TED2002
Richard Dawkins: Militant atheism
Filmed:
Readability: 5.3
5,735,087 views
Richard Dawkins urges all atheists to openly state their position -- and to fight the incursion of the church into politics and science. A fiery, funny, powerful talk.
Richard Dawkins - Evolutionary biologist
Oxford professor Richard Dawkins has helped steer evolutionary science into the 21st century, and his concept of the "meme" contextualized the spread of ideas in the information age. In recent years, his devastating critique of religion has made him a leading figure in the New Atheism. Full bio
Oxford professor Richard Dawkins has helped steer evolutionary science into the 21st century, and his concept of the "meme" contextualized the spread of ideas in the information age. In recent years, his devastating critique of religion has made him a leading figure in the New Atheism. Full bio
Double-click the English transcript below to play the video.
00:25
That splendid music, the coming-in music --
0
0
5000
00:30
"The Elephant March" from "Aida" -- is the music I've chosen for my funeral --
1
5000
6000
00:36
(Laughter)
2
11000
1000
00:37
-- and you can see why. It's triumphal.
3
12000
5000
00:42
I won't feel anything, but if I could,
4
17000
4000
00:46
I would feel triumphal at having lived at all,
5
21000
4000
00:50
and at having lived on this splendid planet,
6
25000
2000
00:52
and having been given the opportunity to understand
7
27000
3000
00:55
something about why I was here in the first place, before not being here.
8
30000
7000
01:02
Can you understand my quaint English accent?
9
37000
7000
01:09
Like everybody else, I was entranced yesterday by the animal session.
10
44000
6000
01:15
Robert Full and Frans Lanting and others --
11
50000
5000
01:20
the beauty of the things they showed.
12
55000
2000
01:22
The only slight jarring note was when Jeffrey Katzenberg said of the mustang,
13
57000
6000
01:28
"the most splendid creatures that God put on this earth."
14
63000
4000
01:32
Now of course, we know that he didn't really mean that,
15
67000
3000
01:35
but in this country at the moment, you can't be too careful.
16
70000
4000
01:39
(Laughter)
17
74000
1000
01:40
I'm a biologist, and the central theorem of our subject: the theory of design,
18
75000
7000
01:47
Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection.
19
82000
5000
01:52
In professional circles everywhere, it's of course universally accepted.
20
87000
4000
01:56
In non-professional circles outside America, it's largely ignored.
21
91000
6000
02:02
But in non-professional circles within America,
22
97000
4000
02:06
it arouses so much hostility --
23
101000
3000
02:09
(Laughter)
24
104000
1000
02:10
-- that it's fair to say that American biologists are in a state of war.
25
105000
6000
02:16
The war is so worrying at present,
26
111000
2000
02:18
with court cases coming up in one state after another,
27
113000
2000
02:20
that I felt I had to say something about it.
28
115000
3000
02:23
If you want to know what I have to say about Darwinism itself,
29
118000
4000
02:27
I'm afraid you're going to have to look at my books,
30
122000
3000
02:30
which you won't find in the bookstore outside.
31
125000
3000
02:33
(Laughter)
32
128000
3000
02:36
Contemporary court cases
33
131000
2000
02:38
often concern an allegedly new version of creationism,
34
133000
4000
02:42
called "Intelligent Design," or ID.
35
137000
4000
02:46
Don't be fooled. There's nothing new about ID.
36
141000
4000
02:50
It's just creationism under another name,
37
145000
3000
02:53
rechristened -- I choose the word advisedly --
38
148000
4000
02:57
(Laughter)
39
152000
1000
02:58
-- for tactical, political reasons.
40
153000
2000
03:00
The arguments of so-called ID theorists
41
155000
2000
03:02
are the same old arguments that had been refuted again and again,
42
157000
3000
03:05
since Darwin down to the present day.
43
160000
4000
03:09
There is an effective evolution lobby
44
164000
3000
03:12
coordinating the fight on behalf of science,
45
167000
2000
03:14
and I try to do all I can to help them,
46
169000
3000
03:17
but they get quite upset when people like me dare to mention
47
172000
4000
03:21
that we happen to be atheists as well as evolutionists.
48
176000
4000
03:25
They see us as rocking the boat, and you can understand why.
49
180000
5000
03:30
Creationists, lacking any coherent scientific argument for their case,
50
185000
5000
03:35
fall back on the popular phobia against atheism.
51
190000
5000
03:40
Teach your children evolution in biology class,
52
195000
4000
03:44
and they'll soon move on to drugs, grand larceny and sexual pre-version.
