Hello and welcome to Worlds Apart.
Religion and politics have long been a dangerous
mix, perhaps never more so than in the case
of the so-called Islamic State.
Is this violence and gloating evidence of
everything that's wrong with religion, or
perhaps how religion can be used as a scapegoat
for other, less than honourable fields of
human activity?
Well, to discuss that, I'm now joined by evolutionary
biologist Richard Dawkins.
Mr Dawkins, it's a great honour to have you
on the show.
Thank you very much.
Well, I know that you have been a critic of
organised religion for quite some time, and
you spoke about religion and evil.
But I wonder if the pictures, the footage
that we see coming out of Syria, of Iraq – you
know, with the Islamic State executions, crucifixions,
decapitations – if they leave you shocked?
If somebody told you five years ago that we
would be dealing with a phenomenon of such
proportions, do you think you would be surprised?
Of course I would, I'm totally shocked.
I think it's absolutely horrible.
You're presumably raising the question, “Is
religion responsible?”
Religion itself is not responsible for this.
These are savage people.
You could ask whether religion is responsible
for the support that they're getting.
And there I think it probably is.
I mean, they are getting support from people
in Britain, people in Europe, and young men
are going out to Syria and Iraq to join IS.
And the motivation for that is in some sense
religion.
It's also this feeling of political involvement.
It's a feeling that it's “us against them.”
And I think that quite a large number of young
Muslims feel kind of beleaguered against the
rest of the world.
And so religion in some sense might be just
an excuse, but I do think that a dominant
part of the motivation for these young men
has to be religion.
Well, I would like to explore that a little
bit later, but before we go there, if we could
look at the biological aspect of it.
And I think it, you are an evolutionary biologist,
and probably you would agree that as species,
we develop some adaptations to prevent us
from excessive gore.
I mean, killing itself is not easy.
And you can argue that perhaps they're savage
people and just a bunch of psychopaths, but
there are a lot of them.
Their number is too high to believe that there
is something that is psychologically wrong
with all of them.
So, I wonder if this type of violence itself
is not natural?
Because, I mean, some people have, for example,
a fainting reflex at the sight of blood.
You know, it's difficult to kill people with
your bare hands, and they do it very, very
easily.
Well, a small number of them do.
I mean, the ones who actually wield the knife
are presumably psychopaths, and you probably
could find them in any society.
But perhaps you need to make a distinction
between them and the people who support them.
I am worried by the fact that so many people
know about these awful decapitations and so
on, and yet still join up.
That, I think, you're perfectly right, that
is a worrying thing.
As for the biology of it, there's a tussle
in evolutionary biology between a tendency
to selfish violence and a tendency to altruistic
cooperation.
My book, The Selfish Gene, my first book,
is sort of about that tussle.
It's somehow, sometimes being misinterpreted
as an advocacy of selfishness or a statement
that we're all selfish.
It's not that at all, of course.
It's mostly about altruism.
But there is a kind of tension between selfishness
and altruism, both of which are favoured by
natural selection, Darwinian natural selection,
in different circumstances.
But I think you argue in your book that every
activity has a purpose.
I mean, even when people resort to violence,
it has some practical value for them, for
example the survival value, what have you.
But what I think is very interesting about
IS is they seem to be revelling in that killing.
And that killing does not really serve any
practical role, or perhaps it does, but I
wonder if the case could be made that what
they do is essentially against basic human
instincts?
Because, I mean, if you look at the footage,
they're stepping over bodies lying in the
street.
And you can argue that just from the biological
point of view, smelling decomposing flesh
would be revolting, because we are afraid
of catching infections, what have you.
But they seem to be, it's almost like their
basic instincts have gone numb.
How would you explain that?
There is a perfectly good evolutionary theory
of reciprocation, in which revenge plays a
part.
And so there can be an escalation of vengeance,
which can go over many generations sometimes.
And so you get vendettas in various societies,
Mafia-influenced societies, various societies
around the world.
