I said this in a movie once:
"Everyone knows the same truth,
and our lives consist of
how we choose to distort it."
I am kind of amazed at what
Lawrence and Richard are doing
because they are walking
into some pretty prickly
arenas,
and they have no armor,
other than
their own mental faculties.
I think what these two men
are doing out there,
promoting a scientific
world view,
is something of great value
because it is part of
what humanity's all about...
To be curious, to understand
what is the real world
surrounding us.
And this is what I love
about science, is that
it's knowledge,
and knowledge is power,
and it empowers you
and it frees you,
because then you're not stuck,
you're no longer stuck
where you've been or where
somebody else has been stuck.
There are no scientific
authorities. There are
scientific experts.
Richard knows a lot
about zoology; I know
a lot about physics.
But there's no one whose views
are not subject to question.
Science just seeks
the truth without prejudice,
for better or worse.
It doesn't say,
"should I find this out?"
It says, "can I?"
And that's
They don't change the facts.
Facts, if you're rational,
should change your beliefs.
Throughout history,
new discoveries
have challenged
existing beliefs.
Religion is no exception.
Religion is just like
any other topic
and should not be
sacrosanct at all.
You should be able
to discuss religion.
Why not?
I think religion
should be open to discussion.
I think everything
should be. I think
when you make things taboo,
even when feel like
you're protecting it,
it's not for the greater good.
We cannot close down
a conversation
about a set
of beliefs that lead to actions
which affect all of us.
All this stuff I was
taught about evolution
and big bang theory and all that
is lies straight
from the pit of hell.
This is the trouble
with ethics and morality
and the big questions
and the fact that
religionists think they
own that conversation.
Quite the contrary.
They kill that conversation.
And I think we follow people
who have courage, you know,
to think about things
that we haven't
thought about before,
and in these times,
where intolerance
is kind of championed,
I'm pretty impressed
that someone is
taking on the quest.
That's what I get
from these guys:
The permission to
question everything.
Richard, ten years ago,
I asked you the question
in the popular writing
and speaking that
you do, which is,
what's more important
in some sense
if you had a choice,
which is to explain science
or destroy religion?
Oh, I think that
they go together,
because "destroy religion"
makes it sound negative.
Yeah.
To me, it's positive.
Science is wonderful.
Science is beautiful.
And religion
is not wonderful.
It's not beautiful.
It gets in the way.
There are all sorts of
other things wrong with it,
but I mostly
care about truth,
the beauty of truth,
the poetry of reality,
which is science,
and the fact that religion,
as a scientific explanation...
It is a competing
scientific explanation...
It's so dull,
it's so boring,
it's so petty.
It's wrong too.
And it's also
wrong, yes.
Which I think
is a bit more...
more important, yeah.
I think the same as you.
I want people to understand
how the universe really works.
As an aside, ultimately,
is this other incompatibility
between science and religion
that when empirical evidence
tells you something,
you have to accept it...
When you give up that
by saying, "I can believe
this myth and fairy tale,"
then it opens you up
to lots of other things.
So it's not innocuous.
Inevitably, when you have
to deal with the real world.
You inevitably make
bad decisions.
If we can get people
to believe that,
then it's easier...
Or should be easier to convince
people that evolution is true
because the evidence
is so strong.
Once you tell them
the evidence for evolution,
they say,
"oh, right, okay.
So much for God."
Well, tonight Richard is in
Sydney while I'm in canberra,
and he's going to debate
on a television program
called q and a
the archbishop of Sydney,
and I'm here in canberra
debating in a Muslim
debate initiative.
We're both sort of launching out
against the forces of evil
in different places,
and that poetry was
to compelling to resist.
As far as I can see,
this event has been advertised
only in the Muslim community.
Except for the few people
I've told about it,
no one will know about it
except the Muslim community,
so it'll be
an interesting audience.
Oh, look over there.
That's fascinating.
That may be our audience
right there, by the way.
That could be it.
Hi, how ya doin'?
- Nice to see you.
- Morning, Professor.
- How are you?
- Hi.
I'm the, uh...
uthman. Uthman badar.
Oh, okay.
You're the other person
that's going to talk.
That's right.
It's interesting...
I looked online and didn't
see any advertising for it.
It'll be interesting
to see.
We'll see how that goes.
But I have a rule... if there's
less than five people,
we just go for coffee.
Does that sound good?
I'm gonna sit in the back now
and read my Bible,
which is...
I just thought
I'd pick it up
for inspiration.
Christopher always inspires me.
Cardinal George pell is the
most senior
Roman catholic
in Australia,
he's the archbishop of Sydney,
and I know rather
little else about him,
I'm afraid.
And he is sometimes talked about
as a possible candidate
for pope.
I have always refused to debate
religious fundamentalists.
It is my understanding
that a cardinal of
the Roman catholic church
is not a fundamentalist.
If he is, I've made a mistake.
We're very excited to have these
two gentlemen here this evening
for this discussion.
We know them already.
Please let us introduce
them properly
and make them feel very welcome.
Please help me welcome
the author of the God delusion,
the evolutionary biologist
Richard Dawkins.
...the archbishop of Sydney,
please welcome
cardinal George pell.
Five, four, three...
George pell,
do you accept that
humans evolved from apes?
Yeah, probably.
From neanderthals, yes.
From neanderthals?
Probably.
Why from neanderthals?
Who else would you suggest?
Neanderthals were our cousins.
We're not descended from them.
These extant cousins?
Where would I find
a neanderthal today
if they're my cousins?
They're not extant.
They're extinct.
That's my point.
Your point is that
because they're not...
That because they're extant,
they can't be our cousins?
I'm really am not much fussed.
That's very clear.
Ignoring the limitations
of science
also leads to sloppy
and arbitrary science.
A good example is the field
of quantum mechanics.
The evidence of logic
derives from the evidence
of reality.
Is it logical that I can be
in two places at once? No.
But if I am an electron,
I certainly can be.
