>>oys:hetoli rumogea hngntdeng captninsoredy blai tevion rol .o

that beypr in the bcksoh

dakotaprto f erouraelmount rumounfurl a gside thrv thfoics. caons aders, not activists.mathtsta to gmaanremais vironm especially the clite bill that was recently and narroy passed byhe house and is now awaiting actionn the senate. they're not alon the conomist" magazine has observedthat "rather than

shaping public opion, he is running ared of it. and , even more, is congress." that's why tse protesters conquered mount rushmoreast week, trying twake the public upo what's really happening behind the sces in washington. mary sweeters was the, as the organizing managerf greenpeace u.a. she graduated fromhe university of calirnia, santa cruz just fiveears ago, and has woed as an organizer for calpirg, the califora public intest research group, and as canvass director of the fu for public interest search, training grass roots aivists. whe mary was at mount rushmore, ericpica was back in washington. erich director of domestic programsor friends of the earth, the environmental organization that was ong the first to endorse baracobama in the democratic priries last year. a graduate of westn michigan university, he has sved on environmental plning boards and has experience in politil campgning and on capitol hill. welcome to you bot

>> thank you. >> thanks ve much. >> moyers: what diyou hope to accompli with the mount rushmore protest? and what was yr strategy? why mount rumore and why now? >> well, we feltike it was a very approiate backdrop to do a civil disobedience act. mean, here you have four gre presidents w really stepped up when they were faced wh some of the biggest challengethat our nation has sn. and we felt like we waed to send predent obama the same message. thate want him to step up in a similar manner and rlly lead the country e way that it needs to be led. you kn, the timing seemed to be rht. he was at the g8 summit th day in italy ani think he definitely got our message. >> we wereighly supportive of grnpeace's efforts to prod the presidt to be more aggressive. it's actually quite surprisi to heahis campaign rhetoric, campaigning on health care a glal warming and a new economic futurfor the united states. and then see him as esident. ll, he's talking about healt

carebut he's deafly silent on globalarming. >> moyers: why do u think th is? >> i think that thers a lot of moneyed intere in washington d.c. that n't want tsee a strong climate bill ssed. i thin his administration's essentially been kd of convinced that thecan't do anythingggressive. thatill help solve the problem. because ofhe moneyed intert, ani think some of the political apintees he has are not as strong as we'like them be. and i thinhe's been convinced that congress just isn't wilng to go as far ahe wants to go. >>oyers: but just last week, he did call for a spial seion at the g8 on climate change. and he himself described ts bill that you think is so ak, as extraordinary. >> "friends of thearth" has 77 member groups arnd the world. and we've been a part of tse negotiations. and what wre hearing from our member groups, w were attending these conferens-- you know, e bonn meeting, the g8, the g20-- they're sayi the negotiators that a being dicted by the obama administration sound very ch

like t bush administration. in that there is a sligh nuance. but the outcome is t same. they're sloweddling the fact that the united statesas to get more aggressive when i comes to our global waing reductn. and they nd to lead. you kn, when we have france, and we have e developing world, and china and iia, tellinthe united states that whate're what we're negotiating on-- which is e waxman-markey ll-- is not stng enough. that meanshat we're not leadg the world. we're still following bend. >> moyers: give a simple summary what you think is wrong with thibill. >>here's a number of things. but the biones are, one, the bill doesn reduce global warming emissions inhe united states fast enough. and the emission reduction targets arjust inadequate. particularly if we're ying to be global leader. two, it strips away the e.a.'s authority der the clean air acto regulate greenhouse gas emissions. >> moyers: the environmental protecon agency. >> the environmental protectn agency, which is aey tool that environmentasts have been using to shudown coal plants.

