Meeting Richard Dawkins: Part 3 – The interview

April 14, 10:41 PMAtheism ExaminerTrina Hoaks

Previous Next

43 comments Print Email RSS Subscribe

Subscribe

Get alerts when there is a new article from the Atheism Examiner. Read Examiner.com's terms of use.

Email Address   Include other special offers from Examiner.com Terms of Use

I want to send an apology out to my readers. Besides not getting to all of my own questions, I didn’t get to yours either. When I reached the 30 minute mark, I didn’t feel right continuing after Richard had been so gracious to grant me an interview in the first place. Perhaps when I see him again in October, I will have another opportunity to interview him and get to some of those other questions. Thanks for understanding. Now, on to the interview.

Me: I saw a video recently of a conversation you had with PZ Myers before you went to see Expelled. The two of you talked about the various lawsuits that have happened here in the States, such as the suit to have “under God” removed from the pledge. You said that you thought that those lawsuits seemed trivial and that perhaps we should be focusing on bigger things.

Richard: Yes. That was certainly my attitude at the time. I felt it was a bit petty, really, going after “In God We Trust,” Ten Commandments in courthouses, and things like that. But, when I said that at the last meeting of the American Atheists in Minneapolis, I got kicked ‘round the room by somebody from the audience who said it really is important because, believe it or not, politicians in this country really do use the fact that it says “in God We Trust” on the dollar bill as evidence that this country is a Christian nation. So, although I thought that everybody knew it was added in the 1950s, apparently they don’t. They think it goes back to the Founding Fathers. So, that piece of tokenism really is important. And, that made me think more generally that we shouldn’t necessarily spurn tokenism because we are in the business of consciousness raising. And, “tokenism” is a slightly less reputable way of saying “consciousness raising,” so I kind of back tracked on that. I would think that we should look on each case based on its merits. I certainly wouldn’t wish to denigrate that kind of tokenism in the way that I did at the Minneapolis conference.

Me: When I heard you say that, I acknowledged that you’re not from the States.

Richard: Yes, exactly.

Me: And of course, that was some time ago.

Richard: Yes, it was.

Me: That’s why I wanted to ask you about it. I figured that you had had some time to look into it a bit more and that perhaps your thoughts on the subject might have changed.

Richard: Yes.

Me: Are you guys going to be doing another The Four Horsemen anytime soon?

Richard: No immediate plans. That was fortuitous that the four of us happened to be together at a conference in Washington, D.C. So, my foundation, The Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science, put that together and Josh Timonen filmed it. If that happens again, we probably will do it again.

Me: That would be nice because we see debates all the time and presentations, but it isn’t often we get to see a meeting of the minds, so to speak. It is interesting to hear like-minded people sitting around talking with one another.

Richard: Exactly. You don’t have to have controversy. People who agree with each other, on most things, but not necessarily on all things, talking together, learning from one another, developing ideas together – it’s less familiar to professional broadcasters who tend to like controversy , who tend to like debate. There’s a place for that, but, there’s also a place for what I call “mutual tutorial.” I rather like that.

Me: I thought it was wonderful because we did get to see some points of disagreement. Speaking of which, you’re part of the Brights. And, I know that Christopher Hitchens has said he doesn’t really like that term.

Richard: When the Brights were launched, at one of these conferences… I’ll sign up for anything that raises consciousness… it seemed to me to be a nice little initiative. But, I don’t want to become passionate about it one way or the other. I think the negative things that are said about the Brights are greatly exaggerated. The idea that it’s arrogant… On the one hand, the founders of the Brights bent over backward to say that it’s a noun not an adjective and that we don’t mean that the rest of the world is dim. They tried to distance themselves from that. I don’t mind saying that I think we are brighter, on average. (Richard chuckled.)

Me: Well, I’d like to believe that.

Richard: If you call that arrogant, that’s fine. (We laughed.) But, I’m not wedded to it. I don’t actually go ‘round saying that I’m a Bright. In fact, I don’t think I ever have once. But I’m very happy for people to use whatever name suits them and if some people don’t like calling themselves atheists and like calling themselves Brights, why shouldn’t they? I don’t think one should go around knocking them. I think it’s rather counterproductive.

Me: I am kind of troubled by people refusing to use the term atheist. I am okay with people subscribing to other things, but as an example, I met this couple at a meeting for atheists, agnostics, freethinkers, and the like and I asked them if they were atheists. They said they weren’t. They said they didn’t like labels but that they were humanists. So, I asked them if they believed in deities. They said they didn’t. To me, that’s atheism. I have this idea that because we allow religious people to hijack the term “atheist,” we allow them to determine what it means. To some extent I feel like we should take it back and that we should be the ones defining it.

Richard: I quite agree. The eloquent example of that is the wonderful story of Julia Sweeney. She said something like when she first came out as an atheist it got into the newspaper and her mother phoned her up in hysterics. Have you heard this story?

Me: Yes.

Richard: It’s terribly funny. Her mother said something like “not believing in God is one thing, that’s okay. But, an atheist!” (We laughed.) That really sums up what you’ve been saying.

