Shadowing Practice: Richard Dawkins vs. Mehdi Hasan - Learn English Speaking with Video
Les maken...
1
Ladies and gentlemen, Professor Richard Dawkins.
2
One of the most prolific thinkers of his generation, he shot to fame in the 1970s with his research into genetics.
3
And his book, The Selfish Gene, transformed evolutionary biology.
4
His most famous work, The God Delusion, sold millions of copies and has been translated into more than 30 languages.
5
Richard, thanks so much for joining us here on Al Jazeera.
6
Before we go any further, I just want to check something.
7
Are you an atheist?
8
For all practical purposes, yes.
9
Nobody can actually say for certain that anything doesn't exist.
10
But I'm an atheist in the same way as I'm an a -leprechaunist, and an a -fairyist, and an a -pick -unicornist.
11
So you're not 100 % sure God doesn't exist, but you're sure enough to make it practically...
12
I'm as sure as you are sure that fairies and leprechauns don't exist.
13
And do you see an equivalence between the idea of God and the idea of a fairy and a leprechaun?
14
The evidence for both is equally poor.
15
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,
16
unjust, unforgiving control freak, a vindictive, bloodthirsty, ethnic cleanser, a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal,
17
pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capricious, malevolent, bully.
18
As a piece of rhetoric, superb.
19
But do you really believe that?
20
Congratulations on getting megalomaniacal right, by the way.
21
Most people fumble on that.
22
Yes, if you've actually read the Old Testament, I think you would have to agree.
23
It's hideous.
24
It's an anti -the god of the Old Testament who is a monster.
25
But also the God of the Qur 'an, the New Testament, the Hindu scripture?
26
Well, the God of the Qur 'an I don't know so much about, the God of the New Testament is widely advertised as being a bit more gentle,
27
and certainly on the whole he is.
28
There are things about the New Testament that I find, in a way, almost more objectionable than the Old Testament.
29
But the sheer horror of the character, I said he was the most unpleasant character in all fiction,
30
because I regard it as fiction, of course. And yes, he is.
31
I mean, he's jealous, he's vindictive, he's callous, he's cruel.
32
And yet this is a God that is worshipped by, loved by, adored by, followed by millions, billions of people.
33
I hope not.
34
I hope that the God
35
that is adored by millions of people is a grown -up kind of God who is no longer...
36
I hope that most people who.. the kind of people I would like to know who worship
37
and admire him regard those stories as not literally true.
38
Now, there are some who do regard them as literally true, and I suspect they either haven't read the Old Testament
39
or they're not the kind of people I would wish to know
40
because you do not want to worship a character like that.
41
By all means, worship some kind of great spirit of the universe, some kind of creative intelligence who created the universe
42
but don't worship this vile vindictive monster of the old why
43
throw away why throw around these sweeping statements about religion not the god of the old testament
44
but religion itself being evil i mean do you believe religion is evil no
45
but you say plenty of times in this book
46
that religion is evil you said in a speech famously
47
that i think a case can be made
48
that faith is one of the world's great evils comparable to the smallpox virus virus but harder to eradicate?
49
I do think that, yes.
50
Because what I'm talking about there is faith, where faith means belief in something without evidence.
51
Because if you believe something without evidence, then that justifies anything.
52
You're no longer vulnerable to somebody coming back at you and saying, hang on a minute, let me argue the case.
53
If you believe it without evidence, which is what faith is, then you don't argue the case.
54
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.
55
Now that is evil.
56
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...
57
Nobody said anything about all of them.
58
I mean, the vast majority of religious people are perfectly good, nice people, as you are.
59
There's no suggestion I've ever made that all religious people are evil?
60
Of course not.
61
There is a logical progression that goes from believing in faith, having faith that your God tells you to do something,
62
and doing terrible deeds like suicide bombing, like flying planes into into skyscrapers.
63
The vast majority of people of faith don't do such terrible things.
64
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,
65
they're actually good people by their own lights.
66
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.
67
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,
68
it's religion, plain and simple?
69
Not always, since not in the case of the Tamil Tigers, for example.
70
But I think in a great majority of cases it is, and I think it certainly makes it a hell of a lot easier.
71
The evidence is plain 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.
72
They're desperate to go to a martyr's heaven, and that's what they think about.
73
Professor Robert Pape of the University of Chicago studied every known case of suicide terrorism, 315 cases
74
and he came to the conclusion that there's quote little connection between suicide terrorism
75
and Islamic fundamentalism
76
or any of the world's religions the taproot of suicide terrorism
77
he says is nationalism it's about land it's about power it's
78
about politics it's not about faith faith is just a cover what do you know
79
that he doesn't know well I've seen other other evidence there
80
are different people say to say different things I've seen plenty
81
of of testimonies of suicide bombers who have said precisely that they do it because they want a martyr's paradise.
82
Do you include the 7 -7 bombers in that case as well?
83
Yes, I believe so.
84
Have you watched their suicide videos?
85
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,
86
they talk about invading armies.
87
I mean, there's a lot of real -world stuff in there.
88
I'm not saying, of course not, that faith doesn't play a role, but I'm just interested in this idea that you think faith is the issue.
89
You say, you said in a very famous column you wrote, four days after 9 -11, that this came from religion.
90
There are enormously good reasons for people to take political action, and this we see in Northern Ireland, we see it in Afghanistan,
91
we see it in Sri Lanka where the Tamil Tigers operated.