Because while you refer
to quantum mechanics,
I actually understand it.
Most evolutionary
biologists today
don't believe that.
Don't believe what?
They don't believe in
this crude fundamentalist
version of random selection
that you propose.
I do not propose it,
and I strongly deny
that evolution is
random selection.
This idea that we should
challenge our beliefs,
I agree in some areas,
and this is the point
I tried to touch upon
the difference between
science and religion...
Only when you appreciate
the difference can you
ascertain whether
different propositions
apply or not.
Anything about higher truth,
morality, for example,
do you want me to challenge
my belief every day
that murder is wrong?
Well, if any of you
stopped believing in God,
I would ask you,
would you go out tomorrow
and murder your neighbor?
Well, some of you say yes.
Evolution is
non-random selection.
Oh, there's a purpose
to it, is there?
No.
But...
Could you explain
what "non-random" means?
Yes, of course I could.
That's my life's work.
No idea should be
above ridicule.
Ridicule is a very
important tool.
And why should religion
not be subject to ridicule?
If politics is subject
to ridicule, if science,
if sex, if everything else
in the world is subject
to ridicule
as a way of
illuminating reality,
why shouldn't religion?
It's part of being human
to ask why we exist.
The question "why"
is not necessarily
a question that
deserves to be answered.
There are all
sorts of questions
that people can ask,
like, "what is
the color of jealousy?"
That's a silly question.
Exactly.
"Why?" Is a silly question.
You can ask, "what are
the factors that led
to something coming
into existence?"
That's a sensible question.
But "what is the purpose
of the universe?"
Is a silly question.
It has no meaning.
And so I hope that every student
who every goes
to university
at one point
in their life
has the opportunity
to have something
that is at the heart
of their being,
something so central
to their being
that if they lose it,
they won't feel that
they're human anymore,
to be proved wrong.
Because that's the liberation
that science provides:
The realization that
to assume the truth,
to assume the answer
before you ask the questions
leads you nowhere.
We do have a scientific
understanding of why we're here,
and we therefore have to
make up our own meaning to life.
We have to stand up,
look the world
in the face, face up to the fact
that we are not going
to last forever,
we have to make
the most of the short time
that we have on this planet,
we have to make this planet
as good as we possibly can
and try to leave it
a better place
than we found it.
And if we live in a world
where certain things are not
subject to question,
we live in a world
where thinking has stopped.
Final results of
With more than 20,00
of you voting, we have 76%
saying "no, religious belief
does not make the world
a better place."
Please thank our special guests,
Professor Richard Dawkins
and cardinal George pell.
Hey now, little speedy head
the read on
the speed meter says
you have to go to task
in the city
where people drown
and people serve
don't be shy
you just deserve
it's only just
light years to go
Well, I got
thoroughly fed up with
b.B.C.-Type interviews,
where you have a chairman
in the middle,
and you get an interesting
conversation going on
between two...
There might be five people
around the table,
and "a" and "b" are having
an interesting conversation,
and so the chairman suddenly
says, "and what do you think
about this, 'c'?"
Totally breaking the flow,
spoiling the conversation,
all in the interest of balance
and things like that,
and it occurred to me,
"why on earth do we
bother with chairmen?
They're not necessary."
Certainly, my recent encounter
with the archbishop
of canterbury
in the sheldonian theatre
in Oxford,
that was completely
ruined by the chairman,
who was a philosopher
and felt it was his role
to clarify things,
and of course,
that meant obscuring things.
We're closer now
than light years to go
Yeah, I think it's...
I think conversations,
and conversations
that aren't planned,
are fascinating
for people to watch
and listen to.
Yes.
I think it works.
We should probably go.
Okay.
So to fill it up...
To begin late...
From my experience,
if it's really full,
it begins a little late.
Usually three
or four minutes, yeah.
Would you welcome these two
great scientists to the stage?
Please join me...
Richard Dawkins
and Lawrence krauss.
I think it's
appropriate
to begin...
Did any of you see q and a?
I was amazed...
cardinal pell,
who was on the program,
manifestly didn't
understand evolution.
Actually, he didn't
manifestly understand
anything,
as far as I could see.
Why don't you elaborate
a little bit about
that real problem?
Because I think it's
a fascinating issue of,
if speciation occurs,
if species change,
was there a first person?
At first sight, it seems obvious
that there has to have
been a first person
and there has to have
been a first rabbit
and a first rhinoceros
and things.
After all,
people are people,
aren't they?
And their ancestors
were not people.
If you go back
sufficiently far,
your ancestor was a fish.
Mustn't there
have been a time
where, so to speak,
the last homo erectus parents
gave birth to the first
homo sapiens' baby?
And the answer is no.
There never was a first person,
there never was
a first rabbit
or first rhinoceros,
because every organism ever born
belonged to
the same species
as its parents.
And yet because
it was so gradual
and because it was so slow,
not only was our
200 million great
grandparent a fish,
but if you go back
further still,
they were worms and so on.
And one suggestion
that's been made
is that people
really have difficulty
grasping the idea
that animals turn
into other animals
so imperceptibly
that you can hardly notice it.
It's not actually
that paradoxical.
It all happened
very, very gradually.
And you can think
of parallels like
the fact that
you can't see
the hour hand
on your watch moving.
At some point,
we cease to think
of ourselves as middle-aged
and we start to think
of ourselves as old.
But nobody ever goes to bed
middle-aged and wakes up
and says, "I'm old."
We had a meeting at my institute
where we were trying
to get at the origin
of life,
and it's fascinating
to learn how much
closer we're getting.
I don't know if you think
we'll get to the beginning
in your lifetime or my...
Well, it's an exciting
thought, and I'm pretty
hopeful that we might.
You'll never be able
to prove it for certain,
I suspect,
but to come up with
a plausible theory
that people say, "of course!
That's so elegant
and so simple."
Either it's true
or it ought to be true.
I mean, it could...
I think the key point
is plausibility.
