Thursday, March 29, 2007 | Reason : In the News | print version

Dawkins says religion is 'like sucking a dummy'

by Times Online

Reposted from:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article1583398.ece

CLICK HERE to listen to the podcasts from the Intelligence2 Debate, including talks by Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens and more.

Professor Richard Dawkins has described religious believers as "sucking on dummies" for comfort and said that giving children a religious education was comparable to "erecting a firewall in their minds" against scientific truth.

Debating in London on the subject: "Are we better off without religion?", he said religion was like "a child with a dummy in its mouth. I do not think it a very dignified or respect-worthy posture for an adult to go around sucking a dummy for comfort."

When his opponents, who included Rabbi Julia Neuberger and philosopher Roger Scruton, argued that "the religious gene" is in all of us, and it was part of the human condition to search for meaning, Dawkins replied: "Speak for yourself. It is not a part of me. It is not a part of the great majority of my friends in universities in England and the US and elsewhere."

The debate ranged from religious inspiration in art, to the human capacity for good and evil. You can read a full account in Ruth Gledhill's blog, Articles of Faith , and listen to our podcast .

The audience was asked to vote on the motion before the debate, with the result 826 votes for the motion, 681 against and 364 don't knows. At the end, the vote was 1,205 for the motion, 778 against and 100 don't knows.

Intelligence2, the London forum for live debate

Add to del.icio.us Posted: Thursday, March 29, 2007 | Permalink

Comments 1 - 50 of 59 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #28378 by RascoHeldall on March 29, 2007 at 2:49 am

It is a harsh analogy, but as far as I can see, an entirely fair one. What other possible explanation can there be for the phenomenon of educated, intelligent adults clinging to such puerile mythologies, when all sense and reason would surely lead them to conclude such fantasies are obviously false?

Other Comments by RascoHeldall

2. Comment #28379 by Homo economicus on March 29, 2007 at 3:00 am

True, the comfort blanket of faith is a dulling of the senses to human life. We have to face up to what needs doing now, not keep our eyes on a prize that no body has any real proof will be.

Other Comments by Homo economicus

3. Comment #28380 by Myryama on March 29, 2007 at 3:05 am

Are those voting figures correct? Looks like there were a couple of hundred extra votes the second time round...

Other Comments by Myryama

4. Comment #28381 by Bill Lees on March 29, 2007 at 3:10 am

Julia Neuberger and Roger Scruton, eh? I can well understand if those two got RD's back up. The religious "gene" is in all of us, indeed. What utter cobblers.

Other Comments by Bill Lees

5. Comment #28383 by Roy_H on March 29, 2007 at 3:20 am

I have often thought that myself actually, a dummy or a comfort blanket.

Other Comments by Roy_H

6. Comment #28385 by MartinSGill on March 29, 2007 at 3:28 am

Those figures are just wrong. There's a difference of 212 votes between the two sets of values.

Has someone been cooking the books? (and were they tasty?)

Other Comments by MartinSGill

7. Comment #28386 by beeline on March 29, 2007 at 3:39 am

Perhaps more people were inclined to vote (rather than voting 'don't know') after having heard the debate...

Other Comments by beeline

8. Comment #28387 by MouthAlmighty on March 29, 2007 at 3:39 am

More sloppy journalism; Dawkins did indeed say these things, but as I read it the dummy analogy was merely a means of succinctly summarising the arguments presented by his opponents. There are times when perhaps he'd do well to moderate his tone without weakening his argument but this wasn't one of them.

Anyway to be fair - the speakers against the motion did do a fairly good job of presenting all the best attributes of mankind; compassion, empathy, yearning, creativity, courage, etc.. failing only to acknowledge that upon all these things organised religion is parasitic.

Other Comments by MouthAlmighty

9. Comment #28389 by TheRationalist on March 29, 2007 at 4:02 am

The votes don't add up (I would guess) because of late arrivals.

The figures are most encouraging, nevertheless, because they demonstrate that an open minded audience is more likely to respond to clear sighted arguments against superstition than the deliberate confusions manufactured by superstition in its defence.

Those atheists prepared to speak out against religious doctrine take note. You are being accused of shrillness, repetition, rudeness, blandness and a propensity to suicidal nihilism. This is merely an indication of your success. People are beginning to listen and you are winning the argument. The superstitious are rattled.

Keep up the good work. There is still much to be done, however, as the following comment made by an indignant mother in my son's school playground this morning will demonstrate.