53
199000
5000
03:49
(Laughter)
54
204000
5000
03:54
In fact, of course, educated theologians from the Pope down
55
209000
3000
03:57
are firm in their support of evolution.
56
212000
3000
04:00
This book, "Finding Darwin's God," by Kenneth Miller,
57
215000
3000
04:03
is one of the most effective attacks on Intelligent Design
58
218000
2000
04:05
that I know, and it's all the more effective
59
220000
3000
04:08
because it's written by a devout Christian.
60
223000
3000
04:11
People like Kenneth Miller could be called a "godsend" to the evolution lobby --
61
226000
5000
04:16
(Laughter)
62
231000
1000
04:17
-- because they expose the lie that evolutionism is, as a matter of fact,
63
232000
4000
04:21
tantamount to atheism.
64
236000
2000
04:23
People like me, on the other hand, rock the boat.
65
238000
5000
04:28
But here, I want to say something nice about creationists.
66
243000
3000
04:31
It's not a thing I often do, so listen carefully.
67
246000
3000
04:34
(Laughter)
68
249000
1000
04:35
I think they're right about one thing.
69
250000
3000
04:38
I think they're right that evolution
70
253000
2000
04:40
is fundamentally hostile to religion.
71
255000
3000
04:43
I've already said that many individual evolutionists, like the Pope,
72
258000
4000
04:47
are also religious, but I think they're deluding themselves.
73
262000
3000
04:50
I believe a true understanding of Darwinism
74
265000
3000
04:53
is deeply corrosive to religious faith.
75
268000
5000
04:58
Now, it may sound as though I'm about to preach atheism,
76
273000
6000
05:04
and I want to reassure you that that's not what I'm going to do.
77
279000
3000
05:07
In an audience as sophisticated as this one,
78
282000
4000
05:11
that would be preaching to the choir.
79
286000
3000
05:14
No, what I want to urge upon you --
80
289000
4000
05:18
(Laughter)
81
293000
2000
05:20
-- instead what I want to urge upon you is militant atheism.
82
295000
5000
05:25
(Laughter)
83
300000
2000
05:27
(Applause)
84
302000
3000
05:30
But that's putting it too negatively.
85
305000
3000
05:33
If I was a person who were interested in preserving religious faith,
86
308000
5000
05:38
I would be very afraid of the positive power of evolutionary science,
87
313000
5000
05:43
and indeed science generally, but evolution in particular,
88
318000
2000
05:45
to inspire and enthrall, precisely because it is atheistic.
89
320000
8000
05:53
Now, the difficult problem for any theory of biological design
90
328000
4000
05:57
is to explain the massive statistical improbability of living things.
91
332000
6000
06:03
Statistical improbability in the direction of good design --
92
338000
5000
06:08
"complexity" is another word for this.
93
343000
2000
06:10
The standard creationist argument -- there is only one; they all reduce to this one --
94
345000
5000
06:15
takes off from a statistical improbability.
95
350000
2000
06:17
Living creatures are too complex to have come about by chance;
96
352000
4000
06:21
therefore, they must have had a designer.
97
356000
2000
06:23
This argument of course, shoots itself in the foot.
98
358000
2000
06:25
Any designer capable of designing something really complex
99
360000
4000
06:29
has to be even more complex himself, and that's before we even start
100
364000
5000
06:34
on the other things he's expected to do,
101
369000
2000
06:36
like forgive sins, bless marriages, listen to prayers --
102
371000
3000
06:39
favor our side in a war --
103
374000
3000
06:42
(Laughter)
104
377000
2000
06:44
-- disapprove of our sex lives and so on.
105
379000
3000
06:47
(Laughter)
106
382000
2000
06:49
Complexity is the problem that any theory of biology has to solve,
107
384000
5000
06:54
and you can't solve it by postulating an agent that is even more complex,
108
389000
5000
06:59
thereby simply compounding the problem.
109
394000
3000
07:02
Darwinian natural selection is so stunningly elegant
110
397000
4000
07:06
because it solves the problem of explaining complexity
111
401000
4000
07:10
in terms of nothing but simplicity.
112
405000
4000
07:14
Essentially, it does it by providing a smooth ramp
113
409000
3000
07:17
of gradual step-by-step increment.
114
412000
4000
07:21
But here, I only want to make the point
115
416000
2000
07:23
that the elegance of Darwinism is corrosive to religion
116
418000
4000
07:27
precisely because it is so elegant, so parsimonious, so powerful,
117
422000
5000
07:32
so economically powerful.
118
427000
2000
07:34
It has the sinewy economy of a beautiful suspension bridge.
119
429000
9000
07:43
The God theory is not just a bad theory.
