our keynote speaker needs little
introduction Professor Richard Dawkins
is a world-famous scientist he studies
ethology which is the study of animal
behavior and evolutionary biology and he
has popularized Charles Darwin's theory
of evolution he was also as many of you
I'm sure know professor for public
understanding science from 1995 in 2008
at Oxford University
he is also to stately obvious a well
famous atheist an author and I expect
most people here have read at least one
of his books if not many of them he
travels internationally giving lectures
and making documentaries to increase
atheism awareness not many people might
know though in this audience maybe what
he's established two separate
foundations one in the USA and one in
the the UK and their purpose is evident
in their common title that called the
Richard Dawkins foundation for reason
and science both have the same mission
which is I quote to support scientific
education critical thinking and
evidence-based understanding of the
natural world in the quest to overcome
religious fundamentalism superstition
intolerance and suffering Richard
Dawkins is an honorary associate of the
National Secular society and actively
supports our work and we thank you for
that
we would also like to thank the Richard
Dawkins foundation for reason and
science UK for sponsoring part of the
cost of this conference I put and you
have donation forms in your packs a
personal note she can't be with us today
but I'd personally like to thank Paula
Kirby who works for the Richard Dawkins
foundation thank you for reading and
science UK for her support and her
advice in making the conference today
possible so thank you Paula
no more delay could you please give your
loudest welcome for Professor Richard
Dawkins
well coming as I am at the end of the
day I thought I would begin by making a
few remarks about a couple of the other
talks that we've been listening to my
general title is respect and I'm going
to be dealing the various different
aspects of the respect that we are
sometimes asked to give to religion
Nick Cohen talked about the difference
between de jure and de facto censorship
and made the point that we are made by
fear to in effect self censor and I have
great sympathy with anybody who is
actually physically afraid to challenge
violent people what I would encourage
people to say is something like this I
fear you because you are mad
but don't for one microsecond confuse
fear with respect I do not respect you I
despise you I fear you not because of
anything remotely close to respect I
fear you only because you are behaving
like a spoiled brat having a temper
tantrum
Miriam namazi gave a a
characteristically courageous talk what
I would say about what she said is that
Sharia law is not just unjust which of
course it is
it also offends logic and reason I mean
why shouldn't I declared or Kinsey a law
why should religion be privileged to
have its own version of law cutting
across the law of the land now the
defense might be offered that anybody
can go to arbitration can go to
moderation and can choose to have a
civil dispute moderated by somebody that
both parties respect but there are two
problems with that one is that
especially women but perhaps others as
well may not realize they even have the
choice there are many people in this
country who are subject to domination by
domineering male relatives often male
relatives and not realize that they have
the choice of going to the proper law of
the land rather than going to the
private Sharia Court which their family
urges them to to do
I can't remember what the other point
was that I was going to make about that
my little it'll come to me in a moment a
Peter Tatchell I would agree that
religion is the greatest threat to
Liberty today but I think it's also the
greatest threat to scientific truth
which is the thing that concerns me a
great deal
so should we respect faith I don't think
so not a crumb of respect not a grain
but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't
respect individual religious people
individual faith heads there are people
there deluded for all sorts of
understandable reasons many of them very
nice people very kind people very good
people we should respect them but not
their beliefs
now Phil plates the the who calls
himself the bad astronomer gave a talk
at a Tam conference in America a couple
of years ago which had a lot of
influence and he called his talk don't
be a dick
and it was aimed at people like me and I
would agree we don't want to be a dick
but don't shrink from hurting people's
feelings if their beliefs make them not
worthy of not respect if their beliefs
are not worthy of respect don't hesitate
to say along with Johann Hari I respect
you as a person too much to respect your
ridiculous beliefs so to concede that
you're incapable of changing your mind
if confronted by a reasoned argument
that's patronizing and condescending so
I would perhaps rephrase Johann Harry's
remark and in a more positive way and
say I respect you so much as a person
that I believe you will change your mind
if presented with overwhelming evidence
and rational argument at the term
conference where Phil plates gave his
talk or don't be a dick he asked people
to put up their hands to say when they
changed their minds and left religion
