Militant atheism
-
0:02 - 0:05That splendid music, the coming-in music,
-
0:05 - 0:11"The Elephant March" from "Aida,"
is the music I've chosen for my funeral. -
0:11 - 0:12(Laughter)
-
0:12 - 0:17And you can see why. It's triumphal.
-
0:17 - 0:21I won't feel anything, but if I could,
-
0:21 - 0:25I would feel triumphal
at having lived at all, -
0:25 - 0:27and at having lived
on this splendid planet, -
0:27 - 0:30and having been given
the opportunity to understand -
0:30 - 0:36something about why I was here
in the first place, before not being here. -
0:37 - 0:42Can you understand
my quaint English accent? -
0:42 - 0:44(Laughter)
-
0:45 - 0:50Like everybody else, I was entranced
yesterday by the animal session. -
0:50 - 0:55Robert Full and Frans Lanting and others;
-
0:55 - 0:57the beauty of the things that they showed.
-
0:57 - 1:03The only slight jarring note was when
Jeffrey Katzenberg said of the mustang, -
1:03 - 1:07"the most splendid creatures
that God put on this earth." -
1:07 - 1:10Now of course, we know
that he didn't really mean that, -
1:10 - 1:14but in this country at the moment,
you can't be too careful. -
1:14 - 1:15(Laughter)
-
1:15 - 1:22I'm a biologist, and the central theorem
of our subject: the theory of design, -
1:22 - 1:27Darwin's theory of evolution
by natural selection. -
1:27 - 1:31In professional circles everywhere,
it's of course universally accepted. -
1:31 - 1:37In non-professional circles
outside America, it's largely ignored. -
1:37 - 1:41But in non-professional
circles within America, -
1:41 - 1:44it arouses so much hostility --
-
1:44 - 1:45(Laughter)
-
1:45 - 1:50it's fair to say that American biologists
are in a state of war. -
1:51 - 1:53The war is so worrying at present,
-
1:53 - 1:56with court cases coming
up in one state after another, -
1:56 - 1:58that I felt I had to say
something about it. -
1:58 - 2:02If you want to know what I have
to say about Darwinism itself, -
2:02 - 2:05I'm afraid you're going
to have to look at my books, -
2:05 - 2:08which you won't find
in the bookstore outside. -
2:08 - 2:11(Laughter)
-
2:11 - 2:13Contemporary court cases
-
2:13 - 2:17often concern an allegedly
new version of creationism, -
2:17 - 2:20called "Intelligent Design," or ID.
-
2:21 - 2:25Don't be fooled.
There's nothing new about ID. -
2:25 - 2:28It's just creationism under another name,
-
2:29 - 2:32rechristened --
I choose the word advisedly -- -
2:32 - 2:33(Laughter)
-
2:33 - 2:35for tactical, political reasons.
-
2:35 - 2:37The arguments of so-called ID theorists
-
2:37 - 2:40are the same old arguments
that had been refuted again and again, -
2:40 - 2:43since Darwin down to the present day.
-
2:44 - 2:47There is an effective evolution lobby
-
2:47 - 2:49coordinating the fight
on behalf of science, -
2:49 - 2:52and I try to do all I can to help them,
-
2:52 - 2:56but they get quite upset
when people like me dare to mention -
2:56 - 3:00that we happen to be atheists
as well as evolutionists. -
3:00 - 3:05They see us as rocking the boat,
and you can understand why. -
3:06 - 3:10Creationists, lacking any coherent
scientific argument for their case, -
3:10 - 3:15fall back on the popular
phobia against atheism: -
3:15 - 3:19Teach your children
evolution in biology class, -
3:19 - 3:24and they'll soon move on to drugs,
grand larceny and sexual "pre-version." -
3:24 - 3:28(Laughter)
-
3:29 - 3:32In fact, of course, educated
theologians from the Pope down -
3:32 - 3:34are firm in their support of evolution.
-
3:35 - 3:38This book, "Finding
Darwin's God," by Kenneth Miller, -
3:38 - 3:42is one of the most effective attacks
on Intelligent Design that I know -
3:42 - 3:46and it's all the more effective because
it's written by a devout Christian. -
3:46 - 3:51People like Kenneth Miller could be called
a "godsend" to the evolution lobby, -
3:51 - 3:52(Laughter)
-
3:52 - 3:57because they expose the lie
that evolutionism is, as a matter of fact, -
3:57 - 3:58tantamount to atheism.