It is amazing
and fascinating to me
and worth celebrating
that the laws of physics
as we now understand them
have given us
a plausible story
to answer questions.
That's amazing. Which is,
how could something
arise from nothing?
How could a complex
universe arise
from a universe
in which there
was nothing?
No particles,
and maybe not even
any space?
And it's amazing to me
in cosmology now
that we are beginning
to get back and realize
that even something
as complex as
a whole universe
could plausibly be created.
But that's all we ever claim.
And yet whenever
we claim that,
we are called strident.
Do you notice that?
Yes, I do.
It came up in
the q and a debate,
and I tried to
very briefly expound
Lawrence's thesis
that you could get something
from literally nothing.
The audience just laughed.
It was obviously
to them absurd.
How could you possibly
get something from nothing?
It does violate common sense.
But as I said earlier
this evening, you can't
go by common sense.
If we could do things
by common sense,
we wouldn't need physicists.
Common sense,
of course, comes from
what was necessary
for our brains to survive
in the pleistocene of Africa.
So they had to know
how to catch a buffalo
and how to find a water hole
and how to climb a tree
when being pursued
by a lion or something.
So our brains were never
shaped by natural selection
to understand
either quantum mechanics...
The theory of the very small...
Or relativity, the theory
of the very fast.
And it's actually
an astonishing compliment
to the human brain
that at least some humans
are capable of understanding.
No, it is really remarkable
that we've been able to get
as far as we can.
But you hit on another point.
Our brains not only
didn't evolve to understand
those aspects of the universe
that it couldn't experience
directly,
but another aspect of the
universe it can't experience
directly is long time.
Absolutely.
And I think that's
another reason
why evolution is
such a hard concept.
Because we can just see...
we have a slice
of 100 years or less.
We can do seconds,
minutes, hours, days,
years, centuries...
Even millennia
we have trouble with.
You cannot grasp
the immensity of time
that is 100 million years.
Exactly.
Thank you very much.
Thank you very, very much.
the walls abandon shape
they got a cheshire cat grin
all blurring into one
this place is on a mission
A lot of people think
that just because there's a lot
we don't understand
at the edge of science,
that everything we know is going
to go out the window,
and that's not true.
Evolution happened.
The big bang happened.
If I take a ball and drop it,
it's going to fall.
There are lots
of things we do know.
For me, the only
solution I can see
is to try and educate people.
Because if you don't
have an informed public,
that's the greatest
threat to democracy.
So it's incumbent on scientists
to do a much better job,
and then it's up to the public
to make the decision.
They can decide that they
don't want to do anything
about global warming.
But they should at least
be presented with the evidence
and understand the facts.
Ladies and gentlemen,
the dynamic duo of science!
Before you run away from me
before you're lost
between the notes
the beat goes
round and round
the beat
goes round and round
It's such a privilege
to be alive in the 21st century
and to look out at the stars,
to look down a microscope,
to look down an electron
microscope,
to look into a single cell
and see the prodigious,
stupefying complexity
of a single cell
and then realize
that there are
trillions of those cells
in your body,
all conspiring together
to produce a working machine
which can walk and run
and eat and have sex and think.
What a privilege it is
for each of us
to have in our heads
an organ which is capable of
constructing a model
of the universe.
It is sad that that model
will die when our brain dies,
but my goodness,
what a privilege it is
before we do die.
Jigsaw's falling into place
there is nothing to explain
you eye each other
as you pass
she looks back,
you look back
not just once
not just twice
wish away the nightmare
wish away the nightmare
you got a light
you can feel it on your back
Welcome back,
everybody. My guest tonight,
please welcome Lawrence krauss.
Hey, Dr. krauss.
Thank you so much
for coming on.
All right, sir.
Why does what you're saying
have to be an attack on my God?
It doesn't have
to be an attack...
but that's all you've done.
You've attacked my God
for the last six minutes.
No, you have.
All I've said is,
you don't need him.
That's an attack.
We've changed our minds
about the universe.
We've learned that the universe
is more remarkable than anything
we ever thought before,
and in fact,
changing your mind
and in fact being wrong
is wonderful.
You should try it sometime.
It's really amazing.
Hmm-mm.
It means that...
it means that...
If there is no God, okay,
if there is
no thing called "God,"
if he is nothing,
can't something
come from him?
Lawrence krauss,
thank you so much.
You can feel it on your back
you can feel it on your back
Jigsaw's falling
into place
This makes my day.
Miley Cyrus just tweeted
a picture of me
along with my quote
about stars where I say,
"forget Jesus. Stars died
so you could be born."
And underneath,
she put the word, "beautiful."
And she seems to have gotten
a lot of hate mail for that.
I actually think they don't
understand this too, because,
you know, they think
she's saying the quote
is beautiful,
but clearly what she's saying
is that the picture
of me is beautiful.
I think we both agree
that what people want to do
is they want to believe,
to take that line
from the x-files...
They want to believe
in believing,
and so most people
of faith, I think,
in our society,
naturally
pick and choose
from the doctrine
those things they find
absolutely ridiculous
and throw out.
Yeah.
And the pope would say
that's not palatable.
And I would tend
to agree with the pope.
I think if you can't
believe some of this stuff
and need to throw it out,
just forget the whole thing.
Yeah.
That would be my view,
and I suspect that, um,
well, there are,
what, 535 members of
the U.S. congress,
and one has said
that he doesn't believe
in a supreme being?
That's statistically
not possible.
I mean,
a fair number of those members
of congress presumably have
had some sort of education.
There have got to be
a very substantial number
of atheistic members
of the United States congress,
probably more than
a couple of hundred
would be my guess.
And yet they cannot admit it,
and so in order to get elected,
you have got to lie
about your beliefs.
I think that's right,
and I think it's good
to call them on it.
I disagree with you
slightly, maybe because
I've spent a lot more
time in this country.
