Richard Dawkins: "On Life in the Universe" (Today's Most Viewed)

 

                     

It's no accident that we see stars in the sky, says famed Oxford biologist Richard Dawkins: they are a vital part of any universe capable of generating us. But, as Dawkins emphasizes, that does not mean that stars exists in order to make us."It is just that without stars there would be no atoms heavier than lithium in the periodic table," Dawkins wrote in The Ancestors Tale -A Pilgrimage to the Dawn of Evolution, "and a chemistry of only three elements is too impoverished to support life. Seeing is the kind of activity that can go on only in the kind of universe where what you see is stars."

"It's an astonishing stroke of luck that we are here. Every animal owes its existence to an astonishing list of contingencies that might not have happened. With so much chance and luck it might be thought that evolution itself is a process of pure chance, but nothing could be further from the truth."

It was predictable, for example, that eyes and ears would develop in different species, and they had done so independently several times over, Dawkins said. "Natural selection is the great engine of the predictable side of life, but it cannot start without certain prerequisites."

Dawkins has said it was his gut feeling that there been another stroke of luck that would have developed life elsewhere in the universe.

"There are billions and billions of planets out there, so there could be millions of planets that have life on them, but the origin of life could still be a staggeringly good stroke of luck," he said.

To Richard Dawkins "believing in God is like believing in a teapot orbiting Mars." Dawkins said that a sense of gratitude had developed as an essential part of human societies. This meant humans had an overwhelming desire to give thanks, even when there was no-one to give thanks to and this, in part, had given rise to religion. 

Dawkins sees himself as a "religious non-believer" who's career has revolved around Darwin's view that all was 'produced by laws acting around us' described so powerfully by Dawrwin in the Origin of the Species:

"Thus, from the war of nature, from famine and death, the most exalted object which we are capable of conceiving, namely, the production of the higher animals, directly follows. There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved."

The Daily Galaxy via  http://www.stuff.co.nz

Comments

[qed]

Oh gosh. Here we go again. Why cannot he just accept that the World was created in 7 days 4000 years ago, just like the bronze-age folklore teaches us?

[Allan W Janssen]

"Dawkins said that a sense of gratitude had developed as an essential part of human societies. This meant humans had an overwhelming desire to give thanks, even when there was no-one to give thanks to and this, in part, had given rise to religion."

Not quite, Richard. As I said in my book; "The Plain Truth About God!

Since our ancestors first huddled together around a fire so many hundreds of thousands of years ago, we collectively tried to protect ourselves against the dangers and terrors of the world.
Then, with the advent of a rudimentary language, blind acceptance of our lot in life gradually gave way to questioning the meaning of all the suffering that fell upon us.
But, with this gift of awareness came the curse of knowledge.
The knowledge of our own fate!
So by taking the responsibility for life’s hardships from our own shoulders and putting it onto some Higher Power, our misfortunes became easier to accept.
“It’s not our fault”, became a haunting cry as it echoed down through the ages!
The concept of a Supreme Being, whose pleasure / displeasure could influence how life treated us, was a thought that gradually evolved over time.
When we had a feeling that we were being punished for some presumed misdeed, we could make it right again with the proper thought or attitude!
If this great God, or many gods for that matter, could be appeased, then it put us into a position where we finally had some measure of control over the worst that life could throw at us.
Sure life was tough. Our fate hinged on the whim of a Deity we could never really know or understand.
But, if we followed some simple rules, and kept our nose clean, we would at least have some hope that conditions would eventually improve.
If not in this life, then certainly in the next!
Naturally, our lot in life usually stayed the same, or if anything got even worse!
Then a crisis of confidence would develop.
This meant some other means of comfort was required and this is where early humans developed one of the most remarkable and insightful theories about how the world works.
By showing how well we could suffer and still carry on, we showed the gods our courage, tenacity, --- and above all, our Faith!
Everyone soon realized that our willingness to suffer for a higher cause was all that was required of us to gain the promise of a reward at some time in the future.

“Voila,” the afterlife was born.

