ฝึกพูดภาษาอังกฤษด้วยเทคนิค Shadowing จากวิดีโอ: Richard Dawkins vs. Mehdi Hasan

Ladies and gentlemen, Professor Richard Dawkins.

One of the most prolific thinkers of his generation, he shot to fame in the 1970s with his research into genetics.

And his book, The Selfish Gene, transformed evolutionary biology.

His most famous work, The God Delusion, sold millions of copies and has been translated into more than 30 languages.

Richard, thanks so much for joining us here on Al Jazeera.

Before we go any further, I just want to check something.

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 Qur 'an, the New Testament, the Hindu scripture?

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,

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 yet 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 why

throw away 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

but 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 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...

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 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 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 other evidence there

are different people say to say different things I've seen plenty

of 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 real -world stuff in there.

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.

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 we see in Northern Ireland, we see it in Afghanistan,

we see it 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.

Martyrs go straight to paradise.

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

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

But then what about the majority of the world's Muslim clerics

and ulama who came out and condemned 9 -11 straight after this?

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.

📺 ช่องเดียวกัน

"Richard Dawkins & Sean Faircloth in Conversation"

IELTS PrepTOEFL PrepUniversity Students

✨ วิดีโอแนะนำ

27 ประโยค

Atheist Professor Says No Evidence for God — John Lennox's Response Is Brilliant

IELTS PrepTOEFL PrepUniversity Students

130 ประโยค

คำศัพท์และข้อสังเกตด้านการพูดสำหรับบทเรียนนี้

วิดีโอนี้มี 625 ประโยค และ 7856 คำ สำหรับฝึกพูดตาม ช่วงที่มีเสียงพูดยาว 45:18 ผู้พูดพูดด้วยความเร็วเป็นธรรมชาติ ประมาณ 173 คำต่อนาที ใกล้เคียงกับบทสนทนาในชีวิตประจำวัน 83% ของคำอยู่ใน 3,000 คำที่ใช้บ่อยที่สุดในภาษาอังกฤษ ส่วนที่เหลือควรดูไว้ก่อนเริ่มฝึก

คำศัพท์สำคัญในวิดีโอนี้

คำที่ควรเรียนรู้ 15 คำจากวิดีโอ พร้อมคำอ่านและความหมาย:

คำศัพท์	คำอ่าน	ความหมาย
argue คำกริยา	/ˈɑɹ.ɡju/	เถียง, ถก
testament คำนาม	/ˈtɛs.tə.mənt/	พินัยกรรม
priest คำนาม	/ˈpɹiːst/	หลวงพ่อ, พระ
gene คำนาม	/d͡ʒiːn/	หน่วยพันธุกรรม
morality คำนาม	/məˈɹælɪti/	ศีลธรรม
believer คำนาม	/bɪˈlivɚ/	ผู้เชื่อ, ผู้ศรัทธา
atheist คำนาม	/ˈeɪ.θi.ɪst/	ผู้ที่เชื่อว่าไม่มีพระเจ้า, ผู้ถืออเทวนิยม
miracle คำนาม	/ˈmɪɹ.ə.kəl/	ปาฏิหาริย์
worship คำนาม	/ˈwɝ.ʃɪp/	บูชา
terrorism คำนาม	/ˈtɛɹəɹɪzəm/	การก่อการร้าย
scientist คำนาม	/ˈsaɪəntəst/	นักวิทยาศาสตร์
prophet คำนาม	/ˈpɹɑ.fɪt/	ศาสดา
cloud คำนาม	/ˈklaʊ̯d/	เมฆ
physics คำนาม	/ˈfɪz.ɪks/	ฟิสิกส์
paradise คำนาม	/ˈpæɹədaɪs/	สวรรค์, พาราไดซ์

กริยาวลีที่คุณจะได้ยิน

คำศัพท์	คำอ่าน	ความหมาย
bring up คำกริยา		เลี้ยงดู, ฟูมฟัก
carry out คำกริยา	/ˈkæ.ɹi aʊt/	กระทำ
go out คำกริยา		ออก, ออกไป
throw away คำกริยา		ทิ้ง

การออกเสียงที่ควรระวัง

ผู้พูดใช้รูปย่อและรูปลดเสียง 217 ครั้ง เช่น I'm, don't, you're ให้พูดแบบสั้นตามที่ได้ยิน

