Full transcript of “Dawkins Explodes in Heated Clash Over Religion”. Click a timestamp to open the video at that moment. Need another video? Use the YouTube transcript generator.
0:00 Would the world be a better place if religion disappeared tomorrow? Uh yes. Uh Despite all the good things we discussed and you recognize. >> [applause] >> But But you still have the Nazi Holocaust and communism. You wouldn't have the charities. That's fine. I I you would have the charities but but um you I mean it it's only your assumption. But I want to finish it because because the question actually challenged me by saying that it was religion that helped us to escape from the unpleasantness of the of the selfish gene. Um I don't actually think that is true. Um I think that um we have escaped by a long and slow process of civilization in which religion no doubt played a
0:45 part. If you look historically over the very long time span of of history, we're getting better. We're getting nicer. We're getting more charitable. Uh we're getting kinder. We're getting less cruel. I I wouldn't give religion the credit for that. I think I would give a much more complicated mixture of civilizing processes uh the the the credit for it. And religion is probably a part of that. Okay, let's take one last question. Uh gentleman there in the blue jumper. We're going to make this the last Professor Dawkins, as an atheist, is it not the case that you either believe in the universe just popping into existence without a cause, which is worse than hocus pocus, or uh in this thing called the multiverse, which has as much independent empirical evidence
1:31 as as Hades controlling the underworld? Right. The the the phrase the phraseology you you use is is somewhat biased, somewhat somewhat slanted. Um the uh popping into the universe popping into existence out of nothing. The multiverse theory is used in this context to um explain the fact that some physicists believe that the physical constants are too finely adjusted. It's as though it's a put-up job. It looks as though the physical constants are so finely adjusted that if you change any one of them, then the universe would collapse. And I started to say that. Yes. Now um the multiverse hypothesis is a kind of Darwinian way of solving that problem. It says there are billions and billions of
2:17 universes, all of which have different settings of their fundamental constants. A tiny minority of those billions and billions of universes have their constants set in such a way as to give rise to a universe which lasts long enough to give rise to galaxies stars planets chemistry and hence the process of evolution. Such >> But do you understand it it does make me chuckle that you mock me for believing in a prophet that flies into a heaven, but you believe in lots and lots of universes that you can't show me, prove to me, test to me in a lab as a basis of getting out of believing in a god and a prophet? I'm astonished that you should compare the two. But I'm comparing the lack of evidence for the two. >> Well, you cannot use your own intuitive common sense in order to diss
3:05 physics. I mean if if you could do that, we wouldn't need physics. And they they are what why would you bother to to to read to read those writings? >> So the great philosophers and theologians in history who have grappled with these big questions and thought about spiritual issues, moral issues, the transcendent, they were all wasting their time? Uh yes, they're wasting their time. What about why does my life have meaning? What's its worth? Where does my dignity come from? >> your meaning and your dignity are up to you and mine are up to me. And and these are not questions that science would attempt to answer. Um each person finds their own meaning in their in their own life. And and good luck to them. And what's what's wrong with religion religion offering moral certainties is if as you say science can't answer moral questions? Science can't offer moral certainty, but
3:52 I don't see that religion can either. You don't think that the religious values we have today, the moral codes we live by today, are were originally derived from Judeo-Christian values, Islamic values, Not really, no. I mean there are I mean things like the golden rule, things like treat others as you would wish to be treated yourself. Um these are ancient uh values which are which crop up all over the world. They've been adopted by many religions. You can find justifications for them in moral philosophy. You can find justifications for them in evolutionary biology, which is my own my own subject. I don't seriously think you're going to base your morality on on religion cuz if you do, then you've got to say, "Well, do do I base it on scripture?" I hope you don't base it on scripture because if you do, then you're
4:38 going to have some pretty horrible values unless you deliberately cut out those parts of scripture which are which which are unacceptable to modern morality. >> Do you believe science is omnipotent, that it can answer all questions? I've already said no. I've already said it can't answer moral questions. But questions about the real world, questions about reality, questions about the origins of things, uh why life is the way it is, why the world is the way it is, why the universe is the way it is, uh yes, science is the is the way to answer that. Some of your critics have uh argued that you are willing to hold religion up to a very to put it under the microscope, hold it to account, scrutinize it, criticize it. You don't do the same to science or scientists or some of the bad things that have come out of science. Well,
5:28 if if by that you mean horrible weapons, uh nuclear weapons, gas chambers, eugenics. These are these are terrible things which are um technology that arises out of science. And it's certainly true that if you want to do terrible things with technology, with terrible weapons for example, science is the best way to do it because science is the best way to do anything. And even bad things. >> Even bad things. I mean that that's right. If you if you want to develop a terrible weapon, you're not going to do it in any other way than than than by science. The trick is not to want to develop a terrible weapon. And um and that's a political decision. And you do not you do not see science and religion as occupying two different compartments that can live side by side. They are in conflict with one another.