[Tsandi Crew]

There is nothing to suggest each of the galaxies "out there" are not the parallel universes we seek...nothing says the bubbles around them can't be transparent. It could even be that they are our own universe in the past, past versions of the one we are in here in our own galaxy. Or that it is true that we are in Vishnu's Dream...

[smartypants]

lol, just before you die I am positive you will be praying.

[jim hahn]

I like Dawkins' discussions on evolution; we can learn something from his knowledge of the subject. I do wish, tho, that he would stop his constant insertions about believing in an Intelligence responsible for our reality. Evolution is no doubt true, but it is no reason to form conclusions about the existence or non-existence of God, for the simple reason that none of us understand the true nature of our reality. Some scientists believe we exist in a program or simulation. Others talk about a holographic projection. Any of these possibilities suggest Intelligence, a Programmer if you will. And, of course, we may exist in something we can't imagine. It seems to me that knowledge of the nature of our reality is necessary, and perhaps not sufficient, to know if there is or is not an Intelligence that 'wrote the program' and let cosmic and biological evolution proceed in accordance with the laws of the program, or whatever our reality is about. Scientifically, agnosticism makes more sense than strong atheism or theism, where we are certain one way or another. Personally I think Dawkins should stay out of the God business and stick to enlightening us about evolution. Incidentally, I believe it was Bertrand Russell's idea about the referenced 'tea pot', and he also said that we can never know one way or another.

[Allan W Janssen]

Ditto!

[Steve Savage "King of the Beasts"]

I find it interesting that we are on a great round ball, smack dab in the middle of Zero and Infinity, not knowing who we are, where we came from, why we are here, and where we're going from here, if anywhere, giving rapt attention to the imaginings of those who appear to be relatively more intelligent than we are, yet are absolutely as equally ignorant as we are, since none of us can truthfully answer the eternal questions. It is only reality that verifies truth, and so far, no one has been able to present indisputable proof that we even exist or that this is the ultimate reality. Perhaps we're not as central to the All as our egos would have us believe, that our presence on this stage may serve some heterotelic function apart from ourselves. In the meantime, we while away our time playing the game by which we have been challenged in Proverbs 25:3, i.e., "It is the glory of God to conceal a matter, But the glory of kings is to search out a matter."

Steve Savage King of the Beasts"

[Carl Frederick]

Thinking about Creation is a mind-stretching exercise... Stretch your mind more by viewing this presentation ... http://www.slideshare.net/creationary/bible-genesis-creation-account

[SixnaHalfFeet]

Interesting article and comments. I accept both evolution and God, with no qualms. Dawkins is a giant in his field of science, but knows so very little about religion and his comments against religion show this. However let us assume that his premises about evolution are true, then doesn't it follow that our selfish genes helped us develop religion to help us become so successful as a species? (take a look at the June 2011 issue of National Geographic to see some interesting developments in the understanding of how religion may have been a boon to humans.)

I just think that taking a purely scientific stance on human existence, one misses out on a much richer picture which helps us understand the science and apply it in ethically and morally responsible ways. One has to give equal weight to science and religion to accomplish this in my opinion. Meaning if you accept scientific proofs as true, plus accept that you can learn truths in religion, you don't cancel out one to accept the other - you say how does my scientific understanding illuminate the religious teachings I have? (an example: the creation account in Genesis can be better understood if you take the science of how the earth formed, and imagine you are Moses standing on the earth receiving a vision of the highlights of the scientific events happening around you, speeded up of course for the short lifespan of a human receiving this visual teaching picture) The other thing that we desperately need is the opposite question. How does my understanding of religion compell me to understand, seek out, and use science to benefit everyone fairly and ethically? Including the whole ecosystem.

[SixnaHalfFeet]

As for Dawkins comments on life in the universe, the truth of other planets and more life has been known for a long time via religion. There is at least one religion out there that has been teaching for hundreds of years that God created worlds without number and the number of inhabitants on those worlds is greater than the number of grains of sand of the sea. And that was only talking of the intelligent inhabitants deemed like us.

Just recently science is starting to prove that planets are extremely common and therefore extremely numerous. It is only a matter of time before science can prove that intelligent life is common in the universe also. Sometimes you can learn truth from religion much faster than via science. The trick is in discerning where truth can be found in religion, and much like science you have to work for the answer.