I would say,
if people don't
hold their religion
on their sleeve,
then it's not relevant to them,
then it's not in
the public domain,
and journalists
needn't ask
questions about it.
But if they do hold
their religion
on their sleeve,
then it becomes
in the public domain,
and it becomes
appropriate
for journalists
to bring it up.
Because then it's an action.
They're saying, "elect me
because I'm
a person of faith."
But I'm coming back
to the nub
of the question,
which is that,
even if they don't take
any action based upon it...
I mean, an extreme example,
which I actually published
on a blog somewhere,
was a hypothetical doctor
who doesn't believe
in the sex theory
of reproduction,
believes in
the stork theory of...
Of reproduction.
I thought I was pushing
to the limit.
I assumed that everybody
would agree with me,
at least here,
that you would not wish
to consult such a doctor.
Not a bit of it.
I was kicked around the room.
"The doctor's private beliefs
are his private beliefs.
"They're no
business of yours.
So long as he can
"take your appendix out
or whatever he has to do,
"then it doesn't matter
that he doesn't
believe in sex,
he believes in
the stork theory."
That's where we're
disagreeing, because...
Because the stork theory
is relevant to his career
as a doctor...
Make him an eye doctor then.
Then I'd have to say,
for a politician,
I think there are
rights to privacy.
I mean, I think
if someone believes
that it's okay for them
to have sex with animals,
I shouldn't ask that question
as long as they don't make it
a campaign platform.
And-and-and...
And so I happen to think
that there some a right
to privacy,
in the sense that
if you don't wear it
on your sleeve.
And these candidates
do wear it on their sleeve,
including Obama.
And I think once
you bring that up,
then it becomes fair game.
Now, let's end with...
Because you pointed out
that there's one
member of congress...
And I didn't know
there were that many...
Who argues that
he doesn't believe
in a supreme being.
I just wrote an article
about a study
that's been done
by a group
of psychologists
in Canada
and the United States...
It's just
been published...
That asks what groups
people distrust,
and it turns out
the group that is
distrusted the most
are atheists.
Well, they're
not quite the most.
They're on par with rapists.
And I wonder
if you could comment.
Well, that seems to me
to be an adequate explanation
for why so many members
of the United States congress
are obviously lying
about their private beliefs.
I mean, if you're
on a par with rapists...
I suspect that we've already had
in this country quite a number
of atheist presidents.
I suspect.
It wouldn't surprise me
in the least if Kennedy
was an atheist.
It wouldn't surprise me
if Clinton was an atheist.
It wouldn't surprise me
if Obama's an atheist.
But you cannot admit it
or you simply don't
get elected.
I would like to start
a campaign for
lame-duck presidents
and senators and people
to say, "okay,
"I'm not standing
for election anymore.
I'm an atheist.
I've been an atheist
all along."
Yes.
Yes, that's right.
And here we've got
Darren waiting for you.
Hi, how are you doing?
Hi, Lawrence. Darren.
How's it going?
Hi, nice to see you.
So if you want to have a seat...
She said it's never
been so hard,
never been
so challenging.
Oh, no.
Okay, we're
heading out, eh?
Yes, let's go. Yep.
We're set up.
What do you know?
It looks like a real
place to interview.
And so these mics work?
I don't have to wear one?
That's right.
That's good.
Ready in three, two...
Lawrence krauss,
welcome to one plus one.
It's great to be here.
Albert Einstein was once
quoted as saying,
"if you can't explain it
to a six-year-old,
you don't
understand it yourself."
Your latest book,
a universe from nothing,
deals with some
fairly weighty topics.
How would you explain it
to a six-year-old
that the universe
came from nothing?
Oh, well, you...
I see what you mean,
but it's very unjust.
I mean, telling children
they're going to hell
is surely by any
standards wicked.
I mean, that's just evil.
But I am not
doing anything remotely
comparable to that.
What I'm doing
is telling children,
"think for yourself.
Look for the evidence."
I'm not saying, "this is
the way it is. You'd
better believe it or else."
Well, it's funny,
because six-year-olds
are a lot less biased
than adults often,
and the neat thing is,
I'd probably tell them that
nothing is not exactly
what they thought it was.
It was a little bit different.
That the laws of physics
tell you that even
empty space is much more
interesting than you thought.
Empty space is a boiling,
bubbling brew of stuff
that's popping
in and out of existence
every second.
And what's more amazing
is that we've learned
that if you take
just a bit of space
and get rid of
all the particles
and all the radiation
and everything,
that it still weighs something,
and we don't understand why.
Lawrence krauss,
thanks for joining us
on one plus one.
Thank you very much.
It's been a pleasure.
Excellent.
Wonderful.
Thank you very much.
Thanks a lot.
It was nice doing it.
There's a dot.
What a disgusting idea.
I mean, the idea
that the only way to
forgive somebody
is to have a scapegoat,
to have your own son
tortured and killed
because there's
no other way to forgive,
the idea that
there can be
no forgiveness
without bloodshed,
without punishment,
is an ancient idea,
and it's a horrible one.
In the particular case
of the doctrine
of original sin,
the original sin
is suppose to have been
committed by Adam,
who, as we now know,
never existed.
So we now have
the preposterous idea
that Jesus was sacrificed,
the scapegoat was sacrificed,
for the sin of
a nonexistent forbear.
That's the fellow who
finally let me in. He was
out having a phone call.
Yes, yeah.
Hi, I'm Jenny.
How are you?
Hi. Good. I'm glad
there's someone here
to actually do this.
26 to 8:00.
Hop over there, Lawrence.
There you go.
It's good to see you again.
It is 26 to 8:00
on 702.
Lawrence krauss is our guest.
His latest book is called
a universe from nothing.
You're saying the universe
continues to get weirder.
Are there moments when
we might break through
and things suddenly make
more sense for you?
'Cause some of the stuff
you do really upsets
some people
and really inspires
other people to back
their own beliefs.
Would you prefer that
it was just an esoteric,
academic discussion?
No, it's not esoteric.