120
438000
2000
07:45
It turns out to be, in principle, incapable of doing the job required of it.
121
440000
6000
07:51
So, returning to tactics and the evolution lobby,
122
446000
3000
07:54
I want to argue that rocking the boat may be just the right thing to do.
123
449000
9000
08:03
My approach to attacking creationism is unlike the evolution lobby.
124
458000
6000
08:09
My approach to attacking creationism is to attack religion as a whole,
125
464000
5000
08:14
and at this point I need to acknowledge the remarkable taboo
126
469000
4000
08:18
against speaking ill of religion,
127
473000
3000
08:21
and I'm going to do so in the words of the late Douglas Adams,
128
476000
3000
08:24
a dear friend who, if he never came to TED,
129
479000
2000
08:26
certainly should have been invited.
130
481000
3000
08:29
(Richard Saul Wurman: He was.)
131
484000
2000
08:31
Richard Dawkins: He was. Good. I thought he must have been.
132
486000
2000
08:33
He begins this speech which was tape-recorded in Cambridge
133
488000
3000
08:36
shortly before he died.
134
491000
2000
08:38
He begins by explaining how science works through the testing of hypotheses
135
493000
4000
08:42
that are framed to be vulnerable to disproof, and then he goes on.
136
497000
4000
08:46
I quote, "Religion doesn't seem to work like that.
137
501000
4000
08:50
It has certain ideas at the heart of it, which we call 'sacred' or 'holy.'
138
505000
4000
08:54
What it means is: here is an idea or a notion
139
509000
3000
08:57
that you're not allowed to say anything bad about.
140
512000
4000
09:01
You're just not. Why not? Because you're not.
141
516000
4000
09:05
(Laughter)
142
520000
4000
09:09
Why should it be that it's perfectly legitimate to support the Republicans or Democrats,
143
524000
4000
09:13
this model of economics versus that, Macintosh instead of Windows,
144
528000
5000
09:18
but to have an opinion about how the universe began,
145
533000
3000
09:21
about who created the universe -- no, that's holy.
146
536000
4000
09:25
So, we're used to not challenging religious ideas
147
540000
3000
09:28
and it's very interesting how much of a furor Richard creates
148
543000
3000
09:31
when he does it." He meant me, not that one.
149
546000
4000
09:35
"Everybody gets absolutely frantic about it,
150
550000
3000
09:38
because you're not allowed to say these things, yet when you look at it rationally,
151
553000
4000
09:42
there is no reason why those ideas shouldn't be as open to debate
152
557000
4000
09:46
as any other, except that we've agreed somehow between us
153
561000
4000
09:50
that they shouldn't be." And that's the end of the quote from Douglas.
154
565000
7000
09:57
In my view, not only is science corrosive to religion;
155
572000
4000
10:01
religion is corrosive to science.
156
576000
4000
10:05
It teaches people to be satisfied with trivial, supernatural non-explanations
157
580000
6000
10:11
and blinds them to the wonderful real explanations that we have within our grasp.
158
586000
6000
10:17
It teaches them to accept authority, revelation and faith
159
592000
7000
10:24
instead of always insisting on evidence.
160
599000
5000
10:29
There's Douglas Adams, magnificent picture from his book, "Last Chance to See."
161
604000
6000
10:35
Now, there's a typical scientific journal, the Quarterly Review of Biology.
162
610000
4000
10:39
And I'm going to put together, as guest editor,
163
614000
3000
10:42
a special issue on the question, "Did an asteroid kill the dinosaurs?"
164
617000
5000
10:47
And the first paper is a standard scientific paper
165
622000
4000
10:51
presenting evidence, "Iridium Layer at the K-T Boundary,
166
626000
4000
10:55
Potassium-Argon Dated Crater in Yucatan,
167
630000
2000
10:57
Indicate That an Asteroid Killed the Dinosaurs."
168
632000
3000
11:00
Perfectly ordinary scientific paper.
169
635000
3000
11:03
Now, the next one, "The President of The Royal Society
170
638000
4000
11:07
Has Been Vouchsafed a Strong Inner Conviction" -- (Laughter) --
171
642000
4000
11:11
"... That an Asteroid Killed the Dinosaurs."
172
646000
3000
11:14
(Laughter)
173
649000
4000
11:18
"It Has Been Privately Revealed to Professor Huxtane
174
653000
6000
11:24
That an Asteroid Killed the Dinosaurs."
175
659000
2000
11:26
(Laughter)
176
661000
3000
11:29
"Professor Hordley Was Brought Up
177
664000
3000
11:32
to Have Total and Unquestioning Faith" --
178
667000
3000
11:35
(Laughter) --
179
670000
1000
11:36
"... That an Asteroid Killed the Dinosaurs."
