An Interview with Richard Dawkins

Laura Sheahen – Beliefnet

Copyright Beliefnet
The renowned biologist talks about intelligent design, dishonest Christians, and why God is no better than an imaginary friend.
Interview by Laura Sheahen
British biologist Richard Dawkins has made a name for himself defending evolution and fighting what he sees as religiously motivated attacks on science. Dr. Dawkins sat down with Beliefnet at the World Congress of Secular Humanism, where his keynote address focused on intelligent design.
You’re concerned about the state of education, especially science education. If you were able to teach every person, what would you want people to believe?
I would want them to believe whatever evidence leads them to; I would want them to look at the evidence, judge it on its merits, not accept things because of internal revelation or faith, but purely on the basis of evidence.
Not everybody can evaluate all evidence; we canít evaluate the evidence for quantum physics. So it does have to be a certain amount of taking things on trust. I have to take what physicists say on trust, for example, because I’m a biologist. But science [has] a system of appraisal, of peer review, so that I trust the physics community to get their act together in a way that I know from the inside. I wish people would put their trust in evidence, not in faith, revelation, tradition, or authority.
What do you wish people knew about evolution?
They need to understand what evolution is about. Many of them donít. I was truly shocked to be told by two separate religious leaders in this country [the U.S.] a few weeks ago–they both said something to the effect that, ìIíll believe in evolution when I see a tailed monkey give birth to a human.î
That is staggering ignorance of what evolutionary science is about; if they think thatís what evolutionists believe, no wonder theyíre skeptical of it. How can a civilized country have adult people in positions of leadership who know so stunningly little about the leading biological concept?
You said in a recent speech that design was not the only alternative to chance. A lot of people think that evolution is all about random chance.
Thatís ludicrous. Thatís ridiculous. Mutation is random in the sense that itís not anticipatory of whatís needed. Natural selection is anything but random. Natural selection is a guided process, guided not by any higher power, but simply by which genes survive and which genes donít survive. Thatís a non-random process. The animals that are best at whatever they doóhunting, flying, fishing, swimming, diggingówhatever the species does, the individuals that are best at it are the ones that pass on the genes. Itís because of this non-random process that lions are so good at hunting, antelopes so good at running away from lions, and fish are so good at swimming.
There are intelligent people who have been taught good science and evolution, and who may choose to believe in something religious that may seem to fly in the face of science. What do you make of that?
Itís certainly hard to know what to make of it. I think itís a betrayal of science. I think they have a religious agenda which, for reasons best known to themselves, they elevate above science.
What are your thoughts about the despair some people feel when they ponder natural selection and random mutation? The idea of evolution and natural selection makes some people feel that everything is meaningless–peopleís individual lives and life in general.
If itís true that it causes people to feel despair, thatís tough. Itís still the truth. The universe doesnít owe us condolence or consolation; it doesnít owe us a nice warm feeling inside. If itís true, itís true, and you’d better live with it.
Is atheism the logical extension of believing in evolution?
However, I donít think it should make one feel depressed. I donít feel depressed. I feel elated. My book, “Unweaving the Rainbow,” is an attempt to elevate science to the level of poetry and to show how one can beóin a funny sort of wayórather spiritual about science. Not in a supernatural sense, but there are uplifting mysteries to be solved. The contemplation of the size and scale of the universe, of the depth of geological time, of the complexity of life–these all, to me, have an inspirational quality. It makes my life worthwhile to study them.
You criticize intelligent design, saying that “the theistic answer”–pointing to God as designer–“is deeply unsatisfying”–presumably you mean on a logical, scientific level.
Yes, because it doesnít explain where the designer comes from. If theyíre going to emphasize the statistical improbability of biological organsó”these are so complicated, how could they have evolved?”–well, if theyíre so complicated, how could they possibly have been designed? Because the designer would have to be even more complicated.
Obviously, a lot of people find the theistic answer satisfying on another level. What do you see as the problem with that level?
What other level?
At whatever level where people say the idea of God is very satisfying.
Well, of course it is. Wouldnít it be lovely to believe in an imaginary friend who listens to your thoughts, listens to your prayers, comforts you, consoles you, gives you life after death, can give you advice? Of course itís satisfying, if you can believe it. But who wants to believe a lie?