-
3:58 - 4:02People like me, on the other
hand, rock the boat. -
4:03 - 4:06But here, I want to say something
nice about creationists. -
4:06 - 4:09It's not a thing I often do,
so listen carefully. -
4:09 - 4:10(Laughter)
-
4:10 - 4:13I think they're right about one thing.
-
4:13 - 4:15I think they're right that evolution
-
4:15 - 4:18is fundamentally hostile to religion.
-
4:19 - 4:22I've already said that many individual
evolutionists, like the Pope, -
4:22 - 4:25are also religious, but I think
they're deluding themselves. -
4:25 - 4:28I believe a true
understanding of Darwinism -
4:28 - 4:32is deeply corrosive to religious faith.
-
4:33 - 4:39Now, it may sound as though
I'm about to preach atheism, -
4:39 - 4:42and I want to reassure you
that that's not what I'm going to do. -
4:42 - 4:46In an audience
as sophisticated as this one, -
4:46 - 4:48that would be preaching to the choir.
-
4:49 - 4:51No, what I want to urge upon you --
-
4:51 - 4:55(Laughter)
-
4:55 - 5:00Instead, what I want to urge
upon you is militant atheism. -
5:00 - 5:02(Laughter)
-
5:02 - 5:05(Applause)
-
5:05 - 5:08But that's putting it too negatively.
-
5:08 - 5:13If I was a person who were interested
in preserving religious faith, -
5:13 - 5:18I would be very afraid of the positive
power of evolutionary science, -
5:18 - 5:21and indeed science generally,
but evolution in particular, -
5:21 - 5:27to inspire and enthrall,
precisely because it is atheistic. -
5:28 - 5:32Now, the difficult problem
for any theory of biological design -
5:32 - 5:37is to explain the massive statistical
improbability of living things. -
5:38 - 5:43Statistical improbability
in the direction of good design -- -
5:43 - 5:45"complexity" is another word for this.
-
5:45 - 5:47The standard creationist argument --
-
5:47 - 5:50there is only one;
they're all reduced to this one -- -
5:50 - 5:52takes off from
a statistical improbability. -
5:52 - 5:56Living creatures are too complex
to have come about by chance; -
5:56 - 5:58therefore, they must have had a designer.
-
5:59 - 6:01This argument of course,
shoots itself in the foot. -
6:01 - 6:04Any designer capable of designing
something really complex -
6:04 - 6:07has to be even more complex himself,
-
6:07 - 6:11and that's before we even start
on the other things he's expected to do, -
6:11 - 6:15like forgive sins, bless
marriages, listen to prayers -- -
6:15 - 6:17favor our side in a war --
-
6:17 - 6:19(Laughter)
-
6:19 - 6:22disapprove of our sex lives, and so on.
-
6:22 - 6:24(Laughter)
-
6:24 - 6:29Complexity is the problem
that any theory of biology has to solve, -
6:29 - 6:34and you can't solve it by postulating
an agent that is even more complex, -
6:34 - 6:36thereby simply compounding the problem.
-
6:37 - 6:41Darwinian natural selection
is so stunningly elegant -
6:41 - 6:45because it solves the problem
of explaining complexity -
6:45 - 6:48in terms of nothing but simplicity.
-
6:49 - 6:52Essentially, it does it
by providing a smooth ramp -
6:52 - 6:56of gradual, step-by-step increment.
-
6:57 - 6:59But here, I only want to make the point
-
6:59 - 7:02that the elegance of Darwinism
is corrosive to religion, -
7:02 - 7:07precisely because it is so elegant,
so parsimonious, so powerful, -
7:07 - 7:09so economically powerful.
-
7:11 - 7:17It has the sinewy economy
of a beautiful suspension bridge. -
7:18 - 7:21The God theory is not just a bad theory.
-
7:21 - 7:22It turns out to be -- in principle --
-
7:22 - 7:26incapable of doing the job required of it.
-
7:26 - 7:30So, returning to tactics
and the evolution lobby, -
7:30 - 7:33I want to argue that rocking the boat
-
7:33 - 7:37may be just the right thing to do.