Me: Yes. It concerns me. You know, we often times liken our movement to that of the gay and lesbian community, the civil rights movement, and the women’s movement and it occurs to me that there were certain words used to describe them in a disparaging way and they took those words back.

Richard: Yes. It’s sheer consciousness raising. As for the gay movement, in Britain, maybe here as well, they’ve taken back the word “queer.” I guess we’re doing something rather similar.

Me: Have you ever had a “spiritual” or numinous experience?

Richard: Well, lying on my back and looking up at the Milky Way in the tropics with the night’s sounds, frogs calling, that kind of experience, which is almost certainly identical to what people call a spiritual experience in terms of what you’d see if you were subjected to an MRI scan… Yes, of course. And, reading a Shakespeare sonnet or listening to Bach or Schubert – all that – has absolutely nothing to do with religion except, perhaps, incidentally.

Me: It’s beauty. I think ultimately, that is one of the most powerful things to be moved by – the appreciation of the beauty all around us.

Richard: Yes. I agree.

Me: There is so much controversy about evolution, as I am sure you are well aware. What are your thoughts on why certain religious people tend to focus more on evolution than, say, paleontology or archeology, which can certainly be just as damaging to their religious texts as is the theory of evolution?

Richard: Well, paleontology, of course, is one of the main evidences for evolution, so that goes there. I suppose it’s become a kind of red-rag issue. It’s become like their piece of tokenism in a way. They feel uneducated, which they are, often rather stupid, which they are, inferior, which they are, and paranoid about pointy headed intellectuals from the east coast looking down on them, which, with some justification, they do. They tend to be the sort of people who vote for Sara Palin instead of voting for someone who’s qualified to lead the country. They think “I’d rather vote for someone who’s just like me” under this weird idea that they want to be governed by people who are just like them. Similarly, I think there is a sort of inferiority complex and that could be part of it. I suppose it’s also true that much of science doesn’t directly contradict what’s in the Bible whereas evolution does. But mainly, it’s become a sort of red-rag issue by historical tradition.

Me: Do you think there might be some underlying feeling that evolution demotes them? Because from a creationist standpoint we’re made in the image of God, which elevates humans.

Richard: Yes, that’s possibly true.

Me: So often you hear people say “I don’t come from apes!” like it’s beneath them.

Richard: Yes, there’s also the feeling that it undermines morality. There’s this idea that if you teach people that they are animals, they’ll behave like animals. We’re talking emotion here, not reason. It’s similar to gun control. It’s related to a gut reaction – people tend to think with their guts. There’s a lovely story about Carl Sagan. Somebody asked him what his gut feeling was about something and he said, “I try not to think with my gut.” These people think only with their guts.

Me: My understanding is that you have another book about to come out in the States – The Greatest Show on Earth.

Richard: The Greatest Show on Earth is coming out in Britain and the States this September and it is the evidence for evolution. It was originally to be called Evolution: The Greatest Show on Earth – the Only Game in Town, which was a slogan on a t-shirt that somebody once anonymously sent to me as a charming gift. I wanted to have that as the title of the book but the publishers thought it was a bit too much like Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance. They didn’t want it.

Me: I love that title, though, and that book.

Richard: I know. I think they should have had the courage to go with it but they preferred to shorten it.

Me: I heard that you’re redirecting your focus toward writing for children.

Richard: Well, my plan is to write a children’s book. That was my plan actually for this year but I was persuaded by the publishers that, because it was Darwin’s bicentenary year, I should write a book on evolution, which I’ve done and I’m very pleased with it. I merely postponed the children’s book but I look forward to that next year.

Me: And is that going to focus on science?

Richard: Yes, on science.

Me: The bus campaign… you were a huge motivator for that. I think the bus campaign has been phenomenal. But, now where do we go? It seems to me that once we do this consciousness raising perhaps we should redirect those bus ads. I think it would be great if we could get some snippets of science out there – like little factoids to put on the buses.

Richard: Yes, I agree. Well, that might be a thing for my foundation to talk about when we raise more money, as we hope to do. I like the idea of science factoids.

Me: If people are reading them anyway, why not give them something substantial to read?

Richard: Maybe not just facts but lessons about how to think scientifically – how to think skeptically – how to think rationally.

Me: I think that would be wonderful because I feel that children don’t get enough of that. When it comes to that, a lot of people blame the fact that children aren’t taught to think critically on schools. They seem to discount the roll that parents play in that.

Richard: Yes, I was talking to a young man at breakfast this morning who had been homeschooled because his parents didn’t want him to be exposed to evolution. He’s a very bright young man and he is fascinated by science. Throughout his childhood he collected science books and his parents threw out all his books that had anything to do with evolution in them. Fortunately, he was so strongly motivated that he educated himself and went to college and now he’s an atheist. That sort of shows what disadvantages some children labor under. Their parents are simply stunting them, depriving them of a proper education because of their religious bigotry.

Me: Unfortunately, I think it’s one of those vicious cycles. Parents don’t know how to think critically so it is impossible for them to encourage it.

Richard: Yes.

Me: Okay, this is a fun one. I saw that you were on Foreign Policy’s Top 100 Intellectuals list, you were number three, along with Noam Chomsky, who was number one, Daniel Dennett was on there, Salman Rushdie, Christopher Hitchens, Pinker, and Weinberg. But, the pope was on there.

