Krauss... but they're told that. They are told that
in this country and that is why
many of them just have this gut reaction.
Because, 'If I have to be
an atheist to believe in evolution I
clearly am not going to believe
in evolution because it is
a threat to my belief'.
But if you just tell them it doesn't
require that, then
it is eye opening and useful.
At the same time I think it's
disingenuous not to point out
that there are tensions, and our
mutual friend Steven Weinberg,
another physicist, has put it, I
think most eloquently by saying
"Science doesn't make it impossible
to believe in god, it just makes
it possible to not believe in god."
Dawkins: Yes, well I want to go
further than that.
I think that,
as you were talking then I
thought I could put it exactly the other way around
you can go to these people in
their churches, fundamentalist churches, 
and you say, 'Look, you don't have to be
an atheist to believe in evolution'.
Now if your aim
is to propagandize in favor of evolution
that obviously is the best adoption technique.
But if your aim is to kill 
religion, as mine is...
[audience cheers] 
...then - 
just let me finish -
If your aim is to kill 
religion, then
since evolution is
manifestly true, then
if there are people out there who really
believe that
that if you are an evolutionist 
you've got to be an atheist
then all I've got to do is persuade them
of evolution, which should be
comparatively easy,
since the evidence is
overwhelming, and I'll turn them all into
atheists.
[audience laughs and applause]
Krauss: Ok, but,
you know I was thinking about this
last night,
comparing our different approaches, which,
a lot of people have compared in different contexts.
But I really think
the reason actually I've come to appreciate
much more than I had before your
approach, in the times
we've interacted,
which really is one of raising consciousness - 
you've said that many times.
Dawkins: Yeah, yeah.
And I really think that is vitally
important and my own consciousness has
been raised by you in many ways.
and not just in the times we've talked
but in in your writing.
But I think...
I don't think you're convincing 
many people to become atheists,
what you're doing is convincing people
who are
receptive to those ideas already not
to be afraid
to have those ideas in public -
which I think is very important.
So in some sense I think we are speaking to
complementary groups. 
At some level the resonance, the number copies your
book has sold I think is a good example that,
you're really reaching people 
who are sympathetic
but in some sense needed ammunition, and an 
understanding and a coherent picture of this.
And so I think that the approach 
you're taking works extremely well 
and is vitally important
for those people who are 
receptive, and I guess the 
approach I've tried to
take most recently
is the approach for people who aren't
receptive - and that is seduction.
Dawkins: Yeah.
Krauss: That is to say, the end
result may be
hoping that they might think one
way or another about God, but it actually isn't.
It really is
hoping that they'll open, just open their
minds enough, to realize that
the real world as it 
actually is is not evil,
it's neither good nor evil, but its
remarkable,
and the way to understand the physical
world is to use science
and so I think we're really actually
speaking to different audiences.
I'm not convinced, in fact I'm pretty
convinced that -
and maybe you can give me
counterexamples -
that the confirmed,
deeply faithful probably resent and close
their minds to what you're saying so
early that you really not
turning them around.
What you're doing is a very important
task, which is to point out
that, 'Look, there there's a large body of
the American public, and
it may be a minority, but it's a
bigger minority than most, than many
individual religions,
that actually don't believe in God.
And it's about time the 
politicians understood that
and in fact this really came home to
me during this presidential election,
and one of the reasons
I've been promoting, trying to get this
debate to happen, which -
and I'm pleased to say Richard is 
wearing one of our pins,
as I'm wearing one of his...
That when Mitt 
Romney gave this
speech which was supposed to be equivalent 
to a speech that John F. Kennedy had given
many years earlier about 
separation of church and state,
and his speech was 
exactly the opposite.
In fact the speech basically said
there is no room in the state for those
that don't go to church. 
Dawkins: Yeah,
it doesn't matter which church 
you go to as long as you go to one...
Krauss: And for that it is
vitally important that
you raise the consciousness
of the media, and politicians, and of
individuals
that there are a large bunch
of people
who don't believe in God, and they;re 
not bad, they're not worse,
they're not anything!
And so, it is vitally important,
but I do think we are speaking 
to different audiences, and I
want to see what you
thought of that.
Dawkins: I think that's fine and and maybe that's
the right way to go about it. I mean
there are these two audiences, they both
need speaking to. I think I
compared it a
a couple of days ago to the good cop bad cop...