-
7:38 - 7:41My approach to attacking creationism is --
-
7:41 - 7:44unlike the evolution lobby --
-
7:44 - 7:48my approach to attacking creationism
is to attack religion as a whole. -
7:49 - 7:54And at this point I need
to acknowledge the remarkable taboo -
7:54 - 7:56against speaking ill of religion,
-
7:56 - 8:00and I'm going to do so in the words
of the late Douglas Adams, -
8:00 - 8:02a dear friend who,
if he never came to TED, -
8:02 - 8:04certainly should have been invited.
-
8:04 - 8:05(Richard Saul Wurman: He was.)
-
8:05 - 8:08Richard Dawkins: He was. Good.
I thought he must have been. -
8:08 - 8:11He begins this speech,
which was tape recorded in Cambridge -
8:11 - 8:13shortly before he died --
-
8:13 - 8:18he begins by explaining how science
works through the testing of hypotheses -
8:18 - 8:21that are framed to be vulnerable
to disproof, and then he goes on. -
8:21 - 8:25I quote, "Religion doesn't
seem to work like that. -
8:25 - 8:29It has certain ideas at the heart of it,
which we call 'sacred' or 'holy.' -
8:29 - 8:32What it means is:
here is an idea or a notion -
8:32 - 8:36that you're not allowed
to say anything bad about. -
8:36 - 8:40You're just not. Why not?
Because you're not." -
8:40 - 8:44(Laughter)
-
8:44 - 8:46"Why should it be
that it's perfectly legitimate -
8:46 - 8:48to support the Republicans or Democrats,
-
8:48 - 8:51this model of economics versus that,
-
8:51 - 8:53Macintosh instead of Windows,
-
8:53 - 8:56but to have an opinion
about how the universe began, -
8:56 - 8:57about who created the universe --
-
8:57 - 8:59no, that's holy.
-
9:00 - 9:03So, we're used to not
challenging religious ideas, -
9:03 - 9:06and it's very interesting how much
of a furor Richard creates -
9:06 - 9:08when he does it." --
-
9:08 - 9:09He meant me, not that one.
-
9:11 - 9:13"Everybody gets absolutely
frantic about it, -
9:13 - 9:16because you're not allowed
to say these things. -
9:16 - 9:17Yet when you look at it rationally,
-
9:17 - 9:19there's no reason why those ideas
-
9:19 - 9:22shouldn't be as open
to debate as any other, -
9:22 - 9:25except that we've agreed
somehow between us -
9:25 - 9:27that they shouldn't be."
-
9:27 - 9:29And that's the end
of the quote from Douglas. -
9:32 - 9:36In my view, not only is science
corrosive to religion; -
9:36 - 9:39religion is corrosive to science.
-
9:40 - 9:44It teaches people
to be satisfied with trivial, -
9:44 - 9:47supernatural non-explanations,
-
9:47 - 9:50and blinds them to the wonderful,
real explanations -
9:50 - 9:52that we have within our grasp.
-
9:53 - 9:59It teaches them to accept
authority, revelation and faith, -
9:59 - 10:02instead of always insisting on evidence.
-
10:04 - 10:09There's Douglas Adams, magnificent picture
from his book, "Last Chance to See." -
10:10 - 10:13Now, there's a typical scientific journal,
-
10:13 - 10:14The Quarterly Review of Biology.
-
10:14 - 10:17And I'm going to put
together, as guest editor, -
10:17 - 10:22a special issue on the question,
"Did an asteroid kill the dinosaurs?" -
10:22 - 10:27And the first paper
is a standard scientific paper, -
10:27 - 10:28presenting evidence,
-
10:29 - 10:30"Iridium layer at the K-T boundary,
-
10:30 - 10:33and potassium argon dated
crater in Yucatan, -
10:33 - 10:35indicate that an asteroid
killed the dinosaurs." -
10:35 - 10:38Perfectly ordinary scientific paper.
-
10:38 - 10:40Now, the next one.
-
10:40 - 10:42"The President of the Royal Society
-
10:42 - 10:47has been vouchsafed
a strong inner conviction -
10:47 - 10:49that an asteroid killed the dinosaurs."
-
10:49 - 10:51(Laughter)
-
10:54 - 10:59"It has been privately
revealed to Professor Huxtane -
10:59 - 11:01that an asteroid killed the dinosaurs."
-
11:01 - 11:03(Laughter)
-
11:05 - 11:07"Professor Hordley was brought up
-
11:07 - 11:10to have total and unquestioning faith" --
-
11:10 - 11:11(Laughter) --
-
11:11 - 11:16"that an asteroid killed the dinosaurs."