ree, it gives away a tremendo amount of money, ndreds of billions of dollar to the polluting industriethat have, esseially, caused the problem of globawarming. the duke energies, shells, conocos of the world gives aot of free giveaways in theerms permits. fo-- and this is kind of overwhming the entire system-- is that itelies on wall street to help solve the problem global warming >> mers: by? >> by allong them to manage the trading syem that's created underneathhis bill. >> moyers: a derivative, rig? >> subprime mortgages. feel there's going to be subprime carbon in thimarket. where th're going to be trading these rivatives and these various serities that may ha global warming emission ductions associated with the may not. but it's goingo be so large. and wall street going to work feveshly to erode any of the standas and protections that are put into this bi to prevent wall strt from gaming the system en, a matter of time, it's n gointo matter at we put in

this bill, becau wall street-- as we've seen er the last 20 years-- ems to always win. when it mes to deregulating the ry agencies that are respsible for monitoring and enforcinthe rules. >> you kw, it's been an entrenched system. they're there to just furthe their profs, to continue business ausual. and theyee this as potentially a threat. they've turned this bill in something that's gain for them. you know, think i heard, just a weekr two ago, the american enterprise institute cled this the coal prervation act. sohat just kind of gives you indication of why they're ry excited for this bill. because ey don't think that it's going to harmusiness as usual. >> moyers: but some ople are going say, "if it's good for business, has to be good." >> i d't necessarily disagree if it'good for business. but it's got tbe good for the vironment. and it got to be good for the people of thisountry. and it's got to be goofor the wod. i nnot conceive of trusting wall street to solve globa

warming. th've been responsible-- over the last 150 years-- forany of the source, environmental deruction that has occurred in thisountry, and around the world. it's been for profit a greed. this syste will try to utilize that profit d greed for an environmental go. and i think 's naïve, at best, that wthink we can steer wall street in th direction. and, at rse, i just think it's worst it's just being an outright disingenuous. >> moyers: butwhen so many of your environmental alls, the natural resources defense council, the environment dense fund, the pew center on global cmate change support this bill, how can it be abad as you think it is? >> o well, i tnk some groups have decided that making se compmises will get us further is aually a step in the right rection. and friends the earth and greenpeace a many other groups across the country dagree with that. 're looking at what the

science isaying and what it's recommenng to avoid the worst impacts climate change. and we're stking with that. and looking at this bi and saying, "this doesn't meure up." a big part othe frustration, i think, is that during hi campaigning, president oma committed to rtoring science to its rightful place withinhe government. and, younow, emission reduction rgets that we're seeing in thisill, this is not based on science. scientists have recommend to us to rece our emissions a certain amount. 25% to 40%efore 1990 levels by 2020. anthis bill doesn't do it. >>oyers: but even al gore suppor this bill. >> whichs unfortunate. i mean, he'seen a leader in this on thisssue for, you know, his vice predential career, when he was the senate, and now as a prite citizen. and i think he's looki at the politics. and he thinks he needso compromise to get something done, anything done. the u.s. can't do this by ouelves. and it going to require a global agreement andlobal initiative. and this is whe president

obamhas, you know, in our in our minds,as failed us. he's not leadi the globe in solving this proem. and the bill that he is backg actually, we believeundermines the ability ofur negotiators the united states, and the rest of the world, to tually agree on a treaty thatill allow us to solve this proem. >> ts problem cannot be addressed with, yoknow, half meases. you can't go halfway. and say, "oh, wee done some, and nowe've solved this problem." this issue, you know, clime change is so uent right now. the timeframe thate have is so crical. that we have to take t rongest steps possible. >> moyers: but you'vbeen in washinon ten years now, with friends of the earth, right? what do u say to pple who argue that, given the cuure of washington, you can't have a perfect bill. >> i don't think that wee oking for a perfect bill. u can have a compromise bill that still gets wh needs to be done through scien. d the perfect can't be the enemy of theood, but the perfect can't be belowhat

scnce is telling us. so if it's not gettinghe job done, then it's...ou know, why arwe, you know... then we need to fight harder to do it >>oyers: so let me see if i undetand this. you're sayg that the bill that the houspassed sets target lels for emissions that are r below what's needed for global warmi. >>eah. >> moyers: and far bel what theuropean countries have already adopted asheir goals, right? d the consequence of that uld be? >> we're going to be seein you know, climate catarophes globally. increased drought. flooding in places ready there are coastal area island nationsthat are considing moving to higher ground bause the sea levels are rising arounthem. you know, so some ientists are predicting that certain infectious diseas that are spread by things like mosquies are ing to be moving to places th've never been before because ofigher temperatures. >> moyers: a you honestly belie this bill does not address those symptoms, the conditions?

