Shadowing-Übung: Is Religion Good or Evil? | Richard Dawkins vs Mehdi Hasan - Englisch Sprechen Lernen mit Video

Übungsmodus wählen

Jeder Modus öffnet einen Übungsraum im Vollbild.

459 Sätze

Wenn Sätze zu kurz oder zu lang sind, klicke auf Edit, um sie anzupassen.

Are you an atheist?

For all practical purposes, yes.

Nobody can actually say for certain that anything doesn't exist.

But I'm an atheist in the same way as I'm an a -leprechaunist and an a -fairyist and an a -pick -unicornist.

So you're not 100 % sure God doesn't exist, but you're sure enough to make it practically...

I'm as sure as you are sure that fairies and leprechauns don't exist.

And do you see an equivalence between the idea of God and the idea of a fairy and a leprechaun?

The evidence for both is equally poor.

You say in The God Delusion, one of my favourite sentences that jumps out of the page,

that the God of the Old Testament is a petty, unjust, unforgiving control freak, a vindictive, bloodthirsty, ethnic cleanser, a misogynistic,

homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capricious, malevolent bully.

As a piece of rhetoric, superb.

But do you really believe that?

Congratulations on getting megalomaniacal right, by the way.

Most people fumble on that.

Yes, if you've actually read the Old Testament, I think you would have to agree.

It's hideous.

It's an anti -the God of the Old Testament who is a monster.

But also the God of the Koran, the New Testament, the Hindu scripture?

Well, the God of the Koran, I don't know so much about the God of the New Testament,

is widely advertised as being a bit more gentle.

and certainly, on the whole, he is.

There are things about the New Testament that I find, in a way, almost more objectionable than the Old Testament.

But the sheer horror of the character, I said he was the most unpleasant character in all fiction, because I regard it as fiction, of course.

And yes, he is.

I mean, he's jealous, he's vindictive, he's callous, he's cruel.

And this is a God that is worshipped by, loved by, adored by, followed by millions, billions of people.

I hope not.

I hope that the God that is adored by millions of people

is a grown -up kind of God who is no longer...

I hope that most people who.. the kind of people I would like to know who worship

and admire him regard those stories as not literally true.

Now, there are some who do regard them as literally true, and I suspect they either haven't read the Old Testament,

or they're not the kind of people I would wish to know, because you do not want to worship a character like that.

By all means, worship some kind of great spirit of the universe, some kind of creative intelligence who created the universe, but don't worship this vile,

vindictive monster of the Old Testament.

So why throw around these sweeping statements about religion, not the God of the Old Testament, but religion itself being evil?

I mean, do you believe religion is evil?

No. You say plenty of times in this book that religion is evil.

You said in a speech, famously, that I think a case can be made that faith is one of the world's great evils,

comparable to the smallpox virus, but harder to eradicate.

I do think that, yes.

Because what I'm talking about there is faith, where faith means belief in something without evidence.

Because if you believe something without evidence, then that justifies anything.

You're no longer vulnerable to somebody coming back at you and saying, hang on a minute, let me argue the case.

If you believe it without evidence, which is what faith is, then you don't argue the case.

You say, no, I'm not arguing that case.

This is my faith.

It's mine.

It's private.

I don't dissent from it.

I don't retreat from it.

You're just going to have to accept it.

Now, that is evil.

And yet you spend so much of your time debating people of faith, so clearly people of faith are interested in having discussions.

They're not just all blind believers, insisting on their way of...

Well, nobody said anything about all of them.

I mean, the vast majority of religious people are perfectly good, nice people, as you are.

There's no suggestion I've ever made that all religious people are evil.

Of course not.

There is a logical progression that goes from believing in faith, having faith that your God tells you to do something,

and doing terrible deeds like suicide bombing, like flying planes into skyscrapers.

The vast majority of people of faith don't do such terrible things.

But those people who do terrible things do it believing that they are righteous and good,

and they think that they're doing the will of their god

so they are they're not evil people

they're actually good people by their own lights they believe they're doing good things

and that's why religion is evil because it can make you do evil things believing that they are good.

Do you really believe that people who go out

and carry out suicide bombings

it is faith religion is to blame not geopolitics not the

world not their lives not what's going on around us it's religion plain and simple?

Not always since not in the case of the Tamil Tigers for example, but I think in a great majority of cases it is

and I think it certainly makes it a hell of a lot easier.

The evidence is plain that that in many

Islamic suicide bombers, you talk to them, those who fail, you talk to them afterwards, they've got paradise on the brain.