6:14 In so far as religion attempts to um talk about reality and has an alternative vision of reality, I think they are incompatible. Yes. Despite the fact as we discussed earlier, many of our leading scientists are believers. I think it's baffling. I mean what what they in prac- practice do is they leave their their religion at the door when they go into the lab. And and so they get on with their their science. >> They say they don't. Well, I know they do, but well, okay. Isn't it because religion answers all sorts of human needs and spiritual urges which science never can? Isn't that the real issue that you can't get away from? >> Religion may answer um human needs. I mean for example, if you're terrified of dying, um religion may answer the need
7:02 for comfort and consolation. Or if you if you miss a loved one who's died and you hope to see them one day in heaven, then religion answers a need. It doesn't make it true. And one last thing and then we'll go to the audience. Do you What do you say to those people who say you talk a great deal about the power of science, the truth of science. You have people like Sam Harris who say morality can be determined by science. You have quite charismatic, forceful people going around the world proselytizing on behalf of science that science is actually the new religion that you guys are pitching. I wouldn't say it's a new religion. I mean it certainly does some of the things that religion traditionally has tried to do, uh like to answer the deep questions of existence. And and it does
7:48 it does that and it does it successfully in a way that religion never has. But it isn't a religion because it's not based upon any holy books. It's not based upon faith. It's not based upon revelation. It's not based upon uh tradition. Um it's based upon evidence. And there's a huge difference. And anything that we do not have evidence for, that's not scientifically testable, you would dismiss. Well, scientifically testable is is putting the bar rather highly, but uh I do think that that evidence is the only good reason to believe anything. Yes. >> So love, beauty, aesthetics, metaphysics. >> I mean that that that that that that's obviously important questions. And and um if you ask that some question like um how do you know that your wife loves you? Um it's from evidence. I mean it's not
8:33 sci- it's not scientifically testable evidence, but it's evidence. It's little looks in the eyes, little catches in the voice. It's it's um and that is evidence. That's not that's not just internal revelation. What's happening here is the host trying to corner Dawkins, but he keeps leaning on belief instead of evidence. He pushes this idea that morality comes from religion, but that falls apart fast. The golden rule existed across cultures long before Christianity. Evolutionary biology explains it better. Cooperation helped humans survive. That's where empathy comes from. And if morality really came from the Bible, then you'd have to defend everything in it. Slavery is clearly accepted in Ephesians 6:5. Violence and conquest are commanded in
9:18 Deuteronomy 20. No one today lives by that. People follow modern ethics and ignore the parts that don't fit. Then there's the contradiction. He's challenging Dawkins on evidence while believing in things like a man flying to heaven on a winged horse. That's not scrutiny. That's selective thinking. Okay, let's open up to the audience. We've been talking about God, evil, war, terrorism, bringing up your children, living a good life, religion and happiness, science versus religion. Who would like to ask the first question? Yes, you. If the almighty God appears suddenly on the cloud or on the earth or part of the universe. What is your reaction? Are you going to believe or
10:05 are you going to go against him? It would take you to believe in God, not just merely >> Yeah, that mean popping his head through the clouds. >> Yeah, that that's the thing I've I've worried about a lot. Um obviously [laughter] It would do wonders for the book. The The reason I worry about it is that is that obviously as a as a as a scientist I'm committed to the view that I would change my mind if evidence came along. And um so it's a very important question what would that evidence look like. And I've talked about it with my colleagues a great deal. Um I used to think yes if there was a great deep Paul Robeson voice coming out of the cloud saying I exist and think then then yes obviously I would I would believe it. But have you ever seen a really really good conjuring trick?