These are wonderful things.
Everyone should be
talking about them.
It's some of the most
beautiful ideas and discoveries
humans have ever made.
And if it upsets people,
how can learning about
how the universe
really works
upset people?
And it is a shame that it does.
Instead of being threatened
or having our faith threatened
by the discoveries of science,
we should realize
that we should
force our beliefs
to conform to the evidence
of reality rather than
the other way around,
and we should take joy
in the fact that
we are actually here
in this random moment
able to even ask
those questions
and get close enough
to the answers.
We don't have
the ultimate answers.
I don't claim in the book
that I have
the ultimate answers.
I talk about what's
plausible and the fact
that we're learning,
we're getting closer
and closer to even
potentially answering
these ultimate questions
is something that
we should all celebrate.
People shouldn't be
threatened by science.
Um, no,
I think that's fine.
Thank you very much.
Well, it's been nice
talking to you.
All right.
Bye, bye.
Lawrence krauss,
as always, a pleasure
to speak with you.
Same here. Thanks.
This is the nicest thing
I've seen in any library
recently.
Can I do that?
Is that pooh over there?
I got to go...
Professor Dawkins,
what do you see,
or rather hope
for the future
of atheism
in the public sphere?
My hope for the future
of atheism is that it will
no longer be necessary.
We don't call ourselves
"a-Thor-ists" and a-Zeus-ists"
and "a-leprechaun-ists"
because it's not necessary.
And my hope is that
the day will come
when it's simply
taken for granted
that everybody doesn't
believe in yahweh
any more than they believe
in Thor and Jupiter.
I think there's some indication
that the religious lobby
is getting increasingly
desperate
and is increasing
the venom and the vitriol
with which they fight back.
And I think what we may
be seeing is the beginning
of the death throes.
And when you see
a wounded animal
in its death throes,
it tends to lash out.
Listen, gentlemen,
can you be quiet for one second?
Nice to see all you
fine, strapping
young gentlemen here
to protest for
your religion.
But like I've been asking,
where are all of your women?
Where are all the women?
Where are all the women?
Where are all the women?
Where are all the women?
Where are all the women?
Where are all the women?
Infidels! Infidels!
Infidels!
Infidels!
Infidels!
Follow me don't follow me
I've got my spine
I've got my orange crush
collar me don't collar me
I've got my spine
I've got my orange crush
we are agents of the free
I've had my fun,
and now it's time to serve
your conscience overseas
coming in fast over me
this is a demonstration...
It's not one that
excludes religious people.
It's one that is inclusive
of all points of view.
It's definitely exciting.
It's definitely exciting,
and it re-enthuses you
to go out and do your thing
and stick to your guns.
We've made so many
amazing friends.
Fantastic people here.
orange crush
collar me, don't collar me
oh, I've talked to
all sorts of people.
Sit down with someone,
and you get up a conversation
without any trouble.
A friendlier sort
there may never be.
I've had my fun
and now it's time to serve
your conscience overseas
coming in fast over me
There is a similarity...
My friend Richard Dawkins,
who is here, was kind enough
to write the afterword
for the book,
and he made a wonderful
comparison, which is that
there's some similarity.
Before Darwin,
life was a miracle.
You couldn't ask, "where
did the diversity of life
come from?" It was a miracle.
It was designed.
What Darwin showed
were very simple
laws of biology.
Natural selection
and genetic mutation,
essentially,
could produce all
the diversity of life,
the complexity we now see,
from very simple beginnings
with no miracle.
Now, at the time he did it,
did it prove it? No.
But it was plausible.
Now there's been
150 years of proof.
Now we take it the next step.
Do we know how the first
forms of life started?
Absolutely not.
But it's certainly plausible
that, given everything
we know about genetics,
biochemistry,
that chemistry
by natural processes
can turn into biology.
Do we know that? No.
But it's plausible.
And that's worth celebrating...
That you don't need miracles.
And the same is true
for the universe.
We've taken from biology
to that fundamental question,
which was the last bastion,
for many people, of God:
"Why is there something
rather than nothing?
And said, "you don't need him."
If this is the case,
and our universe
just popped into existence
and space and time
were created in our universe
the moment it came
into existence,
along with the laws
of physics we measure,
then there's an object,
if you want to call it that,
that is greater
than our universe.
We call it in physics now
the multiverse,
in which case
there are many
possible universes.
From a philosophical
perspective,
people have a problem
with a universe that
had a beginning.
'Cause they want
something eternal
with no cause...
First cause,
prime mover... you pick
your philosophy or theology.
The point is that the multiverse
now serves the role
of the prime mover.
From a philosophical
perspective,
it can be eternal.
It could be eternal
and certainly beyond
our universe.
But the thing I also want to
point out... I've debated with
Christian apologists often,
and they say,
"you invented the multiverse
'cause you don't like God."
Well, it's true
I don't like God.
But the multiverse was proposed
because the laws of physics
are driving us to it.
I don't even like
the multiverse, but if nature
tells me that's the case,
and the laws of physics
are accidental,
I've got to live with it.
So, to conclude,
I've told you today
the universe can
come from nothing.
More importantly, I've told you
that you were far more
insignificant than
you ever thought,
and that's what I want you
to celebrate here today.
But instead of taking...
People say science takes away
spiritual fulfillment
and wonder and awe
and happiness.
You should be happier
because you're insignificant
and the future's miserable
'cause you're here today
and you're endowed
by evolution
with a conscience
and an intelligence
and you can ask these questions.
So instead of being depressed
and requiring meaning
in the universe
beyond your own existence,
you create your own meaning
and enjoy your brief
moment in the sun.
Thank you very much.
But the problem is that
most people, most of the time,
are desperate to
believe ridiculous
and divisive ideas for
patently emotional reasons.
And while rarely explicit,
what they're really
worried about is death.
When we're arguing
about teaching evolution
in the schools,
I would argue that
we are really
arguing about death.