They're desperate to go to a martyr's heaven and that's what they think about.

Professor Robert Pape of the University of Chicago studied every known case of suicide terrorism, 315 cases, and he came to the conclusion

that there's quote little connection between suicide terrorism and Islamic fundamentalism or any of the world's religions.

The taproot of suicide terrorism, he says, is nationalism.

It's about land, it's about power, it's about politics.

It's not about faith, faith is just a cover.

What do you know that he doesn't know?

Well, I've seen other evidence.

There are different people say different things.

I've seen plenty of testimonies of suicide bombers who have said precisely that they do it because they want a martyr's paradise.

Do you include the 7 -7 bombers in that case as well?

Yes, I believe so.

Have you watched their suicide videos?

I'm not sure that I have, no. They talk about Afghanistan, they talk about Iraq, They talk about Crusades.

They talk about war between the West and the Muslim world.

They talk about invading armies I mean, there's a lot of there's a lot of real -world stuff

in there I'm not saying of course not the faith doesn't play a role

But I'm just interested in this idea that you think faith is is the issue

You say you said in a very famous column you wrote four days after 9 -11 that this came from religion

There are enormously good reasons for people to take political action

and this this we see in Northern Ireland We see it in Afghanistan

We see it in in Sri Lanka where the Tamil Tigers operated.

So yes, there are political reasons, but the promise of a martyr's heaven, which is, you cannot deny that this is part of Islamic doctrine.

100

Martyrs go straight to paradise.

101

Yes, but not terrorists, not murderers, not criminals.

102

Well, they believe that because they're told it by their Imams.

103

But then what about the majority of the world's

104

Muslim clerics and ulama who came out and condemned 9 -11?

105

Well, I'm delighted they did, but they were pretty quiet about it.

106

What about the argument that says human beings are prone to violence, they're prone to carrying out crimes against their fellow man.

107

You can blame religion, you can blame politics, you can blame economics.

108

Lots of factors.

109

Lots of excuses.

110

What I don't get is why do you only focus on religion? For fairness.

111

Why don't you also isolate the other factors?

112

There are lots of other factors and I'm quite happy to say that, yes.

113

There are lots of...

114

If you look at the wars of history, some of them have been about religion, plenty of them have not been about religion.

115

I never said religion is the sole cause of wars and violence.

116

You may not have said that, but you would accept that the new atheists, people like Sam Harris, the late Christopher Hitchens,

117

have blamed a lot of history's wars on God and religion, and you make a similar suggestion under God Delusion.

118

Yeah, I would blame a lot of history's wars, but the most terrible wars in history, the two major wars of the 20th century,

119

are nothing to do with religion.

120

You accept that point?

121

Yeah, of course.

122

And the Cold War and Vietnam?

123

Yes, I would, of course, yes.

124

So, when you have a situation where some of the world's worst crimes were carried out not by believers,

125

how then does that square with your idea that it's religion that causes good people to do bad things,

126

religion that's driving violence, your original statement against religion at the start of this?

127

Dogmatic belief in something like religion or something like Marxism or something like Nazism, these are all, or indeed patriotism,

128

I mean my country right or wrong, These are all pernicious beliefs which can drive people to do terrible things.

129

And in the Second World War, Hitlerism was driven by racism,

130

by a sort of sub -Wagnerian pagan religion which Hitler revived.

131

Stalin's atrocities were motivated by a dogmatic belief in Marxism. And atheism.

132

Stalin happened to be an atheist, but he was never motivated specifically.

133

The Soviet Union was not based on scientific rationalism, on the elimination of religion and God?

134

Stalin persecuted the church.

135

Stalin persecuted just about everybody.

136

Are you saying that the Soviet Union, the leaders of the Soviet Union, were not driven by a hatred of religion?

137

And a belief that science and human progress and materialism was the way forward?

138

They believed that materialism, science, human progress, there was a Marxist slant on those words, and they were hideously misused.

139

Mao Zedong, when he invaded

140

Tibet, told the Dalai Lama that religion is poison.

141

The subtext to the late Christopher Hitchens' book was religion poisons everything.

142

Can you blame people of religion for saying, hold on, we've heard these ideas before, that religion poisons everything, and it leads in one direction?

143

It's an incidental fact that

144

Mao Zedong and Stalin didn't happen to be atheists, they were not...

145

Incidentally, it wasn't core to communism.

146

I think it was not core to communism, no. So when Karl Marx was talking about religion being the opiate of the masses,

147

that was just a throwaway line?

