The Interview: Richard Dawkins

On Darwin, faith and natural selection, and why creationists are simply history deniers

by Jonathon Gatehouse on Wednesday, September 23, 2009 9:00am - 153 Comments

Q: There’s a new paper from a psychologist at Bristol University, claiming our brains are hard-wired to believe in God. You’ve argued that religious belief is a by-product of indoctrination or lack of education. Could you see an evolutionary benefit to faith?

A: Oh yes, I think that’s quite likely. Not a benefit to faith itself, but a benefit to the kind of psychological predisposition which shows itself in the form of faith.

Q: What would those benefits be?

A: One might be obedience to authority. You can see where that might be of benefit to a child. You are born into a dangerous world, there are all sorts of ways in which you could die, and you need to believe your parents when they tell you don’t go near the edge of the cliff, or don’t pick up that snake, etc. There could very well be a Darwinian survival value in that sort of brain rule of thumb. And a by-product of that could be that you believe your parents when they tell you about the juju in the sky, or whatever it might be.

Q: In the book, you mention you own an original first edition of Darwin’s The Origin of Species and that it’s your prize possession. You’ve been tagged as “Darwin’s Rottweiler.” Why do you have such an affinity for him?

A: He made arguably the greatest discovery any human has ever made. He was a man of great persistence. He wasn’t probably a natural genius, he worked very hard—even though he was an invalid. He was a great family man, a very nice man. I think he was admirable in all sorts of ways. But I think it’s probably that I’m a biologist and he’s the leading figure of the whole of biology.

Q: On your website, you have a campaign going to encourage fellow atheists to “come out of the closet,” and perhaps even wear scarlet “A” pins on their lapels.

A: First of all, I ought to say we’re very adamant that we don’t want to out people as atheists. We’re in the business of consciousness raising, trying to encourage them; if they are atheist, to be proud of it.

Q: But is this something you see as a linked purpose? Your work is not just to get people to accept evolution, but to make the next leap?

A: Well, that was certainly the purpose of The God Delusion, but not The Greatest Show on Earth. The battle here is against creationism, not against religion per se. But if you are asking me if my more global purpose is a battle against religion, it is.

Bookmark and Share
  • http://intensedebate.com/people/JustinWordswrth JustinWordswrth

    Anyone looking for proof that humans evolved needn't look farther than John Baird.

  • Conservative? No.

    Conservatives have a monopoly on science – the left denies genetic determinism and human biodiversity. They deny a tsunami of evidence showing significant mental and physical differences between the races, conserveratives accept this science. The left belives in hiring according to race and gender, the right believes in hiring the best candidate. Darwin's beliefs about race are conservative and leftists deny them.

    "You’ve mentioned the harassment of teachers of evolution in the United States."

    Big deal, it's not nearly as bad as the harrassment of race realists in Canada and the USA by radical leftists like Dawkins. People losing their jobs for using the word "niggardly", the president of Harvard losing his job for stating scientific facts about women and math/science, the discoverer of DNA Dr. Watson losing his job for making un PC (but scientifically valid) comments about Africa.

    We have a monopoly on science, it is the left that is anti science.

    • Gary

      "Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservative."
      — John Stuart Mill

    • caseywollberg

      He has sort of a point. Consider post-modernism. That's anti-science, dogmatically liberal (to the point of rendering the word "liberal" meaningless–think PC nazis, multiculturalists, etc.), and well-established in academia.

      On the other hand, I don't think a rejection of post-modernism makes one a "conservative," and I wouldn't call Dawkins a "radical leftist" (and that statement does rather contradict the claim that "conservatives have a monopoly on science"). Furthermore, it is inaccurate to say that there is a "tsunami of evidence showing significant mental and physical differences between the races," or at least it depends on what you mean by "the races." Classifying humans according to skin color is hardly scientific, for example.

      That said, I do believe Political Correctness has become a bothersome ideology that needs to be checked–it has no place in the pursuit of truth, and it should by no means be in a position to discourage scientific inquiry and debate.

