杏吧原创

FEW scientists have acquired such a high public profile as Richard Dawkins 鈥� and maintained it amid such controversy. His first book The Selfish Gene, published in 1976, launched him to fame as a populariser of evolutionary biology. Eight books and 30 years later, he wrote The God Delusion, which reinvented him as a ferocious advocate for atheism.

He chose his subjects well: during his writing career, evolution and religion have emerged as fronts in an increasingly vicious culture war between what he would characterise as the forces of darkness and superstition and those of enlightenment and reason.

Both lionised and demonised for his strident views, he is once again stepping into the fray, bringing his lifelong passions for evolution and secularism together in his 15th book, Outgrowing God: A beginner鈥檚 guide.

You鈥檝e written another book about God.

Yes, Outgrowing God, which is for young people. Teenagers, let鈥檚 say 鈥� and young people up to about the age of 99 as well.

It covers a lot of familiar Dawkins territory, not just God but also evolution. Why did you feel that people need more on these topics?

I want to encourage people to think for themselves. I鈥檝e always felt rather passionate about breaking the cycle as each generation passes on its superstitions to the next. If you ask people why they believe in the particular religion that they do, it鈥檚 almost always because that鈥檚 how they were brought up.

I鈥檝e long wanted to try to break that cycle while being keen not to indoctrinate, because that鈥檚 of course what we criticise religious people for doing.

My experience of children of that age 鈥� admittedly, largely my own 鈥� is that they are uninterested in religion and don鈥檛 need persuading of the truth of evolution.

I鈥檓 glad to hear that. That cannot be true all over the world, however. It鈥檚 certainly not true in America, where unfortunately religion and anti-evolution have a real hold, and in the Islamic world.

Your new book spends a lot of time picking factual holes in the Bible and pointing out logical inconsistencies and absurdities. It鈥檚 good sport, but isn鈥檛 it a futile exercise?

It鈥檚 not futile to people who believe. So many people have a literalistic, Bible-based faith, and so they鈥檙e actually quite shocked to learn how little support there is for any Bible stories. Many people in America are not aware that, for example, virtually nothing in the Old Testament has any evidential support at all. It鈥檚 not just Adam and Eve and Noah. There鈥檚 no evidence that there was a Jewish captivity in Egypt, for example, which is shocking to some people.

[video_player id=鈥漬ADx6GjD鈥� access_level=鈥漞veryone鈥漖

But we know that people believe in the Bible not because of the factual content of the stories, but because of a commitment to a group identity.

Probably yes, but a lot of people literally believe what they read in the Bible. It鈥檚 important to disabuse people of this, that the evidence for anything in the Bible is extremely flimsy.

In terms of the harms and abuses done in the name of religion, do you think that the world has become a better or worse place since you wrote The God Delusion?

It鈥檚 become a worse place, hasn鈥檛 it? I think and hope it is temporary. I think there is clearly an overall trend in the right direction, as you look over decades and centuries. Any trend like that is subject to reversals and I think we鈥檙e in a reversal at the moment. But I think it鈥檚 a blip.

If you look at the number of people who profess a religion in America and the rest of the world, it鈥檚 going down. The number of people who say they have no religion is now really substantial. It鈥檚 about 25 per cent, which is huge. It鈥檚 bigger than most other religious denominations. So that鈥檚 a very good sign. However, it鈥檚 not entirely clear whether religion has given over to rationalism, or to a more vague, nonsensical new ageism. That would be a pessimistic view.

Unfortunately, I think pessimism is in order. There鈥檚 evidence that as people discard theologically correct views, they adopt other superstitions to replace them.

Yes, that could be true. So in a way, that鈥檚 why I think the second half of the book, the science part, is so important. I think we need to really push the beauty of science, not just because it鈥檚 true but because it鈥檚 beautiful and an armoury against not just religion, but superstition generally.

That part of the book is less combative. For example, it doesn鈥檛 even mention the intelligent design movement or pick holes in its claims.

Yes, I simply put the positive case for evolution. I want to persuade my readers that this is an elegant, beautiful idea that explains all the facts. That automatically undercuts intelligent design.

What about the wider culture war over evolution, particularly in the US?

It鈥檚 still going on and there are constant little fracas, and it鈥檚 an important fight we have on our hands. There鈥檚 an anti-science culture in parts of America 鈥� I keep coming back to America 鈥� and evolution is on the front line.

We live in troubled times.

We do, yes.

I am interested in your views on why that might be. Things like post-truth politics, fake news, the triumph of gut feeling over facts 鈥� these are things you have spent a lifetime arguing against. You must find it depressing.