148

Yeah, I mean, that was an out of context statement.

149

I mean, what on earth do you think that's got to do with atheism?

150

I don't know.

151

Let me put a statement in context to you.

152

Albania, one of the world's worst dictatorships, tyrannies that we've seen in the last hundred years.

153

Article 37 of Albania's communist constitution declared,

154

quote, the state recognizes no religion and supports atheistic propaganda in order to implant a scientific, materialistic world outlook in people.

155

What do you think you're saying?

156

I mean that's an appalling thing to say, of course it is.

157

Why is that an appalling thing to say?

158

What do you disagree with in that statement?

159

Why would I want to support atheistic propaganda?

160

I support science and truth.

161

But you don't support spreading atheism.

162

I support spreading science and truth.

163

If that happens to be atheism, I support it.

164

I'm not going to start bullying people into being atheists.

165

I'm not going to start trying to compel people to be atheists.

166

That was what the Albanians were doing.

167

It's nothing to do with what I want to do. Of course.

168

But you'd like to persuade them not to be believers and become atheists.

169

I'd like to raise consciousness in a gentle, civilised way, using argument, rational argument, from evidence.

170

In your book, you cite lots of evidence for the bad things religions are.

171

What I wonder is, if you were being fair, wouldn't you have also included some of the good things that religion's done?

172

My passion is for scientific truth.

173

I don't much care about what's good and evil, actually.

174

I care about what's true.

175

I mean, do you actually believe in your Muslim faith?

176

Do you believe that Mohammed split the moon in two?

177

Do you believe that Mohammed flew to heaven on a winged horse, for example?

178

I pay you the compliment of assuming that you don't.

179

No, I do.

180

I believe in miracles.

181

You believe that?

182

Yes.

183

You believe that Mohammed went to heaven on a winged horse?

184

Yes, I believe in God, I believe in miracles, I believe in revelation.

185

I mean, the point here is, let's assume I'm wrong, Richard, I'm wrong.

186

Yeah, let's.

187

Let's assume I'm wrong.

188

I'm wrong.

189

I'm happy to concede that, Richard, I'm happy to concede it.

190

I'm wrong.

191

All religions are wrong, God does not exist, we're all mad.

192

The issue is, we exist.

193

We've existed for a while.

194

I think even Christopher Hitchens said, and you've said in your writings, we're not going anywhere.

195

So my question to you is, why not acknowledge, for example, the good things that religion has done? good things,

196

despite all of our mad beliefs and our miracles.

197

I accept that individual religious people have done an enormous number of good things.

198

Not driven by religion?

199

Well, I mean, who knows?

200

You're very mean -spirited.

201

You won't give any credit at all to that.

202

Take somebody like

203

Martin Luther King, for example.

204

Reverend Martin Luther King.

205

Yes.

206

Obviously, he was a cleric, so I imagine that that fed into the good things that he did, plenty of other things did.

207

He was a great admirer of Gandhi, and he was a great admirer of non -violence.

208

He was a brilliant and wonderful, great man.

209

Would you disconnect MLK's non -violence and Gandhi's non -violence from their very strongly held religious beliefs?

210

They didn't.

211

Well, I think that's, it's not a thing that I really care about, actually.

212

I mean, I think they were...

213

You do care about it, Richard.

214

You're saying that people carry out violence in the name of God.

215

And I cite to you an example of very famous people who have done good

216

and non -violence in the name of God and you say, I'm not interested.

217

If God doesn't exist, then doing something good in his name, it's great that something good gets done.

218

But there's no evidence at all that believing in God makes you more likely to do good things.

219

I can't see any noble, logical connection between being religious and doing good things.

220

Let's concede that God does not exist.

221

Let's concede that religion is false.

222

My problem here is trying to understand why some of the new atheists are

223

so anti -religion when religious people clearly are doing lots of good things and they're doing it in the name of God.

224

I've never denied that religious people are doing good things and non -religious people are doing good things.

225

I care about what's true, I'm an educator, I'm a scientist, and I want people to understand the truth about the universe in which they live.

226

That's what I care about.

227

And I regard religion as a distraction, and in some cases a pernicious distraction from true education

228

Which I which I love and value the way you value and love your God.

229

Can you not do both?

230

Well, so long as they don't come to divide Richard They don't contradict each other

231

But but if you if you if you actually believe Muhammad flew to heaven on a winged horse

232

That's an anti -scientific belief and that could be wrong, but that is wrong, but that doesn't change

233

That doesn't change

234

How do you know it's wrong?

