Religions > Atheism > Dawkins on Darwin, the Sistine Chapel, and why the world would be better off without religion.
| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"LP" |
| Date: |
23 Dec 2003 10:24:08 PM |
| Object: |
Dawkins on Darwin, the Sistine Chapel, and why the world would be better off without religion. |
Scientist Richard Dawkins on Darwin, the Sistine Chapel, and why the
world would be better off without religion.
Interview by Laura Sheahen An outspoken proponent of Darwinism and
rationalism, Oxford professor Richard Dawkins is also a fierce critic
of religion. In his articles and best-selling books, he has challenged
attempts to ascribe design to the universe or purpose to life, calling
those who don't believe in evolution "ignorant or brainwashed." He
spoke with Beliefnet recently about his collection of essays, "A
Devil's Chaplain."
-------------------------------------
Sheahen:
In the first essay of the collection, you say that as a scientist,
you're a Darwinist, but as a human being, you feel it's important to
recognize that natural selection is unpleasant and fight against it.
Could you explain this in more detail?
Dawkins:
The collection gets its title from a quotation from Darwin, who said
"What a book a Devil's Chaplain might write on the clumsy, wasteful,
blundering low and horridly cruel works of nature."
Darwin realized that natural selection produces cruel results. He
looked at predators and prey, parasites and hosts, and saw how there
is an immense amount of suffering and cruelty out there in nature. He
also realized that that was a logical consequence of his theory. The
beauty and elegance of living things is produced as a result of a
thoroughly unpleasant, cruel process-this constant winnowing,
generation after generation, of animals and plants.
The point of my essay is that we humans can escape from that, because
our brains, which have evolved to a large size as a result of this
very same process, are big enough to emancipate from the process that
gave rise to them. They can set up new goals, new purposes that are
not directly related to natural selection at all.
We can seek more altruistic, sympathetic, artistic things that have
nothing to do with the preservation of our selfish genes-and thank
goodness we can.
Sheahen:
And people can pursue these goals-like altruistic ones--without
benefit of religion?
Dawkins:
Certainly. Those goals are clearly not Darwinian. Every time we use a
contraceptive, we do a very non-Darwinian thing. Every time we write a
book or go to a concert, we are doing something not directly related
to preserving our selfish genes and surviving. We clearly can do it,
and it doesn't seem to have any connection with religion at all.
Sheahen:
You seem to agree with E.O. Wilson that science can be a satisfying
replacement for religion.
Dawkins:
Yes, I've written a book to that effect: "Unweaving the Rainbow."
Sheahen:
What about intelligent people who accept evolution and do marvel at
scientific advances (and perhaps were raised without much religion),
but who suddenly find themselves wanting more-wanting a specifically
religious dimension to their lives that science can't fill?
Dawkins:
Well, I've never met one. I've met plenty of people who call
themselves religious, but when you actually probe, when you ask them
in detail what they believe, it turns out to be this very same awe and
wonder that Wilson and Einstein talked about. If they're genuinely
intelligent, it does not involve the supernatural. Unless they were
brought up that way-but you were careful to say people who were not
brought up religious.
My suggestion is that you won't find any intelligent person who feels
the need for the supernatural. What you will find is the need for a
sense of transcendent wonder, which I share as well.
Sheahen:
Especially since 9/11, we've seen quite a debate about whether the
world might be better off without religion. If you had to make a case
for religion-one positive, if minor, thing religion has done--what
would it be?
Dawkins:
It's true that some kind, nice, sympathetic people are also religious,
and they might say that their kindness is motivated by religion. But
equally kind people are often not religious. I really don't think I
can think of anything; I really can't.
Sheahen:
Not even something like the Sistine Chapel?
Dawkins:
That's not religion; it's just because the church had the money. Great
artists like Michelangelo or Bach and Beethoven would have done
whatever they were told to do. Michelangelo painted what his sponsors
told him to paint.
Speaking of artists, your field, some might say, is somewhat
left-brain: science and math. Yet you often quote Yeats, for example.
Who are your favorite right-brain people-poets, artists, musicians?
Dawkins:
I love Yeats, Housman, Keats, Shakespeare, Mozart, Schubert above all,
Beethoven.
Sheahen:
Housman's pretty pessimistic.
I'm not a pessimistic person myself, but I just love his verse.
Sheahen:
Yeats, on the other hand, is very into mysticism and the supernatural.
Dawkins:
Quite. I sort of have to apologize for Yeats [laughs].
Sheahen:
In one essay you mention that the Abrahamic faiths, in particular, can
lead to intolerance and violence. Does this mean you find Eastern
traditions like Taoism a little less objectionable?
Dawkins:
I don't know very much about them, but I suspect the answer is yes.
One of the most salient stories of all three Abrahamic religions-the
story of Abraham almost sacrificing Isaac-is such an utterly
disgusting story, yet it is iconic for all three religions.
It's disgustingly cruel, a story of child abuse and violence.
Sheahen:
You've said that baptizing a child or saying "this is a Jewish
child"-that is, pasting a religious label on a child-is child abuse.
In your letter to daughter, you ask her to examine what she's told
based on evidence. What do you hope the world would be like if all
children were raised without religion, according to your theories?
Dawkins:
It would be paradise on earth. What I hope for is a world ruled by
enlightened rationality, which does not mean something dull, but
something of high artistic value. I just wish there were the slightest
chance of it ever happening.