and became non-religious did they change
their minds as a result of being called
an idiotic retard well obviously not
many people said yes but I think that's
a ludicrously loaded question what if
you are not the person whose beliefs are
being attacked at the moment but say a
third party who's listening in on the
conversation many of the conversations
that I have with very devout religious
people are on radio on television where
there's a large audience listening in
and I'm not actually trying to convert
the person that I'm talking to I
probably have given up on that what I'm
doing is trying to influence other
people who are listening in people who
are sitting on the fence
perhaps people haven't thought about it
very much people who perhaps didn't even
realize there was a fence to sit on and
sometimes even if it really is your
beliefs that are being ridiculed that
can be influential I myself as a young
man was highly influenced by tired
ashada the French Jesuit priest his book
the phenomenon of man and even now I can
sort of dimly understand why I was
influenced it has a poetic style a pro's
thetic style which chimed in with my
youthful wide-eyed enthusiasm for the
mysteries of science
I read tired avidly I'm afraid to say he
even influenced my writing style as an
undergraduate writing essays at Oxford
and it was at the height of mine fashion
with tired roshanda that I read Peter
Medawar review of the phenomenon of man
which i think is a candidate for the
most devastating critical book review
ever written Medawar cured me completely
by ridicule he ridiculed beliefs that I
held at the time perhaps I felt a little
bit personally assaulted to see a book
that I'd pressured so effectively
skewered eviscerated but he didn't
ridicule it enough to make me stop
reading his wonderful review on the
contrary his ridicule eventually made me
ashamed that I had previously been taken
in I'll read a few extracts from this
splendid review the phenomenon of man
cannot be read without a feeling of
suffocation a gasping and flailing
around for sense there is an argument in
it to be sure a feeble argument
abominably expressed and this I shall
expound in due course but consider first
the style because it is the style that
creates the illusion of content and
which is a cause as well as merely a
symptom of triads alarming apocalyptic
seizures the phenomenon of man stands
Square in the tradition of nature'
philosophy a philosophical indoor
pastime of German origin which does not
seem even by accident there's a great
deal of it too
we did anything of permanent value to
the store has of human thought French is
not a language that lends itself
naturally to the opaque and ponderous
idiom of nature philosophy and Thai art
has accordingly resorted to the use of
that tip see you forest ik prose poetry
which is one of the more tiresome
manifestations of the French spirit it
would have been a great disappointment
to me if vibration did not make
somewhere make itself felt for all
scientistic mystics either vibrate in
person or find themselves resonant with
cosmic vibrations but I'm happy to save
it on page 266 thai art will be found to
do so how have people come to be taken
in by the phenomenon of man we must not
underestimate the size of the market for
works of this kind for philosophy
fiction just as compulsory primary
education created a market catered for
by cheap dailies and weeklies so the
spread of secondary and latterly
tertiary education has created a large
population of people often with
well-developed literary and scholarly
tastes who have been educated far beyond
their capacity to undertake analytical
thought
it is through their eyes that we must
attempt to see the attractions of thai
art well as a young undergraduate you
could imagine that stun of it
it was ridicule it was ridiculing
something that I held dear and the
ridicule hit home and I saw the light so
although I'm not on the whole advocating
ridicule not in a certainly not in a
vituperative vicious way far from it
there are some websites which were all
familiar with that I wouldn't touch with
a bargepole now because of their really
horrible language it's not RIT it's not
satirical Ridge ridicules not witty it's
just plain obscenity but I do think that
witty ridicule along the lines have I
just been quoting from PB meadow ax can
be extremely effective certainly on
third parties listening in but also even
on the victim themselves there are times
when for political reasons for reasons
of political tactics it's expedient to
make common cause with religious leaders
and I think several of the speakers
today have made this point and I don't
descend from that I myself have joined
forces with the then Bishop of Oxford
Richard Harris to fight creationist
education in England we ended the bishop
and I enlisted half a dozen bishops and
a similar number of fellows of the Royal
Society to write a letter to Tony Blair
about the infamous creationist school in
Gateshead Tony Blair I'm sorry to say
brushed it off without taking any notice
but anyway we did make common cause and
I would applaud various other scientists
who have done the same thing perhaps the
best of them is Eugenie Scott with her
NCSE National Committee for science
education who regard the fight for
evolution in American education are so