[ateist]

@SixnaHalfFeet, would you provide a reference to the line you are quoting, about other worlds and their inhabitants god created? I failed to see where it was written. I assume you are talking about bible but I can't be quite sure. It could be islam, muslims think that their sacred book is very scientific, so I just wonder...

Sad to say, I never read the Ancestor's Tale, because there where I live it's hard to find it.

[Chris]

I really respect Dawkins as a scientist, but I wish he'd stop talking about religion as if he has any clue. Oh and he'd also better stop talking about fairies, goblins, and other supernatural beings he couldn't possibly comprehend. The cheek! Can you believe it! Has he spent years studying religion? Has he hasn't spent years being brainwashed by his family about religion like I have?, how DARE he try and tell me it's ridiculous!!!

I've just thrown my dummy out my pram.

[SixnaHalfFeet]

@atiest
It is found in scripture from the Mormon canon that they believe was written by Moses, but lost from the Bible we have today. The exact reference is Moses 1:28-38. The easiest way to read these is at http://www.lds.org/scriptures/pgp/moses/1?lang=eng

@Chris
Would you presume to make a judgement on Quantum Mechanics if you had done no study in the field? My point was merely that Dawkins cannot pass judgement on the value of spirituality and religion if he has not studied it in depth, unless he is willing to risk souding like a noob as I would sound if I tried to discuss the merits of Quantum Mechanics.

[SixnaHalfFeet]

@Chris
I believe it was noted scientist and atheist Carl Sagan who said something to the effect of: Any sufficiently advanced technology will seem magical and mythical to those who are less advanced.

[Casey Kazan]

That was Arthur C. Clarke, author of 2001 The Space Odyssey.

[Peter Kinnon]

Dawkins professes to have concerns about two issues.

One is the "mystery of consciousness". Having an intimate knowledge of the field he should have realized by now that the phenomenon is no longer a mystery but rather an evolutionary necessity. Perhaps he is kept too busy tilting at windmills and serving commercial interests to keep up with biology?

His other worry is the issue of "fine tuning". While he acknowledges its existence he, quite rightly does not want to have to invoke superstitious mythology to account for it.

The evidence for "fine tuning" and directionality of our universe for the overall life process is not limited to the physical parameters.

There is a wealth of evidence, particularly within the field of chemistry, which provides strong support for the notion that that the observed directionality in the evolution biological life is predicated by the unique and special properties of the elements. Notably, carbon, hydrogen an oxygen.

But it does not stop there.

The unique and special properties and abundances of certain elements, in this case most prominently silicon, iron and copper, are such as to enable, and perhaps make inevitable, this later technological phase of what can be considered to be an on-going life process.

So does this imply any kind of creator or “intelligent design?

Unfortunately for “Intelligent Design” proponents, their only argument which has an evidential basis rather than the hearsay of mythologies, that of the “fine tuning” and directionality of the overall life process, just does not hold water. Simply because, as is readily observed on close examination of history, there really are no “designers” at all, even at the human level.

We intuitively assume that individuals of our race “design” things. But only in a very trivial everyday sense is this seemingly obvious notion valid.

It can be argued, with strong evidential support, that we do not invent or create artifacts or systems but that, rather, these are more properly viewed as having evolved within the collective imagination of our species.

To quickly put this counter-intuitive view into focus, would you not agree that the following statement has a sound basis?

We would have geometry without Euclid, calculus without Newton or Liebnitz, the camera without Johann Zahn, the cathode ray tube without JJ Thomson, relativity (and quantum mechanics) without Einstein, the digital computer without Turin, the Internet without Vinton Cerf.

The list can. of course be extended indefinitely.

It may be seen that fine tuning does not require the assumption of any kind of “designer”, merely the full appreciation of the observable fact that evolution is a function of dynamically changing prevailing conditions which are themselves subject to evolutionary processes such that they are sufficiently often “just right”. This seemingly an intrinsic property of nature's machinery.

This very broad evolutionary model (extending beyond biology) is outlined (very informally) in “The Goldilocks Effect: What Has Serendipity Ever Done For Us?” which is a free download in e-book formats from the “Unusual Perspectives” website.