92
So yes, there are political reasons, but the promise of a martyr's heaven,
93
which is, you cannot deny that this is part of Islamic doctrine.
94
Martyrs go straight to paradise.
95
Yes, but not terrorists, not murderers, not criminals.
96
Well, they believe that because they're told it by their imams.
97
But then what about the majority of the world's Muslim clerics
98
and ulama who came out and condemned 9 -11 straight after this?
99
Well, I'm delighted they did, but they were pretty quiet about it.
100
What about the argument that says human beings are prone to violence?
101
They're prone to carrying out crimes against their fellow man.
102
You can blame religion, you can blame politics, you can blame economics.
103
Lots of factors, lots of excuses.
104
What I don't get is why do you only focus on religion?
105
For fairness, why don't you also isolate the other factors?
106
There are lots of other factors and I'm quite happy to say that, yes.
107
There are lots of...
108
If you look at the wars of history, some of them have been about religion, plenty of them have not been about religion.
109
I never said religion is the sole cause of wars and violence.
110
You may not have said that, but you would accept that the new atheists, people like Sam Harris, the late Christopher Hitchens, have blamed a lot of history's wars on God and religion,
111
and you make a similar suggestion under God delusion.
112
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, are nothing to do with religion.
113
You accept that point?
114
Yeah, of course I do.
115
And the Cold War and Vietnam?
116
Yes, I would, of course, yes.
117
So when you have a situation where some of the world's worst crimes were carried out not by believers,
118
how then does that square with your idea that it's religion that causes good people to do bad things, religion that's driving violence, your original statement against religion at the start of this?
119
Dogmatic belief in something like religion or something like Marxism or something like Nazism, these are all, or indeed patriotism,
120
I mean my country right or wrong, these are all pernicious beliefs which can drive people to do terrible things.
121
And in the Second World War, Hitlerism was driven by racism,
122
by a sort of sub -Wagnerian pagan religion which Hitler revived.
123
Stalin's atrocities were motivated by a dogmatic belief in Marxism and atheism.
124
Stalin happened to be an atheist but he was never motivated specifically.
125
Soviet Union was not based on scientific rationalism on the elimination of religion and God.
126
Stalin persecuted the church, Stalin persecuted just about everybody.
127
Are you saying that the Soviet Union, the leaders of the Soviet Union were not driven by a hatred of religion.
128
and a belief that science and human progress and materialism was the way forward.
129
They believed that materialism, science, human progress, there was a Marxist slant on those words, and they were hideously misused.
130
Mao Zedong, when he invaded Tibet, told the Dalai Lama that religion is poison.
131
The subtext to the late Christopher Hitchens' book was religion poisons everything.
132
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?
133
It's an incidental fact that Mao Zedong and Stalin happened to be atheists.
134
Incidentally, it wasn't core to communism.
135
I think it was not core to communism, no. So when Karl Marx was talking about religion being the opiate of the masses, that was just a throwaway line?
136
Yeah, I mean, that was, that was an out of context statement.
137
I mean, what on earth do you think that's got to do with atheism?
138
I don't know.
139
Let me put a statement in context to you.
140
Albania, one of the world's worst dictatorships, tyrannies that we've seen in the last hundred years.
141
Article 37 of Albania's communist constitution declared,
142
quote, The state recognises no religion and supports atheistic propaganda in order to implant a scientific,
143
materialistic world outlook in people.
144
What do you think you're saying?
145
I mean, that's an appalling thing to say.
146
Of course it is.
147
Why is that an appalling thing to say?
148
What do you disagree with in that statement?
149
Why would I want to support atheistic propaganda?
150
I support science and truth.
151
But you don't support spreading atheism.
152
I support spreading science and truth.
153
If that happens to be atheism, I support it.
154
I'm not going to start bullying people into being atheists.
155
I'm not going to start trying to compel people to be atheists.
156
That was what the Albanians were doing.
157
It's nothing to do with what I want to do.
158
Of course, but you'd like to persuade them not to be believers and become atheists.
159
I'd like to raise consciousness in a gentle, civilised way, using argument, rational argument, from evidence.
160
In your book, you cite lots of evidence for the bad things religions are.
161
What I wonder is, if you were being fair, Wouldn't you have also included some of the good things that religion's done?
162
My passion is for scientific truth.
163
I don't much care about what's good and evil, actually.
164
I care about what's true.
165
I mean, do you actually believe in your Muslim faith?
166
Do you believe that Mohammed split the moon in two?
167
Do you believe that Mohammed flew to heaven on a winged horse, for example?
168
I pay you the compliment of assuming that you don't.
169
No, I do.
170
I believe in miracles.
171
You believe that?
172
Yes.
173
You believe that Mohammed went to heaven on a winged horse?
174
Yes, I believe in God.
175
I believe in miracles.
176
I believe in Revelation.
177
I mean, the point here is that let's assume I'm wrong, Richard.
178
I'm wrong.
179
Let's assume I'm wrong.
180
I'm wrong.
181
I'm happy to concede that, Richard.
182
I'm happy to concede it.
183
I'm wrong.
184
All religions are wrong.
185
God does not exist.
186
We're all mad.
187
The issue is we exist.
188
We've existed for a while.
189
I think even Christopher Hitchens said, and you've said in your writings, we're not going anywhere.
