richard_dawkins_-_the_god_delusion
A R G U M E N T S F O R G O D ' S E X I S T E N C E 9 9nuclear energy. Pleasingly, at the British Association meeting of1903, it fell to Sir George Darwin, Charles's second son, tovindicate his un-knighted father by invoking the Curies' discoveryof radium, and confound the earlier estimate of the still living LordKelvin.Great scientists who profess religion become harder to findthrough the twentieth century, but they are not particularly rare. Isuspect that most of the more recent ones are religious only in theEinsteinian sense which, I argued in Chapter 1, is a misuse of theword. Nevertheless, there are some genuine specimens of goodscientists who are sincerely religious in the full, traditional sense.Among contemporary British scientists, the same three names cropup with the likeable familiarity of senior partners in a firm ofDickensian lawyers: Peacocke, Stannard and Polkinghorne. All threehave either won the Templeton Prize or are on the Templeton Boardof Trustees. After amicable discussions with all of them, both in publicand in private, I remain baffled, not so much by their belief in acosmic lawgiver of some kind, as by their belief in the details of theChristian religion: resurrection, forgiveness of sins and all.There are some corresponding examples in the United States, forexample Francis Collins, administrative head of the Americanbranch of the official Human Genome Project.* But, as in Britain,they stand out for their rarity and are a subject of amused bafflementto their peers in the academic community. In 1996, in thegardens of his old college at Cambridge, Clare, I interviewed myfriend Jim Watson, founding genius of the Human Genome Project,for a BBC television documentary that I was making on GregorMendel, founding genius of genetics itself. Mendel, of course, wasa religious man, an Augustinian monk; but that was in the nineteenthcentury, when becoming a monk was the easiest way for theyoung Mendel to pursue his science. For him, it was the equivalentof a research grant. I asked Watson whether he knew manyreligious scientists today. He replied: 'Virtually none. OccasionallyI meet them, and I'm a bit embarrassed [laughs] because, you know,I can't believe anyone accepts truth by revelation.'Francis Crick, Watson's co-founder of the whole moleculargenetics revolution, resigned his fellowship at Churchill College,* Not to be confused with the unofficial human genome project, led by that brilliant(and non-religious) 'buccaneer' of science, Craig Venter.
100 T H E O O D D E L U >S 1 O NCambridge, because of the college's decision to build a chapel (atthe behest of a benefactor). In my interview with Watson at Clare,I conscientiously put it to him that, unlike him and Crick, somepeople see no conflict between science and religion, because theyclaim science is about how things work and religion is about whatit is all for. Watson retorted: 'Well I don't think we're for anything.We're just products of evolution. You can say, "Gee, your life mustbe pretty bleak if you don't think there's a purpose." But I'm anticipatinghaving a good lunch.' We did have a good lunch, too.The efforts of apologists to find genuinely distinguished modernscientists who are religious have an air of desperation, generatingthe unmistakably hollow sound of bottoms of barrels beingscraped. The only website I could find that claimed to list 'NobelPrize-winning Scientific Christians' came up with six, out of a totalof several hundred scientific Nobelists. Of these six, it turned outthat four were not Nobel Prize-winners at all; and at least one, tomy certain knowledge, is a non-believer who attends church forpurely social reasons. A more systematic study by Benjamin Beit-Hallahmi 'found that among Nobel Prize laureates in the sciences,as well as those in literature, there was a remarkable degree ofirreligiosity, as compared to the populations they came from'. 52A study in the leading journal Nature by Larson and Witham in1998 showed that of those American scientists considered eminentenough by their peers to have been elected to the National Academyof Sciences (equivalent to being a Fellow of the Royal Society inBritain) only about 7 per cent believe in a personal God. 53 Thisoverwhelming preponderance of atheists is almost the exactopposite of the profile of the American population at large, ofwhom more than 90 per cent are believers in some sort of supernaturalbeing. The figure for less eminent scientists, not elected tothe National Academy, is intermediate. As with the moredistinguished sample, religious believers are in a minority, but a lessdramatic minority of about 40 per cent. It is completely as I wouldexpect that American scientists are less religious than the Americanpublic generally, and that the most distinguished scientists are theleast religious of all. What is remarkable is the polar oppositionbetween the religiosity of the American public at large and theatheism of the intellectual elite. 54
- Page 52 and 53: THE GOD HYPOTHESIS 47Carl Sagan was
- Page 54 and 55: THE GOD HYPOTHESIS 49Huxley was not