10:52 There are things that I've seen done that it seems to me to be God that's got to be a miracle. And yet you know it's not. And so that there is a real problem there that that that we are easily fooled. Um let's take another question from gentleman here. Very interesting guy. I was extremely amused when you described faith as sort of brooking no no argument. Um This university of course began with the study of theology. Most of the people here would have been studying theology at the beginning of the university. And indeed the way in which it was taught was not professorial. You didn't have lectures mostly. Mostly you had discussions, debates. People didn't write monographs. They collected discussions, notes of discussions.
11:39 People disagreed about their faith. Absolutely I mean everybody had a different opinion and everybody expressed it and everybody was heard. >> What's the question? >> The idea that So the question is um do you really think that your your view of faith brooking no argument measures up to really any experience of of how people think about their faith. You talked about the evidence that your wife loves you. I think for most religious people the evidence that there's a God is rather like that. Well obviously I would be mad to suggest that that theologians don't argue. They argue all the time and always have. They fight wars over their arguments. So clearly they argue. I'd say when when I When I
12:25 say brook no argument I don't mean that they don't argue. When you say that theologians um uh have have disputes and interesting discussions. Um I I take it that from your garb um you take what a position one way or the other on whether the transubstantiation um whether the bread and wine really is the body and blood of a first century Jew or is merely symbolic. But what evidence you bring to bear on such an argument I cannot imagine. It would not be a real argument at all. It would be a false argument. It would not not be an argument which could be settled by by real evidence. Just deal with the point about the evidence level when you
13:11 referred to love of your wife. >> you say that your that your wife loves you and you do you you're getting evidence from looks in the looks in the eye and catches in the voice was the phrase that I actually used. Um and the question I said that's the way religious people feel about God. Yes they they feel that about God but there's no evidence that they're getting any cues at all. I mean they're their God is an imaginary God inside themselves. Uh they feel that they're getting little looks from the eyes of God and sounds from the voice of God. But why should we believe them since we can't see or hear any evidence to that effect? Let's take another question. Gentleman here in the second row. With regards to to religion you you've given example where the the Islamic faith and the Muslims basically they wrap themselves
13:58 up in bombs because that's what they believe in Islamic faith. But I disagree with you because there are more than a billion Muslims living in the world today who actually believe in the Quran and the scripture which you said if every everybody started believing in the scripture then that would be horrible. But I I disagree disagree with you because more than a billion people billion Muslims believe that if you kill one innocent person it's as if as you've killed the entire humanity. So today humanity is about 7 billion people. So more than a billion Muslims do not strap themselves up and actually go and you know commit suicides. The problem with many scriptures and I think the Quran is no exception is that you can find a verse that says so and so and you find another verse that says the opposite. And so you have to you have to pick and choose. I mean is it not the case for example >> choose the bad ones. Well no I mean I'm I'm suggesting that you shouldn't be in a position of having to choose. I mean
14:45 you shouldn't base your your your life on a on a holy book which has contradictory verses where you can choose one verse when you want to make one point and another verse when you want to make make another point. I mean isn't it the case that that the penalty for apostasy is death? >> You can't take these things and just hold I could hold up an example of we mentioned earlier Sam Harris has said there are some views that are so irrational people should be put to death for them. Should I hold all atheists him? Of course I won't hold him to that. Well let me let me put it to you in is the penalty for apostasy death? >> No. Good. I'm delighted to hear that. What Why didn't >> And the Quran doesn't say it is. Well then Some Islamic scholars do. Okay. >> debate and discussion. There's arguments going on. Things take place every century. >> Okay. Let's have an atheist make a point and join the debate. Lady there is waving a hand. Actually in the Quran mankind refers only to Muslims and
15:32 excludes infidels which is all the rest of us. So that's a small point. But I really my question to Professor Dawkins is how does he feel about the encroachment of all religions extremist evangelist Christians and a lot of Muslims into the the politics and everyday life and how does he feel about uh religion influence trying to influence politics and and public you know >> you feel about religion influencing politics and public life? People should be free to to speak them their minds. I mean I'm great believer in in free speech and so members of Parliament should speak their minds and if their minds are influenced by their their religion then that's that's fine. What I would object to I think is the view that somehow
16:18 religion has a privileged um right to speak because it's religion. And I think you probably agree with that as well. If If you stand up in Parliament and make an excellent speech in favor of something which religion has a view on like abortion say. If you make your points well and win the vote by making your points well that's fine. But what you shouldn't be allowed to get away with is saying because it's religion therefore uh this is what we should do. People keep trying to lower the standard of evidence. One question basically asks what if God just appeared? But Dawkins makes an important point. Humans are easy to fool. We've all seen illusions, tricks, things that look supernatural but aren't. So