190
So my question to you is, why not acknowledge, for for example, the good things that religion has done.
191
Do you accept that religion has done good things, despite all of our mad beliefs and our miracles?
192
I accept that individual religious people have done an enormous number of good things.
193
Not driven by religion?
194
Well, I mean, who knows?
195
You're very mean -spirited.
196
You won't give any credit at all to that.
197
Take somebody like Martin Luther King, for example.
198
Reverend Martin Luther King.
199
Yes.
200
Obviously, he was a cleric.
201
So I imagine that that fed into the good things that he did, plenty of other things did.
202
He was a great admirer of Gandhi and he was a great admirer of non -violence.
203
He was a brilliant and wonderful great man.
204
Would you disconnect MLK's non -violence and Gandhi's non -violence from their very strongly held religious beliefs?
205
They didn't.
206
Well, I think that's, it's not a thing that I really care about, actually.
207
I mean, I think they were...
208
You do care about it, Richard.
209
You're saying that people carry out violence in the name of God, and I cite to you an example of very famous people who have done good
210
and non -violence in the name of God, and you say, I'm not interested.
211
If God doesn't exist, then doing something good in his name, it's great that something good gets done,
212
but there's no evidence at all that believing in God makes you more likely to do good things.
213
I can't see any noble, logical connection between being religious and doing good things.
214
Let's concede that God does not exist.
215
Let's concede that religion is false.
216
My problem here is trying to understand why some of the new atheists are so anti -religion,
217
when religious people clearly are doing lots of good things and they're doing it in the name of God.
218
I've never denied that religious people are doing good things and non -religious people are doing good things.
219
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, that's what I care about.
220
And I regard religion as a distraction, and in some cases a pernicious distraction,
221
from true education which I love and value, the way you value and love your God.
222
Can you not do both?
223
Well, so long as they don't contradict each other.
224
But if you actually believe Mohammed flew to heaven on a winged horse, that's an anti -scientific belief.
225
And that could be wrong but that doesn't change
226
that doesn't change how do you know it's wrong oh come
227
on you're a man of the 21st century I'm just asking it comes back to my original question
228
that the rational position is the agnostic position why up there
229
what I mean the rational position I didn't say up there
230
I didn't pick a place why would a wind horse be
231
that be the way to get to heaven
232
if it's not up there I asked I asked I asked
233
a question about you asked about proof I'm all for saying I can't prove it
234
but can you prove he didn't do it I mean this
235
Can I prove he didn't fly to heaven on a wing horse?
236
I'm just asking on your criteria.
237
I'm just asking on your criteria.
238
No, I can't prove it, and I can't prove it wasn't a golden unicorn.
239
But I'm fascinated that you'd rather, I'm fascinated that you'd rather talk about what animals the Prophet may or may not have used 1 ,400 years ago,
240
rather than talk about what Muslims or Islam is doing in the world today, good or bad.
241
Well, that seems to be the distraction.
242
If anyone's distracted, it seems to be you.
243
Well, that's your view.
244
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.
245
Let me ask you this, are all people who hold beliefs in God and in miracles and the supernatural, do you regard them all as intellectually inferior to you?
246
I regard those beliefs as intellectual nonsense.
247
I don't regard the individuals as intellectually inferior to me because many of them palpably are not.
248
If you go back in history, then all bets are off, because before Darwin, for example,
249
it is not at all surprising that before Darwin people believed in all kinds of things which they wouldn't believe in now.
250
There are many people, many scientists today, who say they're religious, and if you actually ask them what they believe,
251
in many cases it turns out what they believe is in some sort of deistic god, some sort of intellectual spirit,
252
some sort of creative intelligence that lay at the root of the universe, perhaps invented the laws of physics, something like that.
253
I don't agree with this book, but it's an excellent book, very well argued, you're very passionate, clearly.
254
There's one section in the book where you talk about bringing up children.
255
Oh yes.
256
And you talked about education.
257
You talk about a story, you tell a story about being in Ireland
258
and talking about the Catholic child abuse scandal and there's one quote on page 356 which I will read out to you.
259
Horrible as sexual abuse no doubt was,
260
the damage was arguably less than the long -term psychological damage inflicted by bringing the child up Catholic in the first place.
261
You believe that being brought up as a Catholic is worse than being abused by a priest?
262
There are shades of being abused by a priest,
263
and I quoted the example of a woman in America who wrote to me saying that when she was seven years old,
264
she was sexually abused by a priest in his car, and at the same time, a friend of hers, also seven,
265
who was Protestant, or of Protestant family, I should say, died and she was told that
266
because her friend was Protestant she had gone to hell
267
and would be roasting in hell forever and she told me
268
that of those two abuses she got over the physical abuse it was yucky
269
but she got over it
270
but the mental abuse of being told about hell she took years to get over
271
and I respect Richard you're an empiricist you're a rationalist one
272
letter from one woman in America isn't really the basis to extrapolate and make such a sweeping conclusion.
273
That is of course true, and I'm not basing it on that.
274
It seems to me that telling children such that they really,
275
really believe that people who sin are going to go to hell and roast forever,
276
forever, that your skin grows again when it peels off with burning.
277
It seems to me to be intuitively entirely reasonable that that is a worse form of child abuse, that will give more nightmares,
278
that will give more genuine distress because they really believe it.
279
They don't believe it, it's not a problem, of course.
280
You also say...
281
Let me just...