"I'm not having a four year old saying "fuck": it's blasphemous!"

Other Comments by TheRationalist

10. Comment #28391 by BaronOchs on March 29, 2007 at 4:05 am

Allright I'm listening to the podcast now . . .

Other Comments by BaronOchs

11. Comment #28394 by rationalteacher on March 29, 2007 at 4:11 am

I read Ruth Gledhill's blog. She makes some pleasant, conciliatory noises and compliments Richard on his attitude and humour, but, as with so many dim-witted religious types, she scuppers all this by her categorical assertion, with no evidence or argument whatsoever, that actually God certainly exists.

Oh, okay then, that's that sorted out then. Cheers.

Other Comments by rationalteacher

12. Comment #28396 by humanist on March 29, 2007 at 4:25 am

I was at the debate - the 2 votes were taken in different manners. The first was taken by people with clipboards on the way in; so I guess a lot of people would have been missed. The second vote was made by placing a yes/no card (the entrance ticket was perforated into 2 sections) into a ballot box passed around the auditorium.

I suggested that it was unfair on the 'against' side of the debate, as when a box with a hole in it got passed to the believers, they'd unthinkingly put £5 in it....

Other Comments by humanist

13. Comment #28398 by Rtambree on March 29, 2007 at 4:35 am

What would be really be interesting is a breakdown of religious conviction per:

Age group.
Political affiliation.
Income.
Education.
IQ.
Levels of oxytocin, cortisol, and other neurotransmitters and hormones.
Parents' religion.
Scientific literacy.

The correlations (if any, but I would assume there are many) would be fascinating.

Other Comments by Rtambree

14. Comment #28401 by Skeptic Jim on March 29, 2007 at 4:40 am

>What other possible explanation can there be for the phenomenon of educated, intelligent adults clinging to such puerile mythologies, when all sense and reason would surely lead them to conclude such fantasies are obviously false?

I have one...

Not only is the emperor naked but he's also playing with himself.

Other Comments by Skeptic Jim

15. Comment #28402 by ksskidude on March 29, 2007 at 4:41 am

"I suggested that it was unfair on the 'against' side of the debate, as when a box with a hole in it got passed to the believers, they'd unthinkingly put £5 in it...." humanist LMOA

I guess Dawkins could compare having belief to the Peanuts character Linus and his blanket. Would that have been better?
Or I know what about The Great Pumpkin. Linus in all in splendor, goes to a pumpkin patch every Hallowen and waits patiently for the great pumpkin to appear, but alas every year he is disappointed. But he never wavers despite all the ridicule from his peers.

Other Comments by ksskidude

16. Comment #28403 by Rtambree on March 29, 2007 at 4:42 am

I was at this debate and the three opponents of the motion (the defenders of religion) redefined religion as "transcendence". The Supreme Being was expendable. The Church was Expendable. And the Afterlife was expendable.

All that was defended was a vague notion to do good, a warm fuzzy feeling when two eyes look back at you, and a sense of something more.

That's not really Religion. So it's a victory of sorts, as Steven Weinberg suggested in the TLS's review of The God Delusion...

http://tls.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,25349-2552017,00.html

Other Comments by Rtambree

17. Comment #28404 by BaronOchs on March 29, 2007 at 4:45 am

Damn it I'm already irritated. Nigel Spivey says we need religion and is citing Van Gogh as an example of what he means.

Frankly I'd say fine have religion just throw out all the supernatural stuff. Dawkins says in TGD that he's no problem with non-supernatural Einsteinian religion. As for the "religion" in Van Gogh's work I'd say it expresses a great love of life and the world. Which is fine, what's that got to do with virgin births and afterlifes and petitionary prayer?

Other Comments by BaronOchs

18. Comment #28405 by Rtambree on March 29, 2007 at 4:53 am

17. BaronOchs - someone should have pointed to all the great secular art, architecture, music, etc.

In any case, you can appreciate Wagner operas or Lord of the Rings without actually believing any of the mythology as being true. No one is saying all art has to be based on objective reality and literal truth.

Other Comments by Rtambree

19. Comment #28407 by mmurray on March 29, 2007 at 4:59 am

I was at this debate and the three opponents of the motion (the defenders of religion) redefined religion as "transcendence". The Supreme Being was expendable. The Church was Expendable. And the Afterlife was expendable.

All that was defended was a vague notion to do good, a warm fuzzy feeling when two eyes look back at you, and a sense of something more.