Richard: Which list was this?

Me: Foreign Policy’s Top 100 Intellectuals.

Richard: I wasn’t aware of that. Chomsky was number one? Who was number two?

Me: I don’t recall. But I was a little bothered to see that the pope was on there in the same company as you.

Richard: Indeed.

Me: How does he qualify as an intellectual?

Richard: (Chuckles.) That’s a good question.

Me: I watched your introduction in Oklahoma. I actually wrote about the two resolutions that were introduced there, 1014 and 1015, to keep you out.

Richard: Yeah, right. You weren’t in Oklahoma were you?

Me: Unfortunately, no. But, I followed the story very closely and as soon as I saw that you had a video up on RichardDawkins.net of the introduction I watched it. It was so funny when you mentioned that you were so proud to have been included in actual legislation.

Richard: Yes, that was a strange episode. It was only one state Congressman. I gather his only qualification is that he played American football. I guess his brain got a bit bashed about. (He laughed.) Obviously a deeply stupid man. But, also, playing to a constituency which votes for that kind of thing. I mean, having the cheek to say that I shouldn’t have been invited to the University of Oklahoma because my views differ from those of the majority of the citizens of Oklahoma… I mean, what the hell is a university for? (We laughed.)

Me: To investigate differing ideas… but, apparently not for them.

Richard: Yes. But, he ends up with egg on his face because what he was really going after was the suggestion that they paid me $30,000. One of these “lying for Jesus” Web sites said that I was paid $30,000. I wasn’t paid a cent! I wasn’t paid a thing. I refused all payment. So, they should have ended up with egg on their faces. But, their constituents, the sort of people who vote for this man, wouldn’t understand that anyway and so he just gets credit with them for just doing it.

Me: I read that they are actually investigating the whole thing. They got all the records from the university concerning you having been there.

Richard: They may well have done that. What they will discover is that I was paid zero. What I hope is that somebody will investigate them for this unwarranted slander.

Me: I hope so, too.

Richard: Even if I had been paid $30,000, it’s a perfectly legitimate thing for a university to do. They have imported several creationists from the Discovery Institute and we don’t know what they were paid. Nobody’s investigating that. Let’s investigate that. That would be a nice project for you. They imported Ben Stein. How much did they pay Ben Stein? Investigate that.

Me: I should be able to get those records, shouldn’t I?

Richard: Yes, you should.

Me: Okay… I don’t know if you want to talk about this person, if you really want to give him any time, because most of us agree that he’s somewhat beneath you. But, I can’t help asking because I wrote about this quite a bit, too. The banana man.

Richard: Oh! Yes, your readers will know about this. He has an absolutely splendid piece of Monty Python comedy of… (at this point, Richard fell into character, accent and all, and held up an imaginary banana) “Well, mate, you have a banana, and you peel it, and it fits in your hand, and it’s curved toward the face for ease of eating.” (We laughed.)

Me: You do a really good impersonation of Ray Comfort, I’m sorry to say. (We laugh some more.) It was brilliant.

Richard: So, the other character, his sidekick, Kirk Cameron, who sits beside him, he’s even more Monty Python. Indeed, he goes… (Richard falls into character and looks to his side as if Ray is sitting next to him and speaks in a somewhat sultry voice) “Yeah, oh, yeah.” That’s so funny.

Me: Have you seen the one in which they’re on an airplane and they’re talking about God and how he is like a parachute? I don’t remember specifically what they were talking about, but basically, no matter what you do in life, God is your parachute. It shows these people jumping out of the plane who are supposed to be them, Ray and Kirk.

Richard: That’s funny.

Me: In my way of thinking, if there were a God, they shouldn’t need the parachute.

Richard: Yes. He has challenged me to a debate. He has offered me $10,000. I said that if he would give $100,000 to my foundation, The Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science, which, of course, exists to expose people like him, that I would do it. I’ve heard nothing.

Me: When I first heard about the challenge, I wrote an article on the Friendly Atheist Web site, which is run by Hemant Mehta, the author of I Sold my Soul on eBay. Are you familiar with the site?

Richard: Yes.

Me: The general consensus of those who commented was that Comfort issued the challenge for two reasons. One – if you actually lowered yourself and accepted, he could then say that he debated Richard Dawkins. Two – if you declined, he could then say you were afraid to face him. And wouldn’t you know it, when you countered with the $100,000 offer, he came out and said you were afraid to debate him.

Richard: Yes, well, if he puts $100,000 toward my foundation for reason and science, I will demean myself to debate him. I would be happy to tell him that he’s wasting his time looking for a crocoduck. That’s the level of intellect that this man has.

Me: It’s my understanding that this man has absolutely no theological training.

Richard: Insofar as theology is a subject in which one can have training, yes.

Me: Well, I see I am coming to the end of my time with you so I’d like to thank you for allowing me the opportunity to speak with you.

Richard: You’re welcome.

For more on this:
Meeting Richard Dawkins: Part 1 - The prelude
Meeting Richard Dawkins: Part 2 - The man behind the image