-
11:18 - 11:23"Professor Hawkins has
promulgated an official dogma -
11:23 - 11:26binding on all loyal Hawkinsians
-
11:26 - 11:29that an asteroid killed the dinosaurs."
-
11:29 - 11:31(Laughter)
-
11:33 - 11:36That's inconceivable, of course.
-
11:37 - 11:38But suppose --
-
11:38 - 11:41[Supporters of the Asteroid Theory
cannot be patriotic citizens] -
11:41 - 11:43(Laughter)
-
11:43 - 11:46(Applause)
-
11:48 - 11:51In 1987, a reporter asked George Bush, Sr.
-
11:51 - 11:55whether he recognized
the equal citizenship and patriotism -
11:55 - 11:57of Americans who are atheists.
-
11:57 - 12:00Mr. Bush's reply has become infamous.
-
12:00 - 12:04"No, I don't know that atheists
should be considered citizens, -
12:04 - 12:06nor should they be considered patriots.
-
12:06 - 12:09This is one nation under God."
-
12:10 - 12:12Bush's bigotry
was not an isolated mistake, -
12:12 - 12:15blurted out in the heat
of the moment and later retracted. -
12:16 - 12:20He stood by it in the face of repeated
calls for clarification or withdrawal. -
12:20 - 12:22He really meant it.
-
12:22 - 12:26More to the point, he knew
it posed no threat to his election -- -
12:26 - 12:27quite the contrary.
-
12:27 - 12:31Democrats as well as Republicans
parade their religiousness -
12:31 - 12:33if they want to get elected.
-
12:33 - 12:37Both parties invoke
"one nation under God." -
12:37 - 12:39What would Thomas Jefferson have said?
-
12:39 - 12:43[In every country and in every age,
the priest has been hostile to liberty] -
12:43 - 12:47Incidentally, I'm not usually
very proud of being British, -
12:47 - 12:51but you can't help making the comparison.
-
12:51 - 12:58(Applause)
-
12:59 - 13:02In practice, what is an atheist?
-
13:02 - 13:06An atheist is just somebody
who feels about Yahweh -
13:06 - 13:13the way any decent Christian feels
about Thor or Baal or the golden calf. -
13:13 - 13:17As has been said before, we are
all atheists about most of the gods -
13:17 - 13:19that humanity has ever believed in.
-
13:19 - 13:22Some of us just go one god further.
-
13:22 - 13:25(Laughter)
-
13:25 - 13:32(Applause)
-
13:32 - 13:35And however we define atheism,
it's surely the kind of academic belief -
13:35 - 13:39that a person is entitled
to hold without being vilified -
13:39 - 13:43as an unpatriotic,
unelectable non-citizen. -
13:44 - 13:47Nevertheless, it's an undeniable fact
that to own up to being an atheist -
13:47 - 13:52is tantamount to introducing yourself
as Mr. Hitler or Miss Beelzebub. -
13:53 - 13:56And that all stems
from the perception of atheists -
13:56 - 14:00as some kind of weird, way-out minority.
-
14:01 - 14:04Natalie Angier wrote a rather
sad piece in the New Yorker, -
14:04 - 14:06saying how lonely she felt as an atheist.
-
14:06 - 14:09She clearly feels
in a beleaguered minority. -
14:09 - 14:14But actually, how do American atheists
stack up numerically? -
14:15 - 14:18The latest survey makes
surprisingly encouraging reading. -
14:18 - 14:22Christianity, of course, takes a massive
lion's share of the population, -
14:22 - 14:23with nearly 160 million.
-
14:24 - 14:28But what would you think
was the second largest group, -
14:28 - 14:33convincingly outnumbering Jews
with 2.8 million, Muslims at 1.1 million, -
14:33 - 14:37Hindus, Buddhists and all other
religions put together? -
14:37 - 14:40The second largest group,
with nearly 30 million, -
14:40 - 14:43is the one described
as non-religious or secular. -
14:44 - 14:47You can't help wondering
why vote-seeking politicians -
14:47 - 14:52are so proverbially overawed by the power
of, for example, the Jewish lobby -- -
14:52 - 14:57the state of Israel seems to owe its very
existence to the American Jewish vote -- -
14:57 - 14:58while at the same time,
-
14:58 - 15:02consigning the non-religious
to political oblivion. -
15:03 - 15:07This secular non-religious vote,
if properly mobilized, -
15:07 - 15:10is nine times as numerous
as the Jewish vote. -
15:11 - 15:14Why does this far more
substantial minority -
15:14 - 15:17not make a move to exercise
its political muscle? -
15:18 - 15:21Well, so much for quantity.