282
I've been put on the spot about this health fire thing.
283
I...
284
We haven't really been put on the spot.
285
In what sense have you been put on the spot?
286
Well, I sense that you think it's somehow obvious that having a priest, if you're a a small girl having a priest.
287
I would be very interested in asking the audience whether being told about heaven and hell as a child, being brought up as Catholic,
288
is worse than being abused by a priest.
289
Okay.
290
Let's have a show of hands.
291
Is it worse to be abused by a priest?
292
And if you believe it's worse for a priest to abuse a child than to bring up your child Catholic, raise your hands.
293
Are they both as bad as each other?
294
Raise your hands.
295
So we have a three -way split in the audience.
296
Let's finish this section with one last related subject on this question, a personal question from me.
297
You talk about how to teach children that there is one God, or that God created the world in six days, that is child abuse.
298
To even teach your children religion is child abuse.
299
So, I have a daughter.
300
I teach her about Islam and the horse.
301
Am I guilty of child abuse?
302
Do you teach her the world was created in six days?
303
No, because Islam doesn't teach that, Richard.
304
I'm delighted to hear that.
305
I ask again, am I guilty of child abuse for teaching my child stories from the Quran?
306
No, you're not.
307
Good to know.
308
We are going to talk more about science, and we're going to go back to the audience to ask some questions to Professor Dawkins in part two.
309
We'll be back after the break.
310
Welcome back.
311
We're talking about religion and its impact on the world.
312
Good, bad, evil.
313
We're joined here by our guest, evolutionary biologist, Professor Richard Dawkins.
314
Richard, science is your great passion, and you're a great believer in science, you're an evangelist for science, a promoter and defender of science.
315
But what would you say to those people who say there are some quite important questions, genuine questions, that science cannot answer?
316
Why are we here?
317
What's the meaning of life?
318
Where does morality come from?
319
And that if religion wants to have a crack at answering those, what's science's objection?
320
I'm not sure I'd accept that science can't answer those particular questions.
321
I think there are other questions science probably shouldn't try to answer, like what is right and what is wrong.
322
Those are questions that are not the immediate concern of science.
323
But what's the meaning of life?
324
Why is there anything?
325
How did it all start?
326
Those seem to me to be scientific questions or potentially scientific questions.
327
If there are some questions of that sort that science can never answer, then we should at least keep trying to answer them.
328
And if science can't answer them, religion having a crack at answering them,
329
if there's no reason to think that religion has any basis for an answer, then why would religion have a crack?
330
Why would you bother to listen to religion having a crack at answering them?
331
I mean, one thing I would say is there may be questions that science can't answer, like the origin of everything.
332
But if science can't answer them then religion certainly can't
333
and nothing else can either why why is it so the science
334
or nothing well yes because
335
because science is is is the method of getting at what's true I mean
336
if you take something like how did the universe begin
337
which is a very baffling deep question how did life begin
338
another baffling deep question both those questions are unanswered the The
339
best methods we have of approaching those are the methods of science because these are the methods that look at evidence,
340
that evaluate evidence in all sorts of sophisticated ways.
341
What has religion got to do with
342
that other than just looking at the writings of somebody who wrote a few centuries ago?
343
Why would you bother to read those writings?
344
So the great philosophers and theologians in history have grappled with these big questions and thought about spiritual issues, moral issues, the transcendent, they're all wasting their time?
345
Yes, they're wasting their time.
346
What about why does my life have meaning?
347
What's its worth?
348
Where does my dignity come from?
349
Your meaning and your dignity are up to you
350
and mine are up to me and these are not questions that science would attempt to answer.
351
Each person finds their own meaning in their own life and good luck to them.
352
And what's wrong with religion offering moral certainties, if, as you say, science can't answer moral questions?
353
Science can't offer moral certainty, but I don't see that religion can either.
354
You don't think that the religious values we have today, the moral codes we live by today, were originally derived from...
355
judeo -christian values islamic values hindu values not really no i
356
mean there are i mean things like the golden rule things
357
like treat others as you would wish to be treated yourself
358
these are ancient values which are
359
which crop up all over the world they've been adopted by
360
many religions you can find justifications for them in moral philosophy you can find justifications for them in evolutionary biology
361
which is my own my own subject i don't seriously think you're going to base your morality on religion because
362
if you do then you've got to say well do i
363
base it on scripture i hope you don't base it on scripture because if you do
364
then you're going to have some pretty horrible values unless you deliberately cut out those parts of scripture
365
which which which are unacceptable to modern morality do you believe science is omnipotent
366
that it can answer all questions i've already said no i've already said it can't answer moral questions
367
but questions about the real world, questions about reality, questions about the origins of things, why life is the way it is, why the world is the way it is,
368
why the universe is the way it is, yes science is the way to answer that.
369
Some of your critics have argued that you are willing to hold religion up to a very, put it under the microscope, hold it to account, scrutinise it,
370
criticise it, you don't do the same to science or scientists
371
or or some of the bad things that have come out of science?
372
Well, bad things that come out of science, if by that you mean horrible weapons...
373
Nuclear weapons, gas chambers, eugenics.
374
These are terrible things which are technology that arises out of science,
375
and it's certainly true that if you want to do terrible things with technology, terrible weapons for example, science is the best way to do it, because science is the best way to do anything.