235

Oh come on You're a man of the 21st century.

236

I'm just asking.

237

It comes back to my original question that the rational position

238

The rational position is the agnostic position.

239

Why up there?

240

Well, I mean the rational position.

241

I didn't say up there.

242

I didn't pick a place.

243

Why would a wind horse be that be the way to get to heaven if it's not up there?

244

I asked I asked I asked the question about you asked about proof I'm more for saying I can't prove it,

245

but can you prove he didn't do it?

246

I mean this is the end old debate I'm just asking on your criteria.

247

I'm just asking.

248

No, I can't prove it and I can't prove it wasn't a golden unicorn.

249

But I'm fascinated that you'd rather talk about

250

what animals the Prophet may or may not have used 1 ,400 years ago rather than talk about what

251

Muslims or Islam is doing in the world today, good or bad.

252

That seems to be the distraction.

253

If anyone's distracted, it seems to be you.

254

Well, that's your view.

255

I'm fascinated by how somebody, a respected, sophisticated journalist in the 21st century can believe that a Prophet flew to heaven on a winged horse.

256

Let me ask you this are all people who hold beliefs in god

257

and in miracles

258

and the supernatural do you regard them all as intellectually inferior

259

to you i regard those beliefs as intellectual nonsense um i don't regard the individuals as intellectually inferior to me

260

because many of them palpably are not

261

if you go back in history then all bets are off because before before darwin for example

262

it is not at all surprising

263

that before darwin people believed in all kinds of things

264

which they wouldn't believe in now there are many people many scientists today who say they're religious

265

And if you actually ask them what they believe, in many cases, it turns out what they believe is in some sort of deistic God,

266

some sort of intellectual spirit, some sort of creative intelligence that lay at the root of the universe,

267

perhaps invented the laws of physics, something like that.

268

I don't agree with this book, but it's an excellent book.

269

Very well argued.

270

You're very passionate, clearly.

271

There's one section in the book where you talk about bringing up children.

272

Oh, yes.

273

And you talked about education.

274

You talk about a story when you were, you tell a story about being in Ireland and talking about the Catholic child abuse scandal.

275

And there's one quote on page 356, which I will read out to you.

276

Horrible as sexual abuse, no doubt was, the damage was arguably less than the long -term psychological damage inflicted by bringing the child up

277

Catholic in the first place.

278

You believe that being brought up as a Catholic is worse than being abused by a priest.

279

There are shades of being abused by a priest.

280

And I quoted the example of a woman in America who wrote to me saying that when she was seven years old,

281

she was sexually abused by a priest in his car.

282

And at the same time, a friend of hers, also seven, who was Protestant, of Protestant family, I should say, died.

283

and she was told that because her friend was Protestant she had gone to hell

284

and would be roasting in hell forever and she told me

285

that of those two abuses she got over the physical abuse it was yucky

286

but she got over it

287

but the mental abuse of being told about hell she took years to get over

288

and I respect Richard you're an empiricist you're a rationalist one letter from one woman in America isn't really

289

but the basis to extrapolate makes of sweeping

290

That is, of course, true, and I'm not basing it on that.

291

It seems to me that telling children such that they really, really believe that people who sin are going to go to hell and roast forever,

292

forever, that your skin grows again when it peels off with burning,

293

it seems to me to be intuitively entirely reasonable that

294

that is a worse form of child abuse that will give more nightmares, that will give more

295

genuine distress

296

because they really believe it they don't believe

297

it's not a problem of course you also say let me just let me know

298

I've been put on the spot about this health bar thing I we haven't really been put on this

299

but in what sense have you been put on the spot well I I sense

300

that you think it's somehow obvious that that having a priest

301

if you're a small girl having a priest

302

but I would be very interested in asking the audience whether being told about heaven

303

and hell as a child you know I'm brought up as Catholic is worse than

304

that was worse than being abused by a priest okay let's

305

have a show of hands is it worse to be abused by a priest and

306

if you believe it's worse for a priest to abuse a

307

child than to bring up your child catholic raise your hands

308

are they both as bad as each other raise your hands

309

so we have a three -way split in the audience let's finish

310

this section with one last related subject on this question a personal question from me

311

you talk about how um to teach children

312

that there is one god or that god created the world in six days

313

that is child abuse to even teach your children religion is child abuse

314

so i have a daughter i teach her about islam

315

and the horse am i guilty of child abuse do you

316

teach her the world was created in six days no

317

because islam doesn't teach that i'm delighted to hear

318

that i ask again am i guilty of child abuse for teaching my child stories from the quran yes

319

or not are you an atheist science is your great passion and you're a great believer in science, you're an evangelist for science,

320

a promoter and defender of science.