It seems to me
the only reason why
any religious person
cares about evolution
is because if their holy books
are wrong about our origins,
they're very likely
wrong about our destiny
after death.
Ex-muslims like me
in Europe and in north America
are growing in number.
We give speeches,
we publish articles
and books,
and we communicate
with one another.
"Infidel"
was the epithet,
an insult
that was thrown at me
over and over again
by family and former
Muslim friends.
It is a label that I now wear
with pride and joy.
We're in a brand-new
age for religions.
For millennia, religions
did not have to worry
about the flock
acquiring lots of information
about other religions
or about their own religion.
These religions evolved
culturally in a world
of easy-to-maintain
ignorance.
But the new transparency
of information brought about
by technology, cell phones,
the Internet and all the rest
is the first
really drastic change
in the epistemological
environment that religions
have had to face
in several millennia.
Thanks for your attention.
To many, he's known
as an evolutionary biologist.
He's a champion
of science and reason.
He's convinced
many around the world
that it's more than okay
to come out as an atheist.
Please welcome to the stage
our final speaker of day two
of the global
atheists convention,
Richard Dawkins.
I want to take back
"intelligent design."
I want to take back
other hijacked words.
Just as the feminists
have rallied around
the phrase
"take back the night,"
maybe we should take back
"intelligent design"
in the true sense of the word.
Let's take back morality,
let's redesign our morality,
rather than
trying to read
what's right and wrong
in a 3,000-year-old book.
Religion has hijacked
morality for centuries.
Let's take it back
and intelligently design it.
Let's intelligently
design our lives,
rather than be dictated to
by priests and mullahs.
Let's intelligently
design our future
using the gift of foresight,
something that
never existed
before brains...
And for practical purposes,
that means human brains...
evolved.
The ability to design
is one of the crowning
glories of our species.
Bridges, planes, buildings,
all sorts of
ingenious contraptions.
The essence of design
in this true sense
of the word
is deliberate foresight.
Human designers can
look into the future
and see the possible mistakes,
see the possible pitfalls,
try things out
in imagination...
Above all, look
into the future,
which is something
natural selection cannot do.
This is one of the major
misunderstandings
of evolution.
People are so used to the idea
that natural selection
produces apparently
good design
that they think that
natural selection
must be capable
of peering
into the future,
of taking steps
to stop the species
going extinct,
for example.
Never happens.
It cannot happen.
Nature cannot plan
for the future;
the human brain can.
We can look at trends
in the present
and extrapolate into the future.
We can foresee
possible scenarios
that might lead to
our species going extinct
and take steps to avoid it.
Thank you very much.
How many people do you have
to kill to be a murderer?
Just one.
Just one.
How many lies do you have to
tell to be a liar? Just one.
You fucking suck!
The Bible says...
The Bible says,
"you shall not take the name
of the lord in vain."
What I find humorous
is you will not curse
Allah or Mohammad,
but Jesus is in every one
of your conversations.
Science means knowledge?
When you take the name
of my savior Jesus Christ
in vain,
you do it with
an inherent knowledge,
an intuitive knowledge,
that it is wrong,
that it is born
out of your sinful heart.
My friends, what I'm saying
is you're not just atheists,
you're liars.
Whoo!
I guess the best part
of communicating
is the excitement.
Science turns us on.
Science is fun.
Science excites us.
You can't communicate
unless you're excited,
but on the other hand,
I feel it's so
fascinating for me
that I want to tell
people about it.
Carl sagan said,
"when you're in love,
you want to tell the world."
I'm in love with science,
and I have to tell the world.
But we mustn't run away
with the idea that
science is just fun.
Science is hard.
Yeah.
And so it's not fun
in the sense that
it's just sort of...
Easy, and you can
laze around doing it.
It is hard.
It's hard work.
But it's worth it.
Something I didn't know...
I don't know if you knew...
That the royal society
St. Andrew.
St. Andrew?
Yeah.
Why not doubting Thomas?
He'd be the proper
patron Saint of science.
That'd be perfect.
Doubting Thomas,
because that's what
it's all about.
For me, this is the legacy
of modern civilization.
This is what it's all about,
and this is a legacy
that's worth preserving
and sharing more broadly,
and it's under attack.
Yes, I see the history
of science, modern science,
as weaning off
the wisdom of old books
and onto the wisdom
of observation and experiment.
There's a lovely story about
Galileo being
visited by somebody,
and Galileo showed this person
something through his telescope,
and it contradicted
what he thought before,
and eventually he said,
"Mr. Galileo, your demonstration
"is so convincing,
that were it not
"that Aristotle
positively states
the contrary,
I would believe you."
He was actually looking
through a telescope.
It's surprising in some sense
that we're talked about
as being arrogant for
somehow saying
we create our own importance,
that our knowledge
and our understanding
and the way we live our lives
is what makes our importance.
People don't seem to recognize
that a universe that's
created for us
is a little more arrogant.
Incredibly arrogant, yes.
And for me,
that's the most powerful
and enlivening thing
is the fact that more
unimportant we become,
the more powerful
is the importance of science
for pointing out that
the universe exists
whether we like it or not.
That cosmic humility
is the exact opposite of what
we're often accused of.
Science is responsible
for the justified
humility of humanity,
which is a new thing.
Richard, I remember vividly
the very first time
we had a discussion
that we disagreed.
I argued to you
that I thought that
if you were trying
to convince people
of your point,
the first thing you shouldn't
say is, "everything you
believe is wrong,
and you're really stupid,"
and it's better
to try and sort of
go where they are.
Yeah, I mean, I think
I myself have been
convinced of somebody
telling me,
"everything you believe
is rubbish."
As a student,
I was very
persuaded by
that old
French theologian,
teilhard de chardin,
who wrote a book called
the phenomenon of man,
which is...
Pretentious gibberish,
but it fooled me
when I was a student.
And then I read Peter medawar's
brilliant review
of the book, which is
almost certainly the best
negative book review
ever written.