180
671000
7000
11:43
"Professor Hawkins Has Promulgated an Official Dogma
181
678000
5000
11:48
Binding on All Loyal Hawkinsians
182
683000
3000
11:51
That an Asteroid Killed the Dinosaurs."
183
686000
3000
11:54
(Laughter)
184
689000
3000
11:57
That's inconceivable, of course.
185
692000
4000
12:01
But suppose --
186
696000
2000
12:03
(Applause)
187
698000
10000
12:13
-- in 1987, a reporter asked George Bush, Sr.
188
708000
3000
12:16
whether he recognized the equal citizenship and patriotism
189
711000
3000
12:19
of Americans who are atheists.
190
714000
3000
12:22
Mr. Bush's reply has become infamous.
191
717000
3000
12:25
"No, I don't know that atheists should be considered citizens,
192
720000
4000
12:29
nor should they be considered patriots.
193
724000
2000
12:31
This is one nation under God."
194
726000
3000
12:34
Bush's bigotry was not an isolated mistake,
195
729000
3000
12:37
blurted out in the heat of the moment and later retracted.
196
732000
3000
12:40
He stood by it in the face of repeated calls for clarification or withdrawal.
197
735000
5000
12:45
He really meant it.
198
740000
1000
12:46
More to the point, he knew it posed no threat to his election, quite the contrary.
199
741000
6000
12:52
Democrats as well as Republicans parade their religiousness
200
747000
4000
12:56
if they want to get elected. Both parties invoke "one nation under God."
201
751000
6000
13:02
What would Thomas Jefferson have said?
202
757000
5000
13:07
Incidentally, I'm not usually very proud of being British,
203
762000
5000
13:12
but you can't help making the comparison.
204
767000
4000
13:16
(Applause)
205
771000
8000
13:24
In practice, what is an atheist?
206
779000
3000
13:27
An atheist is just somebody who feels about Yahweh
207
782000
4000
13:31
the way any decent Christian feels about Thor or Baal or the golden calf.
208
786000
7000
13:38
As has been said before, we are all atheists about most of the gods
209
793000
4000
13:42
that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further.
210
797000
5000
13:47
(Laughter)
211
802000
3000
13:50
(Applause)
212
805000
7000
13:57
And however we define atheism, it's surely the kind of academic belief
213
812000
3000
14:00
that a person is entitled to hold without being vilified
214
815000
4000
14:04
as an unpatriotic, unelectable non-citizen.
215
819000
5000
14:09
Nevertheless, it's an undeniable fact that to own up to being an atheist
216
824000
3000
14:12
is tantamount to introducing yourself as Mr. Hitler or Miss Beelzebub.
217
827000
6000
14:18
And that all stems from the perception of atheists
218
833000
3000
14:21
as some kind of weird, way-out minority.
219
836000
5000
14:26
Natalie Angier wrote a rather sad piece in the New Yorker,
220
841000
3000
14:29
saying how lonely she felt as an atheist.
221
844000
2000
14:31
She clearly feels in a beleaguered minority,
222
846000
3000
14:34
but actually, how do American atheists stack up numerically?
223
849000
6000
14:40
The latest survey makes surprisingly encouraging reading.
224
855000
3000
14:43
Christianity, of course, takes a massive lion's share
225
858000
2000
14:45
of the population, with nearly 160 million.
226
860000
4000
14:49
But what would you think was the second largest group,
227
864000
3000
14:52
convincingly outnumbering Jews with 2.8 million, Muslims at 1.1 million,
228
867000
6000
14:58
and Hindus, Buddhists and all other religions put together?
229
873000
3000
15:01
The second largest group, of nearly 30 million,
230
876000
3000
15:04
is the one described as non-religious or secular.
231
879000
5000
15:09
You can't help wondering why vote-seeking politicians
232
884000
3000
15:12
are so proverbially overawed by the power of, for example, the Jewish lobby.
233
887000
5000
15:17
The state of Israel seems to owe its very existence
234
892000
2000
15:19
to the American Jewish vote, while at the same time
235
894000
4000
15:23
consigning the non-religious to political oblivion.
236
898000
5000
15:28
This secular non-religious vote, if properly mobilized,
237
903000
4000
15:32
is nine times as numerous as the Jewish vote.
238
907000
4000
15:36
Why does this far more substantial minority
239
911000
3000
15:39
not make a move to exercise its political muscle?
240
914000
4000
15:43
Well, so much for quantity. How about quality?
241
918000
4000
15:47
Is there any correlation, positive or negative,
242
922000
3000
15:50
between intelligence and tendency to be religious?