321

But what would you say to those people who say there are some quite important questions, genuine questions, that science cannot answer?

322

Why are we here?

323

What's the meaning of life?

324

Where does morality come from?

325

And that if religion wants to have a crack at answering those, what's science's objection?

326

I'm not sure I'd accept that science can't answer those particular questions.

327

I think there are other questions science probably shouldn't try to answer, like what is right and what is wrong.

328

Those are questions that are not the immediate concern of science, but what's the meaning of life,

329

why is there anything, how did it all start, those seem to me to be scientific questions or potentially scientific questions.

330

If there are some questions of that sort that science can never answer, then we should at least keep trying to answer them,

331

and if science can't answer them, religion having a crack at answering them.

332

If there's no reason to think

333

that religion has any any any basis for an answer then why would religion have a crack?

334

Why would you bother to listen to religion having a crack at answering them?

335

I mean one thing I would say there may be questions

336

that science can't answer like the origin of everything but

337

if science can't answer them then religion certainly can't and nothing else can either.

338

Why?

339

Why is it science or nothing?

340

Well yes because because Because science is the method of getting at what's true, I mean if you take something like how did the universe begin,

341

which is a very baffling deep question.

342

How did life begin?

343

Another baffling, deep question.

344

Both those questions are unanswered.

345

The best methods we have of approaching those are the methods of science, because these are the methods that look at evidence,

346

that evaluate evidence in all sorts of sophisticated ways.

347

What has religion got to do with that, other than just looking at the writings of somebody who wrote a few centuries ago?

348

I mean, why would you bother to read those writings?

349

So the great philosophers and theologians in history who grappled with these big questions and thought about spiritual issues,

350

moral issues, the transcendent, they're all wasting their time?

351

Yes, they're wasting their time.

352

What about, why does my life have meaning?

353

What's its worth?

354

Where does my dignity come from?

355

Your meaning and your dignity are up to you

356

and mine are up to me and these are not questions that science would attempt to answer.

357

Each person finds their own meaning in their own life and good luck to them.

358

And what's wrong with religion offering moral certainties, if, as you say, science can't answer moral questions?

359

Science can't offer moral certainty, but I don't see that religion can either.

360

You don't think that the religious values we have today, the moral codes we live by today,

361

were originally derived from Judeo -Christian values, Islamic values, Hindu values?

362

Not really, no. I mean, things like the Golden Rule, things like treat others as you would wish to be treated yourself.

363

These are ancient values, which crop up all over the world.

364

They've been adopted by many religions.

365

You can find justifications for them in moral philosophy.

366

You can find justifications for them in evolutionary biology, which is my own subject.

367

I don't seriously think you're going to base your morality on religion, because if you do, then you've got to say,

368

well, do I base it on scripture?

369

I hope you don't base it on scripture, because

370

if you do, then you're going to have some pretty horrible values unless you deliberately cut out those parts of scripture

371

which are unacceptable to modern morality.

372

Do you believe science is omnipotent, that it can answer all questions?

373

I've already said no. I've already said it can't answer moral questions.

374

But questions about the real world, questions about reality, questions about the origins of things, why life is the way it is,

375

why the world is the way it is, why the universe is the way it is.

376

Yes, science is the way to answer that.

377

Some of your critics have argued that you are willing to hold religion up to a very.. put it under the microscope,

378

hold it to account, scrutinise it, criticise it.

379

You don't do the same to science or scientists or some of the bad things that have come out of science.

380

Well, bad things that come out of science, if by that you mean horrible weapons...

381

Nuclear weapons, gas chambers, eugenics.

382

Yeah.

383

These are terrible things, which are technology that arises out of science, and it's certainly true that if you want to do terrible things with technology,

384

with terrible weapons, for example, science is the best way to do it, because science is the best way to do anything.

385

Even bad things?

386

Even bad things.

387

I mean, that's right.

388

If you want to develop a terrible weapon, you're not going to do it in any other way than by science.

389

The trick is not to want to develop a terrible weapon, and that's a political decision.

390

And you do not see science and religion as occupying two different compartments that can live side by side?

391

They are in conflict with one another?

392

Insofar as religion attempts to talk about reality and has an alternative vision of reality, I think they are incompatible, yes.

