Brian Greene asks Richard Dawkins: Does God exist?
Brian Greene asks Richard Dawkins: Does God exist?
Brian Greene and Richard Dawkins discussing their notions of God in the context of evolution and science. This video is taken from a World Science Festival program on September 24, 2014.
© World Science Festival (A Britannica Publishing Partner)
Transcript
BRIAN GREENE: If you don't mind, can we spend a few minutes talking?
RICHARD DAWKINS: Yeah, it's fine. Yeah.
BRIAN GREENE: About God, if that's OK. So I'm just wondering, I too get asked, at many lectures, my view on God. And my typical answer is that, sure, there could be a God that's behind it all, and what we're doing as physicists, chemists, biologists working out God's laws. And if that's how it is, I am thrilled to be part of that noble journey.
I then add by saying, look, there's no evidence for that. I don't see any reason to believe that. And if what we're doing is just working out the laws of physics or chemistry or biology, and that's all that you need for a universe, I'm thrilled to be part of that journey. So the bottom line is from a sociological-- from a historical viewpoint, religion is very, very interesting. But it's profoundly uninteresting to answer the deep questions because I feel like all I'm doing is replacing one mysterious set of words framed scientifically with another set of equally mysterious words that are framed non-scientifically.
RICHARD DAWKINS: Yeah.
BRIAN GREENE: Now, I should say, after I say that, that I always apologize because I am all for hedging your bets. I'm not beyond that at all. What do you think of that view?
RICHARD DAWKINS: Well, I think that the sort of Newtonian-- that Newton thought that he was working out God's laws, and he was demonstrating the glory of God's mind when he worked out the laws of mechanics, and so on. I'm not so at ease with that as you seem to be because it does seem to me that if there is a supernatural, superhuman intelligence that worked it all out, in a way that undermines the entire scientific enterprise because we are-- maybe an evolutionary biologist feels this more strongly.
The whole enterprise of evolutionary biology is to explain how you get prodigious complexity and design from virtually nothing. I mean, we hand over to physicists when we can go beyond the virtually nothing to the absolutely nothing. But if you start from-- if you say start from-- quite an advanced level-- bacteria and work up to mammals and humans, we have a working theory, which we know is true, which explains how you can go from great simplicity to prodigious complexity, and finally, to the complexity which is capable of designing things, of creating things, of working out how to do things.
Well, if you are suddenly going to insert a designing machine, a creator, an intelligence at the root of the universe, you've just undermined your entire enterprise because your entire enterprise has been to explain how you get to something complicated enough to do design.
BRIAN GREENE: But even if that being just set in place, the laws, and then stood back.
RICHARD DAWKINS: Even that, even the deistic God who sets the laws in place and withdraws, if those laws-- if the implication is that those laws were cunningly designed, cunningly crafted, as many people think they were, so that atoms should come into existence, so that chemistry should come into existence, so that stars to come into existence, so that nuclear reactions in stars can produce the elements so that they then explode, and we get a suitable chemistry to make life and then the origin of life and so on.
If the deistic God thought all that through and set up the laws of physics, then he would have to be damn clever. He would have to be the physicist to end all physicists, I don't care if he then withdraws. He needs an explanation in his own right. And it seems to me that the noble scientific enterprise is to start from as near nothing as you can get.
BRIAN GREENE: Yeah.
RICHARD DAWKINS: Yeah, it's fine. Yeah.
BRIAN GREENE: About God, if that's OK. So I'm just wondering, I too get asked, at many lectures, my view on God. And my typical answer is that, sure, there could be a God that's behind it all, and what we're doing as physicists, chemists, biologists working out God's laws. And if that's how it is, I am thrilled to be part of that noble journey.
I then add by saying, look, there's no evidence for that. I don't see any reason to believe that. And if what we're doing is just working out the laws of physics or chemistry or biology, and that's all that you need for a universe, I'm thrilled to be part of that journey. So the bottom line is from a sociological-- from a historical viewpoint, religion is very, very interesting. But it's profoundly uninteresting to answer the deep questions because I feel like all I'm doing is replacing one mysterious set of words framed scientifically with another set of equally mysterious words that are framed non-scientifically.
RICHARD DAWKINS: Yeah.
BRIAN GREENE: Now, I should say, after I say that, that I always apologize because I am all for hedging your bets. I'm not beyond that at all. What do you think of that view?
RICHARD DAWKINS: Well, I think that the sort of Newtonian-- that Newton thought that he was working out God's laws, and he was demonstrating the glory of God's mind when he worked out the laws of mechanics, and so on. I'm not so at ease with that as you seem to be because it does seem to me that if there is a supernatural, superhuman intelligence that worked it all out, in a way that undermines the entire scientific enterprise because we are-- maybe an evolutionary biologist feels this more strongly.
The whole enterprise of evolutionary biology is to explain how you get prodigious complexity and design from virtually nothing. I mean, we hand over to physicists when we can go beyond the virtually nothing to the absolutely nothing. But if you start from-- if you say start from-- quite an advanced level-- bacteria and work up to mammals and humans, we have a working theory, which we know is true, which explains how you can go from great simplicity to prodigious complexity, and finally, to the complexity which is capable of designing things, of creating things, of working out how to do things.
Well, if you are suddenly going to insert a designing machine, a creator, an intelligence at the root of the universe, you've just undermined your entire enterprise because your entire enterprise has been to explain how you get to something complicated enough to do design.
BRIAN GREENE: But even if that being just set in place, the laws, and then stood back.
RICHARD DAWKINS: Even that, even the deistic God who sets the laws in place and withdraws, if those laws-- if the implication is that those laws were cunningly designed, cunningly crafted, as many people think they were, so that atoms should come into existence, so that chemistry should come into existence, so that stars to come into existence, so that nuclear reactions in stars can produce the elements so that they then explode, and we get a suitable chemistry to make life and then the origin of life and so on.
If the deistic God thought all that through and set up the laws of physics, then he would have to be damn clever. He would have to be the physicist to end all physicists, I don't care if he then withdraws. He needs an explanation in his own right. And it seems to me that the noble scientific enterprise is to start from as near nothing as you can get.
BRIAN GREENE: Yeah.