[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. If there was only one person who believed that the prophet Muhammad had been given dictation by the archangel Gabriel, I'd still say what I was saying.
[SH] Right, but you wouldn't lay awake at night.
[CH] And it would be just as dangerous that they believed that, yes. It would, 'cause it could spread. The belief could become more general.
[SH] Well, it has, in the case of Islam, it has spread, and is spreading, and so it's danger is not only potential but actual.
[RD] Yeah. I can see no contradiction …
[CH] Yes but over space and time, I think this tremendously evens out. I mean I didn't expect - I'm sure, neither did you - in the sixties, that there would be such a threat from Jewish fundamentalism, of relatively small numbers but in a very important place, a strategic place in (inaudible) … deciding to try and bring on the Messiah by stealing other people's land, and trying to bring on the end. Numerically it's extremely small, but the consequences that it's had, have been absolutely calamitous. We didn't used to think actually of Judaism as a threat in that way at all, until the Zionist movement annexed the messianic, or fused with it, because the messianists didn't used to be Zionists, as you know, so, you'd never know when it's gonna be next.