376
and even bad things even bad things I mean that that's right
377
if you want to develop a terrible weapon you're not going
378
to do it in any other way than than than by
379
science the trick is not to want to develop a terrible weapon
380
and and that's a political decision and you do not you do not see science
381
and religion as occupying two different compartments that can live side by side they are conflict with one another?
382
In so far as religion attempts to talk about reality
383
and has an alternative vision of reality I think they are incompatible yes.
384
Despite the fact as we discussed earlier many of our leading scientists are believers?
385
I think it's baffling I mean what they in practice do is they leave their their religion at the door
386
when they go into the lab and and so they get on with their science.
387
They say they don't.
388
Well, I know they do, but, well, okay.
389
Isn't it because religion answers all sorts of human needs and spiritual urges which science never can?
390
Isn't that the real issue, that you can't get away from?
391
Religion may answer human needs, I mean, for example, if you're terrified of dying, religion may answer the need for comfort and consolation.
392
Or if you miss a loved one who's died and you hope to see them one day in heaven, then religion answers a need.
393
It doesn't make it true.
394
And one last thing and then we'll go to the audience.
395
What do you say to those people who say, you talk a great deal about the power of science,
396
the truth of science, you have people like Sam Harris who say morality can be determined by science, you have quite charismatic,
397
forceful people going around the world proselytising on behalf of science
398
that science is actually the new religion that you guys are pitching?
399
I wouldn't say it's a new religion.
400
I mean it certainly does some of the things that religion traditionally has tried to do, like to answer the deep questions of existence and it does
401
that and it does it successfully in a way that religion never has.
402
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 tradition,
403
it's based upon evidence and there's a huge difference.
404
And anything that we do not have evidence for that's not scientifically testable, you would dismiss?
405
Well, scientifically testable is putting the bar rather highly, but I do think that evidence is the only good reason to believe anything, yes.
406
So love, beauty, aesthetics, metaphysics?
407
No, no, no. Those are obviously important questions.
408
And if you ask some question like, how do you know that your wife loves you, it's from evidence.
409
I mean, it's not scientifically testable evidence, but it's evidence.
410
It's little looks in the eyes, little catches in the voice. That is evidence.
411
That's not just internal revelation.
412
Okay, let's open up to the audience we've been talking about God, evil, war, terrorism, bringing up your children,
413
living a good life, religion and happiness, science versus religion.
414
Who would like to answer the first question?
415
Yes, you?
416
If the Almighty God appears suddenly on the cloud or on the earth or part of the universe.
417
What is your reaction?
418
Are you going to believe or are you going to go against him?
419
What would it take for you to believe in God, not just miracles?
420
Yeah, I mean...
421
Popping his head through the clouds.
422
Yeah, that's the thing I've worried about a lot.
423
Obviously...
424
It would do wonders for the book.
425
The reason I worry about it is that obviously, as a scientist, I'm committed to the view that I would change my mind if evidence came along.
426
And so it's a very important question, what would that evidence look like?
427
And I've talked about it with my colleagues a great deal.
428
I used to think, yes, if there was a great deep Paul Robeson voice coming out of the clouds saying, I exist, then yes, obviously I would believe it.
429
But have you ever seen a really, really good conjuring trick?
430
There are things that I've seen done that it seems to me to be, God, that's got to be a miracle.
431
And yet you know it's not.
432
And so there is a real problem there that we are easily fooled.
433
Let's take another question from a gentleman here.
434
Very interesting guy.
435
I was extremely amused when you described faith as sort of brooking no argument.
436
this university of course began with the study of theology most
437
of the people here would have been studying theology at the beginning of the university
438
and indeed the way in
439
which it was taught was not professorial you didn't have lectures
440
mostly mostly you had discussions debates people didn't write monographs they
441
collected discussions notes of discussions people disagreed about their faith absolutely I mean everybody had a different opinion
442
and everybody expressed it and everybody was heard what's the question the idea
443
that so the question is um do you really think
444
that your your view of faith brooking no argument measures up
445
to really any experience of how people think about their faith you talked about the evidence that your wife loves you,
446
I think for most religious people the evidence that there's a God is rather like that.
447
Well obviously I would be mad to suggest that theologians don't argue.
448
They argue all the time and always have.
449
They fight wars over their arguments so clearly they argue.
450
When I say brook no argument I don't mean that they don't argue.
451
When you say that theologians have disputes and interesting discussions,
452
I take it that from your garb you take a position one way or the other on whether the transubstantiation,
453
whether the bread and wine really is the body
454
and blood of a first century Jew or is merely symbolic
455
but what evidence you bring to bear on such an argument
456
I cannot imagine it would not be a real argument at
457
all it would be a false argument would not not be an argument
458
which could be settled by by real evidence just deal with the point about the evidence level
459
when you refer to love of your wife when you say
460
that your that your wife loves you
461
and you do you getting evidence from looks in the what looks in the eye
462
and catches in the voice was the phrase that I actually used
463
and the questioner said that's the way religious people feel about God.
464
Yes they feel that about God but there's no evidence that they're getting any cues at all.
465
I mean their God is an imaginary God inside themselves.
466
They feel that they're getting little looks from the eyes of God
467
and sounds from the voice of God
468
but why should we believe them since we can't see or hear any evidence to that effect.
