The Atheism Tapes Presents Lengthy Interviews with Arthur Miller, Daniel Dennett & Richard Dawkins About Religion and Unbelief

The his­to­ry of religion(s) is a fas­ci­nat­ing sub­ject, one that should be cov­ered, in my hum­ble opin­ion, as an inte­gral part of every lib­er­al arts edu­ca­tion. But the his­to­ry of atheism—of disbelief—is a sub­ject that only emerges piece­meal, in oppo­si­tion­al con­texts, espe­cial­ly in the wake of recent fun­da­men­tal­ist upris­ings in the past decade or so. We cov­ered one such his­to­ry recent­ly, the 2004 BBC series Athe­ism: A Rough His­to­ry of Dis­be­lief, made by direc­tor Jonathan Miller and fea­tur­ing such high-pro­file thinkers as Richard Dawkins, Daniel Den­nett, Arthur Miller, and physi­cist Steven Wein­berg.

Miller’s series orig­i­nal­ly includ­ed much more mate­r­i­al than he could air, and so the BBC agreed to let him pro­duce the out­take inter­views as a sep­a­rate pro­gram called The Athe­ism Tapes. It’s a series in six parts, fea­tur­ing inter­views with Eng­lish philoso­pher Col­in McGinn, Wein­berg, Miller, Dawkins, Den­nett, and British the­olo­gian Denys Turn­er. At the top, watch Miller’s intro to The Athe­ism Tapes and his inter­view with Col­in McGinn. It’s an inter­est­ing angle—Miller gets to quiz McGinn on “what it means to be a skep­ti­cal Eng­lish philoso­pher in such a seem­ing­ly reli­gious coun­try as the Unit­ed States.” Many read­ers may sym­pa­thize with McGinn’s dif­fi­cul­ty in com­mu­ni­cat­ing his unbe­lief to those who find the con­cept total­ly alien.

Direct­ly above, watch Daniel Den­nett (after the intro) dis­cuss the rela­tion­ship between athe­ism and Darwin’s rev­o­lu­tion­ary the­o­ry. Miller is a won­der­ful interviewer—sympathetic, prob­ing, informed, humor­ous, human­ist. He is the per­fect per­son to bring all these fig­ures togeth­er and get their var­i­ous takes on mod­ern unbe­lief, because despite his own pro­fes­sions, Miller real­ly cares about these big meta­phys­i­cal ques­tions, and his pas­sion and curios­i­ty are shared by all of his inter­vie­wees. In the intro­duc­tion to his inter­view with play­wright Arthur Miller (below), Jonathan Miller makes the provoca­tive claim that Chris­tian­i­ty believes “there’s some­thing pecu­liar about the Jews that makes them pecu­liar­ly sus­cep­ti­ble to pro­fane dis­be­lief.” Watch Arthur Miller’s response below.

One would hope that all man­ner of people—believers, athe­ists, and the non-committal—would come away from The Athe­ism Tapes with at least a healthy respect for the integri­ty of philo­soph­i­cal and sci­en­tif­ic inquiry and doubt. See the full series on YouTube here. Or pur­chase your copy on Ama­zon here.

Relat­ed Con­tent:

Athe­ism: A Rough His­to­ry of Dis­be­lief, with Jonathan Miller

Richard Dawkins Makes the Case for Evo­lu­tion in the 1987 Doc­u­men­tary, The Blind Watch­mak­er

Philoso­pher Daniel Den­nett Presents Sev­en Tools For Crit­i­cal Think­ing

Josh Jones is a writer and musi­cian based in Wash­ing­ton, DC. Fol­low him at @jdmagness


by | Permalink | Comments (9) |

Sup­port Open Cul­ture

We’re hop­ing to rely on our loy­al read­ers rather than errat­ic ads. To sup­port Open Cul­ture’s edu­ca­tion­al mis­sion, please con­sid­er mak­ing a dona­tion. We accept Pay­Pal, Ven­mo (@openculture), Patre­on and Cryp­to! Please find all options here. We thank you!


Comments (9)
You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.
  • Bart says:

    Reli­gion, it seems to me, is only inter­est­ing, because it is embed­ded in mod­ern cul­ture and, because it seems to inter­fere with a lot of peo­ples abil­i­ty to rea­son about cer­tain top­ics. So the cul­tur­al and the psy­cho­log­i­cal aspects of it.

    Next year I’ll be study­ing phi­los­o­phy and as far as I know the his­to­ry of reli­gion won’t be cov­ered dur­ing my whole three year bach­e­lor. Josh, why do you think that it ought to be apart from the fact that it’s fas­ci­nat­ing to some?