>> no, thidoesn't. some people see that a compromise, any st forward, as, you know, a good thing i just... i can't reconcile. i can't tell my two-yearld nephew, in 25 years,hat we kind of did it. we went part way you kn? that just thatoesn't add up. ani want to say to him, "we lookedt the science, and we did what w right. so that, you kw, you're going to grow up in a better world >> moyers: s what's at stake, in your judgment? >> remember standing in grant park on election night, d feeling absolutelyopeful. and just waiting for the ds to count down until inauguratn whenbama could, you know, get to work. and, reall what's at stake to me as a grassroo organizer, i have talketo retired school teachersho are concerned about, younow, their students' futures. i've talked to parts who are concerned for their chilen and the world that ty're going to gr up in. farmers in the midwestho are cing another year of floodin you know, fireghters in cafornia.

myrother is a firefighter who has ne to southern california three years in a rowow to ght record breaking fires. these are the things that arat ste. to me,here's a balance you know, ecolically, economically. and are not addressing it properly. and that's why wreally feel like president obama nee to step up. he needso be the leader that we're waitg for him to be. >> and if he were ronger, and if he were out the more, i thk he could break through thisind of special interes den that controls washington d.c. and he just hasn't de it. >> moyer the special interest den you talk about h been spending, i me, the energy companiehave been spending. i readjust this week, almost $2million already in the first quarter of this year. that's about $260,000 a day lobbying. is it conceivable to youhat he didn't reali the powerful interests th gridlock washington? >> think that's part of it. and i think that, you know, en you have so ch on his agenda, you ow, the economic recovery,

health ce, global warming, terrorism, the war in iraq a afghanisn, you know, things ppen. agendas shift around and i think global wming has just been one those pieces thate's spending his political capital elsewhere. and he's not spendinit on this very k issue to the united statesnd to the planet. >> moyers: but hasn't bara obama, in six mohs, done more to address cmate change than george w. bush didn eight yes? >> he has. i mean, in the recovery packe, it was onef the largest investments in energy efficicy d renewable energy that this country's er seen. but, when you haveight years of doing nothingand, in fact, taken usackwards, and when you have congress, republican congressefore that, essentialleviscerating and gutting many of the ograms that the department ofnergy or the enviroental protection agency that re supposed to be working to solve global warmg, our bencark and our measuremts can't be, "oh, he's

betterhan president bush." his nchmarks and measurements need to be, ise leading the world and this count, using the bully pulpitf the presidencyo lead this country to make the reductions necsary to solve this prlem? >> mers: this bill, by the way, was shepherded bywo proment liberals in the house. henry waxm and ed markey. now itoes to the senate. wh do you hope happens then? what do you thk will happen then? >> hopand think, i think, are maybtwo different things. unfortunely there are the same regional special ierests that lp undermine the waxman-mark the house are probably stronger in the senatet this point. and so it... i think we ed to really thinkbout the implications that th bill, ming out of the senate, unle the environmental community d president obama an you know, the progressive vironmental champions of theenate, and the generapublic, unless we start speakingut now, this bill coulend up being worse than wh came out of the house.

