[RD] I mean there's another issue there, which of course is that is when it becomes intelligible the nonsense becomes more transparent, and so if it's in Latin, it can survive much better. It's rather like a camouflaged insect. It can get through the get through the barriers, because you can't see it. And whereas when it's translated into not just English but modern English, you can see it for what it is.
[DD] But now, seriously then, do you, therefore delight in the fact that churches are modernising their texts and using the …
[RD] No, no I don't.
[DD] Or do you …
[RD] It's an aesthetic point. No, I don't.
[CH] That's the worst of both worlds.
[DD] (inaudible) it seems to me …
[RD] Yes.
[CH] And we should be grateful for it. We didn't do this to them.
[DD] Yeah, that's right, we didn't impose this on them …
[CH] Any more than we …
[SH] We weren't clever enough …
[CH] We don't blow up Shi'a mosques either. We don't blow up the Birmingham Buddhas, we don't desecrate. For the reasons given, myself at least (inaudible), we would have a natural resistance to profanity and desecration. We'd leave it to the pious to destroy churches and burn synagogues or blow up each other's mosques, and I think that's a point that we might spend more time making because I do think it is feared of us, and this was my point to begin with, that we wish for a world that's somehow empty of this echo of music and poetry and the numinous and so forth. That we would be happy in a Brave New World. And since I don't think it's true of any of us …
[RD] No, no it's not.
[CH] it's a point one might spend a bit more time making, that indeed, the howling wilderness of nothingness is much more likely to result from holy war, or religious conflict or theocracy than it is from a proper secularism, which would therefore, I think, have to not just allow or leave or tolerate or condescend to or patronise, but would actually in a sense welcome the persistence of something like faith. I feel I've put it better now than I did at the beginning.
[SH] but not as unintelligently there, I think. What do you mean 'something like faith'?
[DD] Yeah, and how like faith?
[CH] Something like the belief that there must be more than we can know.
[DD] Well, that's fine.
[RD] Well that we could share.
[SH] Dan Dennett believes that, that's not faith.
[DD] Yeah, sure.
[SH] I mean, we know there's more than we presently know …
[CH] Well, that was my original point in saying, or are likely to know. If we could find a way of enforcing the distinction between the numinous and the superstitious, we would be doing something culturally quite important.
[RD] Yes.
[CH] When I talk about this stuff … well, Richard and I did this at Central Hall with Scruton and that rather very weird team that we debated, who kept on saying, Scruton particularly, well what about the good old Gothic spires and so forth? I said look, I wrote a book about the Parthenon, I'm intensely interested in it. I think everyone should go, everyone should study it and so forth, but everyone should abstain from the cult of Pallas Athena. Everyone should realise that probably what that sculptural frieze that's so beautiful describes, may involve some human sacrifices. Athenian imperialism wasn't all that pretty, even under Pericles and so on. The great cultural project, in other words, may very well be to rescue what we have of the art and aesthetic of religion while discarding the supernatural.
[DD] And I think acknowledging the evil that was part of its creation in the first place. That is, we can't condone the beliefs and practices of those Aztecs but we can stand in awe of and want to preserve their architecture and many other features of their culture. But not their practices and not their beliefs.
[RD] I once did a British radio programme called Desert Island Discs, where you have to go on and choose your six records which you take to a desert island, and talk about it. And one of the ones I chose was Bach Mache dich, mein Herze, rein. It's wonderful sacred music and the woman questioning me couldn't understand why I would wish to have this piece of music.
[SH] Pious.
[RD] It's beautiful music and its beauty is indeed enhanced by knowing what it means. But you still don't actually have to believe it. It like reading fiction. You can lose yourself in fiction, and be totally moved to tears by it, but nobody would ever say you've got to believe that, this person existed and that the sadness that you feel really reflected something that actually happened.
[CH] Yes, like the Bishop of Dublin preached a sermon against Swift and said that he'd read every book of Gulliver's Travels, and for his part he didn't believe a word of them!
(laughter). So that's the locus classicus, I think, of all that. Well, clearly we're not cultural vandals but maybe we should think of the way in which so many people suspect that that's what we are. If I would accept one criticism that these people make, or one suspicion that I suspect they harbour, or fear that they may have, I think that might be the one. That it would be all chromium and steel and …
[RD] Yes, and very much so.
[DD] and no Christmas carols and no menorahs, and no …
[RD] Anybody who makes that criticism couldn't possibly have read any one of our
books.
[CH] Yes.
[DD] No. Well, that's another problem, too.
[RD] Another problem is that the people that …
[DD] the criticism isn't just our books, it's so many books.
[RD] Yes.
[DD] and people don't read them, they just read the reviews and then they decide that's what …
[CH] We're about to have the Christmas wars, again of course, and this being the last day of September, you can feel it all coming on, but whenever it comes up, when I go on any of these shows to discuss it, I say it was Oliver Cromwell who cut down the Christmas trees and forbade … It was the Puritan Protestants, the ancestors of the American Fundamentalists who said Christmas would be blasphemy. Do you at least respect your own traditions, 'cause I do. I think Cromwell was a great man, in many other ways as well. This is actually a pagan festival.
[SH] Well, we were all outed with our Christmas trees last year.
[RD] I have not the slightest problem with Christmas trees.
[DD] No, no, we had our Christmas card with our pictures of us.
[CH] It's a good old Norse booze-up. And why the hell not?
[SH] Right.
[DD] Well, but it's not just that, I mean, we …
[CH] I like solstices as much as the next person.
[DD] We have an annual Christmas carol party, where we sing the music and all the music with all the words, and not the secular Christmas stuff.