393

Despite the fact, as we discussed earlier, many of our leading scientists are believers?

394

I think it's baffling.

395

I mean, what they in practice do is they leave their religion at the door when they go into the lab.

396

and so they get on with their science.

397

They say they don't.

398

Well, I know they do, but, well, okay.

399

Isn't it because religion answers all sorts of human needs and spiritual urges which science never can?

400

Isn't that the real issue that you can't get away from?

401

Religion may answer human needs.

402

I mean, for example, if you're terrified of dying, religion may answer the need for comfort and consolation.

403

Or if you miss a loved one who's died

404

and you hope to see them one day in heaven then religion answers a need it doesn't make it true

405

and one last thing and then we'll go to the audience what do you say to those people who say

406

you talk a great deal about the power of science the truth of science

407

you have people like sam harris who say morality can be determined by science

408

you have quite charismatic forceful people going around the world proselytizing on behalf of science

409

that science is actually the a new religion that you guys are pitching?

410

I wouldn't say it's a new religion.

411

I mean, it certainly does some of the things that religion traditionally has tried to do, like to answer the deep questions of existence.

412

And it does that, and it does it successfully in a way that religion never has.

413

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,

414

it's not based upon tradition, it's based upon evidence, and there's a huge difference.

415

And anything that we do not have evidence for that's not scientifically testable.

416

you would dismiss?

417

Well, scientifically testable is putting the bar rather highly, but I do think that evidence is the only good reason to believe anything, yes.

418

So love, beauty, aesthetics, metaphysics?

419

I mean, those are obviously important questions, and if you ask some question like, how do you know that your wife loves you?

420

It's from evidence.

421

I mean, it's not scientifically testable evidence, but it's evidence.

422

It's little looks in the eyes, little catches in the voice.

423

It's, it's, um, that is evidence.

424

That's not, that's not just internal revelation.

425

Okay.

426

Do you understand?

427

It does make me chuckle that you mock me for believing in a prophet that flies into a heaven,

428

but you believe in lots and lots of universes that you can't show me, prove to me, test me in a lab,

429

as a basis of getting out of believing in a God and a prophet.

430

I'm astonished that you should compare the two.

431

I'm comparing the lack of evidence for the two.

432

Well, you cannot use your own intuitive common sense in order to diss physics.

433

I mean, if you could do that, we wouldn't need physicists.

434

I mean, they are very sophisticated people, they do mathematics.

435

But there are physicists like Paul Davies who have dissed the multiverse series being nonsense.

436

Well, Paul Davies would rather take the view that there's something mysterious in the origin of the universe.

437

And that's another perfectly respectable physicist's view.

438

Steven Weinberg, the Nobel Prize winning physicist.

439

It's respectable if a physicist holds a view about mystery in the universe, but not if anyone else holds it.

440

If we're talking about the origin of the universe, that is a problem in physics, yes.

441

Let's end with a couple of quick questions.

442

If, as Christopher Hitchens, the late Christopher Hitchens wrote, religion is ineradicable and, as you put it, harder to get rid of than smallpox,

443

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?

444

I would never admit to wasting my time trying to propagate the truth,

445

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.

446

It's a doctrine of despair to say that we're stuck with religion for all eternity.

447

The religions of ancient Greece and ancient Rome and the Vikings are all dead.

448

Nobody believes in Jupiter or Thor anymore and I have great hopes

449

that the same is going to be true of the God of Abraham. And one last thing.

450

There's a new book out from one of this country's well -known philosophers called Religion for Atheists,

451

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,

452

there are some values that atheists could usefully borrow.

453

I've heard that argument put.

454

I've heard people say that humans do need some sort of rituals and they need some sort of gathering places, meeting places.

455

I can sort of see that.

456

It's not a thing that interests me very much.

457

I don't feel any great need for for ritual.

458

I don't feel any great need to fill the alleged vacuum that will be left when religion goes.

459

I think there's plenty to fill it already.