important that they are prepared indeed
eager to compromise with religious faith
and I applaud Eugenia I'm friends with
her
but she's just actually been awarded the
Richard Dawkins award by the AAI the
American alliance for what does it did
Hey no I'm American atheist Alliance I
think it's now called but for me
evolution important as it is to me is
only a battle in a larger war the larger
war for rational critical thought
to quote Sam Harris the goal is not to
get more Americans to merely accept the
truth of evolution or any other
scientific theory the goal is to get
them to value the principles of
reasoning and educated discourse that
now make a belief in evolution and
liggett or II doubt about evolution is
merely a symptom of an underlying
condition the condition is faith itself
conviction without sufficient reason
hope mistaken for knowledge bad ideas
protected from good ones good ideas
obscured by bad ones wishful thinking
elevated to a principle of salvation so
to conclude this first part of my talk
respect religious people as people don't
respect the very idea of faith I now
want to turn to a political issue which
is very germane because the way just
coming up to an important American
election given that we're not going to
respect faith but we are going to
respect people should we be free should
journalists be free to question the
faith of a political leader who's
standing for election or should
politicians be allowed to hide behind
the privacy of faith and refused to
discuss it talking only about their
policies economic policies foreign
policy and so on
well Britain and America of course are
very different in the way our
politicians treat religion Tony Blair at
least under the forceful direction of
Alastair Campbell did not do god he's
changed his mind
in retirement and I may have time to
come onto that on the other hand his
great friend George W Bush did God in a
big way even to the extent of of
listening to God's advice to invade Iraq
God would tell me George go and end the
tyranny in Iraq
David David Cameron's government has
explicitly departed from the Alastair
Campbell policy we don't do God as
rather foolishly articulated by Baroness
Swasey then chairman of the Conservative
Party now Minister for faith and
communities whatever that means has
explicitly said we well we know what
communities means it's a it's a
euphemism for Islam we do God she said
that that phrase that very phrase now as
I say because of American election is
looming very soon I'm going to switch
now for a while to talking about
American issues because I think they
affect the whole of the world in America
as you know every politician has to do
god on pain of almost certainly losing
the election if he doesn't on the other
hand the separation of church and state
is deeply woven into the DNA of America
unlike here of course where we have an
established church bishops as ex officio
members of parliament and so on the
American Constitution is remarkably
clear on this no religious test shall
ever be required as a qualification to
any office or public trust under the
United States John Kennedy when he was
standing for election famously laid this
principle on the line he said I believe
in a president whose religious views are
his own private affair neither imposed
by him upon the nation or imposed by the
nation upon him as a condition
holding office now it's of course
absolutely right
that no religious test should be imposed
before a candidate is allowed to stand
for election but that's very different
from saying that voters should be forced
to ignore a candidate's religious
beliefs when deciding whether to vote
for him in this country of course we
have no such reluctance to ban
candidates for election English common
law clearly states that idiots are
disqualified from election to Parliament
I learned this only a week ago make of
that what you will however in America as
I say discriminating against anybody's
eligibility to stand for election goes
right against the spirit of the American
Constitution amazingly however in seven
states atheists are explicitly D barred
by law for example the state
constitution of North Carolina article 6
section 8 states the following persons
shall be disqualified for office first
any person who shall deny the being of
Almighty God similar laws in Arkansas no
person who denies the being of the God
shall hold any office in the Civil
Department of this state nor be
competent to testify as a witness in any
court Maryland article 37 that no
religious test ought ever to be required
as a qualification for any office of
profit or trust in the state other than
a declaration of belief in the existence
of God
Pennsylvania article one no person to
acknowledges the being of a god and a
future state of rewards and punishments
shall on account of his religious
sentiments be disqualified to hold any
office so long as he acknowledges the
being of a God
South Carolina article 17 no person who
denies the existence of a Supreme Being
shall hold any office under this
constitution Tennessee article 9 no
person who denies the being of God or a
future state of rewards and punishments
shall hold any office in the civil
department of this state Texas which is
a very big important populous state
article 1 section 4 no religious test
shall ever be required as a