That's not really Religion. So it's a victory of sorts,

With some of these people it's also just a tactical retreat. When they are arguing with Dawkins or someone intelligent they go all mushy and god gets all vague and woolly so there is nothing left to argue about. When they are back amongst the true believers it's organised religion, new testament, virgin birth and lots of rules.

Slippery buggers.

Michael

Other Comments by mmurray

20. Comment #28409 by BaronOchs on March 29, 2007 at 5:15 am

"Plato found ordinary humanity to be a profound disappointment, as do most of the speakers of the other side"

Manifestly false.

It's religions that have said this life is unsatisfactory and only a heavenly afterlife can provide true happiness (for the few blessed souls who attain it).

Of course that great religious thinker Augustine completely agreed with Plato.

Other Comments by BaronOchs

21. Comment #28410 by AdrianB on March 29, 2007 at 5:19 am

Yes, we are definitely seeing a pattern emerge now in debates between believers and atheists/agnostics. "Well that's not the God that I know" is the usual retort.

Now that we have 30,000 different denominations of Christianity, and the leader of one of them can't decide if hell is real or not, we can now see that the theists are on the back foot.

In reality every believer has their own personal religion. How many religions are there? About 4 billion I would suggest.

Other Comments by AdrianB

22. Comment #28413 by Philip1978 on March 29, 2007 at 5:29 am

I really hate this propounding of Professor Dawkins as a "fundamentalist atheist" in every single article I read about him, you want a fundie, go look at the Ugly section of Good, Bad & Ugly!

Other Comments by Philip1978

23. Comment #28414 by mikeshin on March 29, 2007 at 5:35 am

Even if there is a 'religious gene' and it is in all of us, god is still imaginary. Of course I am sure I don't have this particular genetic defect.

Other Comments by mikeshin

24. Comment #28416 by anotherclinton on March 29, 2007 at 6:01 am

Pardon my American origins here, but to me, a "dummy" is a mute (in old-timey politically incorrect speach), a stupid person (in playground speach) or a kind of mannequin meant to simulate human movement for the purposes of film (say you don't want to throw Judi Dench down the stairs, you dress up a dummy like her instead). I can't imagine Richard was talking about sucking anyone of these, so enlighten me as to the nature of a "dummy".

Other Comments by anotherclinton

25. Comment #28418 by don malvado on March 29, 2007 at 6:12 am

@ AnotherClinton, You'd say pacifier.

Other Comments by don malvado

26. Comment #28420 by Rtambree on March 29, 2007 at 6:23 am

Compare Hitchen's closing remarks in his first speech (about atheism not being responsible for Hitler, Mao, Stalin, etc, etc) with Scruton's closing remarks at the end... he completely ignored what Hitchens said and trotted out the same old lines. It's like they weren't even in the same room.

In any case, even if Scruton's comments were true, this is like saying we shouldn't get rid of HIV, because people would suffer from TB, Malaria, Typhoid, Dysentery, etc.

Other Comments by Rtambree

27. Comment #28422 by Mark R on March 29, 2007 at 6:29 am

As far as having a Religion Gene, Could it be that the gene is all about really believing in something in general rather than a religion. Our 4 children have not been brought up on religion and do not have a desire to follow religion as belief. I could have a the so called Religion gene but its not religion i believe. My wifes parents are Catholic and my parents anglican so if a gene is what makes you believe in reliogn one or all of us must have it within the family.
So maybe the naming of the gene religion is incorrect.Maybe the Belief Gene is more appropriate.

Other Comments by Mark R

28. Comment #28423 by Fishpeddler on March 29, 2007 at 6:47 am

Our genes may well predispose us to religious belief. Fortunately, we all share a trait which helps counteract this effect -- the gag reflex.

Other Comments by Fishpeddler

29. Comment #28428 by Fishpeddler on March 29, 2007 at 7:07 am

Comment #28405 by Rtambree raises an important point about the 'God' that is being debated. My limited experience has shown that the god being defended by theists in just about any debate of this type could be defined as "something other than whatever the atheist just persuasively argued against". I'm sick of them taking advantage of the vagueness of the concept. They remind me of my brother in the old days:

"You can borrow my bike if you can do 50 push-ups right now without stopping."

50 push-ups later...

"I meant with one arm. Anyone can do 50 REGULAR push-ups."

I don't know why an atheist would still participate in these debates without insisting that the theists' god be defined in advance.