469
Let's take another question gentleman here in the secondary with regards
470
to uh to religion you've given an example where the the islamic faith
471
and the muslims basically they wrap themselves up in bombs
472
because that's what they believe in islamic faith but i disagree with you
473
because there are more than a billion muslims living in the world today who actually believe in the quran
474
and the scripture which you said if everybody started believing in the scripture then
475
that would be horrible but i i disagree disagree with you
476
because more than a billion people billion muslims believe that if you kill one innocent person, it's as if you've killed the entire humanity.
477
So today humanity is about 7 billion people.
478
So more than a billion Muslims do not strap themselves up and actually go and commit suicide.
479
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 pick and choose.
480
I mean, is it not the case, for example?
481
You always choose the bad ones.
482
Well, no, I mean, I'm suggesting that you shouldn't be in a position of having to choose.
483
I mean, you shouldn't base your life on a holy book
484
which has contradictory verses where you can choose one verse
485
when you want to make one point and another verse when you want to make another point.
486
I mean, isn't it the case that...
487
that the penalty for apostasy is death.
488
You can't take these things and just hold...
489
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.
490
Should I hold all atheists to him?
491
Of course I won't hold them to...
492
All atheists to that view.
493
Let me put it to you, is the penalty for apostasy death?
494
No. Good, I'm delighted to hear that.
495
Why didn't...
496
And the Koran doesn't say it is.
497
Well then...
498
Some Islamic scholars do.
499
Okay.
500
But that's debate and discussion.
501
There's arguments going on, things take place over centuries.
502
Okay.
503
Let's have an atheist make a point
504
and join the debate lady that's waving her hand actually in the Quran mankind refers only to Muslims
505
and excludes infidels which is all the rest of us
506
so that's a small point
507
but really my question to professor Dawkins is how does he
508
feel about the encroachment of all religions extremists evangelists Christians
509
and a lot of Muslims into the politics and everyday life
510
and how does he feel about a religion influence trying to influence politics
511
and and public you know how do you feel about religion influencing politics
512
and public life people should be free to to speak them
513
their minds I mean I'm great believer in in free speech
514
and so members of parliament should speak their minds and
515
if their minds are influenced by their their religion then that's
516
that's fine what I would object to I think is the view
517
that somehow religion has a privileged right to speak because it's religion
518
and I think you probably agree with that as well
519
if you stand up in Parliament and make an excellent speech in favor of something
520
which religion has a view on like abortion say
521
if you make your points well
522
and win the vote by making your points well that's fine
523
but what you shouldn't be allowed to get away with is saying because it's religion therefore this is what we should do.
524
Lady there in the headscarf.
525
As a social scientist, the model of the rational actor is somewhat discredited.
526
We don't look at all actors at all times as acting rationally.
527
In fact, we assume that they don't.
528
But that was the prelude to my question.
529
My question was really, would you accept that it's not so much religion that causes conflict, but sincere commitment to some belief that you think is morally important?
530
And in that sense, do we get rid of morality?
531
Well, I think I partly said that when I said that in the great wars of the 20th century,
532
these were driven by non -religious motivations, but they were driven by my country right or wrong kind of patriotism.
533
That's a little bit different from morality we're talking about, at least it's not religious.
534
I was interested in what you said in your preamble
535
when you said that I take it you're a social scientist
536
and you're no doubt right to suggest
537
that since social scientists are studying the human animal um you notice
538
that people actually don't behave rationally well unfortunately that's true um
539
but that doesn't mean we shouldn't behave rationally just
540
because people don't uh let's take a question from an atheist
541
or an agnostic uh gentleman there in the black jacket there three rows down in the middle i think
542
when i when i read your book
543
which i thought also was excellent it became very apparent to me
544
that evolution nature has given the human species some very very
545
powerful survival instincts we're aggressive men want to spread their genes
546
we want to gather as much resources together as we can to to help our genes continue
547
and survive and as a result of
548
that there's been a lot of very very dark episodes in our history the roman empire
549
which was terribly oppressive hedonistic the vikings who stole, raped, pillaged, the Persians, and so on and so forth.
550
Do you not think that it was actually the ideas of religion that took the human race,
551
the human species, from beyond these base survival instincts
552
and started to give them a new paradigm for thinking
553
which was not necessarily in the interests of the instincts that they have for survival.
554
It's perfectly true that a sort of selfish gene view of life,
555
which is what I've mostly written about, is a very unpleasant view of life and
556
if you followed the creed of the selfish gene literally and actually lived your life according to it,
557
it would be a very unpleasant world in which to live.
558
It would be a sort of Thatcherite work.
559
I mean, I've often said that while I'm a passionate Darwinian when it comes to explaining the way life is,
560
I'm a passionate anti -Darwinian when it comes to organising our lives.
561
Would the world be a better place if religion disappeared tomorrow?
562
Yes.
563
It's about all the good things we discussed that you recognise.
564
But you'll still have the Nazi Holocaust, the Communism, you wouldn't have the charities, that's fine.
565
You would have the charities, but it's only your assumption.
566
But I want to finish because the question actually challenged me by saying
567
that it was religion that helped us to escape from the unpleasantness of the selfish gene.
568
I don't actually think that is true.
569
I think that we have escaped by a long and slow process of civilization in which religion no doubt played a part.
570
If you look historically over the very long time span of history, we're getting better, we're getting nicer,
571
we're getting more charitable, we're getting kinder, you're getting less cruel.