Yes, it is depressing, but my views are not interesting. I think you鈥檙e right that we live in troubled times and I鈥檓 as troubled as the next person. But I鈥檓 not a sociologist. I鈥檓 not a psychologist. I would only be able to give an amateur opinion as a citizen, which is no more interesting than anybody else鈥檚.

One of the things that frequently gets blamed for the mess we are in is social media, of which you are a prolific user.

I think that鈥檚 right. Ricky Gervais makes rather a good point when he says that the things people write on the walls of public lavatories you just ignore, and that鈥檚 what always used to happen. But now, instead of writing in lavatories, they tweet.

These are people who otherwise wouldn鈥檛 have a voice. No editor would publish what they write. They wouldn鈥檛 get a letter published in the newspaper. In the old days, what they would do is write on walls. Now, they tweet.

Have you ever considered quitting Twitter? All it ever seems to do is polarise and inflame鈥�

It does. I mean, if you look at replies, that鈥檚 what you get. But then if you look at the number of people who retweet and the number of people who like, that can be very substantial.

Some of your tweets have led to you being called Islamophobic.

I know. What I鈥檝e said is that Muslims are not culprits, but the biggest casualties of Islam. They鈥檙e the ones who suffer most from Islam, so I鈥檓 anti-Islam but I鈥檓 definitely not anti-Muslim.

People have also criticised you for subjecting Islam to special criticism.

Not at all. If you look at The God Delusion or Outgrowing God, Islam is scarcely mentioned. I could more fairly be accused of attacking Christianity and not attacking Islam enough.

You鈥檝e described the word Islamophobia as 鈥渙tiose鈥�. Could you explain what you mean?

Unnecessary and actually pernicious, because it gives an entirely wrong impression. There鈥檚 no word 鈥淐hristianophobe鈥�. But we shouldn鈥檛 be phobic about people. We should be mistrustful of ideologies where they have pernicious effects, which I think virtually all religions do.

Another chapter in your book looks at progress in moral issues such as gender and racial equality, and you present a very upbeat picture. Do you worry that progress has gone into reverse?

No. It鈥檚 important to take the long view. I think there鈥檚 absolutely no doubt that we鈥檙e getting better as the centuries go by. The moral standards of a 21st century person are significantly different from those of a 20th century person.

For all that we have reversals, we have at the same time a very strong movement in favour of gay rights, in favour of all sorts of other things which would once have been inconceivable. During my lifetime, you could go to prison for homosexual activities in private.

If you were to project into the future, what current cultural norms will be seen as morally indefensible?

Almost a no-brainer: the treatment ofnon-human animals.

Are you vegetarian?

I鈥檓 trying to be. I鈥檓 vegetarian at home! I want everybody to do it. That鈥檚 another thing moving in the right direction.

You have never written in detail about the environmental crisis. That strikes me as a debate you could usefully contribute to, because it鈥檚 essentially a failure of rationality and truth.

Yes, it is. I can鈥檛 deny its huge importance, but I haven鈥檛 written much about it. It hasn鈥檛 been my field and so, at present, I鈥檇 be an amateur.

I write about the environment and I have developed quite a jaundiced view of humanity as a result. But you strike me as somebody who is quite optimistic that reason and science will prevail.

Am I? I鈥檓 not sure. There鈥檚 some ground for believing that although there are problems, science will solve them. Science鈥檚 track record is encouraging, but such optimism as I have is cautious.

Do you feel like your books have helped to advance the causes of rationality?

I can鈥檛 possibly tell. I鈥檓 glad I鈥檝e written all the books I have, and I鈥檓 glad they鈥檙e all in print and selling well. I get numerous letters from people who say that they went into science because they read one of my books. I find that hugely encouraging, hugely gratifying.

Do people say that to you about atheism too?

Yes, they do.

To return to God, your new book discusses the evolutionary psychology of religion. As an evolutionary biologist, do you buy the idea that human brains are naturally receptive to religious ideas?

I think that鈥檚 got to be true, which of course doesn鈥檛 mean that they鈥檙e right to do so. We need some kind of explanation for the fact that religion is such a ubiquitous phenomenon all over the world.

One conclusion of that research is that humans are deeply irrational and that belief in the supernatural is etched into our brains. Do you accept that?

Well it鈥檚 not universally true, clearly. There are plenty of highly rational people about: people who are not religious, who are not superstitious and who do maintain a sceptical attitude towards such things. Although, even those of us who think we鈥檙e rational sometimes get things wrong. We are susceptible to certain irrationalities.

Are there any that you鈥檒l admit to?

I think that if I were locked in a notorious haunted house at night, I might be frightened. I鈥檝e never tried it. But I think we鈥檙e all of us susceptible to a certain level of irrationality.