How about quality? -
15:22 - 15:25Is there any correlation,
positive or negative, -
15:25 - 15:29between intelligence
and tendency to be religious? -
15:29 - 15:31[Them folks misunderestimated me]
-
15:31 - 15:35(Laughter)
-
15:36 - 15:39The survey that I quoted,
which is the ARIS survey, -
15:39 - 15:42didn't break down its data
by socio-economic class or education, -
15:42 - 15:44IQ or anything else.
-
15:44 - 15:48But a recent article by Paul G. Bell
in the Mensa magazine -
15:48 - 15:50provides some straws in the wind.
-
15:50 - 15:52Mensa, as you know,
is an international organization -
15:53 - 15:56for people with very high IQ.
-
15:56 - 16:01And from a meta-analysis
of the literature, -
16:01 - 16:06Bell concludes that, I quote --
"Of 43 studies carried out since 1927 -
16:06 - 16:08on the relationship
between religious belief, -
16:08 - 16:11and one's intelligence
or educational level, -
16:11 - 16:15all but four found an inverse connection.
-
16:15 - 16:19That is, the higher one's intelligence
or educational level, -
16:19 - 16:21the less one is likely to be religious."
-
16:21 - 16:23Well, I haven't seen
the original 42 studies, -
16:23 - 16:26and I can't comment on that meta-analysis,
-
16:26 - 16:30but I would like to see more
studies done along those lines. -
16:30 - 16:33And I know that there are --
if I could put a little plug here -- -
16:33 - 16:35there are people in this audience
-
16:35 - 16:40easily capable of financing a massive
research survey to settle the question, -
16:40 - 16:43and I put the suggestion up,
for what it's worth. -
16:43 - 16:44But let me know show you some data
-
16:44 - 16:47that have been properly
published and analyzed, -
16:47 - 16:51on one special group --
namely, top scientists. -
16:51 - 16:57In 1998, Larson and Witham
polled the cream of American scientists, -
16:57 - 17:01those who'd been honored by election
to the National Academy of Sciences, -
17:01 - 17:03and among this select group,
-
17:03 - 17:09belief in a personal God dropped
to a shattering seven percent. -
17:10 - 17:15About 20 percent are agnostic;
the rest could fairly be called atheists. -
17:15 - 17:18Similar figures obtained
for belief in personal immortality. -
17:18 - 17:21Among biological scientists,
the figure is even lower: -
17:21 - 17:255.5 percent, only, believe in God.
-
17:25 - 17:28Physical scientists, it's 7.5 percent.
-
17:28 - 17:31I've not seen corresponding
figures for elite scholars -
17:31 - 17:34in other fields,
such as history or philosophy, -
17:34 - 17:36but I'd be surprised
if they were different. -
17:37 - 17:41So, we've reached a truly
remarkable situation, -
17:41 - 17:46a grotesque mismatch
between the American intelligentsia -
17:46 - 17:48and the American electorate.
-
17:48 - 17:52A philosophical opinion
about the nature of the universe, -
17:52 - 17:56which is held by the vast majority
of top American scientists -
17:56 - 18:00and probably the majority
of the intelligentsia generally, -
18:00 - 18:03is so abhorrent to the American electorate
-
18:03 - 18:08that no candidate for popular election
dare affirm it in public. -
18:08 - 18:11If I'm right, this means that high office
-
18:11 - 18:14in the greatest country in the world
-
18:14 - 18:18is barred to the very people
best qualified to hold it -- -
18:18 - 18:19the intelligentsia --
-
18:19 - 18:22unless they are prepared
to lie about their beliefs. -
18:22 - 18:25To put it bluntly:
American political opportunities -
18:26 - 18:28are heavily loaded against those
-
18:28 - 18:31who are simultaneously
intelligent and honest. -
18:31 - 18:32(Laughter)
-
18:32 - 18:38(Applause)
-
18:38 - 18:42I'm not a citizen of this country,
so I hope it won't be thought unbecoming -
18:42 - 18:45if I suggest that something
needs to be done. -
18:45 - 18:48(Laughter)
-
18:48 - 18:50And I've already hinted
what that something is. -
18:50 - 18:54From what I've seen of TED, I think this
may be the ideal place to launch it. -
18:54 - 18:57Again, I fear it will cost money.