qualification to any office or public
trust in this state nor shall anyone be
excluded from holding office on account
of his religious sentiments provided he
acknowledged the existence of a Supreme
Being now the this issue of whether
politicians should be exempt from having
their religious beliefs questioned of
course is coming to a head with Mitt
Romney and his Mormonism having accepted
as I say the total constitutional right
miss that nobody should be debarred from
standing for election because of
religion have religious individuals
sorry have individual have voting
individuals the right to examine the
religious beliefs of a candidate in
making up their own mind in the ballot
box whether or not to vote for him there
are a lot of Americans who think that
the constitutional prohibition against a
religious test means you can't even talk
about a person's religion when deciding
whether to vote journalists can't ask
questions about it can't discuss it and
so on and I think that's nonsense
although many Americans disagree with me
on this I'm using Romney as an example
for the general thesis I want to advance
which is as I say unpopular with
Americans because they wrongly think it
goes against their constitution as I say
I think voters are entitled to take
account of what a candidate is capable
of believing even if he doesn't let his
beliefs interfere with his policies in
any way Mitt Romney believes that the
Book of Mormon is a sacred book
translated by a 19th century American
called Joseph Smith whom Romney Revere's
as a prophet the founder of his Mormon
faith Mormons including Romney believed
that Smith was guided by an angel Moroni
to God to dig up some golden plates on
which were written characters of an
ancient language which he called
reformed Egyptian he put a seer stone in
a hat buried his face in the Hat and
looked at the seer stone one by one
characters a reformed Egyptian would
appear in the stone together with the
English translation
Smith would say the English word which
would be written down by a scribe
sitting behind a curtain the scribe
repeated the word and when Smith
approved it the stone would display a
new word in its place and so on until
all 531 pages of the book had been
written down in English the English of
1830 the English that Smith and his
followers would naturally have spoken no
not at all
listen to some of it first of all
there's a picture of the Book of Mormon
notice the extraordinary resemblance to
the King James Bible in his general
appearance you need to know in the bit
I'm going to read to you that the land
bountiful refers to America this passage
describes the visit which Mormons
believe in including Mitt Romney Jesus
Christ visited America since from 3
Nephi 11 and now it came to pass that
there were a great multitude gather
together of the people of Nephi round
about the temple which was in the land
bountiful and they were marveling and
wondering one with another and it came
to pass that while they were thus
conversing one with another they heard a
voice as if it came out of heaven and
they cast their eyes round about for
they understood not the voice which they
heard and it was not a harsh voice
neither was it a loud voice nevertheless
and notwithstanding it being a small
voice it did pierce them that did hear
to the center in so much as there was no
part of their frame that it did not
cause to quake yay it did pierce them to
the very soul and did cause their hearts
to burn this was written in the 19th
century you understand and it came to
pass that again they heard the voice and
they understood it not and behold the
third time they did understand the voice
which they heard and it said unto them
behold my beloved Son in whom I am well
pleased
in whom I have glorified my name hear ye
him why would a 19th century man
translate
from an alleged ancient book translate
into 16th century English what's going
on there and it came to pass by the way
Mark Twain remarked that if you took out
every instance of it came to pass from
from the Book of Mormon it would be
reduced to a pamphlet and it came to
pass as they understood they cast their
eyes up again towards heaven and behold
they saw a man descending out of heaven
and he was clothed in a white robe and
he came down and stood in the midst of
them and the eyes of the whole multitude
were turned upon him and they Durst not
open their mouths nobody in the
nineteenth century said Durst even one
to another and wished not what it meant
for they thought it was an angel that
had appeared unto them and it came to
pass
that he stretched forth his hand and
spake unto the people saying behold I am
Jesus Christ whom the prophets testified
shall come into the world and behold I
am the light and the life of the world
and I have drunk out of that bitter cup
which the father hath given me and have
glorified the father in taking upon me
the sins of the world in the which have
I suffered the will of the Father in all
things from the beginning and it came to
pass that the Lord spake unto them
saying arise and come forth unto me that
he may thrust your hands into my side
and also that he may its plagiarized
from the King James Version transferred
to transfer to America Mitt Romney
believes that that is the work of a
prophet he believed that it was that
