[Richard Dawkins] Historically that's the way it was.
And I suppose Darwin wasn't the
only executioner of that way of looking
at it, but he was perhaps the most important one.
To me, that had the effect of what I call
raising my consciousness as to the power
of science to explain how big complicated
things, things that seem to require
a special explanation, can actually happen
by simple means from simple beginnings.
And that makes me feel, it doesn't disprove
the existence of God, but it makes God seem
increasing superfluous and having shown
how superfluous any kind of design explanation
is for just the reasons you've said,
it makes me feel, what's the point of
believing in God at all? Alright, I mean, I'll stop there
and see what you say about that.
[Coyne] Well I'm going to jump off the deep end
and say I will accept, in the way in which
you presented it, the God in whom I believe
is superfluous. That is I do not need God.
That the God in whom I believe is a God
who gave himself superfluously whether I
needed him or not, that in my religious
tradition in my firm deep down within me
belief, God gave himself to me. And, he gave himself.
It's his love for me. We can only experience
here on the surface of the earth the love
between human beings. And sometimes that
becomes extremely precious and very very
and very very important, the love
between two human beings or
any human beings. God's love transcends
that many times over. This is religious
faith, Richard. And I can't pretend that
I can prove it to anyone because if I did
it would not be religious faith. There's an
element in me and in human culture
in general, ok, that says if I believe in God,
because God gave himself to me, then the
way I think is very different than the way
someone who doesn't believe in God thinks.
I admit it's an "if," but I will not accept that
I am being duped.
I will accept that it's superfluous in the
sense that contrary to what many Catholics
do, they look to God as a source of
explanation. In fact, I have many Catholic
friends, I preach to them, I talk to them,
who pray that we scientist will not find
certain explanations so that they can fill
them with God. They really have that mentality.
Well to me, that's absurd. I mean God gave
us brains and means of thinking in order
that we could explore the universe and find
answers to the questions we have.
God is not a God of explanation, primarily.
He's a God of love. And consequently
I would accept that God is superfluous
if I am looking for a God to explain things.
I don't need God. In fact, if God is a god
of need it's not God.
Because he transcends our needs.
He gave himself superfluously, gratuitously.
I didn't reason my way to God.
I didn't, you know, work my way to God.
I didn't earn this faith that I have.
And this faith is nothing other than
God himself. Now I'm getting very
preachy I must admit.
[Dawkins] You're being totally fascinating, I assure you.
[Coyne] It's a whole other dimension of
human life. It certainly is for me.
And I'm afraid it's not shared by a
lot of religious believers.
They really are subject to the very criticism you are making.
That science has come to explain so much
that why can't we simply accept that if
we work hard enough, science is going
to explain everything.
And therefore God is superfluous.
Well I don't know about the science end of that.
I have a slight suspicion that we'll never explain everything.
Because if we did, I'm out of a job and so are you. (laughter)
So we, you know. But I do criticize those who,
will, from two ends, I criticize you in the
sort of, idea that God is superfluous
because, you know, we seem to be getting to a point
where we can explain it all.
Things that we needed God to explain time ago,
you know, we've now found an explanation for.
Okay? Your famous book on the rainbow.
You know? What did you call it?
[Dawkins] Unweaving the Rainbow. [Coyne] Unweaving the Rainbow. It's magnificent.
And it does away with God to explain the
rainbow. We don't need God to explain the
rainbow. All we need is, know what a spectrum is.
(laughter)
But the point is in the end I also, as a scientist
I'm foisting a little bit upon you, but
as a scientist I do believe even in scientific
research we are participating in mystery.
That we'll never have the final answer.
[Coyne] That it is always drawing us on like a witch. [Dawkins] I suspect that may be right.
In a way I'm equally excited by the thought
that we'll never have the final answer
and the possibility that we will. I mean,
I think both thoughts are equally enthralling.
[Coyne] Yeah to keep going on we have to
[Coyne] think that we will have the final answer. Right? [Dawkins] Yes, yes, yes.
[Coyne] But on the other hand you're correct.
There's this tension. We will because,
you know, we're working so hard.
[Dawkins] I take it seems to follow from
what you have just been saying that we
don't need God for explanation.
But you don't believe in miracles.
[Coyne] hmmmm... Do you have any easy questions?
(laughter)
[Dawkins] Well, I mean, wouldn't something
like the virgin birth be pretty counter to the
spirit of what you have just been saying so eloquently?
[Coyne] Again, my general background to trying
to give an answer would be the following,
and I'll stutter over miracles, I really will
I have to admit it.
Because I'm not embarrassed by them,
but I will stutter about them.
It was God's free way, again, of dealing with us.
He freely, ok, in his own way of thinking
decided to save us because we were
sinners, original sin and all this.
And he decided to save us in this way,
and sent his only begotten son, born of a virgin.
I don't see that that is inconsistent with
my scientific approach to things.
That God, well I'll use the word can
intervene in his creation.
I would not want God, God please,
to do this too often. (laughter)
But I can believe that he can do it
in his own, and he hasn't done it too often.
Most of the miracles that, you know, I've
read about or heard about, I don't believe in.
Because I believe they're superfluous,
to come back to that whole other word.
A lot of the medical miracles in all of this
I simply don't believe that God is always doing this.
[Dawkins] Which one, just name one you really do believe in, then.
[Coyne] The virgin birth, the resurrection.
[Dawkins] Ok
[Coyne] Don't push me. (laughter)
[Dawkins] I mean that does seem really
seriously inconsistent with the wonderful
things you were saying earlier.
It seems to be so...
[Coyne] It does.
[Dawkins] petty in a way.
[Coyne] It does. From my religious faith
it's bases upon, and I must say, you know,
it puts me in an embarrassing position
as a scientist, but nonetheless I can say
that I'm consistent with myself by accepting
that God is a God of love, who loves
in this way. And he's done this because
he loved us, wanted to save us.
[Dawkins] I think we both agree that one
of the great virtues of science is
it's universal. Japanese science is not
different from American science, etc.
But yet when I asked you about the virgin birth and you said
it's part of the tradition in which you
were brought up. And you'd earlier agreed that
had you been born a Muslim you would
have had a different tradition.
So had you been born a Muslim you
would believe in, I don't know,
Mohamed's winged horse or whatever.
Which I take it you don't believe in.
How can you reconcile that with
being a scientist?
[Coyne] The only thing I can say to that is
what I said before. That over short period
of time these various religious traditions seem to diverge.
[Dawkins] Yes. But I mean, either Jesus
was born of a virgin or he wasn't.
Either Mohamed had a winged horse
or not. That's not going to change.
[Coyne] Correct. How do you judge the veracity of those? [Dawkins] Yes.
All I can say is within a faith tradition.
That is, I have to deny that some of the things
that Muslims believe, I do not believe.
Some of the things I believe,
they do not believe.
[Dawkins] And if you had been raised Muslim
you would not believe in the virgin birth.
[Coyne] I firmly believe that, you know, that's correct.
[Dawkins] Ok
[Coyne] For that period of time.
[Dawkins] Well for all time.
[Coyne] My believing or not in the virgin
birth does not make it true or not.
[Coyne] It's true or not irrespective of my belief. [Dawkins] Yes. Yes.
[Coyne] By the way, if I may say, a little of an aside,
these different religious traditions
I once had a conversation,
a close friend, Carl Sagan and I,
similar to this. And I told him
that my faith was gift from God. And he said
"George how come you got the gift and I didn't?"
(laughter)
[Coyne] Well how do you answer that? [Dawkins] Well, I mean-
[Coyne] You either got it and you don't know it yet
or you will get it. That's my answer.