  • Paul Dekker

    It is hard to deny the"fact" of evolution, even in recent history people, language, species and even religion have all evolved. The problem with materialists such as Dawkin is that they always attack the least evolved of the religious species and use their outdated views to denounce the whole of spirituality. Religion has been misused over the years for power and control, so has science (hence nuclear weapons). I believe fundamentalist religions act as a good balance to materialistic scientists to help us evolve in material and in spirit.

    • John Lowen

      I am a member at Prof. Dawkins website, if you would be as so kind to point out the "more evolved of the religious species" and tell me how his views on religion are "outdated," I could pass this information along to him. I'm sure he would be intrigued.
      And may I remind you, religion has killed many, many more people than atomic bombs…well, so far anyway.

  • Mike

    I do not think any reasoning person can rationally dispute evolutionary fact. My one problem with the author, and their ilk, is their Atheistic stance. What sheer arrogance. It proclaims a complete and total understanding of the workings of the universe.
    I wonder sometimes if this is not a scientific reaction to the close minded, arrogant proclamations of organized religion. One view seems as stilted and condemning as the other. I think the strongest statement any of us can make concerning omnipotence is: We just don’t know.

    • caseywollberg

      "Atheistic stance. What sheer arrogance. It proclaims a complete and total understanding of the workings of the universe."

      Wow, you really screwed the pooch on that one. Where do you get your ideas, I wonder? Revelation? Atheism is the rejection of theistic claims, on account of a lack of evidence. It is not a separate claim of its own.

      "I think the strongest statement any of us can make concerning omnipotence is: We just don’t know."

      Exactly, which is why we don't believe. That makes us atheists. It would do no good for me to go around proclaiming that "I don't know" about the truth of any and all preposterous claims, and that therefore it might be true. There is the matter of the burden of proof, after all: it doesn't rest with the atheist or the a-leprechaunist or the a-unicornist to produce evidence for the non-existence of these things). As I said before, the atheist doesn't make a claim ("a complete and total understanding of the workings of the universe," for example), the theist does.

  • Neil

    I must say that some here are completely mischaracterizing Atheism.

    There are very, very few atheists that I know of that would say "There is no god." Notice that this claim is very different from the claim "I do not believe in god." The latter claim does not profess certainty. If people had actually read Dawkins' book, they would have read that he falls into this latter category; he goes so far as to say that it is unscientific to assert that there is no god.

    What we have here are two different questions: an epistemological question (gnosticism/agnosticism) and a theological question (theism/atheism). The gnostic atheist would claim that they know that there is no god; the agnostic atheist would claim that they do not believe in god. The agnostic atheist may even claim that they find the existence of god to be so improbable that there almost certainly is no god. But a good scientist does not go so far as to make a claim of certainty, and that certainly is not what Dawkins has done in the past. In his book "The God Delusion", he rates himself as a ~6 on his scale of belief, where 7 is absolute certainty that there is no god. In recent interviews, he has said he is closer to a 6.9 but cannot commit himself to a position of 7. People should really understand the arguments before they criticize them.

  • Megan

    Does anybody else believe that creationism and evolution could coexist?
    How did the earth come about and how did the first organisms land here? I might be very ignorant, but I want to have faith that somehow the Earth really did come from what might have been the "big bang". But I don't think that humans landed on Earth during this "Big Bang". I think that some distant ancestors of ours was roaming the earth many years ago and that we evolved from those ancestors. And I think that we will continue to evolve into something else.

    I believe in Creationism (the Earth was created somehow that I can't fathom) and in Evolution (we evolved from the ancestors that originated on Earth).

    • Crubb

      This is so weak. If you can't fathom it, you'll just believe something simpler, regardless of whether it is true or not. It's backwards to say the least.