Jesus really did visit America by the
way before any of this happened to build
up this picture of gullibility Joseph
Smith already had a track record in the
area as a charlatan a psychic diviner of
buried treasure he claimed to be able to
see underground looking for treasure by
looking through his hat
everything about the Book of Mormon
reeks of fake Joseph Smith was an
obvious charlatan that's not an
interesting fact itself it doesn't
matter they'd be numerous charlatans
down the ages the point is that Mitt
Romney candidate for the job of most
powerful man in the world with his
finger on the nuclear button is a
gullible fool who believes Joseph Smith
it seems to be entirely right that
journalists and voters should question
him on his Mormon beliefs and he should
not be allowed to hide behind the
privacy of religion and say that's my
private business that's nothing to do
with you now I've been tweeting about
this lately and the communist retort I
get is why are you down on Romney isn't
Obama's Christianity just as ridiculous
well first of all I think there's a very
good chance that Obama is actually an
atheist at least the fact that he
professes Christianity means absolutely
nothing he's an elected American
politician and if you fail to profess
some kind of religion you're not an
elected American politician you're
unelected even if Obama is Christian
which I put at about 50/50 he's of
course not the same kind of Christian
who believes in Adam and Eve or any of
that nonsense he's if he's a Christian
at all he's the kind of Christian who
regards biblical miracles as symbolic or
metaphorical rather than literally true
there seems no doubt however that Romney
really is a proper devout true believing
Mormon he was a zealous Mormon Bishop a
woman has recounted how after she left
the Mormon Church bishop Romney showed
up on her doorstep in order to
excommunicate her she'd already left of
her own accord
somewhat officious presumptuous to
excommunicate her but perhaps Romney is
a reformed character since his Bishop
days but in an even more obnoxious
reprieves of the same kind of
presumptuousness he posthumously
baptized the charming Mormon custom he
baptized posthumously his father-in-law
who had been a strong atheist he
baptized him 14 months after his death I
think it's pretty clear Romney is a
strong believing Mormon Christianity
even fundamentalist Christianity I think
I would submit is substantially less
ridiculous than Mormonism as I say if
Obama is a Christian at all he's not
fundamentalist Christian scriptures are
genuinely ancient the translations from
Hebrew and Greek that Christians use are
in a language contemporary with the
translators the Book of Mormon is not
ancient the language of its alleged
translation is ludicrously anachronistic
it was dictated by Joseph Smith as I say
a man with a track record of charlatan
marry into using a magic stone in a
magic hat into anachronistic English
setting aside the mountebank eree
of Smith's own story many of the core
beliefs of Mormonism seemed to me to be
measurably more ridiculous than those of
Christianity to run counter to
everything we now know for certain for
example about the colonisation of
America DNA evidence
utterly refutes the claim that Native
Americans are a remnant of the house of
Israel the idea that Jesus visited
America is archaeologically preposterous
the idea that Adam and Eve did - is even
worse at least it's arguable that Jesus
existed the traditional Mormon belief in
the inferiority of black people only
recently renounced for reasons of
political expediency is a scientifically
inaccurate as it is of not obnoxious the
great prophet Brigham Young even
prescribed the death penalty for
interracial marriage the belief in a
star called Kolob which is close to the
throne of God runs a course against all
all astronomy it's hard to think of any
Christian beliefs that are quite as daft
as any of those perhaps the one good
candidate is the Roman Catholic belief
that bread and wine literally become the
body and blood of Christ and I think
it's a perfectly legitimate question
that anybody should put to any Roman
Catholic including candidates for office
do you really believe that the bread and
wine literally is the body and blood of
Christ I like to think that Kennedy
would have said no of course I don't in
which case the retort would be well why
do you call yourself Roman Catholic it
does seem to me that if somebody is
going to call themselves Catholic or
Mormon or whatever it is they should
only do so if they're prepared to stand
up for the core beliefs of that of that
religion and the rest of us should be
entitled to ask them whether they really
do believe it and if they really do
believe it then we are entitled as
voters to be skeptical of their judgment
then their gullibility of their judgment
in making other decisions other choices
other important matters of state if they
are so credulous so gullible so
downright stupid as to believe some of
the things for example that Mormons
believe do you want to have a man with
his finger on the nuclear button who is
capable of believing that Joseph Smith
the charlatan was a divinely inspired
prophet now I said that I would return
to Tony Blair and I just have a bit of
fun at the end of what's been I think a
very good day Tony Blair as I said