-
18:57 - 18:59We need a consciousness-raising,
-
18:59 - 19:03coming-out campaign for American atheists.
-
19:03 - 19:05(Laughter)
-
19:05 - 19:09This could be similar to the campaign
organized by homosexuals -
19:09 - 19:10a few years ago,
-
19:10 - 19:13although heaven forbid
that we should stoop to public outing -
19:13 - 19:15of people against their will.
-
19:15 - 19:18In most cases, people who out themselves
-
19:18 - 19:22will help to destroy the myth that
there is something wrong with atheists. -
19:22 - 19:23On the contrary,
-
19:23 - 19:26they'll demonstrate that atheists
are often the kinds of people -
19:26 - 19:29who could serve as decent
role models for your children, -
19:29 - 19:34the kinds of people an advertising agent
could use to recommend a product, -
19:34 - 19:37the kinds of people
who are sitting in this room. -
19:38 - 19:41There should be a snowball effect,
a positive feedback, -
19:41 - 19:44such that the more names
we have, the more we get. -
19:45 - 19:47There could be non-linearities,
threshold effects. -
19:47 - 19:49When a critical mass has been obtained,
-
19:49 - 19:52there's an abrupt
acceleration in recruitment. -
19:52 - 19:54And again, it will need money.
-
19:55 - 19:59I suspect that the word "atheist" itself
-
19:59 - 20:02contains or remains a stumbling block
-
20:02 - 20:05far out of proportion
to what it actually means, -
20:05 - 20:07and a stumbling block to people
-
20:07 - 20:10who otherwise might be
happy to out themselves. -
20:10 - 20:13So, what other words might
be used to smooth the path, -
20:13 - 20:15oil the wheels, sugar the pill?
-
20:16 - 20:19Darwin himself preferred "agnostic" --
-
20:19 - 20:23and not only out of loyalty
to his friend Huxley, -
20:23 - 20:24who coined the term.
-
20:25 - 20:28Darwin said, "I have never been an atheist
-
20:28 - 20:30in the same sense of denying
the existence of a God. -
20:31 - 20:33I think that generally an 'agnostic'
-
20:33 - 20:36would be the most correct
description of my state of mind." -
20:37 - 20:42He even became uncharacteristically
tetchy with Edward Aveling. -
20:42 - 20:44Aveling was a militant atheist
-
20:44 - 20:46who failed to persuade Darwin
-
20:46 - 20:49to accept the dedication
of his book on atheism -- -
20:49 - 20:52incidentally, giving rise
to a fascinating myth -
20:52 - 20:55that Karl Marx tried to dedicate
"Das Kapital" to Darwin, -
20:55 - 20:58which he didn't, it was
actually Edward Aveling. -
20:58 - 21:02What happened was that Aveling's
mistress was Marx's daughter, -
21:02 - 21:05and when both Darwin and Marx were dead,
-
21:05 - 21:10Marx's papers became muddled
up with Aveling's papers, -
21:10 - 21:14and a letter from Darwin saying,
"My dear sir, thank you very much -
21:14 - 21:16but I don't want you
to dedicate your book to me," -
21:16 - 21:20was mistakenly supposed
to be addressed to Marx, -
21:20 - 21:23and that gave rise to this whole
myth, which you've probably heard. -
21:23 - 21:27It's a sort of urban myth, that Marx
tried to dedicate "Kapital" to Darwin. -
21:27 - 21:34Anyway, it was Aveling, and when
they met, Darwin challenged Aveling. -
21:35 - 21:39"Why do you call yourselves atheists?"
