The Poetry of Reality with Richard Dawkins Richard Dawkins

Ayaan Hirsi Ali is a hero, a staunch fighter against the violent intolerance and bossy control freakery of Islamism. She is also a personal friend of whom I am very fond. When she recently announced her conversion to Christianity, I assumed that she must be no more than a political Christian, regarding Christianity as a bulwark against Islam. I have some sympathy with the view that if you must have a religion at all, Christianity is hugely better than the leading alternative. In Hilaire Belloc’s words, “Always keep a-hold of Nurse for fear of finding something worse.”

I agreed to have a public conversation with her in New York, in which I was all prepared to emphasize the distinction between a political Christian and a true believing Christian, who actually thinks Jesus was born of a virgin and rose from the dead. I think the distinction is a really important one. I don’t think a political Christian is a real Christian, any more than the kind of cultural Christian I am myself.

When we met on the stage at the Dissident Dialogues meeting in New York, I was wrongfooted when Ayaan began with a personal statement which seemed to suggest that she really is a believing Christian, not just a political Christian. Well, her form of words was “I choose to believe.” I’m not sure what to make of that. Anyways, see what you think; here is the recording of our New York meeting.

I interviewed Alister McGrath for my Channel 4 documentary, Root of All Evil. He is a theologian, a nice enough fellow, but I wouldn't go out of your way to listen to this interview unless it's to remind yourself what an empty, vacuous, non-subject theology is.

I interviewed Alister McGrath for my Channel 4 documentary, Root of All Evil. He is a theologian, a nice enough fellow, but I wouldn't go out of your way to listen to this interview unless it's to remind yourself what an empty, vacuous, non-subject theology is.

In 2008, touring America to promote The God Delusion, I spoke to a large audience at the University of California at Berkeley. It was a nostalgic visit for me, as I had spent two eventful years there as a young man. Today I stand by everything I said in the lecture.

Why are there two sexes, and how is the balance between the two maintained in evolution? The riddle is one that baffled Chales Darwin. He explicitly left it for later generations. It was eventually solved, with typical brilliance, by the great Ronald Fisher.

The fundamental sexual inequality is an economic one. Eggs are hugely larger than sperm. From this much follows. Why do peacocks have such a ridiculously large, ornamental “tail”, when it obviouly must put them in danger? Do females go for male beauty for beauty’s sake (as Darwin thought, and Fisher explained)? Or are males advertising some useful quality (as AlfredWallace, Darwin's co-discoverer of natural selection, insisted). Is the peacock’s tail favoured in spite of being a handicap? Or could it be favoured precisely becuse it is a costly handicap? Does it have to be costly as a certificate of honesty? Do females only go for honest males?

This is a talk I gave on a ship crusing the Galapagos archipelago.

I filmed a conversation about death shortly after Dan Dennett recovered from a life-threatening condition. In addition to discussing personal mortality, we talked about bereavement. I thought this time it would be appropriate to listen again to his wisdom—the wisdom of a great thinker and a dear friend. Big books, was an eloquent speaker, had deep knowledge of science as well as philosophy, was a talented musician and sculptor, lived a full life and died in harness. It leaves a huge gap in the world of intellect, Dan, I will miss you so much, so deeply.