Richard Dawkins Chat At Faithless.org. Here is the transcript:
voxpop> Good Evening Professor Dawkins. Thanks for visiting with us at The Faithless Community today. We have oodles of eager members logged on! Quite exciting.
voxpop> For everyone in the room, you may now begin sending your questions,
voxpop> I will forward them to the Professor for his response
voxpop> By the way everyone, you can call him Richard
ThirdChimpanZ: Richard: Have you ever had any dealings with the late scientist Richard Feynman?
Richard_Dawkins> To my regret I never met Richard Feynman, but I admire him
TheAnkou: Dr. Dawkin, you say that nature doesn't allow for altruism, any reason why we shouldn't seek to emulate nature ?
Richard_Dawkins> I'm not sure that I understand the question. Do you mean emulate nature in being non altruistic? I would prefer NOT to emulate nature and be altruistic
voxpop> TheAnkou> I mean emulating nature by seeking relationship that are always beneficial (symbiosis, parasitism) TheAnkou> instead of altruism (losing for the gain of another person) TheAnkou> and I would like a rational defense of altruism
Balen: I would like to ask Professor Dawkins: Is Marxism related to Evolution? I definitely hope not. A short answer would be all right.
Richard_Dawkins> What do you mean by related to? Some Marxists have historically been, for some weird reason, hostile to DARWINIAN natural selection, though not evolution itself. e.g. Lysenko. Maybe because they think (wrongly) that it conflicts with the ideal of environmental perfectability
bradam: Richard, did you ever meet the late Carl Sagan? if so was there a collaboration of any sort between you two?
Richard_Dawkins> Yes, I did meet Carl Sagan, but only briefly. We corresponded. I am a huge fan of his books, and I am glad to say he returned the compliment. I find his style of writing inspirational
Nihilistic: Is it likely that a theory of abiogenesis will ever emerge that is as substantiated as evolution? Is this likely to come about through computer modelling, or will there simply never be enough evidence because it happened so long ago?
Richard_Dawkins> The origin of life took place so long ago and under completely different conditions from those we are familiar with. I suspect that computer modeling might be the answer. What would be really exciting would be a model which was so superlatively neat, so aesthetically wonderful that we would all say YES! That is how it must have been.
Rhonda: Are you pessimistic concerning the political power of fundamentalists in the US, and do you think that US scientists have failed in stopping the creationist movement? Could they do more to halt the virus?
Richard_Dawkins> Not being American, I feel a bit presumptuous answering this. But, so far as I understand it, I am pessimistic because of their political power and their money. But I am optimistic because I suspect that much of the problem is due to IGNORANCE of what evolution actually is, rather than outright hostility to it
von_rick: Dr.Dawkins if you had to write your books after the Darwin's bokks came out but before the Watson and Crick model, what elements would have been missing in them?
Richard_Dawkins> That is a very interesting question. I think the answer is surprisingly little. Mendelian genetics is ALREADY digital - particulate. That is the important point. Watson and Crick showed that it is even digital WITHIN genes, where Mendelism is digital BETWEEN genes. But it is the latter that you need for Selfish Gene. So, SG could not have been written before Mendel. But it could have been written before Watson and Crick
Zugman: I loved your introduction to the Great Ape Project. Can you explain a little more about what you think of Peter Singer's broader philosophy?
Richard_Dawkins> Peter Singer makes himself unpopular with two completely different classes of people, but he is thoroughly consistent within his philosophy. He is against suffering, which is why he supports animal welfare and makes enemies because of it. And he recognizes that human fetuses are nowhere near so capable of suffering as, say, adult chimpanzees. So that makes him unpopular with 'Pro Lifers' (which always means, of course, Pro HUMAN life)
jonnyh: Looking at Ethics on the one side and evolution on the other, do you see any space that is "unchartered" in between the two?
Richard_Dawkins> What do you mean 'unchartered'? It doesn't seem to make sense? Sorry
karl: Do you think the universe and the laws governing it also evolved from a more simple state through a process similar to natural selection??
Richard_Dawkins> Fascinating. Gradual evolution from simplicity to complexity is the trick Darwin discovered to dispel the problem of statistical improbability in biology. In cosmology it is not clear that the same problem arises, although it may. If it does, it is an appealing thought that a similar trick might work. One suggestion along these lines is that of the physicist Lee Smolin, in his book, The Life of the Cosmos. He suggests that Universes reproduce and evolve in a kind of
Aegean: Richard, you have repeatedly expressed your belief that while evolution is a very powerful scientific tool for understanding the world, it is rather pitiable as an ethical guide to action. Indeed, this seems to be a recurrent theme in your popular writings: in _The Selfish Gene_, your first published book, you urge us to understand what our own selfish genes are up to, because we may then at least have the chance to upset their designs, something which no other species has ever
Richard_Dawkins> Yes, I do feel strongly that nobody should use Darwinism as a guide for life. The Social Darwinists tried to do that, with terrible results. Some people don't see how we CAN depart from our Darwinian heritage and rebel against the selfish gene. But it is obvious that we can, for we do so every time we use a contraceptive.