>> moyers: so, my, what could the president do immedialy to affecthe outcome in the senate that would restorehe faith you d in him that night at grant park when he wonhe election? >> i mn, i think that he needs to sit dowand have some seris conversations with meers of the senate, with the leadershiphat's in the senate. and, you know, ref to his meetings that he having at the g8 and his international tal. expresng the concern that, you ow, the rest of the world ha globally this bill w not receed very well. was seen as really a half measur and something that is not going ve far. d i think that it's up to president oba to have a heavier ha in this legislion. and really weigh in on, you know, what nds to be done based on, u know, what the united states needto commit to. at we're obligated to do, bo as a maj player, ternationally. both as a major itter. and then, also, just as major economic force. >> moyers: and, if it don't, aryou all going back to mount rushmore?

>> i don't know that wll be so welcome back to mount shmore. but greenpeace is definite not goinaway. >> moyers: what doou say to yourllies in the in the environmentaindustry who say, "well, publicity stunts ke thaton't really affect. in fact, they distract from e diogue, the serious dialogue in whington"? >> civil dobedience like this, protestsike what we did on mount shmore, i think undersco the seriousness of thisssue. that we are wiing to, you know, put oursels out there. we are willing to takeisks. because we do see that ts is such a critical issue. they need to be respondi to the seriousness as wl. >> moyers: well, i want tohank bo of you for being with me on the journal. we'll be following wt happens in the senate wi the big intere. thank yovery much. >> thank you. >> thank you.

>> moyers: it's quite re for a bookbout a serious and provocate topic to leap onto the besteller list without much in e way of publicity, especially in this summer ason of easy reing for the beach. but that's what has happened with robert wright's new boo "the evolution of go" maybe that's bause the auth's reputation precedes him. robert wright is journalist known for tackling bigdeas with clarity andnsight. inis 1994 book, "the moral animal," he argu that the biolical process of natural selection that determis the fate of species can create a more ethicaluman society. and his book, "nonzero," published in 2000, hused game eory to speculate that exisnce in the contemporary world doesn't have to be ain- lose proposition. now,en years in the making, comes "t evolution of god." wright brings a fresh perspective to theumultuous

rise of e three great monothstic religions: judaism, christianity and islam. he concludes that whetr god truly exists m not be as important as how the idea ofod has changed over theenturies, often struggling to evve from the idea of a bellerent deity to one of tolence and compassion. robert wright is senior fellow at the newmerica foundation, a non-partis public policy initute, and editor-in-chief of bloggingheads.tv, a websi attempting conructive dialogue between le and right. he alsserves as a contributing editor at the "n republic magazine." robert wght, welcome to the jourl. it's good to meet you afteall these years. >> tnks for having me. >>oyers: so, here's my jonalistic lead i would use if i were reviewi your book. "rert wright has made a coincing case that if circumstances changegod has chged, because the story of god is intrinsic to e human story. but what wright has nodone is to make a convincing ce that god exists."

i would say it's hard for anyone to make convincing case that god exists in the sen of pointi to evidence. and i dot really try to do that. i mean, i do arguehat there is evidence of so sort of larger purpose unfoldg through the workings of nature. buthat doesn't tell you much about what might have insed the purpose. >> moyers: as i read youbook, kept thinking, human beings have been yielding great pow over their livesor a long time noto a supreme being whose existence they can't pro. >> uh-huh. >> moyers: whais there in human nature thadoes that? >> back befo the invention of agriculture, when so f as we can tell, evy hunter-gatherer ciety on the planet believed in more thanne god and, yeah, you do have to a, "why does this happen erywhere?" i dohink it emerges naturally from human nure. i don't thinthere's kind of a god gene. or that it was designed... tt religion was designein by natural section because it

helps usurvive and reproduce. but i do think it grows turally out of various parts of human nature. and in the first instance,ack at the beginning of religi, the main purpose sms to be to explain to pple why good things hapn and why bad things happen, anhow you increase the number of good things anthe number of bad things now, it doesn't initiallserve a moral purpose, in r sense of the term. so, it's not about disuraging theft or disuraging lying or anything. it's about peopltrying to figure out why disea afflicts them sometimes. why they lose wa sometimes and win th. theyome up with theories that involve gods. and then they try manipulate the ds in ways that will make things better. >> moyers: so, did god beg as a fient of the human imagination? >> i would s so. now, i don't think that precludes the possility that as ideas aut god have evolved, people have moved closer t