  • Aster

    My first response was: "what's the big deal about a popular science book laying out the evidence for evolution?" Then it occurred to me that no one would even bother to write a book about laying out the evidence for the heiocentric theory of the solar system or the Newtonian conception of physics, because no one has doubted these for centuries. Why do religious literalists reject the theory of evolution but not these others? They contradict a *literal* reading of the Bible just as much as evolution. Besides, the empirical evidence is much more available to average people for evolution than for the dynamics of the solar system and the principles of Natural Selection, mutation, and decent by modification are much easier to grasp than for Newtonian physics.

  • Believer(everyone is

    I listened to an interview of Richard Dawkins over APR a couple of years ago. He was asked a question about why a being of superior intelligence could not have been the author of the universe. His answer was something like that evolution shows life begins with the simple and goes to the complicated.
    With that type of circular reasoning, why does he not just admit that evolution is his religion–that everything he hears goes through the filter of evolution and that he cannot consider anything that does not line up with that belief? I have faith and admit it; he has faith and calls it science.

    • John Lowen

      You have no real concept of what science is unfortunately.

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/adb215 adb215

      You are right. Science is a faith. It just happens to be based in fact, not in some book that tells you that some omnipotent person that you can't see, exists. That would be the definition of insanity, FYI.

  • John

    Perhaps next time Maclean's can ask Mr. Dawkins why he has radicalized secular thought and has become as much to blame for the polarization of this issue as any American televangelist (the simple answer being the money)

    • Antitheist

      I think his answer would be: "it's about time!" (not money)

      We've advanced our understanding beyond the need for a crutch like religion – it's about time we shed the confusion (and thus, conflict) and present the world as it really is so that we have a hope of advancing further. Otherwise, what's the point? To get to heaven? No thanks, unless you can prove it!

  • ralph

    Okay, maybe I am missing something here. What is the driving force that causes things to change as in evolution? Is it something external……a higher power perhaps? Maybe evolutionist and creationists are not really that far apart. Because it takes an huge amount of faith to believe in evolution, too. As for Richard Dawkins he doesn't really tell us anything new. Most of it is just rehashed mumbo jumbo.

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/atheist_Rick atheist_Rick

      Try reading about evolution, Dawkins's new book prehaps?

  • Bran

    I have one thing to say from a creationist point of view and that is one day every one of you Evolutionist will take a stand before the Creator God himself and give account for your debunk theory’s and leading thousands astray with it. God Created the earth and all that is within it and all the galaxys and there’s even written proof passed down sense beginning of time in Gods Book called the Bible. Scientist will continue to deny deny deny the truth but I would be very fearful of what I say to add or take away from the Bible because when you leave this life you’re in the hands of almighty God. Like it or lump it Evolutionist I have Evidence and you don’t. Your evidence is manmade theories and based on bunk, I have History and written proof of an intelligent design. You will not find no other Book written sense the beginning of time to support a Creation so you have no argument.

    I am after all “fearfully and wonderfully made” Psalms 139:14

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/atheist_Rick atheist_Rick

      You have one book from a 2000 year old iron age desert people. We have thousands of books from educated scientists using the latest techology, peer reviewed by other scientists. We win.

      • Bran

        Yes I have one Book from beginning to the end of all life as we know it and it didnt take God thousands of Books to publish to show how he CREATED the HEAVENS AND THE EARTH in 6000 Years like your so called scientist had to do and come up with a conclusion or try to show how the Earth and Solar System was made in thousands of Books. It took God just 1. After all he is God the Creator AMEN.

        • DDD

          You need to take the blinders off my friend. Just read his new book, you might learning something. (maybe learn how to spell since as well)

        • http://intensedebate.com/people/atheist_Rick atheist_Rick

          Most atheists have read the bible and were raised in their parents religion. We then read other books and started to think for our selves.
          Have you read the quran or torah, they are about your same god? Which book of your god is the truth? How do you choose one over the other? Is it the one you were raised with? If so, that's not thinking for yourself, that just being a parrot.

        • Ryan

          Except its pretty common knowledge now that this all powerful book you base your entire life on was written 2000 years ago, and not by god, but by men with a vested interest in getting others to believe what they put in it.