waited until he retired in order to do
God and it happens that by roundabout
route a document came into my hands a
letter from the fund raiser of the Tony
Blair foundation and I published this
letter in New Statesman magazine a few
months ago I'm going to read a bit of it
dear person of faith basically I write
US fundraiser for the wonderful new Tony
Blair foundation whose aim is to promote
respect and understanding about the
world's major religions and show how
faith is a powerful force for good in
the modern world I would like to touch
base with you on six key points from the
recent New Statesman piece by Tony as he
likes to be called by everybody of all
faiths or in need of none but that's how
tuned in he is
so the first of these key points from
Tony Blair and these bits are true by
the way the bits on the slide are true
not obviously not my own interpolation
my faith has always been an important
part of my politics yes indeed although
Tony Tony modestly kept dumb about it
when he was Prime Minister as he said to
shout his faith from the rooftops
might've be interpreted as claiming
moral superiority over those with no
faith and therefore no morals of course
also some might have objected to their
leader taking advice from voices only he
could hear but hey reality is so last
year compared with private revelation
isn't it what else other than shared
faith could have brought Tony together
with his friend and comrade in arms
George
mission accomplished Bush in their
life-saving and humanitarian
intervention in Iraq admittedly there
are one or two problems remaining to be
ironed out there but all the more reason
for people of different faiths Christian
and Muslim Sunni and Shia to join
together in meaningful dialogue to seek
common ground just as Catholics and
Protestants have done so heartwarmingly
throughout European history
it is these great benefits of faith that
the Tony Blair Foundation seeks to
promote we are focusing on five main
projects initially working with partners
in the six main faiths
yes I know I know it's a pity we had to
limit ourselves to six but we do have
boundless respect for other faiths all
of which in their colorful variety
enrich human lives in a very real sense
we have much to learn from Zoroaster in
ism and Jainism and from Mormonism
though Shari says we need to go easy on
the polygamy and the sacred Underpants
then again we mustn't forget the ancient
and rich Olympian and Norse traditions
although our modern blue skies thinking
out of the box has pushed the envelope
on shock and awe tactics and put Zeus's
Thunderbolts and Thor's hammer in the
shade we hope in Phase two of our
five-year plan to embrace Scientology
and druidic mistletoe worship which in a
very real sense have something to teach
us all in Phase three our firm
commitment to diversity will lead us to
source new networking partnership
opportunities with the many hundreds of
African tribal religions sacrificing
goats may present problems with the
Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to
Animals Wood we hope to persuade them to
adjust their priorities to take proper
account of religious sensibilities we
are working across religious divides
towards a common goal ending the scandal
of deaths from malaria plus of course we
mustn't forget the countless deaths from
AIDS this is where we can learn from the
Pope's inspiring vision expounded
recently on his visit to Africa drawing
on his reserves of scientific and
medical knowledge informed and deepened
by the values that only faith can bring
His Holiness explained that the scourge
of AIDS is made worse not better by
condoms
his advocacy that's totally true by the
way his advocacy of abstinence may have
just made some medical experts and the
same goes for his deeply and sincerely
held opposition to stem-cell research
but surely to goodness we must find room
for a diverse range of opinions all
opinions after all are equally valid and
there are many ways of knowing spiritual
as well as factual that at the end of
the day is what the Tony Blair
foundation is all about we have
established face to faith an interfaith
Schools program to counter intolerance
and extremism the great thing is to
foster diversity as Tony himself said in
2002 when challenged by a rather
intolerant MP about a school in
Gateshead teaching children that the
world is only six thousand years old of
course you may think as Tony himself
happens to that the true age of the
world is 4.6 billion years but excuse me
in this multicultural world we must find
room to tolerate and indeed actively
foster all opinions the more diverse the
better we are looking to set up video
conferencing dialogues to brainstorm our
differences by the way that Gateshead
school tipped lots of boxes when it came
to GCSE results which just goes to show
children of one faith and culture will
have the chance to interact with
children of another getting a real sense
of each other's lived experience cool
and thanks to tony's policy of putting
as many children as possible in faith
schools where they can't befriend kids
from other backgrounds the need for this
interaction and neutral understanding
has never been so strong you see how it
all hangs together sheer genius so
strongly do we support the principle
that children should be sent to schools