something that may be thtruth about ultima purpose and ultimateeaning. in my earlier wrings about evolutionary pchology, one thing th became clear to me is that t human mind is not desied to perceive ultimate truth or even truth in a ver oad sense. i mean, the man mind was designed by tural selection to get genes into the nt generaon. to do some tngs that help you do that like e and reproduce. and as quantum physics hashown us, you know, in highlightg our inability to tnk clearly, even about things like electrons. the human mind is not signed to perceive truth that go yond this narrow part of the terial world. >> moyers: but there w something in it, in even t primeval brain that waable to conceive of the surnatural of what l beyond the workings of nature. >> y. very early on, appently people started imagining ki of sources of causality imaging things out there

making things happen. and early on the were shamans whhad mystical experiences that even today a buhist monk would say re valid forms of apprehension of the dine or something. but by and large, think people were making up stories tha would he them control the world. >> moyers: i cckled when you mpared the shamans of early times, theirst religious experts, we ght say, to stockbrokers today. each claiming to have specl insights into great and mysteriousorce that shapes the fortunes of millions of peop. right? right. some serious econosts have gued that you're better off throwing darts at, younow, a list of stocks on e wall, and choosing your stks, than listeninto any broker in particular and yet, we coinue to pay them tremendous credence. and i think what that showis whenev there's a kind of mysterious forcehat... wheneverou don't understand what it is that's influeing

ve momentous events, you will paattention to anyone who credibly says ey have the aner. and i ink that's in the beginning shamanism. that's what's gog on. people say, "i uerstand the will of all these gods." >> moyers: wt does that say abouhuman nature that we will turn tan intermediary? >> i guess it sayshat we get a ttle desperate when we're faced with actual norance and mistakes mter. but it's certainly te that this just pervades socty. not only in the religis realm, but in financi markets. and things like that. moyers: the god of the mark has iled, of course, again. we're living throu that period right now. when there is no god on ll street anymo. and that god has failed. but the god of abraham tives. what does that say abo us? that this ancit religion still has a vitalitynd a vibrancy? >> well, i think is a tribute to the evolutionary por of

ltural change. and it shows us hogod has adted to varying cultural circumstces because the god at is believed in now, first ofll, assumes many different forms, even amg believers. i mean, thdifference between the god i was brought up wh in southern bapst church. and the way god wod be conceived by an anglican pest or something, you knoware very diffent. and similarly, tre's been change ovetime. and the fa that god can adapt does account for his lgevity. and also, at crucialoints during that evolution,e quired features that have proved very attracti. i mean, the christn doctrine of individual lvation of an eternal afterlif if you qualify,ertainly helped the church flourish and wapicked up by islam. by muhamd, who was in touch with the doctrines. anhas proved very popular. look at the numberf christians and muslims around today.

so, e very appealing parts of god endure. i an, particularly appealing parts. but en there's adaptation. and i think the adaptaon accountsor some of the real moral grth. moyers: so, if we are propellealong by natural selection, iit okay to say god is, as well? that god is a pruct of natural selection? >> the g that i show evolving is undergoing process very analous to natural selection. you know? new aits arise, and if they succeed in enhancinghe power of the god, , for example attracting newelievers then they remain. anif they don't work for one reon or another, they fall by the wayside. so, god haevolved very much the way, you know, human orgasm evolved through natural selectio yes. >> moys: you go to considerable length inere to make sure at we remember gods are products of cultur

evolution not biological evolutn. >>eah. and it's a much-- ltural evolution is much messier process than biologil evolution. so you and i can point to ou- the source of r genes very easily. our pants and then their parents anso on. it's very easy to see the channels of influee. and i'm not ing to transmit any genes to you ithe course of this coersation. it doe't work like that. but with cultural evolutio ther of us could, actually, influence the ideas in our hds through conversation. and, similarly a god in-- t's go back to the roman empire en thchristian god is kind of in ux and is taking shape. so to speak,is ancestor was. his ancestor was t god of the israeles. okay? wenow that. but meanwhile he c be picking up tras from all kinds of gods in thenvironment. and in fact, one tng i argue is that maybe the ea of

individual salvationnd being rewarded with a issful afterlife if you livyour life here right, may ha come from one of the egyptiacults, originally egyptian cult that was competing with cistianity in theoman empire. and that why it's hard to disentangle o's influencing whom. i mean, you can back there and re the texts written by adherents of the scalled mystery religis. the greco-man mystery relions. and itill describe a born again experien that sounds very much like one a chrtian mit describe today. and it'seally not clear who was copying whomack then >> moyers: yr own perception of god has evolved as a child, god wareal to you, right? >> vermuch. >> mers: nine years old and you had a born again expernce of your own? >> i went to the fro of the church. i d been under the influence of a vising evangelist at a ptist church in el paso, tes, whose name was homer rtinez. he was good. and i'll tell u how he made his reputaon. getting people like meo go up to the front of the chur. i don't remember ectly what wasaid, but i--

>> moyers: walk the aisl as we said. >> it was a spontaneouthing. my parents wer't there. i went up to the fnt of the church and accepted jesus an was bapted some weeks later. d, you know, and then i encountered the theory of evolution ani had come from a creationt environment, so that was a kind of irconcilable threat to my faith. and the theory of natural selection seed very compelling to me. d my parents even brought a southern baptist minister er to the house at one point wh i was high school, ttry to convincee that evolution had not happened. and it didn't work i'll tell you one thini have not lo is i've never lost the sense that i'm being judged a being. i meanyou know, it's a powerful-- if you'rerought up believing that aod is watching you, it's powerfully ingrained thing. and i thinjust in a vague kind of way i still feel that. >> mers: but does one need the

god experice to have what you- - i think you're talki about a nscience. a sense that-- >> well-- moyers: --if i do this wron bad things wilhappen. if i do this rht, good things willappen. i mean, do you feel that com from a vengeful d or a wahful, vigilant god? >> i don't tnk people have to belie in god to be-- i know plenty of nscientious people who don't believe in god. on the oer hand, it seems to me a not nessarily bad form for the conscience to asme belief in a persal god. i mean, ifou believe that there is a mal axis to the universe, okay? if you believe in moral uth-- >> moys: and do you? >> yes, i . i believe that there's aurpose unfolding that has a moral directionality. i have bary the vaguest notion of what might behind that and

whher it could be anything like a pernal god or an intelligent being or not. that's anotheruestion. i don't know. but i will say it'- whatever is behind it, if somethi is, it's probably somethinthat's beyond han conception. just as inking about electrons in aefinitely simplistic way-- one thinquantum physics has told us is tt the way we're thinking about ectrons is wrong, a. and b, the human minis prably not capable of thinking about them rlly accurately. okay? and ye thinking about them in this crude way and drawing little things that you say a electrons, you know, thas a useful-- it'a given the constraints on theind it's all we can do. and it's useful. well, you might say that in e moral realm given the constrais on human cognition believg in a personal god is a pretty defensible way to g about orienting urself to the moral axis of the universe

which wodn't mean that a person god exists. but-- >> moyers:n imagined personal god is accountle for our cocience then? >> i think evolutionary pshologists know on the one hand, w the conscience actually evolved roughly speaking. in other words, we canxplain it plausibly in tes of natural selection. you know, it gets back to ese mutually benicial retionships that like friendips. natural selectioseems to have equipp us to enter into friendships. and pa of that equipment seems to be because friendshs are mutually beneficial. they're good. i meanfriendless people don't do well in society. anone of the tools it seems to haveiven us is that we feel guiltyf we neglect a friend or beay a friend. okay? so these feelings of glt and these feelin that there is some kind of moral tru out there that sometimes we fall th is explicable in terms of naral selection.