And I was completely
turned around by that,
even though you might think
I'd have pushed back
and said, "wait a minute.
You're insulting
my intelligence."
Well, yes, maybe you are
insulting my intelligence.
I deserve to have
my intelligence insulted.
People get...
In fact, there's a lot of...
There's a lot of research
that says pedagogically,
the only way you can
really get people
to learn
is by confronting
their own misconceptions
and using them.
I use it in physics
all the time.
Kids learn stuff on...
You write stuff on
the blackboard, it goes in
one ear and out the other,
but if you confront
a belief they have
and show them immediately
that they can see
for themselves it's crazy,
then they remember it.
Yes.
This weekend, the "reason" rally
took over the national mall
here in Washington, D.C.
Billed as the largest gathering
of the secular movement
in world history,
national mall parks service
estimated that over 30,000
people were in attendance.
And despite the rain,
the participants
waited for hours
to see speakers
like Lawrence krauss,
Richard Dawkins,
Adam savage,
so we have to ask
what the largest gathering
in history of atheists,
humanists, secularists,
free thinkers, skeptics...
What does it really mean?
Hi, I'm David silverman,
president of American atheists,
and I would like to
welcome you all to this,
the largest atheist gathering
in world history.
But I don't believe in God.
I have two proofs
for not believing in God...
first of all, God,
if you're there,
we're here in Washington.
Come down now.
If you're there,
this is a pretty good time.
I'm sure fox news
would love it.
Just come down, say hello.
We are the people
who believe in this life.
We are the people
who believe in morality.
If you are doing something
for reward or punishment,
you do not have morality.
Let's make it
so they're as embarrassed
to say something bad
about atheists
as they are to say
something bad about mormons.
Mormon.
Mormon.
Thank you, God,
for fixing the cataracts
of Sam's mom
I didn't realize
that it was so simple
but you showed a great example
of just how it can be done
they only need to pray
in a particular spot
to a particular version
of a particular God
and if you pull that off
without a hitch
he will fix one eye of one
middle-class white bitch
they are ruled by fear.
That's not my style,
and it's not yours either.
Folks, it's certainly time
that we all grew up.
Instead of forging ahead
into the 14th century,
we should be embracing
the 21st by writing fini
to the belief
in the bigoted,
capricious, cruel,
deceitful, genocidal,
homophobic,
misogynistic, racist,
vindictive and violent bully.
Ladies and gentlemen, thank you.
Folks, Professor
Richard Dawkins.
Richard! Richard!
Richard! Richard!
What a magnificent,
inspiring sight.
I was expecting great things,
even in fine weather.
In the rain, look at this.
This is the most
incredible sight I can
remember ever seeing.
How is it necessary
to have a rally
for reason?
How could anyone rally
against reason?
I am often accused of
expressing contempt
and despising
religious people.
I don't despise
religious people;
I despise what they stand for.
There are too many
people in this country
who have been cowed into fear
of coming out as atheists
or secularists or agnostics.
We are far more numerous
than anybody realizes.
What I want to
suggest you do when
you meet somebody
who claims to be
religious, ask them,
"do you really believe
"that when a priest
blesses a wafer,
"it turns into
the body of Christ?
Are you seriously telling me
you believe that?"
Don't fall for the convention
that we're all too polite
to talk about religion.
Religion is not off the table.
Religion is not off limits.
Religion makes
specific claims
about the universe
which need to be substantiated
and need to be challenged
and, if necessary,
need to be ridiculed
with contempt.
Thank you very much.
Lawrence?
Yes, yeah?
Do you mind
if we get a picture?
No problem.
Hi.
It is so good
to meet you.
Can I get a picture
of you real quick?
Sure, yeah.
I seen you on the TV.
Yeah.
Hey, Dr. krauss.
Hi.
Could I shake
your hand too?
Sure.
Can I shake
your hand really quick?
Your universe of nothing
speech started my road
to atheism.
Hi, how are you.
I'm Kenny hibb
from Tulsa, Oklahoma.
Oh, okay.
Went back to school for science.
I'm a big fan.
It's not like a pancake.
It's like the space...
With the x-y axis,
just remain perpendicular.
And light travels
in a straight line.
Oh, okay.
Hi, everybody
out there on the mall.
It's a great honor to be
addressing the reason rally.
And when you look at
the who's who lists
throughout history
of people who were either
declared atheists
or who voiced publicly
their opinion that
religion was bullshit,
you can feel a swell of pride
as you stand out there
on the mall today.
Let's let everybody know
that they can come out of
the closet if they're afraid to,
because we're here
to support them
and embrace them
because this is
an amazing community
of people
who are non-believers,
and I think it's wrong
that the religious right
and various belief systems
have gotten a monopoly
on morality and patriotism.
We are Americans,
and we're moral
and righteous Americans,
and we don't need
a God to prove it.
Come on out and join us.
I have concluded, through
careful, empirical analysis
and much thought that somebody
is looking out for me,
keeping track of what
I think about things,
forgiving me
when I do less
than I ought,
giving me strength
to shoot for more than
I think I'm capable of.
I believe they know everything
that I do and think,
and they still love me,
and I've concluded,
after careful consideration,
that this person
keeping score is me.
Immanuel kant was asked,
"what is the enlightenment?"
"Dare to know."
The age of reason, then
was an age when humanity
was born again,
not from original sin
but from original ignorance
and dependence on authority.
Never again!
Folks, you're in for a treat.
The author of
the New York times bestseller
a universe from nothing,
Please welcome physicist
Dr. Lawrence krauss!
As was just pointed out,
a few years ago,
my friend Richard Dawkins
asked me to give a talk
at a meeting
called the universe
from nothing,
so I did.
Today I want to
talk about something
that's equally plausible
but much more tragic:
How to get nothing
from something.
It's happened
a number of times
in human history.
It happened during
the medieval era,
when religious dogma
erased the enlightenment
of the greeks.