Sheahen:
So if people lived according to rationalism, you envision, for
example, no more war?
Dawkins:
That might be a little bit optimistic, but there would be a much
better chance of no more war. Obviously [there would be] nothing like
9/11, because that's clearly motivated by religion. There would be
less hatred, because a lot of the hatred in the world is sectarian
hatred. For example, in Northern Ireland, India and Pakistan. You
wouldn't have an awful lot of the prejudice and trans-generational
vendettas that humanity suffers from.
There would be less waste of time. People would concentrate on really
worthwhile things, instead of wasting time on religion, astrology,
crystal-gazing, fortune-telling, things like that.
Some might see the situation in Northern Ireland not as religious, but
as class conflicts. The haves vs. the have-nots. There are struggles
where religion isn't a factor-in America, whites vs. blacks, even if
both groups were, say, Southern Baptist.
Dawkins:
That's absolutely right. But the thing about religious labels is that
they're gratuitous; there's no need for them to be there. You can't do
anything about your skin color, but religion could go.
Sheahen:
You also say critics of religion must speak up and not "tiptoe" around
questions of religious belief.
Dawkins:
Yes. In any other field, you can argue about politics, taste in music,
poetry. There's never the feeling that you're supposed to tiptoe away.
You're just not allowed to criticize someone's belief if it's a
religious belief, though you're perfectly allowed if it's about
politics.
I would like to raise people's consciousness against this feeling that
religion deserves respect simply because it is religion. The essay in
the book that most discusses this is called "Dolly and the Cloth
Heads." It discusses the tendency of broadcast media, for example, to
ask clergy to appear and give their opinion, whenever there's any
controversial issue like abortion, simply because they represent those
religions. Whereas other people have to earn the right to have their
opinion asked by having something sensible to say.
Sheahen:
You say religion is so ingrained in society that it's like a computer
virus. Can it really be eradicated?
Dawkins:
Only by education and reason. If people realize that it might be a
virus, and saw its resemblance to a virus, they might say, "That's
right. That's the way it feels." It's teaching people to think for
themselves, rather than just believe and take things on faith.
----------------------------
Richard Dawkins is Professor of the Public Understanding of Science at
Oxford University. His books include The Selfish Gene, The Blind
Watchmaker, River Out of Eden, and Unweaving the Rainbow.
http://www.beliefnet.com/story/136/story_13688_3.html
.
|
|
| User: "Geoff Offermann" |
|
| Title: Re: Dawkins on Darwin, the Sistine Chapel, and why the world would be better off without religion. |
24 Dec 2003 12:36:24 AM |
|
|
"LP" <whirl_pool@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:jt4iuvcmle2mi78iov39v6e10f9bjm5fu1@4ax.com...
snip
Darwin realized that natural selection produces cruel results. He
looked at predators and prey, parasites and hosts, and saw how there
is an immense amount of suffering and cruelty out there in nature. He
also realized that that was a logical consequence of his theory. The
beauty and elegance of living things is produced as a result of a
thoroughly unpleasant, cruel process-this constant winnowing,
generation after generation, of animals and plants.
The point of my essay is that we humans can escape from that, because
our brains, which have evolved to a large size as a result of this
very same process, are big enough to emancipate from the process that
gave rise to them. They can set up new goals, new purposes that are
not directly related to natural selection at all.
I disagree. It is still natural selection. Our brains are not supernatural.
And I think nature will eventually give us reason for humility. Our brains
may be our undoing or we may not be able to keep up with non-
intelligent viruses and bacteria.
The laws of natural selection are clear. No organism can sustain
geometric growth. Our intellect has allowed us to sustain it for
longer than any large terraform.
.
|
|
|
| User: "LP" |
|
| Title: Re: Dawkins on Darwin, the Sistine Chapel, and why the world would be better off without religion. |
27 Dec 2003 01:53:12 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 24 Dec 2003 06:36:24 GMT, "Geoff Offermann"
<gebobs@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote:
"LP" <whirl_pool@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:jt4iuvcmle2mi78iov39v6e10f9bjm5fu1@4ax.com...
snip
Darwin realized that natural selection produces cruel results. He
looked at predators and prey, parasites and hosts, and saw how there
is an immense amount of suffering and cruelty out there in nature. He
also realized that that was a logical consequence of his theory. The
beauty and elegance of living things is produced as a result of a
thoroughly unpleasant, cruel process-this constant winnowing,
generation after generation, of animals and plants.
The point of my essay is that we humans can escape from that, because
our brains, which have evolved to a large size as a result of this
very same process, are big enough to emancipate from the process that
gave rise to them. They can set up new goals, new purposes that are
not directly related to natural selection at all.
I disagree. It is still natural selection. Our brains are not supernatural.
And I think nature will eventually give us reason for humility. Our brains
may be our undoing or we may not be able to keep up with non-
intelligent viruses and bacteria.
Dawkins never suggested that our ability to sidestep natural selection
didn't have the potential to "be our undoing". He pointed out that we
now have this ability, and that it has the potential to benefit the
human species.
The laws of natural selection are clear. No organism can sustain
geometric growth. Our intellect has allowed us to sustain it for
longer than any large terraform.
Which is why he mentions "birth control" as one of the examples of a
capability we now have that is not directly related to natural
selection.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