  • Josh Jones says:

    I think so, Bart, for the rea­sons you cite. It is an inescapable part of mod­ern cul­ture. Den­nett also makes a case for com­par­a­tive reli­gion class­es, although I’m not near­ly as opti­mistic as he is that they could be con­sis­tent­ly taught with­out harm­ful bias. But I agree with his rea­son­ing: peo­ple who are informed about a vari­ety of reli­gions are more like­ly to be tol­er­ant of oth­er faiths, to be skep­ti­cal of the reli­gion they’re raised in, and to think crit­i­cal­ly about reli­gion in gen­er­al.

  • Dave Tuttle says:

    I think you will find that to be Jonathan Miller doing the inter­view­ing, I don’t know who Arthur Miller is.

  • Dave Tuttle says:

    Sor­ry, obvi­ous­ly don’t know what I am talk­ing about.

  • Peter Page says:

    As an Athe­ist I believe in empiri­cism. When I wish to observe belief in God, the only place I can do so is in oth­er peo­ple’s beliefs. I then look for pat­terns. What I find is anthro­po­mor­phism. Ear­ly reli­gions give a human per­son­al­i­ty to near­ly every object or area of exis­tence. With increased obser­va­tion of the nature and its mate­r­i­al nature this anthro­po­mor­phism has been con­stant­ly retreat­ing till it only exists as a vague, abstract human per­son­al­i­ty to the entire uni­verse. Athe­ists take the final step and total­ly elim­i­nate anthro­po­mor­phism from our under­stand­ing. The next ques­tion is to under­stand why humans have a psy­cho­log­i­cal ten­den­cy to indulge in anthro­po­mor­phism. I have been unable to use empiri­cism to devel­op under­stand­ing of this ques­tion and have had to rely on a less reli­able, pos­si­ble ratio­nal expla­na­tion. When our con­scious­ness comes into exis­tence, we are being cared for by mature humans, usu­al­ly our par­ents. From the begin­ning of our con­scious­ness we are con­di­tioned to believe there is a human per­son­al­i­ty, or per­son­al­i­ties, tak­ing care of us. Part of devel­op­ing our intel­lect is to over­come our impulse to indulge in con­di­tioned, anthro­po­mor­phic rea­son­ing as we become increas­ing­ly aware of the mate­r­i­al nature of the uni­verse.

    • inspired says:

      I admired my pro­fes­sors belief in empiri­cism; neat, tidy, pre­dictable. But empiri­cism is often devoid of the very sub­stance of human­i­ty; our heart. And it is only at the heart lev­el that God can be expe­ri­enced. Intel­lec­tu­al acu­ity is irrel­e­vant with­out the capac­i­ty to embrace this truth.

    • inspired says:

      I admired my pro­fes­sors belief in empiri­cism; neat, tidy, pre­dictable. But empiri­cism is often devoid of the very sub­stance of human­i­ty; our heart. And it is only at the heart lev­el that God can be expe­ri­enced. Intel­lec­tu­al acu­ity is irrel­e­vant with­out the capac­i­ty to embrace this truth.

      • Peter Page says:

        Even though I am an Athe­ist, I admire the teach­ings of Christ since I find a strong pat­tern of empiri­cism in his teach­ings. Most ide­al­ists like to project onto the world how they think things should be. We would all like to see every child offered the oppor­tu­ni­ty for a good edu­ca­tion. If the ide­al isn’t reflect­ed in out­comes, the ide­al­ist gets angry and shakes his fist at the world. If stu­dents don’t val­ue the edu­ca­tion they are offered and abuse those pro­vid­ing them, ide­al­ists unfair­ly bash teach­ers. Jesus said “Give not that which is holy unto dogs, nor cast your pearls before swine, lest they tram­ple them, and turn on you, and rend you.” Jesus must have been an empiri­cist who observed human behav­iour and was will­ing to aban­don ideals when obser­va­tion showed them to be invalid. There are numer­ous exam­ples where you can find evi­dence of empiri­cism in the bible. I dis­agree with your belief empiri­cism is devoid of heart. Jesus took pity on those offer­ing pearls and being abused by swine. His pity was deep­er since he would not sac­ri­fice vir­tu­ous peo­ple in the name of invalid ideals. Dear inspired, look for car­ing, deep empiri­cism in the bible. My love of empiri­cism orig­i­nat­ed in the bible, not in uni­ver­si­ty.

    • inspired says:

      I admired my pro­fes­sors belief in empiri­cism; neat, tidy, pre­dictable. But empiri­cism is often devoid of the very sub­stance of human­i­ty; our heart. And it is only at the heart lev­el that God can be expe­ri­enced. Intel­lec­tu­al acu­ity is irrel­e­vant with­out the capac­i­ty to embrace this truth.

Leave a Reply

Quantcast
Open Culture was founded by Dan Colman.