Killing, often of a hideous nature, is motivated
by a vendetta, sometimes a family vendetta,
tribal vendetta.
There is a kind of pseudo-tribalism which
uses religion as a label.
And I suspect that some of these people think
that this hideous violence is vengeance against,
say, America, for attacking Iraq or for forming
alliances with, I don't know, with Israel,
say.
And this vengeance becomes directed towards
innocent people.
There's one British man who is threatened
with execution now, who is an aid worker,
whose motivation is purely altruistic towards
the people there.
And yet he's been scapegoated as vengeance
against the US and British governments.
I think vengeance is a hideous emotion, but
it is one that does have a biological basis.
I wonder if I can pick up on this political
point, because clearly, as you just articulated,
religion or any group of beliefs – they're
also a reflection of everyday reality, what
these people have been exposed to.
And IS originated in Iraq, where violence
has been raging for pretty much 10+ years.
The coverage that we're getting, especially
from Western media, of the IS, is that they're
a bunch of psychopaths, barbarian sadists,
and that may be true.
But I wonder if politicians are perhaps exonerating
themselves a little bit here?
Because when you're exposed to extreme violence,
not just on a daily basis but for years on
end – is that really surprising that these
people are willing to go to such great lengths
to -
Yes, but if the causes of – I mean, are
you saying something like the causes of the
violence are the American invasion of Iraq,
I mean that sort of thing?
Not so much the American invasion, but the
type of violence that was brought by the war.
You know, people exposed to very gory pictures
on a daily basis.
Oh, ok, what do you mean [that] somehow people
get desensitised because they're -
Absolutely, yeah, well that's the first thing
that happens in a war zone.
Oh yes, I think that that does happen.
And I think if you look back at, say, the
First World War, Second World War, those things
escalated and by the end of the war, people
on both sides were prepared to do the most
hideous things because they'd seen hideous
things already done, yes.
Now, I consider myself an atheist, primarily
thanks to you.
But as a war reporter in the past, I've seen
many examples, especially in war zones, when
people experience so much grief or so much
violence that religion becomes their only
salvation.
And it's not only on an intellectual level.
I don't think they really think about the
origins of the universe when they lose their
loved ones.
But they really need some sort of support
at that time, and I don't think that critical
thinking provides that, in those days.
Do you think that religion still has a place
in those societies, the most vulnerable societies?
Not again as an intellectual concept, but
as a social or emotional crutch?
Yes, I think very likely it does.
I mean, I think it's perfectly possible to
say there is no justification, scientific
justification, for any truths that religious
people claim.
But on the other hand, they do provide consolation.
And so, in the same way that a psychiatrist
can console somebody by telling them something
which may not be true, that I could imagine
people do get consolation from religion.
What sort of irritates me is when people do
put it, what you're not doing, which is to
confuse the possible role of religion with
consoling people, with saying therefore it
must be true.
That's a total non-sequitur.
Now, I'm speaking here from perhaps my personal
experience, but I found that to be an atheist,
you have to invest a lot of time and effort
into it, you have to do a lot of reading,
you have to do a lot of thinking.
And I think, for a lot of people around the
world, that's a pure luxury.
I mean, they cannot afford an intellectual
lifestyle.
They perhaps work several jobs, or again,
live in war zones, when they would love to
wonder about stars, but it's simply not part
of their life.
I wonder if the case could be made that atheism,
at the end of the day, is a mark of social
and intellectual distinction or status?
That this is something that a lot of people
around the world, stricken by poverty or stricken
by war, simply cannot afford?
Yes, that's true, of course, of any intellectual
pursuit.
If you're starving, you better get on with
trying to survive, and it's very, very difficult.
So all intellectual pursuits, in a way, are
a luxury which privileged people can afford
to indulge in.
The same is true of music, of philosophy,
mathematics – all pursuits of the mind are
things that we can do when we have the luxury,
the leisure to do so.