          How can a person call themselves a creationist without getting embarrassed? I mean seriously? Homo sapiens knew the basics of agriculture 4000 years before your god "created" anything. Seems to me like creationist is a nicer way of saying willingly stupid.

    • caseywollberg

      HOGWASH! EVERYONE NOWS THE WON TRUE GOD IS THE MIGHTY CTHULHU (MAY HE DEVOUR YOUR SOUL LAST)! WHEN THE STARS ARE RIGHT HE WILL AWAKEN FROM HIS LONG SLUMBER OF EONS TO RISE WUNCE MORE FROM HIS SUNKEN REALM OF R'LYEH. THE NATIONS WILL TERMBEL AND THE PLANETS WILL KRASH INTO EACH OTHER AS CTHULHU COMES TO COLLECT HIS FAITHFUL MINIONS BY THE TENS!!! BUT YOU, PUNY MORTAL, SHAMELESS UNBELIEVER–YOU WILL BE DEVOURED LAST, AS A PITIFUL AFTER-DINNER SNACK, SENSE YOU, IN YOUR FESTERING DOUBT, ARE NOTHING MORE SUBSTANTIAL OR FILLING TO THE UNCANNY BOWELS OF OUR DREAD ELDRITCH LORD! IA! IA! CHULHU F'TAGN!

    • Gary

      The only truth comes from crazed iron age nomads roaming the desert in the Middle East. Good theory.

  • Tim

    The man states his “global purpose is a battle against religion”. I take this as the statement of a zealot proclaiming he is a zealot. He is a warrior not a scientist or teacher. To win his battle he needs to turn others away from what they believe. I think he should be given equal consideration with other belief systems. We need to teach evolution along with other religions in our schools.

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/atheist_Rick atheist_Rick

      1) Science is NOT a religion. It is a proven way to gather true facts and to build testable theories on, like math does.
      2) Science should be taught in science class, ALL religions should be taught in Religious classes equally.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/atheist_Rick atheist_Rick

    You have alrighty come half way on the logic that Dawkins is stateing. With the evidence scientists now have on the size and age of the unverse, it proofs the earth is not 6000 years old. So the Bible is not the word of an all knowing god.
    All evidence point to evolution. There is no evidence for god.
    Your elephant story helps to show how religion thinks, a scientist would says he does not know and needs more evidence.
    What is your evidence for god? ( no, you cannot use a book call the bible, it's just a man write book with no evidence to back it up.)

  • http://www.intensedebate.com/people/Mediocrates Mediocrates

    I'm a huge fan of Dawkins, And have read many of his books. Including "The God Delusion", which I wholeheartly agree with.

    I look forward to reading his new book "The Greatest Show on Earth" I anticipate it will give me the amunition I, and all other thinking rational people need to refute the Evolution Deniers.

    But until I've read it, I'll leave the Bible thumpers with this thought, form another great thinker:

    "Belief is when others do the thinking" – Buckminster Fuller

  • http://scunt.co.uk Dom Doze

    I'm a christian and I think god has put Richard Dawkins here to test our faith. You can prove anything with science, and he has just 'proved' that evolution exists. I could prove it doesn't exist just as easily i just dont want to.

  • http://loneresearcher.blogspot.com/2009/10/spruce-budworm.htmlhttp://petermax.tigblog.org loneresearcher

    I would like to ask Mr. Dawkins where did it all come from? It had to start somewhere and so where was that. We know that matter can neither be created nor destroyed but it can be changed from one form into another. We know that that is a principle of science. So in the universe, we have tremendous matter and tremendous energy interchanging all the time, but where did it all come from? And then where did that come from, so on, so on etc. Ultimately, there must have been a creation.
    Nevertheless, I am interested in hearing Mr. Dawkins view on that, or for that matter, anyone else.

  • anon

    im ashamed to be turkish >_>

  • caseywollberg

    There it is folks. Pure, unadulterated, blessed reality. Why don't more of you get it? Are you really that stupid or incapable of looking up an encyclopedia entry? You have the Internet, obviously. Use it. Learn something before you reveal your ignorance to the world.

From Macleans