243
925000
3000
15:53
(Laughter)
244
928000
8000
16:01
The survey that I quoted, which is the ARIS survey,
245
936000
3000
16:04
didn't break down its data by socio-economic class or education,
246
939000
3000
16:07
IQ or anything else.
247
942000
2000
16:09
But a recent article by Paul G. Bell in the Mensa magazine
248
944000
4000
16:13
provides some straws in the wind.
249
948000
2000
16:15
Mensa, as you know, is an international organization
250
950000
2000
16:17
for people with very high IQ.
251
952000
4000
16:21
And from a meta-analysis of the literature,
252
956000
4000
16:25
Bell concludes that, I quote, "Of 43 studies carried out since 1927
253
960000
6000
16:31
on the relationship between religious belief and one's intelligence or educational level,
254
966000
4000
16:35
all but four found an inverse connection.
255
970000
5000
16:40
That is, the higher one's intelligence or educational level,
256
975000
3000
16:43
the less one is likely to be religious."
257
978000
3000
16:46
Well, I haven't seen the original 42 studies and I can't comment on that meta-analysis
258
981000
5000
16:51
but I would like to see more studies done along those lines.
259
986000
4000
16:55
And I know that there are, if I could put a little plug here,
260
990000
2000
16:57
there are people in this audience
261
992000
2000
16:59
easily capable of financing a massive research survey to settle the question,
262
994000
6000
17:05
and I put the suggestion up -- for what it's worth.
263
1000000
2000
17:07
But let me know show you some data
264
1002000
2000
17:09
that have been properly published and analyzed
265
1004000
2000
17:11
on one special group, namely, top scientists.
266
1006000
5000
17:16
In 1998, Larson and Witham
267
1011000
3000
17:19
polled the cream of American scientists,
268
1014000
3000
17:22
those who'd been honored by election to the National Academy of Sciences,
269
1017000
4000
17:26
and among this select group,
270
1021000
2000
17:28
belief in a personal God dropped to a shattering seven percent.
271
1023000
7000
17:35
About 20 percent are agnostic, and the rest could fairly be called atheists.
272
1030000
5000
17:40
Similar figures obtained for belief in personal immortality.
273
1035000
3000
17:43
Among biological scientists, the figures are even lower:
274
1038000
3000
17:46
5.5 percent, only, believe in God. Physical scientists: it's 7.5 percent.
275
1041000
7000
17:53
I've not seen corresponding figures for elite scholars
276
1048000
3000
17:56
in other fields, such history or philosophy,
277
1051000
3000
17:59
but I'd be surprised if they were different.
278
1054000
3000
18:02
So, we've reached a truly remarkable situation,
279
1057000
4000
18:06
a grotesque mismatch between the American intelligentsia
280
1061000
5000
18:11
and the American electorate.
281
1066000
2000
18:13
A philosophical opinion about the nature of the universe,
282
1068000
4000
18:17
which is held by the vast majority of top American scientists
283
1072000
4000
18:21
and probably the majority of the intelligentsia generally,
284
1076000
4000
18:25
is so abhorrent to the American electorate
285
1080000
2000
18:27
that no candidate for popular election dare affirm it in public.
286
1082000
6000
18:33
If I'm right, this means that high office
287
1088000
3000
18:36
in the greatest country in the world
288
1091000
2000
18:38
is barred to the very people best qualified to hold it -- the intelligentsia --
289
1093000
6000
18:44
unless they are prepared to lie about their beliefs.
290
1099000
3000
18:47
To put it bluntly, American political opportunities
291
1102000
3000
18:50
are heavily loaded against those
292
1105000
3000
18:53
who are simultaneously intelligent and honest.
293
1108000
3000
18:56
(Applause)
294
1111000
7000
19:03
I'm not a citizen of this country, so I hope it won't be thought unbecoming
295
1118000
4000
19:07
if I suggest that something needs to be done.
296
1122000
3000
19:10
(Laughter)
297
1125000
2000
19:12
And I've already hinted what that something is.
298
1127000
3000
19:15
From what I've seen of TED, I think this may be the ideal place to launch it.
299
1130000
4000
19:19
Again, I fear it will cost money.
300
1134000
3000
19:22
We need a consciousness-raising,
301
1137000
2000
19:24
coming-out campaign for American atheists.
302
1139000
4000
19:28
(Laughter)
303
1143000
2000
19:30
This could be similar to the campaign organized by homosexuals
304
1145000
3000
19:33
a few years ago,
305
1148000
2000
19:35
although heaven forbid that we should stoop to public outing
306
1150000
3000
19:38
of people against their will.