Is atheism the logical extension of believing in evolution?
They clearly canít be irrevocably linked because a very large number of theologians believe in evolution. In fact, any respectable theologian of the Catholic or Anglican or any other sensible church believes in evolution. Similarly, a very large number of evolutionary scientists are also religious. My personal feeling is that understanding evolution led me to atheism.
How would you respond to people who say the most interesting or worthwhile aspect of human beings is behavior that natural selection would not promote? I’m thinking of behavior like adopting children who aren’t family members, voluntary celibacy, or people deciding to spend their whole life praying.
Adopting children that are not your own or a close relative’s is an interesting question. Why do not just humans, but other species, do what on the face of it is the wrong thing to do from a selfish gene point of view? Cuckoos play upon this and actually engineer it so that other species raise [baby cuckoos]. This is a mistake on the part of the foster parents, which have been “forced” to adopt the cuckoos.
So thatís sort of a wild analogy to adopting children, in this case ones who are not your own species.
By the way, I would hate this to be taken as any sort of suggestion that adoptive parents donít love their adopted children; of course they do. But you could think of it as a kind of genetic mistake, in that human adults have strong parental instincts which make them long for a child. If they canít have a child of their own, they can then satisfy those parental instincts by adopting a child.
In the same way, we have sexual instincts; we long for sex and it doesnít matter that we use contraception. Thatís, as it were, separating the natural function of sex, which is reproduction. But we still enjoy sex in the same way that we enjoy being a parent even if it is not our own child that weíre looking after.
You’ve said, “donít name our present ignorance God”–which you said is what intelligent design proponents are doing. Theyíre taking an area where weíre ignorant and naming that God. Do you think science will eventually explain everything we wonder about now?
I donít know the answer. Iím equally excited by both in a way. I rather like the idea of understanding everything and I also quite like the idea of science being a never-ending, open-ended quest.
If you had to name top sources for optimism and hope in a naturalistic or materialistic worldview, what would they be?
I think there is something glorious in the universe, in contemplating the Milky Way galaxy, in contemplating the fact that this is only one in billions of galaxies, contemplating the fact that at the beginning of the 21st century, humanity really has gone a very long way toward understanding the universe in which we live and the life form of which we are a part. I find that a truly inspirational thought.
Obviously, there are other things having nothing to do with scienceómusic, poetry, sex, love. These are all things that make life, to me, extremely worth living.
Then there’s the added fact that it is the only life weíre ever going to get. Donít kid yourself that youíre going to live again after youíre dead; youíre not. Make the most of the one life youíve got. Live it to the full.
You’ve criticized the idea of the afterlife. What do you see as the problem with a terminally ill cancer patient believing in an afterlife?
Oh, no problem at all. I would never wish to disabuse or disillusion somebody who believed that. I care about whatís true for myself, but I donít want to go around telling people who are afraid of dying that their hopes are unreal.
If I could have a word with a would-be suicide bomber or plane hijacker who thinks heís going to paradise, I would like to disabuse him. I wouldnít say to him, “Donít you see what youíre doing is wrong?” I would say, “Donít imagine for one second youíre going to paradise. Youíre not. Youíre going to rot in the ground.”
How would you feel if your daughter became religious in the future?
Well, that would be her decision and obviously sheís her own person, sheís free to do whatever she likes. I think sheís much too intelligent to do that, but thatís her decision.
You talk about how your words have been twisted by religious people in the past. Which words of yours have been twisted?
Whenever I begin an argument by saying something that sounds as though it’s creationist, something like “the Cambrian Explosion is a sudden explosion of fossils almost as though they had no history,” I’m obviously saying that as a prelude to explaining why.
But these people quote selectively. It’s a demonstration of their fundamental dishonesty. Theyíre not actually interested in truth, theyíre interested in propaganda.
Are there one or two phrases youíve heard repeatedly quoted out of context that youíd like to set the record straight about?
Well, thatís one of them, about the Cambrian Explosion. Another one is Darwinís famous phrase, to suppose that “the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances”óhe goes on about the complications of the eyeó”could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.” He then goes on to explain it, and they never quote that. They just stop there. Dishonest.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *