Very interesting interview..A frank discussion about a great many issues..Ian McEwan has a great insight into humanity and Richard Dawkins style was open and fluid... Thanks Richard for this enlightening talk with Ian.. Bravo..
This is by far the most graceful, eloquent and inspiring video, albeit interview I have ever seen; especially for me as an atheist struggling with accepting rationalism and "spirituality" as hand in hand - which I now wholesomely do, thanks to this interview. No longer shall I allow the dogma of condescension from theists who propose I cannot feel the way they do. I feel as powerfully as any other, if not more due to it being my own. Thankyou for this interview.
I am a Aweist , in awe with the universe and men and women who respect the mystery like Richard Dawkins and Ian Mc Ewan . Thank you for speaking up for the Freedom of thought
I like the fact that Dawkins and McEwan are so thoroughly polite. They express superbly their thoughts and views on religion without any ranting or pseudointellectualism and do not resort to cheap insulys that frequently fall from the lips of the 'religious'.
Always pleasant to hear two rational people converse. I do not have a problem calling myself an atheist but on occasions where I'm asked what my religion is, I simply reply that I hold no supernatural beliefs. It usually leaves them stuttering. I'm hoping it will make them think about their own beliefs as they have probably not thought about their religion in quite that way. When I catch up on my current reading list, I will definitely have to pick up a book or two of Mr. McEwan.
Ian touches the cockles of your heart by his humility, openness,and vulnerable agnosticism. Every belief, including doctrinaire disbelief like atheism, is kind of prison.
Respect to Ian McEwan, he is absolutely spot on with everything he says. How nice to listen to a decent, down to earth, intelligent, thoughtful and softly spoken person after hearing so many of these loud-mouthed (mostly American) devout religious fools. There is however just one small point I disagree with; He says, on the topic of consciousness, 'there is no reason why we can't do everything that we do without being aware of ourselves....
That actually does not answer. I'd say the most common human reaction would be revenge. If someone hits you in the face your first reaction would be to strike back.
I see the brain as a car engine, when you've got a mis-firing spark plug (thought, that's religiously dogmatic), a good mechanic (an intellectual atheist) can replace the old spark plug (traditional dogmatic thought) with a new one (scientific explanation), and fit it correctly so it fires properly (teach it in a way you can grasp it), and provide the diagnostic solution for your engine to work properly thereafter.
Thanks for the free videos Richard! One point I thought you guys should have touched on though was during the part about sympathy. Because remember Richard its not just procreation that advances the species in a Darwinian sense, its also the successful raising of the offspring. Probably the strongest moral code in all rational people is to not hurt babies. I think sympathy stems from that maternal sense of raising offspring. And as you guys touched on keeping the group alive, being social.
As for the US, the difference is that the less religious minority used to be able to hold high political positions, and now it's impossible to be so and be open about it.
I wonder if the OCD-like praying for his parents to be kept safe that Ian talks of at 03:00 was anything to do with the fact that he was separated from his parents at 11 by being sent to a boarding school (he does not mention this).
Part 2 - Here is the point I'm making: when you damage one part of the brain, some aspect of the mind and subjectivity is lost. You damage another part, and more subjectivity is lost. So, if you damage the entirety of the brain at death, is it rational to assume that we can transcend the brain with our mind and any of our faculties in tact? How can we expect to remember grandma and speak English when the faculties associated with those tasks are irrevocably damaged (dead)?
McEwan is the British author of the last 30 years. Currently procrastinating whilst doing an essay on his novel Saturday in comparison with the relationship between technology (a la internet) and individuality as represented in Huxley's Brave New World.
In 'Breaking the Spell' Dennett mentions two people who have done studies comparing religion to businesses, much like you mention. If you haven't read it then I strongly urge you to, I think you'll like it. He also argues that religion is a natural phenomena and that they do actually evolve over time. Given the presence of religions all over the world in every culture, most people have suspected this before, but Dennett puts it excellently.
Love and empathy are irrational feelings. But that does not mean you have to abandond them, just remember feelings are irrational, because it helps you to control them.
Right. Dawkins and McEwens say specifically " from a country whose constitution and founding fathers staked out a world distinct from religious absolutism". So when they said America was founded as a secular country they were wrong why ? I understand the population may have been rabidly religious they don't comment on that, but the document upon which the country was founded was certainly secular written by secular founding fathers. I doubt they have a superficial understanding.
this was great. Really enjoyed. Helped along a lot of feelings and questions that i had. Would love to have atheists referred to a "bright". Sounds good to me.
Why is it that on every single one of these wonderful conversations the cameraman is so utterly inept? Is filming two stationary people really that difficult?
I couldn't agree more. In fact, when I was 9 or so years old. I had trouble believing some of the most basic aspects of religion that I was taught, such as there being an invisible god that we had no contact with who watched over everyone simultaneously Yet, at the start of the year, when we would do the questionnaires to introduce ourselves. I once called myself an atheist, everyone stared, they thought I was some kind of a disgusting person. Frankly, I think the mindset still exists today.
I live in Norway, and here we have an atheist prime minister now (Jens Stoltenberg), and many other members of the goverment are self-proclaimed atheists too. The social democrat party that's currently in government has done a lot of good in Norway when it comes to secularizing it. But a lot more could be done..one strange fact about Norway is that even though a majority are non-believers now, most of us are still members of the state-run lutheran church, so am I, and I have been since birth.: )
@Kanezert "those religious" (which is an incredibly broad term) are often comprised of people who identify themselves as followers (which is a word you flippantly used to describe the mass of people who are interested in the books of Dawkins) of Christ. They would have just as much reason to disagree with Dawkins then any other follower of Abrahamic religions or any religions for that matter. Your comment makes no sense.
I really connected with his statement about a "self-made" religion. When I was a child, I had my own kind of prayer and imagined my dead grandparents were watching me, though I did not care much about jesus or god.
Richard Dawkins: "I sometimes do wonder where this profound sense of empathy, this utter inability to be happy when another creature is suffering, which we all have, where that precisely comes from?" This is an astounding and extremely naive claim given the extreme suffering the human species inflicts on infinite numbers of sentient beings who are victims of animal agriculture etc Additionally anyone committed to advocating for those disabled persons who are also unable to adequately defend themselves learns too quickly how vulnerable these individuals are to the sinister and abusive tendencies of the human animal.
A remarkable interview that displays intelligence, compassion, insight and vision. If only all the world coud follow by being the same i.e. understanding and tolerance that this interview eminates. If people had met Dawkins 2,000 years ago then maybe we would be looking at a different 'god' now.
Which science supports creationism? I'm a scientist, and nothing I do involves creationism. Science doesn't address gods or any supernatural phenomena.
Now that is genuinely interesting. It would account for a certain amount of mistrust and the inverted elitism that comes with expecting to be thought inferior, and then striking out with preemptive animosity, which is very easily delivered via thoughts like: "Hey, Mr. hotshot atheist intellectual, if you were a simple ordinary believer like me you wouldn't be destined to burn in hell."
the last point brought up is always one that fascinated me, one of my first doubts about religion as a child. Why don't people believe ancient greek gods anymore, when they were the foundation of greek society and everyone adamantly believed in them? Who are we to look back and say THEY'RE the wrong ones? How can people honestly set their religion apart from this ancient greek nonsense when its practically the exact same thing? WHY do they believe in god but not in Zeus?? Whats the difference?
The main difficulty, I think, is in understanding the way in which human brains use poetry, metaphor, and myth as a way of describing, processing, and relating to the "difficult" aspects of Life, the Universe, and Everything. I'm not sure we can, as you put it, "do away with..magic and (...) creators". Isn't the "poetry" ok, as long as we realise it's not absolute truth? Can't people of different faiths learn it's meaningless to say "MY creation myth is the only true one" etc?
Like I said: "god" is only a metaphor for the Universe as it exists on both sides of your epidermis - "life flows on within you and without you" as George sang.
Then there's the tricky issue of faith healing and child abuse - parents wanting prayers to heal their kids and refusing any healthcare. It's absolutely ridiculous and US childcare services apparently have to be very careful, since they have to respect that belief but balance it with the rights and state of the child. I don't know of any people like Dawkins who advocate government intervention, but Dennett would like every child to have mandatory lessons to teach them about every religion.
Feeling are inheirently irrational, but that does not mean you can't dwell in them, as we spend most of our lives doing, P.S. This was mine not their point.
Well, I don't know that believing that a particular anatomy and physiology is necessary for consciousness negates the belief in an immaterial soul. I guess that was my point: I don't know how revelatory the former belief is in the context of someone's theism or lack thereof.
No problem. You simply seemed not to know, seeing how you were trying to use a quote from the 17th century to argue about what scholars think. I wouldn't quote Hume if I wanted to argue a point for modern, political conservatism, not that I would argue for that one way or the other.
My sentiments exactly. Part one of Atonement is a masterpiece. Saturday is a more cohesive whole--and also a damn good read--but Atonement blew my mind, and gave me a serious case of writer's envy. His older stuff though, while not bad, makes it clear that McEwan didn't exactly stumble into brilliance himself. Don't despair. Aspire. Because there's damn too little of that kind of prose in this world (not to mention the level of psychological depth [damn, I really need to read that book again]).
Wow, that was so enlightening. Thank you ! :D "Huh, have you ever been in a biology class?" No, I live in a cage, trying to rediscover the wheel. Have you ever read a Richard Dawkins book ?
Ian has a remarkable speaking voice. More importantly, he seems a considerate and intelligent man. I greatly enjoyed this dialogue.
I agree. He's also a formidable writer of novels . . .
So grateful that these videos of Dawkins are here. And thank you for posting this priceless dialogue between two compelling minds.
Thank you for the interview video.
The most engaging, motivational and intelligent conversation two great minds can possible have! Thank you!
+customisedfitness Try Richard Dawkins and Neil DeGrass Tyson
What an astonishingly excessive and naive assertion.
I love Ian McEwan... first interview I ever watched with him...
My views are exactly the same!
reasoning is what we need in the world , im happy we have people like Ian and Richard.
What a clarity of thought McEwan possesses. When I grow up I want to be just like him.
Really enjoyed this. McEwan is extremely sharp and well spoken.
Very interesting interview..A frank discussion about a great many issues..Ian McEwan has a great insight into humanity and Richard Dawkins style was open and fluid... Thanks Richard for this enlightening talk with Ian.. Bravo..
This is by far the most graceful, eloquent and inspiring video, albeit interview I have ever seen; especially for me as an atheist struggling with accepting rationalism and "spirituality" as hand in hand - which I now wholesomely do, thanks to this interview. No longer shall I allow the dogma of condescension from theists who propose I cannot feel the way they do. I feel as powerfully as any other, if not more due to it being my own. Thankyou for this interview.
I enjoyed watching this immensely....thank-you!
absolutely brilliant video, thanks for uploading!
I am a Aweist , in awe with the universe and men and women who respect the mystery like Richard Dawkins and Ian Mc Ewan . Thank you for speaking up for the Freedom of thought
This video made me smarter.
Unbelievable discussion by two intelligent men.
I like the fact that Dawkins and McEwan are so thoroughly polite. They express superbly their thoughts and views on religion without any ranting or pseudointellectualism and do not resort to cheap insulys that frequently fall from the lips of the 'religious'.
What a brilliant interview.
I've heard of Ian McEwan but this is the first time I've seen/heard him.
He's a very interesting fella.
And his is an extaordinary novelist. Give him a read!
The grey book in the background is A Room Full of Mirrors, a biography of Jimi Hendrix. Go Ian!
Worth a read?
I'm truly in awe as to how intelligent these two human beings are. My new goal in life is to shake Mr. Dawkins' hand.
Always pleasant to hear two rational people converse. I do not have a problem calling myself an atheist but on occasions where I'm asked what my religion is, I simply reply that I hold no supernatural beliefs. It usually leaves them stuttering. I'm hoping it will make them think about their own beliefs as they have probably not thought about their religion in quite that way.