572
I wouldn't give religion the credit for
573
that I think I would give a much more complicated mixture of civilizing processes the credit for it
574
and religion is probably a part of
575
that okay let's take one last question gentleman there in the blue jumper
576
and we have to make the last question professor Dawkins as an atheist is it not the case
577
that you either believe in the universe just popping into existence without a cause
578
which is worse than hocus -pocus or in this thing called the multiverse
579
which has as much independent empirical evidence as Hades controlling the
580
underworld right the phraseology you you use this is somewhat biased
581
somewhat somewhat slanted the popping into the universe popping into existence out of nothing.
582
The multiverse theory is used in this context to explain the fact
583
that some physicists believe that the physical constants are too finely adjusted.
584
It's as though it's a put -up job.
585
It looks as though the physical constants are so finely adjusted
586
that if you change any one of them then the universe would collapse and I started to say that.
587
Now the multiverse hypothesis this is a kind of Darwinian way of solving that problem.
588
It says there are billions and billions of universes, all of which have different settings of their fundamental constants.
589
A tiny minority of those billions
590
and billions of universes have their constants set in such a way as to give rise to a universe
591
which lasts long enough to give rise to galaxies, stars, planets, chemistry, and hence the process of evolution.
592
But do you understand, it does make me chuckle
593
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.
594
I'm astonished that you should compare the two.
595
I'm comparing the lack of evidence for the two.
596
Well, you cannot use your own intuitive common sense in order to dis physics.
597
I mean if you could do that we wouldn't need physicists.
598
I mean they are very sophisticated people.
599
They do mathematics.
600
But there are physicists like Paul Davis who have dissed the multiverse theory as being nonsense.
601
Well, Paul Davis would rather take the view that there's something mysterious in the origin of the universe.
602
And that's another perfectly respectable physicist's view.
603
Steven Weinberg, the Nobel Prize winning physicist.
604
It's respectable if a physicist holds a view about mystery in the universe, but not if anyone else holds it.
605
If we're talking about the origin of the universe, that is a problem in physics, yes.
606
Let's end with a couple of quick questions.
607
If, as Christopher Hitchens, the late Christopher Hitchens wrote, religion is ineradicable, and as you put it, harder to get rid of than smallpox,
608
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?
609
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,
610
have read my books, the people who've attended my lectures.
611
It's a doctrine of despair to say that we're stuck with religion for all eternity.
612
The religions of ancient Greece and ancient Rome and the Vikings are all dead.
613
Nobody believes in Jupiter or Thor anymore and I have great hopes
614
that the same is going to be true of the God of Abraham.
615
And one last thing, there's a new book out from one of this country's well -known philosophers called Religion for Atheists,
616
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.
617
I've heard that argument brought, I've heard people say that humans do need some sort of rituals and they need some sort of gathering places, meeting places.
618
I can sort of see that.
619
It's not a thing that interests me very much.
620
I don't feel any great need for ritual.
621
I don't feel any great need to fill the alleged vacuum that will be left when religion goes.
622
I think there's plenty to fill it already.
623
It's been a fantastic discussion, it's a pleasure to have had you here on Al Jazeera.
624
Thank you all to the audience here in the Oxford Union Chamber, and thanks to you all at home for watching.
625
Goodbye, and dare I say, God bless.
📺 Zelfde Kanaal
✨ Aanbevolen Video
C14
27 zinnen
Atheist Professor Says No Evidence for God — John Lennox's Response Is Brilliant
IELTS PrepTOEFL PrepUniversity Students
C13
130 zinnen
Matthew Handley | Islam Is A Peaceful Religion | Oxford Union
IELTS PrepTOEFL PrepUniversity Students
C11
135 zinnen
The Most Overlooked Qur'anic Verse About Human Origins!
IELTS PrepTOEFL PrepUniversity Students
B21
38 zinnen
Ronnie James Dio talks religion
IELTS PrepTOEFL PrepUniversity Students
C12
122 zinnen
God is a Delusion | Oxford Union Speech - Alex O'Connor
IELTS PrepTOEFL PrepUniversity Students
C12
36 zinnen
Stephen Fry on God | The Meaning Of Life | RTÉ One
IELTS PrepTOEFL PrepUniversity Students
C11
60 zinnen
Christian vs Muslim Women
IELTS PrepTOEFL PrepUniversity Students
C156
66 zinnen
What science can’t answer, according to physicist Jim Al-Khalili | Big Think
IELTS PrepTOEFL PrepUniversity Students
C14
76 zinnen
Make AI Believe in God to Keep Humans Safe, Scientist Argues
IELTS PrepTOEFL PrepUniversity Students
C1107 zinnen
Who is the Antichrist? explained
IELTS PrepTOEFL PrepUniversity Students
C1527
14 zinnen
Tanya’s opinion on humans
IELTS PrepTOEFL PrepUniversity Students
C114
52 zinnen
God gives us what we ask for — for better or worse. | John Lennox at UCLA
IELTS PrepTOEFL PrepUniversity Students
Woordenschat en spreektips bij deze les
Deze video bevat 625 zinnen en 7856 woorden om na te spreken. Het gesproken deel duurt 45:18. De spreker praat in een natuurlijk tempo van ongeveer 173 woorden per minuut, dicht bij een alledaags gesprek. 83% van de woorden hoort bij de 3.000 meest gebruikte Engelse woorden; de rest kun je beter vooraf bekijken.
