46 Comment From Luke
Thanks Richard 15:46 Comment From Chris Gillibrand
Would definitely join in - only noticed it was going on at 15.30! 15:46 Comment From Mark
Good debate. 15:46 Comment From Chris Gillibrand
To save your name being taken in vain, yes! 15:46 Comment From Sandrine Lopez
*Laughs* at God comment... That's a Douglas Adams quote isn't it? 15:46 Comment From Rpitchfo
God,,15:45 that was brilliant 15:46 Comment From Thom
Thanks Richard. I will definitely be checking out Hawking's book. 15:46 Comment From Andrew Chalkley
@God only about 13.75 billion years. 15:47 Hannah Devlin:
That's it for today!

TAGGED: RELIGION, RICHARD DAWKINS, SCIENCE, STEPHEN HAWKING

---

Tweet