Question: How would our public discourse change in a world without religion?
Richard Dawkins: Well, in the moral sphere I think they would be based upon criteria such as suffering, instead of absolutist criteria like all killing of humans is wrong, for example, including killing of early human embryos. We would instead say, well, who's suffering? At what point in the balance does the suffering switch over to the other side, when there's a choice? If we got rid of absolutist moral criteria, we might stop saying human life is absolutely sacred, and you can't put a monetary value on it. And you actually do put a monetary value on it all the time, because you know, whenever you make a decision like shall we have another kidney machine, or shall we -- to what safety standards shall we build airliners, one could always make airliners a little bit safer, but it would cost a lot more money. And so we do already take decisions about that. Military aircraft are built to a less risk-averse standard than civilian aircraft. We already do make judgments of this kind. So that would be the moral -- that kind of thing would change in the moral sphere. In the scientific sphere we'd be able to get on with our science as science, and not have to worry about whether we are giving offense to people who get their beliefs from holy books rather than from evidence, which we at present have to worry about. In the field of education, we could go in for science education free to actually teach children the best science we know and teach children to use the scientific method of thinking. And once again not have to pay lip service to, or respect, the dopey beliefs of their parents who try to interfere with their scientific education.
Recorded on: October 21, 2009
Discuss
Shaan Batra on October 30, 2009, 11:53 AM
Do you believe it is possible to believe in a God, while throwing away the doctrines of classical religion? Einstein himself arguably held such a belief.
tim hall on November 2, 2009, 2:30 PM
It would be a more substantial belief than false religious doctrines.
Psychologically, you could feel a presents of a god or some unknown entity watching over you. You would be considered less mislead than someone believing in a human talking to a burning bush.
The mind is a playground, you can psych. yourself into believing anything you choose.
Joe Hanson on November 2, 2009, 9:58 PM
Hey Shaan, quick note. Einstein did not hold a belief in a god and made this very clear in a 1954 letter where he called such a belief a “childish superstition.” He did however commonly use the term “god” in a poet manner to describe the oneness of the universe and that is what has caused some confusion. So he did not believe in an actual god, a conscious being/creator of the universe. (Dawkins actually bid on the auction for that letter by Einstein)
As for you question, look up Deism. It is the belief in a god without attaching yourself to any religious doctrine. Basically deists believe there is a god but that god has never intervene with his creations at all since starting the first spark that put the universe into motion.
Add a Comment
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or Register