Belangrijke woorden in deze video
15 woorden uit de video die het leren waard zijn, met uitspraak en betekenis:
| Woord | Uitspraak | Betekenis |
|---|---|---|
| belief zelfstandig naamwoord | /bɪˈliːf/ | geloof |
| argue werkwoord | /ˈɑɹ.ɡju/ | redetwisten |
| testament zelfstandig naamwoord | /ˈtɛs.tə.mənt/ | testament, laatste wilsbeschikking |
| priest zelfstandig naamwoord | /ˈpɹiːst/ | priester, pastoor |
| moral bijvoeglijk naamwoord | /ˈmoɹəl/ | moreel |
| regard zelfstandig naamwoord | /ɹɪˈɡɑːd/ | respect, achting |
| gene zelfstandig naamwoord | /d͡ʒiːn/ | gen |
| morality zelfstandig naamwoord | /məˈɹælɪti/ | moraal |
| believer zelfstandig naamwoord | /bɪˈlivɚ/ | gelovige |
| atheist zelfstandig naamwoord | /ˈeɪ.θi.ɪst/ | atheïst, atheïste |
| miracle zelfstandig naamwoord | /ˈmɪɹ.ə.kəl/ | wonder, mirakel |
| horrible bijvoeglijk naamwoord | /ˈhɔɹ.ɪ.bəl/ | verschrikkelijk |
| crack zelfstandig naamwoord | /kɹæk/ | barst, breuk |
| worship zelfstandig naamwoord | /ˈwɝ.ʃɪp/ | verering, aanbidding |
| terrorism zelfstandig naamwoord | /ˈtɛɹəɹɪzəm/ | terrorisme |
Phrasal verbs die je zult horen
| Woord | Uitspraak | Betekenis |
|---|---|---|
| bring up werkwoord | opvoeden | |
| carry out werkwoord | /ˈkæ.ɹi aʊt/ | uitvoeren |
| come out werkwoord | /ˌkʌm ˈaʊt/ | uitkomen |
| get on with werkwoord | aan de gang gaan met, doorgaan | |
| go out werkwoord | naar buiten gaan | |
| grow up werkwoord | opgroeien | |
| throw away werkwoord | weggooien | |
| turn out werkwoord | uitvallen, resulteren |
Uitspraak om op te letten
De spreker gebruikt 217 samentrekkingen en verkorte vormen, zoals I'm, don't, you're. Spreek ze kort uit, zoals je ze hoort.
- De “th”-klanken: atheist /ˈeɪ.θi.ɪst/, bother /ˈbɑðɚ/, gather /ˈɡæðɚ/, theology /θiˈɒ.lə.d͡ʒi/, ethnic /ˈɛθ.nɪk/
- De klanken “sh” en “zh”: worship /ˈwɝ.ʃɪp/, selfish /ˈsɛlf.ɪʃ/, rational /ˈɹæʃ(ə)nəl/, passionate /ˈpæʃənɪt/, revelation /ˌɹɛv.əˈleɪ.ʃən/
- Lange woorden — let op de klemtoon: morality /məˈɹælɪti/, terrorism /ˈtɛɹəɹɪzəm/, revelation /ˌɹɛv.əˈleɪ.ʃən/, evolutionary /ˌiː.vəˈluː.ʃən.ɛɹ.i/, evolution /ˌiːvəˈluːʃ(ə)n/
Zo oefen je met deze video
- Luister de hele video één keer zonder te spreken en noteer de woorden die je niet kent.
- Begin op 0,75× snelheid, spreek zin voor zin na en ga terug naar normale snelheid zodra het makkelijk gaat.
- Neem jezelf op en vergelijk met het origineel; let daarbij op woorden als belief, argue, testament.
Grammatica in deze video
De structuren die de spreker het meest gebruikt, met de exacte woorden uit de video:
| Structuur | In de video |
|---|---|
| Present perfect continuous have/has been + -ing — iets dat eerder begon en nog bezig is | we've been talking · have been studying |
| Voorwaardelijke zinnen if + zin, will/would + werkwoord — een voorwaarde en het gevolg | if you were being fair, Wouldn't you · if you could do that we wouldn't need |
| Present perfect have/has + voltooid deelwoord — iets uit het verleden dat nu nog telt | has been translated · you've actually read · haven't read |
| Lijdende vorm be + voltooid deelwoord — het gaat om wat er gebeurt, niet om wie het doet | has been translated · is worshipped · is adored |
Wat is de Shadowing-techniek?
Shadowing is een wetenschappelijk onderbouwde taalleermethode die oorspronkelijk is ontwikkeld voor professionele tolkentraining en gepopulariseerd door polyglot Dr. Alexander Arguelles. De methode is eenvoudig maar krachtig: je luistert naar native Engelse audio en herhaalt het onmiddellijk hardop — als een schaduw die de spreker volgt met slechts 1–2 seconden vertraging. In tegenstelling tot passief luisteren of grammaticadrills, dwingt shadowing je hersenen en mondspieren om echte spraakpatronen tegelijkertijd te verwerken en te reproduceren. Onderzoek toont aan dat het de uitspraaknauwkeurigheid, intonatie, ritme, verbonden spraak, luisterbegrip en spreekvaardigheid aanzienlijk verbetert — waardoor het een van de meest effectieve methoden is voor IELTS Speaking-voorbereiding en echte Engelse communicatie.