GodStopper: Richard, could you comment on the Brights movement? Many people find fault with the word "Bright" as a label for nonbelievers.
Richard_Dawkins> The main objection to the word Bright seems to be that it sounds arrogant. The originators of the word have repeatedly disclaimed that implication, but nobody seems to listen. So perhaps we should be hung for a sheep as a lamb and admit that atheists are, on the whole, brighter than theists. Does anyone seriously doubt it?
voxpop: question from Mel Heyworth: Having read some of your publications, I have found a personal truth in what you say. Here I am at an impasse - knowing that there is no ultimate meaning to anybody's life, yet trying (unsuccessfully so far) to create a meaning within myself (this seems the epitome of self-delusion to me!). I wonder how you manage to reconcile life's greater meaningless with your own life goals as you obviously are passionately driven. Apologies for the negativity
Richard_Dawkins> Please don't be negative. I can't do justice to your question in a short answer, but I have tried to answer it at book length in Unweaving the Rainbow. I find huge satisfaction in being alive, and especially in the privilege of being able to understand, through science, why I am here. The fact that life is finite, and the fact that there is no ultimate meaning to it, does not mean we can't set up goals and meanings in our own personal lives. I do feel really passiona
Jarno: Mr Dawkins: The United States and other members of the United Nations are trying to achieve a worldwide prohibitation on human stemcell cloning. What is your opinion upon this matter?
Richard_Dawkins> I think opposition to stem cell cloning is sheer bigotry based on lamentable ignorance, entirely typical of the unspeakable Bush
zeon: It is my admittedly-limited understanding of evolution that physical evolution takes place in response to environmental conditions. Is there such a thing as spiritual evolution or are we "wired" for superstition?
Richard_Dawkins> The two halves of your question don't seem to me to be connected. We might well be wired for superstition, but what on earth is spiritual evolution?
voxpop> Richard, sometimes your longer answers are cut off by the program,
voxpop> you can click the Post button and fill out the rest if they are.
Libre_y_Soberano: Historically, atheists are minority, why?
Richard_Dawkins> Because facile, shallow explanations are easier to understand than the truth. And children tend to believe whatever they are told by their parents, rather than each generation trying to think for itself
karl: Is there any aspect of the theory of natural selection that you are unhappy with??
Richard_Dawkins> Natural selection is the only known explanation for adaptive evolution. It is not the only explanation for all evolution, because not all evolution is adaptive. I am unhappy with attempts to export natural selection into fields like ethics or politics, but that was the answer to a different question
voxpop: From insomiac4life: Universists feel faith-based motivations in the political and social realm will inevitably cause harm. Do you feel that as rational thinkers we must be proactive in our approach to stem the spread the irrationality, and what do you feel is the best way to accomplish this.
Richard_Dawkins> I do think that pussyfooting around and being polite doesn't seem to work, and it is not the habit of our enemies. So maybe the time has come to be less polite and more proactive. It is less clear what to do in practice. I often try to 'raise consciousness' in the sense used by the feminists when they succeeded in making us feel embarrassed when we use 'he' when it could be 'she'. I think we need to raise consciousness about the way people label children. Nobody sho
voxpop: From insomiac4life: Universists feel faith-based motivations in the political and social realm will inevitably cause harm. Do you feel that as rational thinkers we must be proactive in our approach to stem the spread the irrationality, and what do you feel is the best way to accomplish this.
Richard_Dawkins> Messge continued. I was cut off. Nobody should ever be allowed to get away with a phrase like 'Catholic child' or 'Muslim Child'. There is no such thing as a Christian child. Only a child of Christian parents.
voxpop> Hear hear!
Matt_Arnold: Dr. Dawkins, how likely do you think it is for memetics to ever develop into a truly rigorous scientific discipline?
Richard_Dawkins> I genuinely don't know. Have a look at The Meme Machine by Susan Blackmore. And Dan Dennett's Darwin's Dangerous Idea.Tthere is also a new book called The Selfish Meme by Kate Distin (the title of which slightly ****es me off), and various other meme books
karl: Have you at any point in your life seriously considered the posibility of a God or higher inteligence existing ??
Richard_Dawkins> Yes. When I was too young to think for myself
GodStopper: regarding your Brights reply: Are you saying there is a correlation between nontheism and intelligence?