App herunterladen

Alles, was du zum fließenden Sprechen brauchst

KI-AussprachebewertungJeder Satz bewertet

IPA-TrainingJeden Laut meistern

WortschatzBaue deinen Wortschatz auf

VokabelspielSpielend lernen

QR scannen

Download on theApp Store Get it onGoogle Play

FOR YOU

Empfohlenes Video

625 Sätze

You Say You Love Allah (ﷻ)... But Do You Know What It Really Means?. | Shaykh Omar Sulieman

Daily ConversationUniversity StudentsWorking Adults

76 Sätze

Make AI Believe in God to Keep Humans Safe, Scientist Argues

Daily ConversationUniversity StudentsWorking Adults

388 Sätze

Money, happiness and eternal life - Greed (1/2) | DW Documentary

Daily ConversationUniversity StudentsWorking Adults

Wortschatz und Sprechhinweise zu dieser Lektion

Diese Sprechübung basiert auf dem Video „Is Religion Good or Evil?“. Dieses Video enthält 459 Sätze und 5504 Wörter zum Nachsprechen. Der gesprochene Teil dauert 28:00. Der Sprecher spricht schnell, etwa 197 Wörter pro Minute – rechne mit verbundenen und verkürzten Lauten. 83 % der Wörter gehören zu den 3.000 häufigsten im Englischen; den Rest solltest du dir vor dem Üben ansehen. 73 der 459 Sätze sind Fragen – gut, um Frageintonation und kurze Antworten zu üben.

Wichtiger Wortschatz in diesem Video

15 lernenswerte Wörter aus dem Video, mit Aussprache und Bedeutung:

Wort	Aussprache	Bedeutung
atheist Substantiv	/ˈeɪ.θi.ɪst/	Atheist, Atheistin
belief Substantiv	/bɪˈliːf/	Glauben
priest Substantiv	/ˈpɹiːst/	Priester, Priesterin
moral Adjektiv	/ˈmoɹəl/	moralisch
regard Substantiv	/ɹɪˈɡɑːd/	Respekt, Achtung
argue Verb	/ˈɑɹ.ɡju/	diskutieren, erörtern
crack Substantiv	/kɹæk/	Ritze, Sprung
worship Substantiv	/ˈwɝ.ʃɪp/	Verehrung, Anbetung
miracle Substantiv	/ˈmɪɹ.ə.kəl/	Wunder, Mirakel
rational Adjektiv	/ˈɹæʃ(ə)nəl/	vernünftig, sinnvoll
prophet Substantiv	/ˈpɹɑ.fɪt/	Prophet, Prophetin
morality Substantiv	/məˈɹælɪti/	Moral, Moralität
scripture Substantiv	/ˈskɹɪpt͡ʃɚ/	Schrift, heilige Schrift
believer Substantiv	/bɪˈlivɚ/	Gläubiger, Gläubige
horrible Adjektiv	/ˈhɔɹ.ɪ.bəl/	schrecklich, abscheulich

Phrasal Verbs, die du hören wirst

Wort	Aussprache	Bedeutung
bring up Verb		erwähnen, mit etwas kommen / ankommen
carry out Verb	/ˈkæ.ɹi aʊt/	raus tragen
get over Verb		überwinden
come out Verb	/ˌkʌm ˈaʊt/	herauskommen
cut out Verb		unterlassen, aufhören
get on with Verb		fortfahren, sich begeben
go out Verb		hinausgehen, herausgehen
grow up Verb		aufwachsen, erwachsen werden

Sätze zum Wiederholen

Kurze, vollständige Sätze aus dem Video, die du im Alltag wiederverwenden kannst:

I mean, do you believe religion is evil?
What do you know that he doesn't know?
Why don't you also isolate the other factors?
What do you think you're saying?
How do you know it's wrong?

Grammatik in diesem Video

Die Strukturen, die der Sprecher am häufigsten verwendet, mit den genauen Worten aus dem Video:

Struktur	Im Video
Bedingungssätze if + Satz, will/would + Verb – eine Bedingung und ihre Folge	if you were being fair, wouldn't you · if you could do that, we wouldn't need
Present Perfect have/has + Partizip Perfekt – eine vergangene Handlung, die jetzt noch wichtig ist	you've actually read · haven't read · I've ever made
Passiv be + Partizip Perfekt – wichtig ist, was geschieht, nicht wer es tut	is widely advertised · is worshipped · is adored
Relativsätze who / which + Satz – eine Zusatzinformation über eine Person oder Sache	evidence, which is · people who do · people who go

Aussprache, auf die du achten solltest

Der Sprecher verwendet 163 Kurzformen und abgeschwächte Formen, zum Beispiel I'm, don't, you're. Sprich sie in der kurzen Form, so wie du sie hörst.

