The evolutionary biologist has granted us an interview! Good God! Er, well, maybe not…
This interview originally appeared in DWM 398, published in July 2008.
Hello, Professor. You might just about be the most intelligent person I’ve ever interviewed for this back page.
“Right. Thank you.”
What persuaded you to trek all the way to Cardiff to record a cameo in The Stolen Earth?
“Well, I love train journeys. I get work done on the train, because I can’t log onto the internet. Also, the connection of Lalla [Ward, his wife, who played Romana in Doctor Who from 1979-81] made it very tempting. I didn’t watch it at the time, but I’ve loved seeing many of her episodes on DVD, so it was a nice thing to do.”
Now, the premise of the episode is that the Earth and 26 other planets have been transported across the universe by the Daleks, to form a compression field that can cancel out the electrical energy of atoms. The resulting ‘Reality Bomb’ can destroy all matter in the universe. What are the chances of this happening in real life?
“Er… well, I’m not an astronomer, but I think it’s pretty unlikely.”
What if Daleks actually existed? What then?
“Well, it’s still hard to imagine how it could happen. I mean, I suppose Earth could get knocked out of the solar system, but… I mean, how’s it supposed to happen in the story? How is the Earth transported?”
To be honest, Russell T Davies doesn’t go into the science in much detail.
“Right. It would, needless to say, be a complete disaster. Nobody would survive.”
Does Doctor Who encourage young people to take an interest in science, do you think? There’s a scientific explanation for most things in the show, even if it’s cod science.
“I do think that science fiction is valuable in teaching people about science. I’ve learned quite a lot of science, in a funny kind of way, from reading science fiction. I don’t think from Doctor Who, though.”
Increasingly, the programme uses Christ-like imagery in its portrayal of the Doctor –
“[Interrupting] Is the character supposed to be sympathetic to religion?”
It’s more that the portrayal of the character employs religious iconography…
“Okay. Well, is it annoying religious people, in the way that Philip Pullman annoys them?”
I’m sure it annoys some of them.
“Well, I’m all for that. I am sufficiently hostile to religion. I hope Doctor Who doesn’t give any aid or comfort to them.”
There has been some hostility to your work, too, especially The God Delusion [his 2006 bestseller, which contends that belief in a god qualifies as a delusion]. Do you ever worry for your safety?
“I’m not worried about that at all, no. I’ve received an enormous amount of positive acclaim for it, from people I respect, and the people who don’t like it, actually, it turns out I don’t respect very much. So it’s not been a problem.”
To what extent is The God Delusion preaching to the converted?
“There’s probably a fair bit of that. I doubt that it’ll change the minds of real died-in-the-wool faith-heads. But quite a few people are on the fence – or vaguely tick the box labelled Anglican or Catholic or something, but haven’t really given it much thought. I hope the book stimulates them, and then they will come down off the fence. The other thing is, even the converted to whom I’m preaching, especially in America, they need encouraging. They’re in the closet. They need to come out. Overwhelmingly, that’s happening in America. I’m getting huge audiences at the various places I go to speak – I mean, thousands of people, standing ovations, and it’s about giving people the courage to come out. It’s preaching to the choir, but the choir is a lot bigger than people think.”
Would you consider The God Delusion to be a work that isn’t fully appreciated in its time?
“I’m delighted to hear you speculate along those lines. Maybe you’re thinking of something like Bertrand Russell’s Why I’m Not a Christian, that kind of thing. Wouldn’t it be wonderful – but who can tell? I would love to think that’s true, but I’m not presumptuous enough to propose that myself.”
There’s a group on Facebook called ‘If I Weren’t an Atheist, I’d Think Richard Dawkins Was God’. Do you worry that we all might end up worshipping you?
“Of course I’m not happy about that kind of thing.”
But at least you exist.
“Well, yes. But I don’t want to be worshipped. I wasn’t expecting that sort of thing. No, no, not at all.”
Richard Dawkins was talking to Benjamin Cook.
Just wondering, why was Dawkins in it at all? They should’ve had Patrick Moore or some other astronomer. Also, Dawkins is just as bad as the Pope.
Bryan,
Dr. Dawkins is a science proper-gator NOT a representative of God or any supernatural claims. So, we don’t mind whether he is good or bad provided what he says about the science is factual and accurate.
Does Dawkins cause harm to AIDs victims in Africa? Does he hate gays? Is he the head of a crime syndicate which covers up paedophile priests? Does he preach faith? Does he pretend to love the poor but sit in a golden palace? (In fact, the new Pope, according to one source, lived in poverty in the past, throwing off riches; not anymore, it seems.) Does he claim to be infallible? Is he the head of an organization which is bigoted against women? Is he part of an organization which endorses Mother Teresa, a woman who, despite popular belief, was a vile fraud and fanatic responsible for huge amounts of suffering? Is he part of an organization which condemns gay marriage? Does he condemn life saving research? Is he associated with an organization which has, throughout history, been responsible for countless deaths and instances of suffering and anti-science persecution?
I think you may wish to review your claim.
This rather reminds me of one of Dawkins’ own tweets on a similar but not unrelated topic. It went something like this:
“Yes, I’m as bad as any fundamentalist. Please excuse me while I go chop off an arm and throw acid in a woman’s face.”
Bryan,
Dr. Dawkins is a science proper-gator NOT a representative of God or any supernatural claims. So, we don’t mind whether he is good or bad provided what he says about the science is factual and accurate.