Other Comments by Fishpeddler

30. Comment #28430 by sane1 on March 29, 2007 at 7:12 am

Religious gene? How about "gullible gene"?

Or maybe the gene to think we are of above average intelligence. That seems to lead hordes of people astray too.

I think I have a gene for thinking religoius people are basing their life on hooey. Or maybe I just have genes for actually liking and understanding logic.

Other Comments by sane1

31. Comment #28433 by Rtambree on March 29, 2007 at 7:16 am

Genes & Religion

I'm not sure how compelling a genetic explanation is.

Iran, USA, Ireland and Poland all have HIGH religiousity.

Netherlands, New Zealand, Sweden, England have LOW religiousity.

We all share 99.9% of our DNA. Americans and Scandinavians had a common ancestor just a few centuries ago.

250 years ago, just about everyone was religious.
In the National Academy of Sciences, almost no one is religious (and that's in the USA).

So it seems reasonable to conclude that culture and education play an enormous part in religiousity.

We're all born atheists. If you could raise children in a hypothetical religion-free & scientifically literate environment, would they spontaneously invent deities, afterlives, scriptures, visitations by angels, etc?

Other Comments by Rtambree

32. Comment #28436 by stephenray on March 29, 2007 at 7:31 am

One doesn't debate 'Are we better off without god?', one debates the motion '...we are better off without god.'

If the article had been properly written it would have been possible to understand who voted which way, in the figures quoted at the end of the article. n votes in favour of 'Are we better off without god?' is an unresolvable conundrum.

Other Comments by stephenray

33. Comment #28444 by scooternyc on March 29, 2007 at 8:18 am

Fairly close to my own catch phrase which is that, "God is a placebo".

Other Comments by scooternyc

34. Comment #28447 by pauliej on March 29, 2007 at 8:23 am

Fairly close to my own catch phrase which is that, "God is a placebo"

But a placebo should contain no active ingredient. Religion is often laced with poison.

Other Comments by pauliej

35. Comment #28449 by Paul Simons on March 29, 2007 at 8:27 am

I think giving children a 'solid religious education' is criminal child abuse. It teaches children to not think, just obey. Recently it has become evident that there is often an element of sexual abuse as well with it.

Other Comments by Paul Simons

36. Comment #28450 by Yorker on March 29, 2007 at 8:27 am

24. Comment #28416 by anotherclinton

As don malvado says, "pacifier" is the American term. "Dummy" comes from the original British phrase "dummy teat", meaning a false device taking the place of a mother's nipple.

Dawkins' point was religites use religion as a baby uses a dummy/pacifier. He did not mean that they were "dummies" in the American sense, (although many may be!) :)

Other Comments by Yorker

37. Comment #28451 by turkeyneck on March 29, 2007 at 8:31 am

After reflecting on this event and my studies, Christians in my classes rely more on embodiment than ever, the 'feeling' with the 'leap of faith.' It is more a denial of death and the misunderstanding of Science and Evolution's role in that scientific understanding, for instance what theory and hypothesis mean in scientific research. Then again, I am in the US and there is really no trying to get that part of the population to believe in anything more than an angry, anthropomorphic view of a divine being.

Other Comments by turkeyneck

38. Comment #28456 by sane1 on March 29, 2007 at 8:55 am

"Religion debauches education." So True. Training kids to not listen to evidence by "the firewall of faith." Gets the blood flowing. Right on Richard!

Other Comments by sane1

39. Comment #28462 by pastafarian82 on March 29, 2007 at 9:13 am

Quite impressive. Break down:

Before: 44% for, 36% against, 19.5% don't know

After: 57% for, 37% against, 4.8% don't know

Well done Richard et al.

Other Comments by pastafarian82

40. Comment #28464 by sane1 on March 29, 2007 at 9:20 am

Paraphrasing: "Most of the good comes from human capacity for the good, desire for connectedness, not from some alleged supernatural source." Of course. No wonder minds appear to have been changed. The religious apologists' arguments seem weaker and weaker the more they repeat them.

Other Comments by sane1

41. Comment #28474 by fatcitymax on March 29, 2007 at 10:21 am

I'm as anti-theist as Dawkins or Harris, and I suppose Dawkings was primarily directing his remarks toward evangelical zealots and those who want a religious state, but I also know that for many people life is crushing. And for those people who need a religion to endure their outrageous fortune, I support them provided they keep their beliefs to themselves.