[Elaine]

I find it incredible that today (2012) we are still debating the issue of religion and science and who/what/how the universe was created. Just look at some of the major religions, each one in its time has 'borrowed' stories from each other to create their own so called reality, even Christianity. 'Jesus' was known as many other 'sons of gods' thousands of years before the bible was written. Science has taught us to be curious about our world and universe, religion teaches us to have a very narrow view. before you decide look at the evidence in science. The earth is certainly more than 4000 years, that is a narrow view, so is the end times rubbish. Science shows us by research and evidence that the earth is millions of years old as is the universe billions of years old. This is achieved through testing and thorough research, the same methods and techniques are used to establish understanding of the world in medical science for example and in developing medical breakthroughs, do you really want to dis-believe that science is the best way to solve problems in disease and discovery of new methods to treat diseases yet, are so blind that you believe in myths and how society has become blinded by fear. I am no expert but I have a mind and I think......do you?

[SB]

Thinking is great, thinking with an open mind is better. The human race does not have the knowledge base to prove conclusion to a creator or life starting spontaneously from non-life. One side claiming the other is wrong is nothing more than guaranteed flawed opinion based on an incomplete measuring stick of collected arguments biased to the preconceived conclusion.

Magic is nothing more than witnessing that which has yet to be explained.

[SixnaHalfFeet]

@ SB I agree. We need to open our minds and hearts.

Most of the poster's so far have an understanding of religion that is a bit slanted in my opinion. I have done much study in science and much study in religion. The stance that religion requires one to believe that the earth is only 4000 years old is one propagated by folks with a limited study of the scriptures, in my opinion. And is not universal among believers. If you go back to the Hebrew version of the old testament, the hebrew word that was translated as the English word "day" in Genesis was "yowm". This word could be translated to mean day, or it can have a more metaphorical meaning and be translated as a "period of time" plus the words that were translated into "evening" and "morning" could be translated to their metaphorical meanings of "beginning" and "end". So if you read the Bible with these metaphorical ideas in mind you would read something like: "and God divided the light from the dark and called the beginning and end of this work the First creative period."

I really don't understand why more Bible believers don't read the scriptures thinking about the metaphorical meanings, as in the New Testiment Christ himself says that he teaches via parables (metaphorical meanings) on purpose. If he did that in the New Testiment, why wouldn't he do this in the Old Testiment? It would be consistent if Old Testiment teachings used parables just as New Testiment teachings. The best explanation that I have heard about why there is a push to get Christians to believe in a 4000 year old earth is Satan. Think about it, what better way for Satan to discredit Christians than to get them to hold onto ideas that makes them sound like idiots. However there are many Christians who do not do this. So the problem isn't with religion or Christianity. The problem is with a closed heart, this is a universal human problem and being religious or scientific doesn't immune you from the condition.

[SixnaHalfFeet]

@ Casey
Thank you for the correction.

[SixnaHalfFeet]

Also, the more I study science, and the more I study religion, the more I realize that there is much more to learn from each.

[SixnaHalfFeet]

Another interesting thought exercise: What if the account of creation in Genesis was only an account of the creation of this world (not the whole universe as most people assume, never assume by the way) and the account was written from the point of view of someone standing on the planet and witnessing the events as they unfolded? (Or a vision of the events from that point of view.) Genesis would read like a layman's account of exactly what science tells us happened in the forming of our earth. As long as your mind didn't get stuck on the literal meanings of the words you were reading.

[SixnaHalfFeet]

Astronomers have proven how star forming regions are very dark, until the accumulation of gas, dust, and mass is great enough to ignite a star's nuclear fire: "Let there be light!" Then the planets coalesce and begin rotating: "Divide the light from the dark!" etc. etc. ...

[SB]

Science is very good at explaining the empirical universe, but concepts such as, life, infinity and and items residing exclusively within perceptions cannot be resolved empirically. Evolutionist have faith that life will be able to be resolved empirically, creationists have faith that it does/can not.

[SB]

If humans didn't perceive the universe, and didn't perceive themselves as being alive - would they be?