that will identify them with their
parents beliefs we think there is a real
opportunity here to broaden it out in
Phase two we look to facilitate separate
schools for postmodernist children leave
aside children saussurean structuralist
children and in Phase three
we shall roll out yet more separate
schools for keynesian children
monetarist children and even neo-marxist
children finally we are working with the
co-exist foundation and Cambridge
University to develop the concept of
Abraham house I always think it's so
important to coexist don't you with our
brothers and sisters of the other
Abrahamic faiths of course we have our
differences I mean who doesn't basically
but we must all learn neutral respect
for example we need to understand and
sympathize with the deep hurt and
offense that a man can feel if we insult
his traditional beliefs by trying to
stop him beating his wife or setting
fire to his daughter or cutting off her
clitoris and please don't let's hear any
racist or Islamophobic objections to
these important expressions of faith we
shall support the introduction of Sharia
Courts but on a strictly voluntary basis
only for those whose husbands and
fathers freely choose it
the Tony Blair Foundation will work to
leverage mutual respect and
understanding between seemingly
incompatible faith traditions after all
despite our differences we do have one
important thing in common all of us in
the faith communities hold firm beliefs
in the total absence of evidence which
leaves us free to believe anything we
like so at the very least we can be
united in claiming a privileged role for
all these private beliefs in the
formulation of public policy I hope this
letter will have shown you some of the
reasons why you might consider
supporting Tony's foundation because hey
let's face it the world without religion
doesn't have a prayer with so many with
so many of the world's problems caused
by religion what better solution could
there possibly be than to promote yet
more of it thank you very much
Richard you must encounter many other
scientists and other people who you
respect and admire for their intellect
and their achievements but who know
nevertheless profess religious belief
how do you personally explain or attempt
to understand that mystery I think the
first thing to say is that is when you
meet such a person ask them what they
actually believe very often you will
find that they are in some vague sense
spiritual they will say something like
when I look up at the Milky Way I'm
filled with a feeling of exultation in
the chest which means there's must be
something more than science understands
of course I have exactly that same
feeling something more than science yet
understands that's very different from
saying that because science doesn't yet
understand it well it might mean science
will never understand it but even then
it's very different from saying because
science doesn't understand it therefore
therefore religion does and so I think
you'll find that the great majority of
those scientists whom you respect who
profess religious belief actually are
more what you might call vaguely
spiritual those that go a bit further
and say I actually do believe in
Christianity or almost never Islam but
but let's say Christianity or Judaism
then again ask them exactly what they
believe they might believe they say that
Jesus was a good person
well yes he was a good person if you
actually pin them down and say do you
believe that Jesus died for your sins do
you believe that you're going to go to
heaven or hell when you die then I think
you'll find that the number of
respectable scientists who actually
believe it is very very low indeed there
have been surveys done of both the Royal
Society and also the American equivalent
which is the National Academy of
Sciences both gave very similar results
that the number of elite scientists
belonging to these elite groups of
scientists who believed in some sort of
religion is about 10% about 90%
so that would be my answer to that my
first ever experience with religious
privilege was at school secondary school
and I noticed the uniform code would be
very very strict about what people have
to wear no jewelry no hats nothing like
that yeah I noticed that
you know people were allowed to wear
headscarves they're allowed to wear
bangles and that for me so people
wouldn't allowed to wear any hats but
head scarves would be allowed and whilst
actually that's not a religious
obligation for example by Islam or
Sikhism to wear bangles but again they
they were allowed it seemed to me a very
odd discrepancy and it hasn't been
actually something that seen promoted or
discussed by NSS yes are there campaigns
because it's such a sensitive issue I
think do you think it's right to have
exceptions for religion in a environment
like a school or do you do you think
there should be a rule for everyone
either uniform or no uniform full-stop
well I don't feel that strongly about
about uniforms anyway but but I think if
there's some reason for having a uniform
like of whether it's military maybe
there is a reason for having school
uniform maybe it's there is a reason for
nurses to have a uniform or for airline
stewardesses to have a uniform then I'm
not a great enthusiasm for allowing
religious exceptionalism for saying oh