17:05 even something dramatic wouldn't automatically prove anything. Evidence has to be tested not just experienced. Then someone compares belief in God to knowing your spouse loves you. That sounds emotional but it breaks down quickly. You can observe a real person. You can interact with them. Other people can verify they exist. With God there's nothing external just internal feelings. And psychology already explains that. Humans are wired to detect patterns and agency even when it's not there. And this is where religion starts to collapse under pressure. Because once you admit there's no consistent evidence everything becomes interpretation. That's why scriptures contradict
17:50 themselves. You can find peaceful verses and violent ones in the same book. People just choose the parts they like and ignore the rest. Lady there in the Hescoff. As a social scientist we sort of the model of the rational actor is somewhat discredited. We don't look at all actors at all times as acting rationally. In fact we assume that they don't. Um but that is the prelude to my question. My question was really would you accept that it's not so much religion that causes conflicts but sincere commitments to some belief that you think is morally important. And in that sense do we get rid of morality? Well I think I partly said that when I said that in the great wars of the of the 20th century um these were driven by um non-religious motivations but they were driven by my country right or wrong
18:38 kind of patriotism. Um that's a little bit different from morality we're talking about. At least it's it's not religious. I was interested in what you said you in your preamble when you said that in this I take it you're a social scientist and and you're you're no doubt right to suggest that since social scientists are studying the human animal um you notice that people actually don't behave rationally. Well unfortunately that's true. Um but that doesn't mean we shouldn't behave rationally just because people don't. Uh let's take a question from an atheist or an agnostic. Gentleman there in the black jacket there three rows down in the middle. I think it when I when I read your book which I thought also was excellent it became very apparent to me that uh evolution nature has given the human species some very very powerful survival
19:24 instincts. We're aggressive. Men want to spread their genes. We want to gather as much resources together as we can to to help our genes continue and survive. And as a result of that there's been a lot of very very dark episodes in our history. The Roman Empire which was terribly oppressive, hedonistic, the Vikings who stole, raped, pillaged, the Persians and so on and so forth. Do you not think that it was actually the ideas of religion that took human the human race, the human species from beyond these base survival instincts and started to give them a new paradigm for thinking which
20:09 was not necessarily in the interests of their their their the uh the instincts that they have for survival? It's perfectly true that a that a a sort of um selfish gene view of uh um life, which is what I've mostly mostly written about, is a very unpleasant view of life. And and if if you followed the the creed of the selfish gene literally and actually lived your life according to it, it would be a very unpleasant world in which to live. It would be um a sort of Thatcherite um world. Um I mean, I've I've I've often said that while I'm a passionate Darwinian when it comes to explaining the way life
20:55 is, I'm a passionate anti-Darwinian when it comes to um organizing our our our lives. >> Would the Would the world be a better place if religion disappeared tomorrow? Uh yes. Uh Despite all the good things we discussed that you recognize. >> [applause] >> But But you still have the Nazi Holocaust and communism. You wouldn't have the charities. That's fine. I I you would have the charities, but but um you mean it it's only your assumption. But I want to finish it because because the the question actually challenged me by saying that it was religion that helped us to escape from the unpleasantness of the of the selfish gene. Um I don't actually think that is true. Um I think that um we have escaped
21:41 by a long and slow process of civilization in which religion no doubt played a part. If you look historically over the very long time span of of history, we're getting better, we're getting nicer, we're getting more charitable, uh we're getting kinder, getting less cruel. I I wouldn't give religion the credit for that. I think I would give a much more complicated mixture of civilizing processes uh the the the credit for it. And religion is probably a part of that. Okay, let's take one last question. Uh gentleman there in the blue jumper. We have to make this the last question. Professor Dawkins, as an atheist, is it not the case that you either believe in the universe just popping into existence without a cause, which is worse than hocus pocus,
22:27 or uh in this thing called the multiverse, which has as much independent empirical evidence as as Hades controlling the underworld? Right, the the the phra- the phraseology you you use is is somewhat biased, somewhat somewhat slanted. Um the uh popping into the universe popping into existence out of nothing, the multiverse theory is used in this context to um explain the fact that some physicists believe that the physical constants are too finely adjusted. It's as though it's a put-up job. It looks as though the physical constants are so finely adjusted that if you change any one of them, then the universe would collapse. I was about to say that. Yes. Now, um the multiverse hypothesis is a
23:15 kind of Darwinian way of solving that problem. It says there are billions and billions of universes, all of which have different settings of their fundamental constants. A tiny minority of those billions and billions of universes have their constants set in such a way as to give rise to a universe which lasts long enough to give rise to galaxies stars planets chemistry and hence the process of evolution. Such But do you understand it it does make me chuckle that you mock me for believing in a prophet that flies into a heaven, but you believe in lots and lots of universes that you can't show me, prove to me, test me in a lab as a basis of getting out of believing in a god and a prophet. I'm astonished that you should compare the two. I'm I'm comparing the lack of evidence for the two.