Die „th“-Laute: atheist /ˈeɪ.θi.ɪst/, bother /ˈbɑðɚ/, ethnic /ˈɛθ.nɪk/, gather /ˈɡæðɚ/, mathematics /mæθ(.ə)ˈmæt.ɪks/
Die Laute „sh“ und „zh“: worship /ˈwɝ.ʃɪp/, rational /ˈɹæʃ(ə)nəl/, revelation /ˌɹɛv.əˈleɪ.ʃən/, distraction /dɪsˈtɹæk.ʃən/, fiction /ˈfɪkʃən/
Lange Wörter – auf die Betonung achten: morality /məˈɹælɪti/, terrorism /ˈtɛɹəɹɪzəm/, revelation /ˌɹɛv.əˈleɪ.ʃən/, intellectual /ˌɪntəˈlɛkt͡ʃʊəl/, justification /ˌd͡ʒʌstɪfɪˈkeɪʃən/

Laute, die Deutschsprachigen schwerfallen:

/w/ — mit runden Lippen, nicht wie das deutsche „w“ (/v/): worship /ˈwɝ.ʃɪp/, sweep /swiːp/, afterwards /ˈæf.tɚ.wɚdz/, equally /ˈiːkwəli/
Stimmhafter Auslaut — /b/, /d/, /g/, /z/, /v/ am Wortende nicht verhärten: regard /ɹɪˈɡɑːd/, afterwards /ˈæf.tɚ.wɚdz/, congratulations /kənˌɡɹæt͡ʃəˈleɪʃ(ə)nz/, acknowledge /əkˈnɑ.lɪd͡ʒ/, shade /ʃeɪd/
/æ/ — offener als „ä“: crack /kɹæk/, rational /ˈɹæʃ(ə)nəl/, morality /məˈɹælɪti/, paradise /ˈpæɹədaɪs/, distraction /dɪsˈtɹæk.ʃən/

So übst du mit diesem Video

Höre dir das ganze Video einmal an, ohne zu sprechen, und notiere die Wörter, die du nicht kennst.
Beginne mit 0,75-facher Geschwindigkeit, sprich Satz für Satz nach und wechsle zur normalen Geschwindigkeit, sobald es leichtfällt.
Nimm dich auf und vergleiche mit dem Original; achte dabei auf Wörter wie atheist, belief, priest.

Was ist die Shadowing-Technik?

Shadowing ist eine wissenschaftlich fundierte Sprachlerntechnik, die ursprünglich für die professionelle Dolmetscherausbildung entwickelt und durch den Polyglotten Dr. Alexander Arguelles populär gemacht wurde. Die Methode ist einfach aber wirkungsvoll: Du hörst englisches Audio von Muttersprachlern und wiederholst es sofort laut — wie ein Schatten, der dem Sprecher mit nur 1–2 Sekunden Verzögerung folgt. Anders als passives Hören oder Grammatikübungen zwingt Shadowing dein Gehirn und deine Mundmuskulatur, gleichzeitig echte Sprachmuster zu verarbeiten und zu reproduzieren. Studien zeigen, dass es Aussprachegenauigkeit, Intonation, Rhythmus, verbundene Sprache, Hörverständnis und Sprechflüssigkeit signifikant verbessert — was es zu einer der effektivsten Methoden für die IELTS Speaking-Vorbereitung und reale englische Kommunikation macht.

Shadowing-Technik: die vollständige Schritt-für-Schritt-Anleitung lesen →

Shadowing-Übung: Is Religion Good or Evil? | Richard Dawkins vs Mehdi Hasan - Englisch Sprechen Lernen mit Video

Übungsmodus wählen

App herunterladen

Richard Dawkins vs. Mehdi Hasan

Every Argument For Atheism

The Modern World Is Designed to Destroy You | Naval Ravikant

Where is the evidence for God? | Bishop Robert Barron

Why Have We Become So Mean?

This Debate Made Christopher Hitchens a Legend (Al Sharpton Career Ending)

What Is Islamic Psychology? Dr Francesca Bocca | Psychology and Islam

What kind of atheist are you? | Clay Routledge

Toby Young | Woke Culture HAS Gone Too Far - 3/8 | Oxford Union

You Say You Love Allah (ﷻ)... But Do You Know What It Really Means?. | Shaykh Omar Sulieman

Make AI Believe in God to Keep Humans Safe, Scientist Argues

Money, happiness and eternal life - Greed (1/2) | DW Documentary

Wortschatz und Sprechhinweise zu dieser Lektion

Wichtiger Wortschatz in diesem Video

Phrasal Verbs, die du hören wirst

Sätze zum Wiederholen

Grammatik in diesem Video

Aussprache, auf die du achten solltest

So übst du mit diesem Video

Was ist die Shadowing-Technik?