When I catch up on my current reading list, I will definitely have to pick up a book or two of Mr. McEwan.
Thank you.
Great interview, Ian McEwan is an excellent writer. The innocent is one of the best novels I've ever read.
what a brilliant interview
Interesting interview. Thanks for posting
Ian touches the cockles of your heart by his humility, openness,and vulnerable agnosticism. Every belief, including doctrinaire disbelief like atheism, is kind of prison.
Respect to Ian McEwan, he is absolutely spot on with everything he says. How nice to listen to a decent, down to earth, intelligent, thoughtful and softly spoken person after hearing so many of these loud-mouthed (mostly American) devout religious fools.
There is however just one small point I disagree with; He says, on the topic of consciousness, 'there is no reason why we can't do everything that we do without being aware of ourselves....
Awesome interview!
The "listing-off-loved-ones-so-as-to-protect-them-from-demons" game was one near and dear to my heart for a long time. Can't say I miss it though.
On a side-note my favorite novel is Atonement.....such a great novel (and film)!
Q
That actually does not answer. I'd say the most common human reaction would be revenge. If someone hits you in the face your first reaction would be to strike back.
I see the brain as a car engine, when you've got a mis-firing spark plug (thought, that's religiously dogmatic), a good mechanic (an intellectual atheist) can replace the old spark plug (traditional dogmatic thought) with a new one (scientific explanation), and fit it correctly so it fires properly (teach it in a way you can grasp it), and provide the diagnostic solution for your engine to work properly thereafter.
I love this. Definitely describes the feeling.
I like this "analogy" very much, thank you for it!
@kelvincrimson That's the best comeback I've read on youtube. Good work.
Thanks for the free videos Richard! One point I thought you guys should have touched on though was during the part about sympathy. Because remember Richard its not just procreation that advances the species in a Darwinian sense, its also the successful raising of the offspring. Probably the strongest moral code in all rational people is to not hurt babies. I think sympathy stems from that maternal sense of raising offspring. And as you guys touched on keeping the group alive, being social.
I don't know what is more captivating, those words or those eyes.
As for the US, the difference is that the less religious minority used to be able to hold high political positions, and now it's impossible to be so and be open about it.
Stupid and needs to change.
I wonder if the OCD-like praying for his parents to be kept safe that Ian talks of at 03:00 was anything to do with the fact that he was separated from his parents at 11 by being sent to a boarding school (he does not mention this).
Probably related yes.
why the fadeout at 15:55? What was the answer?
Yes. McEwan is a wonderfully erudite man, speaking in great prose here.
What a beautiful world this would be if everyone had the same line of thought as stated in this video at 19:10...
You could say that for a vast amount of philosophy and literature without ever having to posit that magic is real.
Part 2 - Here is the point I'm making: when you damage one part of the brain, some aspect of the mind and subjectivity is lost. You damage another part, and more subjectivity is lost. So, if you damage the entirety of the brain at death, is it rational to assume that we can transcend the brain with our mind and any of our faculties in tact? How can we expect to remember grandma and speak English when the faculties associated with those tasks are irrevocably damaged (dead)?
Becoming an atheist is like spending your entire life in prison and then one day discovering that the door was never locked.
It's exactly like that.
😂😂😂… but being a believer means that you never were in prison but you had your eyes closed..😏
Ian was only 60 here, but he had the voice of a man much much older than his age.
McEwan is the British author of the last 30 years. Currently procrastinating whilst doing an essay on his novel Saturday in comparison with the relationship between technology (a la internet) and individuality as represented in Huxley's Brave New World.
In 'Breaking the Spell' Dennett mentions two people who have done studies comparing religion to businesses, much like you mention. If you haven't read it then I strongly urge you to, I think you'll like it. He also argues that religion is a natural phenomena and that they do actually evolve over time.
