The Unbelievers Page #2

I actually understand it.

Most evolutionary

biologists today

don't believe that.

Don't believe what?

They don't believe in

this crude fundamentalist

version of random selection

that you propose.

I do not propose it,

and I strongly deny

that evolution is

random selection.

This idea that we should

challenge our beliefs,

I agree in some areas,

and this is the point

I tried to touch upon

the difference between

science and religion...

Only when you appreciate

the difference can you

ascertain whether

different propositions

apply or not.

Anything about higher truth,

morality, for example,

do you want me to challenge

my belief every day

that murder is wrong?

Well, if any of you

stopped believing in God,

I would ask you,

would you go out tomorrow

and murder your neighbor?

Well, some of you say yes.

Evolution is

non-random selection.

Oh, there's a purpose

to it, is there?

No.

But...

Could you explain

what "non-random" means?

Yes, of course I could.

That's my life's work.

No idea should be

above ridicule.

Ridicule is a very

important tool.

And why should religion

not be subject to ridicule?

If politics is subject

to ridicule, if science,

if sex, if everything else

in the world is subject

to ridicule

as a way of

illuminating reality,

why shouldn't religion?

It's part of being human

to ask why we exist.

The question "why"

is not necessarily

a question that

deserves to be answered.

There are all

sorts of questions

that people can ask,

like, "what is

the color of jealousy?"

That's a silly question.

Exactly.

"Why?" Is a silly question.

You can ask, "what are

the factors that led

to something coming

into existence?"

That's a sensible question.

But "what is the purpose

of the universe?"

Is a silly question.

It has no meaning.

And so I hope that every student

who every goes

to university

at one point

in their life

has the opportunity

to have something

that is at the heart

of their being,

something so central

to their being

that if they lose it,

they won't feel that

they're human anymore,

to be proved wrong.

Because that's the liberation

that science provides:

The realization that

to assume the truth,

to assume the answer

before you ask the questions

leads you nowhere.

We do have a scientific

understanding of why we're here,

and we therefore have to

make up our own meaning to life.

We have to stand up,

look the world

in the face, face up to the fact

that we are not going

to last forever,

we have to make

the most of the short time

that we have on this planet,

we have to make this planet

as good as we possibly can

and try to leave it

a better place

than we found it.

And if we live in a world

where certain things are not

subject to question,

we live in a world

where thinking has stopped.

Final results of

With more than 20,00

of you voting, we have 76%

saying "no, religious belief

does not make the world

a better place."

Please thank our special guests,

Professor Richard Dawkins

and cardinal George pell.

Hey now, little speedy head

the read on

the speed meter says

you have to go to task

in the city

where people drown

and people serve

don't be shy

you just deserve

it's only just

light years to go

Well, I got

thoroughly fed up with

b.B.C.-Type interviews,

where you have a chairman

in the middle,

and you get an interesting

conversation going on

between two...

There might be five people

around the table,

and "a" and "b" are having

an interesting conversation,

and so the chairman suddenly

says, "and what do you think

about this, 'c'?"

Totally breaking the flow,

spoiling the conversation,

all in the interest of balance

and things like that,

and it occurred to me,

"why on earth do we

bother with chairmen?

They're not necessary."

Certainly, my recent encounter

with the archbishop

of canterbury

in the sheldonian theatre

in Oxford,

that was completely

ruined by the chairman,

who was a philosopher

and felt it was his role

to clarify things,

and of course,

that meant obscuring things.

We're closer now

than light years to go

Yeah, I think it's...

I think conversations,

and conversations

that aren't planned,

are fascinating

for people to watch

and listen to.

Yes.

I think it works.

We should probably go.

Okay.

So to fill it up...

To begin late...

From my experience,

if it's really full,

it begins a little late.

Usually three

or four minutes, yeah.

Would you welcome these two

great scientists to the stage?

Please join me...

Richard Dawkins

and Lawrence krauss.

I think it's

appropriate

to begin...

Did any of you see q and a?

I was amazed...

cardinal pell,

who was on the program,

manifestly didn't

understand evolution.

Actually, he didn't

manifestly understand

anything,

as far as I could see.

Why don't you elaborate

a little bit about

that real problem?

Because I think it's

a fascinating issue of,

if speciation occurs,

if species change,

was there a first person?

At first sight, it seems obvious

that there has to have

been a first person

and there has to have

been a first rabbit

and a first rhinoceros

and things.

After all,

people are people,

aren't they?

And their ancestors

were not people.

If you go back

sufficiently far,

your ancestor was a fish.

Mustn't there

have been a time

where, so to speak,

the last homo erectus parents

gave birth to the first

homo sapiens' baby?

And the answer is no.

There never was a first person,

there never was

a first rabbit

or first rhinoceros,

because every organism ever born

belonged to

the same species

as its parents.

And yet because

it was so gradual

and because it was so slow,

not only was our

200 million great

grandparent a fish,

but if you go back

further still,

they were worms and so on.

And one suggestion

that's been made

is that people

really have difficulty

grasping the idea

that animals turn

into other animals

so imperceptibly

that you can hardly notice it.

It's not actually

that paradoxical.

It all happened

very, very gradually.

And you can think

of parallels like

the fact that

you can't see

the hour hand

on your watch moving.

At some point,

we cease to think

of ourselves as middle-aged

and we start to think

of ourselves as old.

But nobody ever goes to bed

middle-aged and wakes up

and says, "I'm old."

We had a meeting at my institute

where we were trying

to get at the origin

of life,

and it's fascinating

to learn how much

closer we're getting.

I don't know if you think

we'll get to the beginning

in your lifetime or my...

Well, it's an exciting

thought, and I'm pretty

hopeful that we might.

You'll never be able

to prove it for certain,

I suspect,

but to come up with

a plausible theory

that people say, "of course!

That's so elegant

and so simple."

Either it's true

or it ought to be true.

I mean, it could...

I think the key point

is plausibility.

Rate this script:5.0 / 1 vote