24:00 >> Well, you cannot use your own intuitive common sense in order to diss physics. I mean, if if you could do that, we wouldn't need physicists. I mean, they they are very sophisticated people. They do mathematics. But there are physicists like Paul Davies who have dissed the multiverse theory as being nonsense. Well, Paul Davies would rather take the view that there's something mysterious in the origin of the universe. And that's another perfectly respectable physicist view. Steven Weinberg, the Nobel Prize winning physicist >> It's respectable if a physicist holds a view about mystery in the universe, but not if anyone else holds it. If we're talking about the origin of the universe, that is a problem in physics. Yes. Let's end with a couple of quick questions. If, as Christopher Hitchens, the late Christopher Hitchens wrote, religion is ineradicable, and as you put
24:46 it, harder to get rid of than smallpox, uh doesn't this basically mean that whatever motivations you have, no matter how passionately you're driven and love for the truth, you are essentially wasting your time? I would never admit to wasting my time trying to propagate the truth. And I think I can claim a modicum of success with the people that I've written have read my books, the people who've attended my lectures. Um it's a doctrine of despair to say that we're stuck with religion for all eternity. Um the religions of ancient Greece and ancient Rome and the Vikings are all dead. Nobody believes in Jupiter or Thor anymore. And I have great hopes that the same is going to be true of the of the god of Abraham. And one last thing, there's a new book
25:31 out uh from one of this country's uh well-known philosophers called Religion for Atheists, which makes the case that no matter how false religion is, no matter how imaginary god may be, there are some lessons, there are some institutions, there are some values that atheists could usefully borrow. >> I've heard that argument put. I've heard people say that we that humans do need some sort of um rituals and they need some sort of um gathering places, meeting places. Um I can sort of see that. It's not a thing that interests me very much. I don't feel any great need for for uh for for ritual. I don't feel any great need to fill the alleged vacuum that will be left when religion goes. I think there's plenty to fill it already. The host literally says Dawkins' ideas make him chuckle
26:18 because Dawkins won't believe that Muhammad flew to heaven on a winged horse. Think about that. He's mocking a scientific hypothesis, something debated, modeled, and taken seriously by physicists while defending a supernatural story with zero evidence. That's the standard religion operates on. And this isn't just Islam. You see the same thing in Christianity. Miracles, resurrections, talking snakes, all accepted without question. But the moment science proposes something complex, it gets laughed at. That's backwards. Science questions everything, including itself. The multiverse isn't blindly accepted. It's argued over, criticized, tested. Religion doesn't do that. It protects
27:04 its claims. So when the host laughs at science for not accepting a winged horse story, it doesn't expose science. It exposes how low the bar is for belief. So after watching this part of the debate, here's the real question. Do you think belief should be based on evidence, or is faith alone enough to justify what we accept as true? I want to hear your thoughts. Drop them in the comments. And if you've made it this far, make sure to like and subscribe so you don't miss the next breakdown. Also, this is part two. If you haven't seen part one yet, go check it out. We already broke down the first half of this debate, and it adds a lot more context to everything you just watched. Let me know what you think.