- Page 56 and 57: T H E G O D H Y P O T H E SIS 51can
- Page 58 and 59: T H E G O D H Y P O T H E SIS 53in
- Page 60 and 61: THE GOD HYPOTHESIS 55McGrath goes o
- Page 62 and 63: THE GOD HYPOTHESIS 57the Cambridge
- Page 64 and 65: THE GOD HYPOTHESIS 59unequivocally
- Page 66 and 67: THE GOD HYPOTHESIS 61non-interventi
- Page 68 and 69: T H E G O D H Y P O T H E S I S 63s
- Page 70 and 71: THE GOD HYPOTHESIS 65Another typica
- Page 72 and 73: T H E G O D H Y P O THESIS 67NOMA -
- Page 74 and 75: T H E G O D II Y P O T H E S I S 69
- Page 76 and 77: THE GOD HYPOTHESIS 71longer based o
- Page 78 and 79: THE GOD HYPOTHESIS 73advanced techn
- Page 80 and 81: A R G U M E N T S F O R G O D ' S E
- Page 82 and 83: A R G U M E N T S F O R G O D ' S E
- Page 84 and 85: A R G U M E N T S F O R G O D ' S E
- Page 86 and 87: A R G U M E N T S F O R G O D ' S E
- Page 88 and 89: A R G U M E N T S F O R G O D ' S E
- Page 90 and 91: A R G U M E N T S F O R G O D ' S E
- Page 92 and 93: A R G U M E N T S F O R G O D ' S E
- Page 94 and 95: A R G U M ENTS F O R G O D ' S E X
- Page 96 and 97: ARGUMENTS F O R GOD'S E X I S T E N
- Page 98 and 99: A R C U M E N T S F O R G O D ' S E
- Page 100 and 101: A R G U M E N T S FOR G O D ' S E X
- Page 104 and 105: ARGUMEN T S FOR GOD'S EXISTENCE 101
- Page 106 and 107: A R G U M E N T S F O R G OD'S E X
- Page 108 and 109: A R G U M E N T S F O R G O D ' S E
- Page 110 and 111: A R Ci U M E N T S F O R G O D ' S
- Page 112 and 113: ARGUMENTS F O R G OD'S E X I S T E
- Page 114 and 115: W H Y T II E R E A L M O S T C E R
- Page 116 and 117: W H Y T H E R E A I. M O S T C E R
- Page 118 and 119: W H Y T H ERE AL.MOS T C E R TAINL.
- Page 120 and 121: W H Y T H f ' R i . A L M O S T C 1
- Page 122 and 123: W H Y T l i l - I U ; A L M O S T C
- Page 124 and 125: W H Y r i-i r R r A I M O S T C t R
- Page 126 and 127: W H Y '11IKRK A L M O S T (.: F R T
- Page 128 and 129: no evidence of its own, but thrives
- Page 130 and 131: W H Y r H E RE A 1. M O S T C F.RTA
- Page 132 and 133: I ! T R t AI.M15S I' ('. I R !' A f
- Page 134 and 135: W H Y T H E R E A I . M O S T C H R
- Page 136 and 137: A I. M O S I C 1 R I'A I N M is X <
- Page 138 and 139: W i I Y 1 II F. R F A 1 Vi (.) S T
- Page 140 and 141: W H Y r 11 r u r -\ i. \i o s r c r
- Page 142 and 143: W 11 Y '1 11 !•; R I. A I VI () S
- Page 144 and 145: !' R I ALMOST l' I U '[ A I \ I Y i
- Page 146 and 147: W H Y T H !• R E A I. M O S "I" C
- Page 148 and 149: extravagant God hypothesis and the
- Page 150 and 151: W H Y T H K R K A L VI O S I C E R
A R G U M E N T S F O R G O D ' S E X I S T E N C E 9 9
nuclear energy. Pleasingly, at the British Association meeting of
1903, it fell to Sir George Darwin, Charles's second son, to
vindicate his un-knighted father by invoking the Curies' discovery
of radium, and confound the earlier estimate of the still living Lord
Kelvin.
Great scientists who profess religion become harder to find
through the twentieth century, but they are not particularly rare. I
suspect that most of the more recent ones are religious only in the
Einsteinian sense which, I argued in Chapter 1, is a misuse of the
word. Nevertheless, there are some genuine specimens of good
scientists who are sincerely religious in the full, traditional sense.
Among contemporary British scientists, the same three names crop
up with the likeable familiarity of senior partners in a firm of
Dickensian lawyers: Peacocke, Stannard and Polkinghorne. All three
have either won the Templeton Prize or are on the Templeton Board
of Trustees. After amicable discussions with all of them, both in public
and in private, I remain baffled, not so much by their belief in a
cosmic lawgiver of some kind, as by their belief in the details of the
Christian religion: resurrection, forgiveness of sins and all.
There are some corresponding examples in the United States, for
example Francis Collins, administrative head of the American
branch of the official Human Genome Project.* But, as in Britain,
they stand out for their rarity and are a subject of amused bafflement
to their peers in the academic community. In 1996, in the
gardens of his old college at Cambridge, Clare, I interviewed my
friend Jim Watson, founding genius of the Human Genome Project,
for a BBC television documentary that I was making on Gregor
Mendel, founding genius of genetics itself. Mendel, of course, was
a religious man, an Augustinian monk; but that was in the nineteenth
century, when becoming a monk was the easiest way for the
young Mendel to pursue his science. For him, it was the equivalent
of a research grant. I asked Watson whether he knew many
religious scientists today. He replied: 'Virtually none. Occasionally
I meet them, and I'm a bit embarrassed [laughs] because, you know,
I can't believe anyone accepts truth by revelation.'
Francis Crick, Watson's co-founder of the whole molecular
genetics revolution, resigned his fellowship at Churchill College,
* Not to be confused with the unofficial human genome project, led by that brilliant
(and non-religious) 'buccaneer' of science, Craig Venter.