And many people, unfortunately, haven't got
that luxury or leisure.
So would that essentially mean that your efforts
to spread atheism around the world are essentially
limited to the most fortunate part of it?
I would like to think not, because I think
that a lot of the problems that the poorer
people have may be brought upon them by religion.
I don't deny that religion can be consoling
to them, but what I'm suggesting is that they
may be actually oppressed by religion.
I think, for example, of the place of women
in Islamic societies, where they are hideously
oppressed by religious forces.
Well, I think we'll get a lot of response
to just this phrase that you just uttered,
because many would argue that in those societies,
what looks like oppression to you is a set-up
of life that makes it possible for a family
unit or society to exist.
Perhaps not perfect, but this is essentially
a product of the circumstances.
Allow me to be sceptical.
Well, we talked about ISIS, and on the political
level, we can see that it can, perhaps, bring
sworn enemies together, like for example the
United States and Iran.
There are some negotiations about them working
together.
I wonder if the same could apply to religions,
moderate religions, and atheists?
Do you think that they could join forces,
and if so in what way, in combating this very
extreme form of (inaudible) -
Yes, that's a perennial argument again.
I mean, it came up in the Second World War
over enmities between Britain and the US,
and Stalin's Russia.
And they came together to fight Hitler, and
then parted again after Hitler was defeated.
In the case of atheists and religious people
joining together, this comes up, in America
especially, with the argument over Creationism
and the teaching of evolution, where moderate
religious people are on the same side as scientists
in wanting evolution to be taught, and wanting
young Earth Creationism not to be taught.
And I have myself joined up, joined forces
with bishops in Britain on this very issue.
So yes, there are times when one seeks to
make alliances with people that one doesn't
always see eye to eye with.
But when you make those alliances, I wonder
what kind of compromise, intellectual compromise,
you're making with yourself?
Because, you just decide that you're not going
to look at their ideology, and not going to
take it seriously?
Because I mean, the story, for example, of
Origin is a very important part of the doctrine.
So even if you are joining forces with them,
how -
We agree to differ on this, but we feel very
strongly about that, so we're going to join
forces over that.
Mr Dawkins, we have to take a very short break
now, but when we come back – how could evolution
of religion look like?
That's coming up in a moment on Worlds Apart.
Welcome 
back 
to 
Worlds Apart where we are discussing religion
and politics with evolutionary biologist Richard
Dawkins.
Now, the main premise of most Abrahamic religions
is the so-called Golden Rule, the rule of
reciprocity.
And in The Selfish Gene, you wrote about that
Game Theory Analysis, that shows that reciprocity
is an evolutionarily sustainable strategy.
And I wonder if what you believe in is more
important than how you believe?
Because your case is obviously against how
people believe in certain things, that you
have to think rationally, you have to employ
critical thinking.
But at the end of the day, good people of
faith, and good people of atheism, they all
seem to believe in the same thing – that
you have to be fair and treat others as you
want to be treated?
Yes, the Golden Rule is pretty much universal
in all societies, and it makes a lot of sense.
What's objectionable is when religious people
claim that you need religion in order to be
good to other people.
Of course, you don't.
And if people really did base their morality
upon religion, they would, by no means, be
doing the sorts of things that you and I both
agree they should be doing.
They would be stoning people to death for
adultery, for homosexuality etc.
So we don't, as a matter of fact, get our
morals from religion.
We get them from somewhere else, things like
moral philosophy, which is often just an elaboration
of the Golden Rule and other things.
We get it from that.
It happens to coincide with some verses of
religious scripture, very much does not coincide
with other verses of religious scripture.
We pick and choose which verses of religious
scripture – the religious people pick and
choose which verses of religious scripture
they want to believe.
The basis on which they pick and choose is
the same as the basis that you and I use in
order to decide what's moral.
It's not other parts of scripture.
I would like to ask you perhaps a sexist question.
But there are a lot of studies that show that
for males, how you do certain things is more
important than for females.