[audience laughter]
Krauss: Exactly. My wife was in the audience.
It was the first time I've ever been
called a good cop, so... so.
[audience laughter]
Krauss: [laughter]
Dawkins: Well, I was the bad cop until
Christopher Hitchens came along.
Krauss: Yeah! [Audience Laughter]
So, actually, so do you think
Christopher Hitchens goes too far?
[audience laughter]
Dawkins: He's one of the most
eloquent people I've ever heard.
Krauss: Yes, yes.
Dawkins: He as a thrilling voice like 
Richard Burton.
I'd hate to have him on the other side
of me in any
argument. If we ever talked
about the Iraq war
I'd be on the other side of him.
Krauss: Yeah. I've tried it's very difficult.
Dawkins: And, I wouldn't wish
that.
No, I don't think he goes too far on
anything else apart from the Iraq war.
Krauss: Ok, ok, so
this is interesting because...
Well, I agree with you, but I was under 
the impression that, you know, we talked
about... one of my favorite
lines in his book, which I really
shouldn't say in a public forum, but I
will. Um -
Dawkins: No, no, no, no, we don't...
I know what that one is.
Krauss: Read his book.
[audience laughter]
But, uh, it is an interesting line, 
and I'll be happy to...
[audience cheers]
Dawkins: Okay, okay,
Go ahead, go ahead.
Krauss: Which is where he discusses what
he says. What he says
is the motto of the Roman Catholic
Church, which is 'no child's behind left'.
[audience laughter]
Ok, now, are you sorry you asked?
You don't think he went too far with that?
Dawkins: Well, with that line...
Krauss: But, okay, let's bring it back, because I know we're actually gonna be
getting ready for the question
period in a minute, from everyone else.
This symposium is about 
education in some sense, and
it's interesting to me that you said
that, that you really,
your purpose, is to destroy
religion. Is that really your purpose?
Dawkins: No, let me 
say, it was an
interesting piece of contrarian
reasoning to what you were saying
because, um, you were saying
you don't have to be an atheist to
believe in evolution
and that of course is exactly right... then I
tell people to go and read Ken Miller,
Francis Collins, and indeed any
reputable clergyman.
But if
a larger view is that the
presence or absence of a god in
the universe...
that's a huge question. I think
it's a scientific question
I have a view on it. And I try to raise
consciousness
about it. Then if it's true that there
are lots and lots of people who think
that evolution is incompatible with
religion, and I actually do think it is,
you see, I actually do think it is. But
even if I didn't,
if I were a propagandist trying to
destroy religion,
I would seize on that because it
doesn't follow
that because there are people who think
that
if you don't believe in evolution
you've got to be an atheist,
therefore the obvious conclusion is to
say, 'Oh no, no! You don't have to be'.
You could do it exactly the other way
around. You could say 'Yes, well
as a matter of fact, yes, you do have to be an
atheist to believe in evolution, and
here's all the evidence for evolution,
and you can't get away from it." 
Well of course that wouldn't go down well 
with Ken Miller or Francis Collins.
I could come back
and give good arguments for why I think
there actually is an incompatibility.
Krauss: Yeah, sure absolutely but would you
really have a hope of success if you,
if you're working against something that's
instilled in children
from the time they're very young, and doesn't go
to the brain, it goes somewhere else.
Dawkins: Probably not. 
Krauss: I think if you say to
people -
and I think it is an interesting idea -
but if you say to people 'yeah, you have
to be atheist to believe in evolution...'
Because faith
is so emotional,
you're not going to get past 
that point, I think.
Dawkins: Well, the I think that's right, 
and as a matter of fact
I do recommend Kenneth Miller's book
 to any religious
person who writes to me.
And so, that's your answer.
I do as a matter fact...
Krauss: Yeah I mean, 
and I knew you did. I 
mean, presumably...
Well let me ask another question 
maybe, I know we're near
I'm near the end, but
and you can ask me one
at the end, I guess.
When you were writing the Selfish Gene, 
which is your first book,
the purpose was to explain the
remarkable aspects of evolution,
it probably had nothing
do with religion at the time.
Dawkins: No, no, no, of course. My main
purpose is science and the education
in science. I suppose there's a
slight difference in that I do think the
existence of God is a scientific question.
I'm not one of those -
Krauss: We totally disagree on that.
I don't go along with Steve Gould on that. 
I think it is a scientific question.