เสียง “th”: atheist /ˈeɪ.θi.ɪst/, bother /ˈbɑðɚ/, gather /ˈɡæðɚ/, theology /θiˈɒ.lə.d͡ʒi/, ethnic /ˈɛθ.nɪk/
เสียง “sh” และ “zh”: worship /ˈwɝ.ʃɪp/, selfish /ˈsɛlf.ɪʃ/, rational /ˈɹæʃ(ə)nəl/, passionate /ˈpæʃənɪt/, revelation /ˌɹɛv.əˈleɪ.ʃən/
คำยาว — ลงเสียงหนักให้ถูกพยางค์: morality /məˈɹælɪti/, terrorism /ˈtɛɹəɹɪzəm/, revelation /ˌɹɛv.əˈleɪ.ʃən/, evolutionary /ˌiː.vəˈluː.ʃən.ɛɹ.i/, evolution /ˌiːvəˈluːʃ(ə)n/

วิธีฝึกกับวิดีโอนี้

ฟังวิดีโอให้จบหนึ่งรอบโดยยังไม่ต้องพูด แล้วจดคำที่ยังไม่รู้จัก
เริ่มที่ความเร็ว 0.75× พูดตามทีละประโยค แล้วกลับไปใช้ความเร็วปกติเมื่อเริ่มคล่อง
อัดเสียงตัวเองแล้วเทียบกับต้นฉบับ โดยสังเกตคำอย่าง argue, testament, priest เป็นพิเศษ

ไวยากรณ์ในวิดีโอนี้

โครงสร้างที่ผู้พูดใช้บ่อยที่สุด พร้อมคำพูดจริงจากวิดีโอ:

โครงสร้าง	ในวิดีโอ
Present perfect continuous have/has been + -ing — การกระทำที่เริ่มก่อนหน้านี้และยังดำเนินอยู่	we've been talking · have been studying
ประโยคเงื่อนไข if + อนุประโยค, will/would + กริยา — เงื่อนไขและผลลัพธ์	if you were being fair, Wouldn't you · if you could do that we wouldn't need
Present perfect have/has + กริยาช่อง 3 — เหตุการณ์ในอดีตที่ยังเกี่ยวข้องกับปัจจุบัน	has been translated · you've actually read · haven't read
Passive voice be + กริยาช่อง 3 — เน้นสิ่งที่เกิดขึ้น ไม่ใช่ผู้กระทำ	has been translated · is worshipped · is adored

เทคนิค Shadowing คืออะไร?

Shadowing เป็นเทคนิคการเรียนรู้ภาษาที่ได้รับการรับรองทางวิทยาศาสตร์ พัฒนาขึ้นสำหรับการฝึกนักแปลมืออาชีพ วิธีการนี้เรียบง่ายแต่ทรงพลัง: คุณฟังเสียงภาษาอังกฤษจากเจ้าของภาษาและพูดตามทันที — เหมือนเงาที่ตามผู้พูดด้วยช่วงเวลาห่าง 1-2 วินาที การวิจัยแสดงว่าเทคนิคนี้ปรับปรุงความแม่นยำในการออกเสียง ทำนองเสียง จังหวะ การเชื่อมเสียง การฟังเข้าใจ และความคล่องแคล่วในการพูดได้อย่างมีนัยสำคัญ

เทคนิค shadowing: อ่านคู่มือฉบับเต็มทีละขั้นตอน →

ฝึกพูดภาษาอังกฤษด้วยเทคนิค Shadowing จากวิดีโอ: Richard Dawkins vs. Mehdi Hasan

"Richard Dawkins & Sean Faircloth in Conversation"

Atheist Professor Says No Evidence for God — John Lennox's Response Is Brilliant

Matthew Handley | Islam Is A Peaceful Religion | Oxford Union

The Most Overlooked Qur'anic Verse About Human Origins!

Ronnie James Dio talks religion

God is a Delusion | Oxford Union Speech - Alex O'Connor

Stephen Fry on God | The Meaning Of Life | RTÉ One

What science can’t answer, according to physicist Jim Al-Khalili | Big Think

Christian vs Muslim Women

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

Who is the Antichrist? explained

Tanya’s opinion on humans

Katie Hopkins | We Should NOT Support No Platforming (6/8) | Oxford Union

คำศัพท์และข้อสังเกตด้านการพูดสำหรับบทเรียนนี้

คำศัพท์สำคัญในวิดีโอนี้

กริยาวลีที่คุณจะได้ยิน

การออกเสียงที่ควรระวัง

วิธีฝึกกับวิดีโอนี้

ไวยากรณ์ในวิดีโอนี้

เทคนิค Shadowing คืออะไร?