307
1153000
2000
19:40
In most cases, people who out themselves
308
1155000
3000
19:43
will help to destroy the myth that there is something wrong with atheists.
309
1158000
4000
19:47
On the contrary,
310
1162000
2000
19:49
they'll demonstrate that atheists are often the kinds of people
311
1164000
2000
19:51
that could serve as decent role models for your children,
312
1166000
3000
19:54
the kinds of people an advertising agent could use to recommend a product,
313
1169000
5000
19:59
the kinds of people who are sitting in this room.
314
1174000
4000
20:03
There should be a snowball effect, a positive feedback,
315
1178000
3000
20:06
such that the more names we have, the more we get.
316
1181000
3000
20:09
There could be non-linearities, threshold effects.
317
1184000
3000
20:12
When a critical mass has been attained,
318
1187000
2000
20:14
there's an abrupt acceleration in recruitment.
319
1189000
3000
20:17
And again, it will need money.
320
1192000
3000
20:20
I suspect that the word "atheist" itself
321
1195000
4000
20:24
contains or remains a stumbling block
322
1199000
3000
20:27
far out of proportion to what it actually means, and a stumbling block to people
323
1202000
4000
20:31
who otherwise might be happy to out themselves.
324
1206000
3000
20:34
So, what other words might be used to smooth the path,
325
1209000
3000
20:37
oil the wheels, sugar the pill? Darwin himself preferred "agnostic" --
326
1212000
7000
20:44
and not only out of loyalty to his friend Huxley, who coined the term.
327
1219000
6000
20:50
Darwin said, "I have never been an atheist
328
1225000
2000
20:52
in the same sense of denying the existence of a God.
329
1227000
4000
20:56
I think that generally an 'agnostic'
330
1231000
2000
20:58
would be the most correct description of my state of mind."
331
1233000
4000
21:02
He even became uncharacteristically tetchy with Edward Aveling.
332
1237000
5000
21:07
Aveling was a militant atheist
333
1242000
2000
21:09
who failed to persuade Darwin
334
1244000
2000
21:11
to accept the dedication of his book on atheism --
335
1246000
3000
21:14
incidentally, giving rise to a fascinating myth
336
1249000
3000
21:17
that Karl Marx tried to dedicate "Das Kapital" to Darwin,
337
1252000
3000
21:20
which he didn't. It was actually Edward Aveling.
338
1255000
2000
21:22
What happened was that Aveling's mistress was Marx's daughter,
339
1257000
5000
21:27
and when both Darwin and Marx were dead,
340
1262000
3000
21:30
Marx's papers became muddled up with Aveling's papers
341
1265000
4000
21:34
and a letter from Darwin saying, "My dear sir, thank you very much
342
1269000
5000
21:39
but I don't want you to dedicate your book to me,"
343
1274000
2000
21:41
was mistakenly supposed to be addressed to Marx,
344
1276000
3000
21:44
and that gave rise to this whole myth, which you've probably heard.
345
1279000
3000
21:47
It's a sort of urban myth,
346
1282000
2000
21:49
that Marx tried to dedicate "Kapital" to Darwin.
347
1284000
3000
21:52
Anyway, it was Aveling, and when they met, Darwin challenged Aveling,
348
1287000
8000
22:00
"Why do you call yourselves atheists?"
349
1295000
7000
22:07
"'Agnostic,'" retorted Aveling, "was simply 'atheist' writ respectable,
350
1302000
4000
22:11
and 'atheist' was simply 'agnostic' writ aggressive."
351
1306000
4000
22:15
Darwin complained, "But why should you be so aggressive?"
352
1310000
4000
22:19
Darwin thought that atheism might be well and good for the intelligentsia,
353
1314000
3000
22:22
but that ordinary people were not, quote, "ripe for it."
354
1317000
5000
22:27
Which is, of course, our old friend, the "don't rock the boat" argument.
355
1322000
4000
22:31
It's not recorded whether Aveling told Darwin to come down off his high horse.
356
1326000
5000
22:36
(Laughter)
357
1331000
2000
22:38
But in any case, that was more than 100 years ago.
358
1333000
2000
22:40
You think we might have grown up since then.
359
1335000
3000
22:43
Now, a friend, an intelligent lapsed Jew,
360
1338000
5000
22:48
who incidentally observed the Sabbath
361
1343000
2000
22:50
for reasons of cultural solidarity,
362
1345000
2000
22:52
describes himself as a "tooth fairy agnostic."
363
1347000
4000
22:56
He won't call himself an atheist
364
1351000
2000
22:58
because it's, in principle, impossible to prove a negative,
365
1353000
4000
23:02
but agnostic on its own might suggest that God's existence
366
1357000
3000
23:05
was therefore on equal terms of likelihood as his non-existence.