Given the presence of religions all over the world in every culture, most people have suspected this before, but Dennett puts it excellently.
who here has read Solar? it's hilarious. McEwan is a genius
No trying to be a smartass, but I think it's meant to be an interview, and not a debate. If it was a debate I'd see your point. ;)
Jumping to conclusions- yup, sounds like me.. Thanks for clearing it up for me
excellent enlightening video
Love and empathy are irrational feelings.
But that does not mean you have to abandond them, just remember feelings are irrational, because it helps you to control them.
Love the writers of the books behind him: Christopher Hitchens, Julian Barnes, Robert Stone...
The ratings of these kinds of videos shows that the internet is where religion comes to die.
'Atheism is a religion...'
...the way Connect 4 is an extreme sport.
+kelman727 More like in the way sitting and watching tv is a sport
Pheer777
Like fucking is chastity...
Like being bald is a hairstyle
24.09 There are no law sessions held on Sundays ........or Saturday.
Right.
Dawkins and McEwens say specifically " from a country whose constitution and founding fathers staked out a world distinct from religious absolutism".
So when they said America was founded as a secular country they were wrong why ?
I understand the population may have been rabidly religious they don't comment on that, but the document upon which the country was founded was certainly secular written by secular founding fathers.
I doubt they have a superficial understanding.
If someone plays Beethoven to you to prove the existence of God, play them Justin Bieber.
@Melchior40
Whaddya mean "as far as catholics are concerned"? So there's something wrong with all the other versions?
this was great. Really enjoyed. Helped along a lot of feelings and questions that i had. Would love to have atheists referred to a "bright". Sounds good to me.
Agree.
Religion wasn’t founded on love. It was a realisation that vulnerability could be easily exploited
his eyes are so piercing, I feel he's directly talking to me...
Long, but still a pretty provacative video, though I have yet to be converted.
I mean yes and no. We dont know what cind of comment it was, maybe it was appropriet to remove it.
Why is it that on every single one of these wonderful conversations the cameraman is so utterly inept?
Is filming two stationary people really that difficult?
It was like the camera kept running out of battery every so often. I think he needed to replace the camera.
Without science you wouldn't have technology.
brilliant line to end it on.
Science always deal in facts, and nothing else - that's the beauty of it.
Exactly.
I couldn't agree more. In fact, when I was 9 or so years old. I had trouble believing some of the most basic aspects of religion that I was taught, such as there being an invisible god that we had no contact with who watched over everyone simultaneously
Yet, at the start of the year, when we would do the questionnaires to introduce ourselves. I once called myself an atheist, everyone stared, they thought I was some kind of a disgusting person.
Frankly, I think the mindset still exists today.
I live in Norway, and here we have an atheist prime minister now (Jens Stoltenberg), and many other members of the goverment are self-proclaimed atheists too. The social democrat party that's currently in government has done a lot of good in Norway when it comes to secularizing it. But a lot more could be done..one strange fact about Norway is that even though a majority are non-believers now, most of us are still members of the state-run lutheran church, so am I, and I have been since birth.: )
@Kanezert "those religious" (which is an incredibly broad term) are often comprised of people who identify themselves as followers (which is a word you flippantly used to describe the mass of people who are interested in the books of Dawkins) of Christ. They would have just as much reason to disagree with Dawkins then any other follower of Abrahamic religions or any religions for that matter. Your comment makes no sense.
I really connected with his statement about a "self-made" religion. When I was a child, I had my own kind of prayer and imagined my dead grandparents were watching me, though I did not care much about jesus or god.
Richard Dawkins: "I sometimes do wonder where this profound sense of empathy, this utter inability to be happy when another creature is suffering, which we all have, where that precisely comes from?"
This is an astounding and extremely naive claim given the extreme suffering the human species inflicts on infinite numbers of sentient beings who are victims of animal agriculture etc
Additionally anyone committed to advocating for those disabled persons who are also unable to adequately defend themselves learns too quickly how vulnerable these individuals are to the sinister and abusive tendencies of the human animal.
A remarkable interview that displays intelligence, compassion, insight and vision. If only all the world coud follow by being the same i.e. understanding and tolerance that this interview eminates.
If people had met Dawkins 2,000 years ago then maybe we would be looking at a different 'god' now.