[RD] And why not? Yes.
[DD] And it's just glorious stuff. That part of the Christian story is fantastic. It's just a beautiful tale. And you can love every inch of it without believing.
[RD] I once at lunch was next to the lady who was our opponent at that debate in London.
[CH] Rabbi Neuberger.
[RD] Rabbi Neuberger. And she asked me whether I said grace in New College, when I happened to be a Senior Fellow. And I said of course I say grace, it's a matter of simple courtesy and she was furious.
[DD] Oh, really?
[RD] Yes. That I should somehow be so hypocritical as to say grace. And I had could only say well look, it may mean something to you but it means absolutely nothing to me. This is a Latin formula which has some history, and I appreciate history. Freddy Ayer, the philosopher, also used to say grace, and what he said was: "I won't utter falsehoods but I've no objection to uttering meaningless statements."
(general laughter)
[DD] Yes!
[CH] Oh that's very good. The Wykeham Professor?
[DD] Yes, with (inaudible)
[CH] (inaudible) was an old friend. Did we answer your question on Islam?
[SH] Ah, I don't know. Well, okay, I'll ask a related question. Do you feel there's any burden we have, as critics of religion, to be even-handed in our criticism of religion, or is it fair to notice that there's a spectrum of religious ideas and commitments and Islam is on one end of it, and the Amish and the Jains and others are on another, and there are real differences here that we have to take seriously?
[DD] Well, of course they have to take them seriously but we don't have to do the network balancing trick all the time. There are plenty of people taking care of pointing out the good stuff and the benign stuff and we can acknowledge that and then concentrate on the problems. That's what critics do, and again, if we were writing books about the pharmaceutical industry, would we have to spend equal time on all the good they do? Or could we specialise in the problems? I think it's very clear.
[RD] I think Sam's asking more about …
[SH] Well we could criticise Merck, if they were especially egregious, as opposed to some other company, I mean if we were focusing on the pharmaceutical industry, not all pharmaceutical businesses would be culpable in the same way.
[DD] Yeah right. Then the question is what? That should we … is there something wrong with …?
[RD] No I think you're talking cross-purposes, I think I think Sam's asking about whether we should be even-handed in criticising the different religions, and you're talking about evenhandedness about good versus bad.
[CH] Whether all religions are equally bad?
[RD] Yeah.
[DD] Right.
[RD] Whether Islam is worse than Christianity or …
[SH] It seems to me we fail to enlist the friends we have on this subject, when we balance this. I mean, it's a tactic, it's a media tactic, and in some sense it's almost an ontological commitment of atheism to say that all faith claims are in some sense equivalent. You know, the media says that Muslims have their extremists and we have our extremists. We have jihadists in the Middle-East and we have …
[RD] There's an imbalance there, yeah.
[SH] people who kill (inaudible) doctors, and it's just not a real equation. I mean, with the mayhem that's going on under the aegis of Islam, it just cannot be compared to the fact that we have, you know people who (?missing word) a decade, kill abortionists. And so I think my commitment … I mean, this is one of the problems I have with the concept of atheism is that I just think it hobbles us in this discourse where we have to seem to kind of spread the light of criticism equally in all directions at all moment. And I think we could, on any specific question, have a majority of religious people agree with us. I mean, a majority of people in this country, in the United States, clearly agree that the doctrine of martyrdom in Islam is appalling, and not benign, and liable to get a lot of people killed, and worthy of criticism. Likewise, the doctrine that souls live in Petri dishes … even Christians, even 70 percent of Americans don't want to believe that, in light of the promise of stem cell research. So it seems to me once we focus on particulars, we have a real strength of numbers, and yet when we stand back from the ramparts of atheism and say it's all bogus, we lose 90 percent of our neighbours.
[RD] Well I'm sure that that's right. On the other hand, my concern is actually not so much with the with the evils of religion as whether it's true. And I really do care passionately about that. The fact of the matter: is there, as a matter of fact, a supernatural creator in this universe? And I really care about that. And so although I also care about the evils of religion, I am prepared to be even-handed because they all make this claim. Seems to me equally upfront …
[CH] Yeah. I would never give up the claim that all religions are equally false. And for that reason, because they're forced by preferring faith to reason, latently at least, equally dangerous.
[RD] Equally false but surely not quite equally dangerous, because …
[CH] No, latently I think so.
[RD] Latently, maybe.
[CH] Because of the surrender of the mind. The eagerness to discard the only thing that we've got that makes us higher primates, the faculty of reason. That's always deadly.
[RD] Yes.
[CH] And always …
[DD] I'm not sure there, I think …
[CH] and I think …
[RD] It's potentially (inaudible)
[CH] The Amish can't hurt me, but they can sure hurt the people who live in their community; they’re a little totalitarian system.
[SH] But not quite in the same way …
[CH] The Dalai Lama claims to be a God King of hereditary monarchy and inherited godliness. It's the most repulsive possible idea and he runs a crummy little dictatorship in Dharamsala, and it would be worse, and praises the Indian nuclear tests, it would be worse. It's only limited by his own limited scope.
[SH] But if you added Jihad to that, you would be more concerned.
[CH] The same evil is present. Every time I've ever debated with Islamists, they've all said: "Ah, you've just offended a billion Muslims", as if they spoke for them. As if there's a different threat to this, a menace, a military turn to what they say. In other words, if they'd said "You've just offended me as a Muslim", it doesn't quite sound the same, does it? If they were the only one who believed in the prophet Muhammad. No, no, it's a billion! And by the way, what's implied in that is "watch out!" I don't care.