367
1360000
4000
23:09
So, my friend is strictly agnostic about the tooth fairy,
368
1364000
5000
23:14
but it isn't very likely, is it? Like God.
369
1369000
5000
23:19
Hence the phrase, "tooth fairy agnostic."
370
1374000
2000
23:21
Bertrand Russell made the same point
371
1376000
2000
23:23
using a hypothetical teapot in orbit about Mars.
372
1378000
4000
23:27
You would strictly have to be agnostic
373
1382000
2000
23:29
about whether there is a teapot in orbit about Mars,
374
1384000
2000
23:31
but that doesn't mean you treat the likelihood of its existence
375
1386000
3000
23:34
as on all fours with its non-existence.
376
1389000
3000
23:37
The list of things which we strictly have to be agnostic about
377
1392000
3000
23:40
doesn't stop at tooth fairies and teapots. It's infinite.
378
1395000
4000
23:44
If you want to believe one particular one of them --
379
1399000
2000
23:46
unicorns or tooth fairies or teapots or Yahweh --
380
1401000
5000
23:51
the onus is on you to say why.
381
1406000
2000
23:53
The onus is not on the rest of us to say why not.
382
1408000
4000
23:57
We, who are atheists, are also a-fairiests and a-teapotists.
383
1412000
5000
24:02
(Laughter)
384
1417000
2000
24:04
But we don't bother to say so,
385
1419000
3000
24:07
and this is why my friend uses "tooth fairy agnostic"
386
1422000
3000
24:10
as a label for what most people would call atheist.
387
1425000
3000
24:13
Nonetheless, if we want to attract deep down atheists to come out publicly,
388
1428000
6000
24:19
we're going to have find something better
389
1434000
2000
24:21
to stick on our banner than "tooth fairy" or "teapot agnostic."
390
1436000
5000
24:26
So, how about "humanist"?
391
1441000
3000
24:29
This has the advantage of a worldwide network of well-organized associations
392
1444000
5000
24:34
and journals and things already in place.
393
1449000
2000
24:36
My problem with it only is its apparent anthropocentrism.
394
1451000
3000
24:39
One of the things we've learned from Darwin
395
1454000
2000
24:41
is that the human species is only one
396
1456000
2000
24:43
among millions of cousins, some close, some distant.
397
1458000
4000
24:47
And there are other possibilities like "naturalist,"
398
1462000
3000
24:50
but that also has problems of confusion,
399
1465000
2000
24:52
because Darwin would have thought naturalist --
400
1467000
2000
24:54
"naturalist" means, of course, as opposed to "supernaturalist" --
401
1469000
3000
24:57
and it is used sometimes --
402
1472000
2000
24:59
Darwin would have been confused by the other sense of "naturalist,"
403
1474000
3000
25:02
which he was, of course, and I suppose there might be others
404
1477000
4000
25:06
who would confuse it with nudism.
405
1481000
2000
25:08
(Laughter)
406
1483000
2000
25:10
Such people might be those belonging to the British lynch mob
407
1485000
7000
25:17
which last year attacked a pediatrician in mistake for a pedophile.
408
1492000
5000
25:22
(Laughter)
409
1497000
5000
25:27
I think the best of the available alternatives for "atheist" is simply "non-theist."
410
1502000
5000
25:32
It lacks the strong connotation that there's definitely no God,
411
1507000
3000
25:35
and it could therefore easily be embraced by teapot or tooth fairy agnostics.
412
1510000
6000
25:41
It's completely compatible with the God of the physicists.
413
1516000
4000
25:45
When atheists
414
1520000
4000
25:49
like Stephen Hawking and Albert Einstein use the word "God,"
415
1524000
4000
25:53
they use it of course as a metaphorical shorthand
416
1528000
3000
25:56
for that deep, mysterious part of physics which we don't yet understand.
417
1531000
5000
26:01
"Non-theist" will do for all that, yet unlike "atheist,"
418
1536000
6000
26:07
it doesn't have the same phobic, hysterical responses.
419
1542000
7000
26:14
But I think, actually, the alternative
420
1549000
2000
26:16
is to grasp the nettle of the word "atheism" itself,
421
1551000
3000
26:19
precisely because it is a taboo word
422
1554000
3000
26:22
carrying frissons of hysterical phobia.
423
1557000
4000
26:26
Critical mass may be harder to achieve with the word "atheist"
424
1561000
4000
26:30
than with the word "non-theist,"
425
1565000
1000
26:31
or some other non-confrontational word.