Well people did meet a Socrates, Arostotle and Plato. See where they did they reach.
Which science supports creationism? I'm a scientist, and nothing I do involves creationism. Science doesn't address gods or any supernatural phenomena.
McEwan is a great author.
Now that is genuinely interesting. It would account for a certain amount of mistrust and the inverted elitism that comes with expecting to be thought inferior, and then striking out with preemptive animosity, which is very easily delivered via thoughts like: "Hey, Mr. hotshot atheist intellectual, if you were a simple ordinary believer like me you wouldn't be destined to burn in hell."
@Tomskicat
It was probably filmed just after his interview with Steven Weinberg so he was overcompensating.
Brilliant ❤❤❤❤❤❤❤
Just out of curiosity, what if you are an atheist that believes in reincarnation? Are the two mutually exclusive?
the last point brought up is always one that fascinated me, one of my first doubts about religion as a child.
Why don't people believe ancient greek gods anymore, when they were the foundation of greek society and everyone adamantly believed in them? Who are we to look back and say THEY'RE the wrong ones? How can people honestly set their religion apart from this ancient greek nonsense when its practically the exact same thing? WHY do they believe in god but not in Zeus?? Whats the difference?
If you cut a section through a tree you have a wheel, right ? What's that, invention ? I'm puzzled...
He has a copy of Hitch's Love Poverty and War on the desk behind him.
The main difficulty, I think, is in understanding the way in which human brains use poetry, metaphor, and myth as a way of describing, processing, and relating to the "difficult" aspects of Life, the Universe, and Everything.
I'm not sure we can, as you put it, "do away with..magic and (...) creators". Isn't the "poetry" ok, as long as we realise it's not absolute truth? Can't people of different faiths learn it's meaningless to say "MY creation myth is the only true one" etc?
@tskasa1 Source please? I'd love to read it.
Like I said: "god" is only a metaphor for the Universe as it exists on both sides of your epidermis - "life flows on within you and without you" as George sang.
Great video
Then there's the tricky issue of faith healing and child abuse - parents wanting prayers to heal their kids and refusing any healthcare. It's absolutely ridiculous and US childcare services apparently have to be very careful, since they have to respect that belief but balance it with the rights and state of the child.
I don't know of any people like Dawkins who advocate government intervention, but Dennett would like every child to have mandatory lessons to teach them about every religion.
Feeling are inheirently irrational, but that does not mean you can't dwell in them, as we spend most of our lives doing,
P.S. This was mine not their point.
I most certainly have: but it means something different to me than the interpretations you have inherited.
arationalists! I love it! Really, this needs to be adopted!
...I find it hard to imagine how we could do these things if we were not aware of ourselves. What do YOU think...?
Well, I don't know that believing that a particular anatomy and physiology is necessary for consciousness negates the belief in an immaterial soul. I guess that was my point: I don't know how revelatory the former belief is in the context of someone's theism or lack thereof.
Nice to see this discussion. Not "Cp Snow : Two Cultures". Phew!
How about Khalil Gibran? He equates “ true love to God” !
No problem. You simply seemed not to know, seeing how you were trying to use a quote from the 17th century to argue about what scholars think. I wouldn't quote Hume if I wanted to argue a point for modern, political conservatism, not that I would argue for that one way or the other.
they touch on some Pat Condel subjects here. It's great.
My sentiments exactly. Part one of Atonement is a masterpiece. Saturday is a more cohesive whole--and also a damn good read--but Atonement blew my mind, and gave me a serious case of writer's envy. His older stuff though, while not bad, makes it clear that McEwan didn't exactly stumble into brilliance himself. Don't despair. Aspire. Because there's damn too little of that kind of prose in this world (not to mention the level of psychological depth [damn, I really need to read that book again]).
Wow, that was so enlightening. Thank you ! :D
"Huh, have you ever been in a biology class?"
No, I live in a cage, trying to rediscover the wheel.
Have you ever read a Richard Dawkins book ?
Ian McEwan looks incredibly uncomfortable. Look at his awkward body language or the anxious look on his face.