Richard_Dawkins> I am guessing that there is. I would love to see the question properly researched. The only meta-analysis I have seen (sorry I can't rustle up the reference in a hurry) looked at some 42 studies. Of those 42, I think it was 38 found a correlation between nontheism and intelligence. The other 4 didn't find the reverse, just no significant correlation either way. But please somebody, let's do the research properly. My strong intuitive guess is that there is such a corr
lipjagger: What do you think about the non-religious offering more of a community like the religious do? Do you think it would make a difference? Loads only flock to religion for communal reasons, don't you think it's better to have something to offer up instead of holding a position of a negative (in their perspective)?
Richard_Dawkins> Yes, good point. I think it is true, especially in America, that churches provide a social focus. People feel then need to belong to a church. I think there have been some secular attempts to provide an equivalent. Perhaps somebody in the group knows about these
voxpop> That is a major focus of The Universist Movement Richard,
voxpop> Community for the faithless and the aforementioned engaging in the culture war with conservative evangelical Christianity.
mrviner: For you personally is there any correlation beween the axes of atheist-religious and the political spectrum ie left-right wing?
Richard_Dawkins> I don't think 'for you personally' is the right way to ask the question. I don't think I have noticed an obvious correlation subjectively. It would be interesting to do the research to find out. In fact, I think there is a whole lot of research that could be done, correlating the relious-atheist axis with a whole lot of interesting variables, preferably in a multifactorial way
Harbinger: Seemingly you believe atheists beat out Theists in 'smarts', what's your opinion of Deists & Panthiests?
Richard_Dawkins> Pantheists, as I understand it, are just poetic atheists. Deists believe in an almighty prime mover who started everything off and then retired. Despite its illustrious history, including Tom Paine and many of the American Founding Fathers, I find Deism almost as unsatisfying as theism
rozmarija: Do you see America sliding in to becoming a theocracy?There is immense pressure to bow to religion, and insufficient education available to counter the trend.
Richard_Dawkins> That is what it looks like at present. But these things change, and the general trend of history in the long term will be on our side. In the short term, you are right that education is the answer, and it is horrifying the way people with political power and money are able to subvert it. This is beginning to happen in Britain too
Rhonda: In terms of religion and children, given that evolutionary psychology suggests that children evolved to learn from their elders, and elders are wanting to maintain control of their children (and the tribe) how do we successfully break the cycle?
Richard_Dawkins> Again, the answer is education, but it is hard to break into education when it is powerfully controlled by less enlightened forces. I keep coming back to the idea of consciousness raising. Perhaps if all of us remember, whenever we hear anybody labelling a child with a religious label, come down on them like a ton of bricks. You would never refer to a child as a Marxist child, or a Keynesian child, or a Neo-Libertarian child. You would never refer to a child as an a
Rhonda: In terms of religion and children, given that evolutionary psychology suggests that children evolved to learn from their elders, and elders are wanting to maintain control of their children (and the tribe) how do we successfully break the cycle?
Richard_Dawkins> I was cut off again. , You would never refer to a child as a Marxist child, or a Keynesian child, or a Neo-Libertarian child. You would never refer to a child as an atheist child. Get out there and raise consciousness.
NobleSavage: Some of the statistics of the American public's understanding or acceptance of evolution are depressing. Is there a way we could be doing a better job helping people to understand the concept? This is especially important for those of us active in debunking the Bible.
Richard_Dawkins> Yes, well most of my books are directed towards precisely that end. The problem is to get the buggers to read them. A separate issue is, do we make common cause with sensible theists like the Pope. Eugenie Scott and her organization in California say yes. I am not so sure
cunnilinctusist: Are all sacred texts fiction?
Richard_Dawkins> The better parts are fiction. The worst parts are nonsense
BornTooEarly: Since you don't believe in life after death like most of us here (I hope), are you involved with Transhumanism, the goal of which is to advance medical technology like stem cell research ASAP to extend the only life we have?
Richard_Dawkins> My dear late colleague Bill Hamilton said a rather charming thing. He privately hankered after longer life, but he recognized that it was selfish and part of him therefore hoped that such research would come to nothing
Nihilistic: Nothing about the "anthropic principle" gives you pause? Doesn't it seem like M-theory and Lee Smolin's "daughter universes", because they are lacking in experimental verification, are almost as fanciful and far reaching as theism?
Richard_Dawkins> Well, I don't actually think so no. Smolin's theory is an honest attempt to build improbability out of more probable beginnings. Just like Darwin. Theism is just irremediably far fetched because it STARTS with improbability: a being complex enough to create the universe
rozmarija: Our culture is top heavy with religious icons - architecture, paintings, statuary, children taken to museums to view great art with a religious theme.Any opinion on arts arising to challenge that impact?