426
1566000
2000
26:33
But if we did achieve it with that dread word -- "atheist" itself --
427
1568000
4000
26:37
the political impact would be even greater.
428
1572000
4000
26:41
Now, I said that if I were religious, I'd be very afraid of evolution. I'd go further.
429
1576000
4000
26:45
I would fear science in general if properly understood.
430
1580000
3000
26:48
And this is because the scientific worldview
431
1583000
4000
26:52
is so much more exciting, more poetic,
432
1587000
3000
26:55
more filled with sheer wonder than anything
433
1590000
3000
26:58
in the poverty-stricken arsenals of the religious imagination.
434
1593000
6000
27:04
As Carl Sagan, another recently dead hero, put it,
435
1599000
5000
27:09
"How is it that hardly any major religion has looked at science
436
1604000
4000
27:13
and concluded, 'This is better than we thought!
437
1608000
5000
27:18
The universe is much bigger than our prophet said,
438
1613000
2000
27:20
grander, more subtle, more elegant?' Instead they say, 'No, no, no!
439
1615000
6000
27:26
My god is a little god, and I want him to stay that way.'
440
1621000
5000
27:31
A religion, old or new,
441
1626000
2000
27:33
that stressed the magnificence of the universe
442
1628000
3000
27:36
as revealed by modern science
443
1631000
2000
27:38
might be able to draw forth reserves of reverence and awe
444
1633000
3000
27:41
hardly tapped by the conventional faiths."
445
1636000
5000
27:46
Now, this is an elite audience,
446
1641000
3000
27:49
and I would therefore expect about 10 percent of you to be religious.
447
1644000
7000
27:56
Many of you probably subscribe to our polite cultural belief that we should respect religion,
448
1651000
7000
28:03
but I also suspect that a fair number of those
449
1658000
4000
28:07
secretly despise religion as much as I do.
450
1662000
4000
28:11
(Laughter)
451
1666000
1000
28:12
If you're one of them, and of course many of you may not be,
452
1667000
3000
28:15
but if you are one of them, I'm asking you to stop being polite,
453
1670000
3000
28:18
come out and say so, and if you happen to be rich,
454
1673000
4000
28:22
give some thought to ways in which you might make a difference.
455
1677000
5000
28:27
The religious lobby in this country
456
1682000
3000
28:30
is massively financed by foundations -- to say nothing of all the tax benefits --
457
1685000
5000
28:35
by foundations such as the Templeton Foundation and the Discovery Institute.
458
1690000
5000
28:40
We need an anti-Templeton to step forward.
459
1695000
6000
28:46
If my books sold as well as Stephen Hawking's books,
460
1701000
3000
28:49
instead of only as well as Richard Dawkins' books, I'd do it myself.
461
1704000
6000
28:55
People are always going on about, "How did September the 11th change you?"
462
1710000
9000
29:04
Well, here's how it changed me.
463
1719000
2000
29:06
Let's all stop being so damned respectful.
464
1721000
5000
29:11
Thank you very much.
465
1726000
2000
29:13
(Applause)
466
1728000
5000
ABOUT THE SPEAKER
Richard Dawkins - Evolutionary biologistOxford professor Richard Dawkins has helped steer evolutionary science into the 21st century, and his concept of the "meme" contextualized the spread of ideas in the information age. In recent years, his devastating critique of religion has made him a leading figure in the New Atheism.
Why you should listen
As an evolutionary biologist, Richard Dawkins has broadened our understanding of the genetic origin of our species; as a popular author, he has helped lay readers understand complex scientific concepts. He's best-known for the ideas laid out in his landmark book The Selfish Gene and fleshed out in The Extended Phenotype: the rather radical notion that Darwinian selection happens not at the level of the individual, but at the level of our DNA. The implication: We evolved for only one purpose — to serve our genes.
Of perhaps equal importance is Dawkins' concept of the meme, which he defines as a self-replicating unit of culture -- an idea, a chain letter, a catchy tune, an urban legend -- which is passed person-to-person, its longevity based on its ability to lodge in the brain and inspire transmission to others. Introduced in The Selfish Gene in 1976, the concept of memes has itself proven highly contagious, inspiring countless accounts and explanations of idea propagation in the information age.
In recent years, Dawkins has become outspoken in his atheism, coining the word "bright" (as an alternate to atheist), and encouraging fellow non-believers to stand up and be identified. His controversial, confrontational 2002 TED talk was a seminal moment for the New Atheism, as was the publication of his 2006 book, The God Delusion, a bestselling critique of religion that championed atheism and promoted scientific principles over creationism and intelligent design.
Richard Dawkins | Speaker | TED.com