For example, in war zones, valour and honour
are male values, predominantly male values.
Women tend to compromise for the sake of their
loved ones.
I mean, for them, even though they are more
attuned to public opinion, in critical situations
they are ready to sacrifice that.
And that led me to thinking that perhaps what
some would call the strident form of atheism
is perhaps a male construct?
Because for most women, or for many women,
it doesn't really matter whether somebody,
again, believes in the Bible or in Allah,
as long as they are decent human beings, as
long as they function in a society in a way
that doesn't threaten anyone.
I hesitate to tie labels on sexes of that
sort.
There could be evidence for that, I could
imagine psychological evidence for that.
I haven't looked into it.
I think we need to discuss, in a civilised
way, the differences between these two ways
of looking at things.
And I'd be hesitant before I tied gender labels
on them.
But I mean, the reason I'm asking, of course,
is because many people believe that your very
principled, and some would say strident position
on that, you put it on an intellectual basis.
You believe that it's intellectually driven.
And I wonder if you ever thought about it
also being influenced by gender factors?
You know, we see similar phenomenon, for example,
in organised religion, when again most of
the high priests are also male, and those
who indoctrinate and postulate values, they
also happen to be male?
I value the world of the mind.
I value truth.
I care passionately about what's true.
And so to me, as an individual, when I look
at a religion, what I care about is is it
true, is it really true that there is a God
etc.
I recognise that emotions are also important.
I'm driven by emotion in other issues.
I'm driven by emotion, for example, in the
question of saving species from going extinct.
Things like rhinoceroses, elephants, tigers
– it's quite hard to build a purely rational
case for saving the elephant, saving the black
rhino, saving the tiger.
My case is an emotional one, and I'm not ashamed
of that.
I would weep if we lost the two elephant species
that we have.
That's emotional, and I defend it on those
grounds.
Religion, to me, is a matter of intellect,
and I take my stand on that.
Now, the traditional atheist view has been
that with the development of science, religion
will die out.
And obviously, this is not what we're seeing
these days.
If you look at some of the IS fighters, there
are reports that some of them have advanced
scientific degrees.
You know, there are chemists and physicists
among them.
And yet, they seem to have this ability of
using critical thinking in one domain, and
going totally blind in other areas of life.
And I wonder if atheism, in some way, overestimates
peoples' ability to think rationally?
Are you putting too much faith in human rationality?
Well, it looks as though you may be right.
I mean, it is quite mysterious to me, the
way that people can do that.
Identity politics in the case of IS is, no
doubt, a part of it.
I think there is a capacity in the human mind
to separate things out.
It's not just in Muslims, it's in Christians
as well.
There are scientists who, perfectly competent
not brilliant scientists, but they're competent
scientists, who write – I mean there's an
extreme case known to me of an American professor
of astronomy who writes competent mathematical
papers about astrophysics, which make the
assumption that the universe is, whatever
it is, 13 billion years old, but privately
he believes the universe is only 6,000 years
old.
So that shows that it's possible for an apparently
intelligent and academically competent mind
to be split in half and to go through the
motions of writing papers in astrophysics,
while believing that everything about his
paper is nonsense.
That's an extreme case, and what we see much
more often is less extreme cases of the same
thing.
Now, I was born in the Soviet Union, and one
of the things that made communism degenerate
into what we had in later years is that communist
ideologues essentially either over-simplified
or over-estimated the human nature.
That they didn't take into account all the
various impulses of people.
And I wonder if you would actually like to
live in a world with only agnostics and atheists
all around?
Wouldn't that be a place that perhaps could
also degenerate into something that we had
in the Soviet Union?
Because communism at the beginning was also
a theoretical concept.
It talked about the goodness of people, sharing,
abandoning private property because you don't
need it.
You know, it counted too much on the better
side of human rationality.
But at the end of the day, it brought out
the worst.
Can atheism do the same?
Well, you may be saying it's realistic.