Other Comments by fatcitymax

42. Comment #28480 by Quine on March 29, 2007 at 10:39 am

RD keeps getting better at the public presentation. I support the position that showing 'good' can happen without the supernatural is more effective than focusing on the 'evil' of religion (although you do need some of that). It is better to throw a line to a drowning man than to explain to him why the waterlogged wreckage he is clinging to is sinking.

Other Comments by Quine

43. Comment #28491 by Quine on March 29, 2007 at 11:37 am

Having read what I just posted, I will save you the time and acknowledge here and now that, yes, it is the general nature of religious persons to reject the line you throw them and continue to cling, yet harder, to the sinking wreckage.

Other Comments by Quine

44. Comment #28492 by bitbutter on March 29, 2007 at 11:43 am

It is better to throw a line to a drowning man than to explain to him why the waterlogged wreckage he is clinging to is sinking.

nicely put! and i agree.

In terms of converting people i think the best approaches are along these lines:

'look at this example of how people get along really well without religion'.

And 'let's look at why religion is so appealing, and why it can be very difficult to let it go'.

I think Dennet's book (Breaking the spell) does a valiant job of taking the second approach, but i'm afriad it's not focussed enough to deliver the message with the required cogency (particularly when compared to Dawkins and Harris' writing).

I'm having difficulty getting through it, i imagine a typical believer would be even less compelled to stick it out.

Other Comments by bitbutter

45. Comment #28493 by scooternyc on March 29, 2007 at 11:44 am

The nature of a person stating that his/her goodness comes from their religion is ignoble in his/her pursuit. Seeking the good graces of god by doing something, not to benefit others, but to seek validation from on high, which, in and of itself is either hypocrisy, as the person is stating without religion they would not do good, or he/she is fraud of the lowest kind using religion and god inpotentia of something for which they have no idea exists - paradise.

That's quite a lottery to be betting one's life on.

Other Comments by scooternyc

46. Comment #28496 by Rtambree on March 29, 2007 at 11:55 am

Consolation

I've never understood the consoling effects of religion, because the threat of Hell is everpresent.

What if I didn't praise God enough? What if I had an impure thought that I didn't account for when going to Confession? What if the priest's Holy Water wasn't blessed the right way during my Baptism? What if I was going to the wrong Church? What if some hair was showing from under my Burqa?

There are an infinite number of ways that God, like a tax auditor, can show you the fine print and send you to eternal damnation and torture.

It would freak me out - it's hardly consoling.

Other Comments by Rtambree

47. Comment #28551 by Veronique on March 29, 2007 at 5:17 pm

I am tired of the argument for religion from consolation.

I prefer wine and music.

The argument from artistic endeavour is also pathetic. RD handles in the best possible way - We will never know what Betthoven's Mesozoic Symphony may sound like.

This makes for better listening than Alister McGrath but it still trots out the same old, same old and none of them has anything to do with belief in sky fairies. Peter Atkins is right. One has to be psychologically insecure and away with the fairies to believe in them.

I loved the dummy reference and the firewall is so evocative. Well done RD.

AdrianB - try this site for number and distributions of religions.

http://www.adherents.com/adh_faq.html

Waiting for 2nd podcast to download. BRB.
V

Other Comments by Veronique

48. Comment #28559 by MelM on March 29, 2007 at 6:53 pm

Non-existence, a rich source of characteristics.
God can have any power required to get him out of the terminal grasp of a logician. This is a big advantage when arguing in favor of something that doesn't exist; there's just no end to the handy characterists it can have. Even better, everybody knows you have no evidence and they don't want to be embarrassed by your embarrassment; so, they don't bring up that inconvenient fact.

Inate ideas
A religion gene? Arn't we getting close to the "inate idea" business that Locke had to fight against. One of the best arguments ever is to claim that we're all born with someone's favorite idea; shuts people up right away.

Other Comments by MelM

49. Comment #28590 by DavidMcC on March 30, 2007 at 3:12 am

MelM: "A religion gene? Arn't we getting close to the "inate idea" business that Locke had to fight against."
Not necessarily, maybe just a genetic tendency to give emotion more say than logic in decisions. Difficult circumstances might also tend to favour emotion.

Other Comments by DavidMcC

50. Comment #28661 by Canuck#1 on March 30, 2007 at 9:46 am

Dummies usually calm babies, providing some peaceful sleep for everyone. It doesn't work for everyone. I never found any peace in Chritianity. Of course the sad thing is that adults do not need soothers, most adults anyway.

Other Comments by Canuck#1