Measuring the circumference
of the earth, all of that,
was forgotten.
It happened in the arabic world
in the 11th century,
when what was then
the center
of culture
and mathematics became
an economic and intellectual
backwater because of
islamic fundamentalism.
And it can happen today.
But the 21st century
is placing challenges
on us like we've never had:
Global climate change,
overpopulation,
the energy crisis,
the need, finally, to educate
and stop the subjugation
of women around the world.
Einstein said
67-odd years ago,
after we exploded
the first atomic weapon
that everything has changed,
save the way we think.
And unless we change
the way we think,
and unless we're willing
to revere open-questioning
discussion
and a public policy
based on reality,
we can take this wonderful
world we have now in many ways
and turn something into nothing,
and we all
have to make sure
that doesn't happen.
Thank you very much.
Dr. Lawrence krauss!
It's almost like I may bend
and break
and it's more
than I can take
and it's almost like
I may bend
and break
and it's more
than I can take
and it's almost like
I may bend
and break
and it's more
than I can take
and it's almost like
I may bend
and break
and it's more
than I can take
and it's almost like
I may bend
and break
I do see a problem
that you can't live a life
based on delusion.
You can't hold out reality
all the time
and just exist in a fake world.
You've got to constantly
not only be challenging
your own beliefs
but be willing to
say that you have been
wrong and misinformed
for your whole life
and change your views.
Otherwise, you know,
it's a mindless existence.
And that's not to say they don't
have the right to believe.
I believe everyone has
the right to believe anything.
They have the right
to believe anything,
but I have the right to find
that belief ridiculous.
I've had people on
Twitter say things like,
"everyone has the right
to their own opinion,
so just keep quiet
about your atheism."
Brilliant.
There it is.
There, you've
summed it up for me.
Well done.
I did a courtroom
scene on a show,
and I look at the judge,
and right above his head
it says,
"in God we trust."
I mean, this should've
hit me before being
on the good wife.
But I just can't believe it.
I just can't believe
that in 2012,
that's in our courts system.
These notions aren't
shared by everyone
in America.
With religion,
the stories have been
told over centuries,
and science is always
telling a new story.
And I think that that's
what's hard for people
who hold religion as the truth
to understand that
science is something
that's broader.
It doesn't start
6,000 years ago,
it starts four or five
billion years ago,
and that is a really...
There's a lot more
information in there,
in the book.
If we had a book,
it'd be a lot thicker.
And of course,
we have seen backlash
against scientific
understanding
of reality.
We have seen it
in many religions,
not only in the United States.
So I believe
there's a great value
in promoting this kind of work.
People who like science
are all drawn to it
for the same reason:
It explains the physical world.
"What is this stuff?"
Is it the last word
on what reality is
and what the physical
world is?
I don't know,
but if it's not the last word,
it's at least the best word.
In our increasingly
complex scientific
civilization,
many policy issues
require scientific
knowledge.
How then can the public
exercise Democratic
control
if it doesn't
understand science?
I think it's very
important to advance
the pro-science view
in the modern world.
What could be bad
about advancing
knowledge and enlightenment?
It can only be a good thing.
If you don't get
that there's some
objective place
from which
we can all start,
which we call science,
a place where we get
rid of our biases and get
back to what we can observe,
if you don't think
that's the best
place to start
these conversations from,
then where do you
start them from?
You have to start from,
"well, my evidence shows
"that gay people
are just like me and
they love each other"
or that women are smart.
The magic book kills discussion.
I went to Israel
for the first time
the summer before last.
But people always say,
"oh, you go to Israel,
you're gonna be changed forever.
You're gonna feel
so connected."
And I just...
I didn't feel
that at all.
I went...
It just was so...
When I saw
the Western wall,
especially,
and that this much room
was for the men
and this much room
was for the women,
and they said,
"cover your shins
and cover this up
or people will throw
rocks at you,"
and I just felt like
"You!"
All I felt was
"You."
I didn't feel
connected to anything
because it wasn't
including me
as an equal.
It's the rules.
It's the arbitrary rules.
He gave you free will.
Well, then, why is he
sending me to hell
for using it?
He moves in mysterious ways.
I mean, "moves in
mysterious ways"...
That is the philosophical
equivalent of going...
running away.
You know?
It's strange, "moves
in mysterious ways."
What's the difference
between a random God
and no God at all?
That's what I'd say.
I think people
don't really believe
the myths they invent.
I've been to many
funerals in which
the priest has spoken
of an afterlife,
and even the people
who are there
are sobbing profusely.
They don't really think
they're gonna meet
their loved one
in five years' time.
If, on the other hand,
you stood on the quayside
and watched the queen Mary
set off for New York,
the people on the
quayside are not crying
because they know
they're going to see
those people again
fairly soon.
A funeral is
fundamentally different,
yet it should be the same.
I think myths are like a drug.
I think a lot of people
would rather just
take the myth pill
that makes them feel
nice and cozy and warm
and fuzzy and okay
with everything
rather than have to
look at the reality
of what the world
actually is
because it's so big.
But then I think
what's so great
about the world
being so big
or the universe
being so big
is that it's so big,
and that is so cool.
Early christians
were called atheists
by the romans
'cause they didn't
believe in all the gods.
I love that.
That's what atheism
is, really.
It's the belief
in one less God
than you.
The whole forward movement of
trying to do this thing,
give the people
the opportunity
to be educated to a point
where they don't have to
lean on stuff that's
probably not there
is a worthy cause.
You have to be able
to offer someone
alternatives
to the way they view the world,
or how can they learn something?
You can't keep teaching someone
something they already know.
If you are so attached
to your belief system
that you stop listening
out of fear of that
being challenged
or shaken,
you're dead.
Most scientists are
not up for this game
of taking on these things
and having it become a forum,
but once you start
to step up in front
of doubters,
it becomes this idea of really,
can you change
people's minds
from this debate,
or are you just, like,
taking rocks
and bashing
each other's
brains out?