nobody else is allowed to wear a hat or
or a necklace whatever it is but but
religious people are and therefore it
doesn't are not that moved by the
distinction between religions that
insist upon a particular kind of garment
and those that don't I would be opposed
I think others have said this today as
well I think I'm opposed to the French
law banning the wearing of bin liners
I think that that is an infringement of
of freedom so I don't go along with that
but I think that if if an institution
likened like an airline for example has
has ER has a rule that religion should
not be regarded as reason for exemption
if everybody objected to the rule if
everybody said I want to wear a necklace
and managed to win their case that would
be that would be different that in the
case of the British Airways stewardess
who I think is now fighting a case in
the European Court of Human Rights she
was allowed to wear her crucifix inside
her uniform where only God could see it
but she insisted that she wanted to wear
it outside because she wanted to
proselytize to the to the to the
passengers and that seems to me to be
taking exceptionalism to be to grant
religious exception to that - that seems
to me to be wrong
I think many of us have at some point in
our lives asked if people are to profess
that God has no creator then how do you
argue against I guess the question is
how do you ask well how do you argue
that if God can go without being created
why can't the universe you put it so
well I I have no problem with that with
that argument it is of course I mean the
origin of the universe is one of the
most profound questions facing physics
at the moment and physicists are
actively working on the question
I recommend Lawrence Krauss his book a
universe from nothing but the the
general point is that however and the
point you've just made is that however
difficult it may be for physics to
answer questions like where did the laws
of physics come from where did the
universe originally come from however
difficult that may be it certainly isn't
going to help to say that a designer
designed it for the obvious reason that
you have mentioned it's an infinite
regress and if you're going to allow
that God the Creator is somehow exempt
from needing explanation then you might
as well say the same thing of the
universe
I was just wondering what do you think
could be done to stop children being
categorizing the faith of their parents
as I know that is a big issue
well you you may know this is an issue
that's very dear to my heart and I
satirized it in my satire on Tony
Blair's foundation by saying what about
special schools for postmodernist
children and secular humanists children
and Gramsci and marks his children and
so on I think that that the one thing if
only we could wave a magic wand and
break the cycle of influence of passing
on a religion automatically from parent
to child or even break the cycle of
assuming that a child is going to be of
the religion of its parents I mean when
people talk about people who are
frightened alarmist perhaps about the
spread of Islam and they use a
demographic argument looking at
reproductive rates in different
countries and things the hidden
assumption is that all children are
automatically going to belong to the
same religion as their parents why do we
allow the world to get away with that
assumption even if it's realistic is
something we ought to be fighting
against and the questioner asks what can
we do to fight against it without being
dictatorial I mean I've been accused of
wanting to seize children away from
their parents and put them in collective
farms or something I don't want to do
that at all I don't want to do anything
by coercion the weapon I favor is
consciousness raising it somehow were
ridiculed as part of it and I tried to
ridicule the at the idea as I said of
Keynesian children and monasteries
children I mean people get that once you
once you point out that nobody ever
talks about an existentialist child why
not you talk about a Catholic child when
you really mean a child of Catholic
parents why not talk about an
existentialist child we never do
religion is given a free pass religion
is given a free pass
to label a child with the religion of
its parents as though it was an
automatic given an automatic assumption
that a child will inherit the religion
of its parents and if we could only
raise people's consciousness to what
they're doing when they make that
assumption raised consciousness like
this whenever at a dinner party in
Accord conversation you're having if you
ever hear the phrase Catholic child
Protestant child Muslim child etc stop
them and say how dare you use that
phrase Catholic child the child is too
young to know what you're talking about
is a child of Catholic parents and if
only everybody would do that if only we
could make that meme spread like like
the common cold so that people don't let
through that outrageous presumption that
a child should be automatically labeled
with the religion of its parents we
might be able to raise consciousness and
stop journalists using the presumptions
stop ordinary people using the
presumption above all stop religious
propagandists and politicians from doing
in which they regularly do the Kelantan
thank you basically run across to
professor Whitaker's
you