-
21:42 - 21:46"'Agnostic, '" retorted Aveling, "was
simply 'atheist' writ respectable, -
21:46 - 21:50and 'atheist' was simply
'agnostic' writ aggressive." -
21:50 - 21:54Darwin complained, "But why
should you be so aggressive?" -
21:54 - 21:58Darwin thought that atheism might be
well and good for the intelligentsia, -
21:58 - 22:01but that ordinary people were
not, quote, "ripe for it." -
22:02 - 22:05Which is, of course, our old friend,
the "don't rock the boat" argument. -
22:06 - 22:11It's not recorded whether Aveling told
Darwin to come down off his high horse. -
22:11 - 22:13(Laughter)
-
22:13 - 22:15But in any case,
that was more than 100 years ago. -
22:15 - 22:18You'd think we might have
grown up since then. -
22:18 - 22:23Now, a friend, an intelligent lapsed Jew,
-
22:23 - 22:28who, incidentally, observes the Sabbath
for reasons of cultural solidarity, -
22:28 - 22:31describes himself
as a "tooth-fairy agnostic." -
22:32 - 22:34He won't call himself an atheist
-
22:34 - 22:37because it's, in principle,
impossible to prove a negative, -
22:37 - 22:40but "agnostic" on its own might
suggest that God's existence -
22:40 - 22:45was therefore on equal terms
of likelihood as his non-existence. -
22:45 - 22:49So, my friend is strictly
agnostic about the tooth fairy, -
22:50 - 22:52but it isn't very likely, is it?
-
22:53 - 22:54Like God.
-
22:54 - 22:56Hence the phrase, "tooth-fairy agnostic."
-
22:56 - 22:58Bertrand Russell made the same point
-
22:58 - 23:02using a hypothetical teapot
in orbit about Mars. -
23:02 - 23:04You would strictly have to be agnostic
-
23:04 - 23:06about whether there is a teapot
in orbit about Mars, -
23:06 - 23:09but that doesn't mean you treat
the likelihood of its existence -
23:09 - 23:12as on all fours with its non-existence.
-
23:12 - 23:16The list of things which we strictly
have to be agnostic about -
23:16 - 23:19doesn't stop at tooth fairies
and teapots; it's infinite. -
23:19 - 23:21If you want to believe
one particular one of them -- -
23:22 - 23:26unicorns or tooth fairies
or teapots or Yahweh -- -
23:26 - 23:28the onus is on you to say why.
-
23:28 - 23:31The onus is not on the rest
of us to say why not. -
23:32 - 23:33We, who are atheists,
-
23:33 - 23:37are also a-fairyists and a-teapotists.
-
23:37 - 23:39(Laughter)
-
23:39 - 23:41But we don't bother to say so.
-
23:42 - 23:46And this is why my friend
uses "tooth-fairy agnostic" -
23:46 - 23:48as a label for what most people
would call atheist. -
23:49 - 23:54Nonetheless, if we want to attract
deep-down atheists to come out publicly, -
23:54 - 23:57we're going to have find
something better to stick on our banner -
23:57 - 24:00than "tooth-fairy" or "teapot agnostic."
-
24:01 - 24:02So, how about "humanist"?
-
24:05 - 24:09This has the advantage of a worldwide
network of well-organized associations -
24:09 - 24:11and journals and things already in place.
-
24:11 - 24:14My problem with it is only
its apparent anthropocentrism. -
24:14 - 24:16One of the things
we've learned from Darwin -
24:16 - 24:18is that the human species is only one
-
24:19 - 24:22among millions of cousins,
some close, some distant. -
24:22 - 24:25And there are other possibilities,
like "naturalist," -
24:25 - 24:27but that also has problems of confusion,
-
24:27 - 24:30because Darwin would have
thought naturalist -- -
24:30 - 24:33"Naturalist" means, of course,
as opposed to "supernaturalist" -- -
24:33 - 24:34and it is used sometimes --
-
24:34 - 24:38Darwin would have been confused
by the other sense of "naturalist," -
24:38 - 24:39which he was, of course,
-
24:39 - 24:44and I suppose there might be others
who would confuse it with "nudism". -
24:44 - 24:45(Laughter)
-
24:45 - 24:52Such people might be those
belonging to the British lynch mob, -
24:52 - 24:57which last year attacked a pediatrician
in mistake for a pedophile. -
24:57 - 25:01(Laughter)
-
25:03 - 25:06I think the best of the available
alternatives for "atheist" -
25:06 - 25:07is simply "non-theist."
-
25:07 - 25:10It lacks the strong connotation
that there's definitely no God, -
25:10 - 25:16and it could therefore easily be embraced
by teapot or tooth-fairy agnostics. -
25:16 - 25:21It's completely compatible
with the God of the physicists. -
25:21 - 25:28When atheists like Stephen Hawking
and Albert Einstein use the word "God," -
25:28 - 25:32they use it of course
as a metaphorical shorthand -
25:32 - 25:36for that deep, mysterious part of physics
which we don't yet understand. -
25:37 - 25:42"Non-theist" will do for all that,
yet unlike "atheist," -
25:42 - 25:49it doesn't have the same
phobic, hysterical responses. -
25:50 - 25:51But I think, actually, the alternative
-
25:51 - 25:54is to grasp the nettle
of the word "atheism" itself, -
25:54 - 25:57precisely because it is a taboo word,
-
25:57 - 26:00carrying frissons of hysterical phobia.