Richard_Dawkins> In past centuries, religious interests had the money to commission great art, which is why we have the Sistine Chapel and the B Minor Mass. I suppose the equivalent of the church today, money-wise, is Bill Gates and his like. I wish Beethoven had lived later and written the Evolution Symphony
Harbinger: Why is the Pope a sensible theist?
Richard_Dawkins> I only meant that he believe evolution is a fact. I didn't mean he was sensible in any other way. the
rednamso: Why don't we worship other philosophers, like Socrates, so much as we worship Jesus?
Richard_Dawkins> Let's not worship anybody. Except our lovers
lipjagger: It just seems to me that we (atheists ) are prolific only for being anti-something. Fighting to change the pledge or just basically trying to keep the religious in check. Is there anything that we can do that makes our lifestyle of intelligence look appealing instead of a constant battle?
Richard_Dawkins> Yes, nice one. My answer is kind of similar to the one about negativism. My answer is given at book length in Unweaving the Rainbow
rozmarija: You don't agree that people of limited reasoning ability, in lifelong dire straits, need religion for a purpose in life?ype here
Richard_Dawkins> Well yes, they might need religion for various psychological reasons. Like some people need drugs. Other people need to depend on another person because they are too inadequate to look after themselves. All these things could be true of religion. It doesn't make the claims of religion true.
cyborgen: Mr Dawkins, do you believe that the success of the christian right movement will lead to the closing of the american mind and ultimately the longer term destruction of american civilisation and ideals.
Richard_Dawkins> Bush will not go on for ever. Think of the longer perspective of history. And get out there and FIGHT
cyborgen: Mr Dawkins, do you believe that the success of the christian right movement will lead to the closing of the american mind and ultimately the longer term destruction of american civilisation and ideals.
Richard_Dawkins> By the way my screen says there are 71 questions, but I can only see abouta dozen of them
voxpop> Richard has been here for an hour everyone and we have thoroughly enjoyed it. There are plenty more questions and you are welcome to stay as long as you would like and have time for.
theinsomniac4life: It seems that a majority of scientists today believe in a manifold of existences, multiple or even infinite universes. It seems to me that is violated parsimony. We observe one universe, so why postulate more than what we see (as theists do). what is your thought on the subject
Richard_Dawkins> Some scientists postulate a plurality of universes for good physical reasons. It is unparsimonious in one sense, but I think acceptably so compared to the violent unparsimony of postulating primordial intelligent complexity. See David Deutsch's book, The Fabric of Reality
rozmarija: Some British scientists( from BBC) think it possible that our species will be extinct by the end of this century due to many environmental factors and possible nuclear accident.Adhrence to religion seems to impede efforts to steer a concrete positive course-- the Bush regime is frightening! But how to fight?
Richard_Dawkins> The British scientist you are referring to is Sir Martin Rees, the Astronomer Royal. I wish I knew how to fight. I suppose just the ordinary weapons available to citizens in a democracy. The number of people who bother to vote in USA is distressingly low. I don';t know how to counter that apathy, but the internet is one new way to spread memes
RJM: We have lost another great evolutionist ot the 20th century with the death of Ernst Mayr. What do you think will be the greatest achievements of evolutionary science in the 21st century.
Richard_Dawkins> Solving the riddle of consciousness. In answer to another question, I have no answer. If I had, I'd get a Nobel Prize. But I do think consciousnes is something that evolved by Darwinian evolution like everything else, so the solution will come from biology, probably aided by computer science in some form
voxpop: Do you agree that deism could be a key to the freethought struggle in the United States? Although unsatisfying by definition to atheists, it really is atheist materialism with one minor difference on a metaphysical point of abstraction. The Universist Movement is using deism to great success in our cause.
Richard_Dawkins> You mean it might have political advantages to call yourself a deist rather than an atheist. A deist could get elected to the senate where an atheist could not? Perhaps you are right. Deism certainly has an honourable and distinguished history
Matt_Arnold: Are you writing a new book? If so, can you tell us anything about the theme?
Richard_Dawkins> My most recent book is The Ancestor's Tale. It took me five years to write and I am taking a little time to recover before starting another one.
bradam: Richard, thank you very much for a most stimlulating and enjoyable discourse!
Richard_Dawkins> Thank you very much. I have enjoyed it very much and now I must go to bed! Good night
voxpop> It's 10:20 PM GMT folks and we'd like to thank Richard for a very enjoyable chat.
voxpop> If you have suggestions for future guest chats please share them on the Faithless Community forum
voxpop> Next Up:
voxpop> April 3rd we'll chat with the "Reverend" Brendan Powell Smith,
voxpop> author of The Brick Testament series of books converting the stories of the Bible in to lego panoramas
voxpop> Is this, as many of us suspect, one of the greatest lampoons of religion of all time?
voxpop> We'll find out April 3rd.