Sorry, you may be saying it's unrealistic
to count on human nature.
But I still think it's a worthwhile ideal.
I mean, I would like to live in a society
where people are rational and sceptical and
critical.
And that, I think, means they would be atheistic.
We live in a society now where nobody believes
in fairies and in pink unicorns and things,
and that's fine.
I think I would like to live in a society
where people are critical, sceptical, rational,
believe things only when there's evidence
and not because of tradition, or emotion,
or revelation, or holy books, or priesthoods.
Have you ever thought how much critical thinking
may be too much?
I mean, is there a limit beyond which it may
get -
No, I don't think there is.
I mean, you don't want to apply the sort of
extreme sceptical critical thinking to ordinary
personal relationships.
You know, does my lover love me or not – we
use human faculties for that.
It would be, life would be unpleasant if we
were constantly seeking evidence and doubting
our loved ones.
So no.
But when it comes to beliefs about the real
world, about science, about religion, then
I think, yes I do want people to be sceptical
and critical.
And I heard you often talk about, or people
rather asking you about religious art.
And you always reply that, for example, the
existence of the Sistine Chapel is not proof
of the belief system that helped to bring
it about.
But I wonder if you see anything in common
between creativity and religion?
In the sense of both of them providing some
sort of escape from the rule-bound world.
Because on some level, you could even argue
that religion is just an example of human
creativity, creativity of thought, and just
giving yourself some respite from the bounds
of logic.
I'm all for having a respite from all sorts
of things, in music, poetry, human love, art.
But I would draw the line at using false beliefs
about the universe for that purpose.
I don't mind poetic – I mean, I could appreciate
the poetry of, say, Bach's St Matthew Passion.
Beautiful music, and the words – I don't
discount the words, it's a tragic story that's
being told.
I appreciate tragic stories, even if they're
not true.
Like I appreciate Romeo and Juliet, although
it's fiction.
So yes, we take refuge in fiction.
But don't let's forget that it is fiction.
That's the point I would make.
And finally, I wonder if religion would stop
making those unsubstantiated claims about
the origins of the universe, and would embrace
some sort of, let's say, definition of God
that would be similar to Einstein's – would
you be willing to drop your objections against
religion?
How do you see the evolution of it?
I would have no objection to an Einsteinian
religion, so long as people don't confuse
it with supernaturalism.
I think that Einstein made a mistake in using
religious language, because people have been
misled by that.
I mean, Einstein used the word “God”,
and he didn't actually believe in any kind
of God.
He was a pantheist, and I'd be happy to go
along with that kind of religion.
I just wouldn't call it religion.
But how do you see the future of religion,
you seem to be agreeing that the social and
emotional function that it serves is a very
important one.
Do you see any institution that could either
substitute that, or a way in which religion
could evolve?
You know, if I just ask you to use your imagination,
and let's say imagine a religion in 100 years.
I wouldn't call it religion.
I think we need human comfort, psychological
comfort, human comfort, emotional counselling.
All these sorts of things, people get help
from each other.
We're a social species, we put our arms around
each other to comfort each other.
We don't need supernatural spooks in order
to do that.
Absolutely, but my point is that religion,
as of now, is pretty much the only, or perhaps
very rare social institution that has these
open-door policies.
Science doesn't.
You have to meet certain criteria to be a
scientist.
(crosstalk) No, science doesn't, but counselling
does, psychology does.
But you have to pay for that, religion provides
it free of charge.
Well, then we shouldn't.
I mean, I would like to see a more socialistic
approach to that kind of thing, to mental
health.
So, are you advocating the return to the Soviet
Union?
I think social good will is something we could
achieve without overbearing dictatorial ordering
about.
Well Mr Dawkins, it's been a great pleasure
talking to you, thank you very much for your
time.
And please join the conversation on our YouTube,
Twitter and Facebook pages, and I hope to
see you again, same place, same time, here
on Worlds Apart.