-
26:01 - 26:05Critical mass may be harder
to achieve with the word "atheist" -
26:05 - 26:06than with the word "non-theist,"
-
26:06 - 26:08or some other non-confrontational word.
-
26:09 - 26:12But if we did achieve it
with that dread word "atheist" itself, -
26:12 - 26:15the political impact
would be even greater. -
26:16 - 26:20Now, I said that if I were religious,
I'd be very afraid of evolution -- -
26:20 - 26:23I'd go further: I would fear science
in general, if properly understood. -
26:23 - 26:27And this is because
the scientific worldview -
26:27 - 26:30is so much more exciting, more poetic,
-
26:30 - 26:32more filled with sheer wonder
-
26:32 - 26:37than anything in the poverty-stricken
arsenals of the religious imagination. -
26:39 - 26:44As Carl Sagan, another recently
dead hero, put it, -
26:44 - 26:49"How is it that hardly any major
religion has looked at science -
26:49 - 26:53and concluded, 'This
is better than we thought! -
26:53 - 26:55The universe is much bigger
than our prophet said, -
26:55 - 26:59grander, more subtle, more elegant'?
-
26:59 - 27:01Instead they say, 'No, no, no!
-
27:01 - 27:05My god is a little god,
and I want him to stay that way.' -
27:06 - 27:08A religion, old or new,
-
27:08 - 27:11that stressed the magnificence
of the universe -
27:11 - 27:13as revealed by modern science,
-
27:13 - 27:17might be able to draw forth
reserves of reverence and awe -
27:17 - 27:20hardly tapped by the conventional faiths."
-
27:21 - 27:24Now, this is an elite audience,
-
27:24 - 27:29and I would therefore expect
about 10 percent of you to be religious. -
27:31 - 27:35Many of you probably subscribe
to our polite cultural belief -
27:35 - 27:38that we should respect religion.
-
27:38 - 27:42But I also suspect
that a fair number of those -
27:42 - 27:45secretly despise religion as much as I do.
-
27:46 - 27:47(Laughter)
-
27:47 - 27:50If you're one of them, and of course
many of you may not be, -
27:50 - 27:51but if you are one of them,
-
27:51 - 27:53I'm asking you to stop being polite,
-
27:53 - 27:55come out, and say so.
-
27:56 - 27:58And if you happen to be rich,
-
27:58 - 28:02give some thought to ways
in which you might make a difference. -
28:02 - 28:05The religious lobby in this country
-
28:05 - 28:10is massively financed by foundations --
to say nothing of all the tax benefits -- -
28:10 - 28:15by foundations, such as the Templeton
Foundation and the Discovery Institute. -
28:16 - 28:19We need an anti-Templeton to step forward.
-
28:21 - 28:24If my books sold as well
as Stephen Hawking's books, -
28:24 - 28:28instead of only as well as
Richard Dawkins' books, I'd do it myself. -
28:31 - 28:38People are always going on about,
"How did September the 11th change you?" -
28:39 - 28:40Well, here's how it changed me.
-
28:41 - 28:45Let's all stop being so damned respectful.
-
28:46 - 28:48Thank you very much.
-
28:48 - 28:53(Applause)
- Title:
- Militant atheism
- Speaker:
- Richard Dawkins
- Description:
-
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.
- Video Language:
- English
- Team:
- closed TED
- Project:
- TEDTalks
- Duration:
- 28:53
Camille Martínez edited English subtitles for Militant atheism | ||
Krystian Aparta edited English subtitles for Militant atheism | ||
Krystian Aparta commented on English subtitles for Militant atheism | ||
Krystian Aparta edited English subtitles for Militant atheism | ||
Dimitra Papageorgiou edited English subtitles for Militant atheism | ||
Jenny Zurawell edited English subtitles for Militant atheism | ||
Jenny Zurawell edited English subtitles for Militant atheism | ||
TED added a translation |
Krystian Aparta
The English transcript was updated on 5/22/2015.