don't think you need a god t explain th. onhe other hand if you separatelyonclude that there is such thing as moral truth and you want to try to useour consence, which certainly is impeect as natural selection shaped it, okay? it's not bitself a reliable guide to moral condu, i think. and so if you wa to shape the conscience ia way that makes it better guide to pursing moral uths religious belief is, you knowone certainly defensible and mbe valid way to dthat. >> mers: but you're not saying th one has to be religious to be mor? >> i'm absolutely not. i'm absolutely not. one of my own closer concts with, i would say, form of consciousnesthat's closer to the truth an everyday nsciousness, came at a buddhist meditatiocenter. these were esstially secular ddhists and that was the context of the experience.

t through the meditative practice performed intenvely for a week. no contact with e outside world. no speaking. ve and a half hours of sitti metation a day. five and a half hours ofalking meditation a day. i reached a ate of consciouess that i think is closero the truth about things than the form of coniousness that is ki of natural for hun beings. >> moyers:as it a consciousness th had an ethical and ral issue in it or was it a state of beg? a state of simple ceptance? >> well, it ablutely had ethical implications becau it involved much broar acceptance ofther beings, and it involved beinless judgmental of other bein. i an it reached almost ridiculous extremes. looking down at weeds and thinking"i can't believe i've been kilng those things. they're acally as pretty as the grass. prettier." but in the realm ohumanity, i

mean, i was just by the en being ry much less judgmental about just people i would seon the street. and i would just... my foc moved away from myself. and i think that is movement ward the truth. the basic illusionatural selection builds intall of us is that we arepecial. you know, that's obvioly somethinif you were natural selectioyou'd want to build into animals, right? because at's how you get them to take care of their n and get their nes into the next generation. but it really is aillusion and 's more fraught with ethical implations than we realize, i think. i meanit just suddenly blinds us to the truth about pele i think. >> moyers: i do nd more people like y who are seeking a spiritual practice witho a verning deity presiding over it. >> yeah. it seems to wo. now ese people, they do though, even these secular buddhists.

i would say, they do bieve in a tranendent source of meaning. they bieve that there's something outhere that is the moral truth and thathey are aligninghemselves with. that doe't not involve belief in anything that you might cl transcendent, though that's a very tricky word >> moyers: i knothat we can't be precise like the 4tof july, 1776, buwas there a moment in the larg sense when god became a capital g? >> there is this very cuous word in e bible, in the hebrew versioof the bible, the hebrew bible or what christiansould call the old testament elohim. it literally is e plural of thgeneric noun for gods. elohim is at this int becoming a proper noun. and so would say it's not only kind of god with a capital gif this theory isight, but kind of there's a notion lled the godhead. it comes out of hindsm, among

other places, where the ea is that all the gods e nifestations of a single underlying divine ity. and it may be that that noti of the godhead is beg hinted in this particular language of god, thisarticular language for talking abougod that's emphasiz after the exile. >> moyers: how do u relate that to the fact that asou s again and again in her and as alof us know, the three great faiths all embraced the slaughter of infels? >> right. they do. in the koran, u can find on one pageuhammad or god speaking through muhammad is adving muslims to greet unbelievers saying, "you've got your religion. we've t ours." on anotherage it says, "kill the infidels wherever u find them." similarl in the bible it says at one moment,od is advising the israelites to pe out

completely nearbpeoples, who worship a reign god. on another page, you've t the israelites, not onlyuggesting peacul coexistence to a people who worship a foreign go t invoking that god to validatehe relationships. so, they s, "your god khamesh gave you your land our god ga us our land. can't we get alo?" and the questi is why does god seem to be in the different mos? why the mood fluuations? and i think thanswer is acally good news. the answers that when people feel thathey can gain through aceful collaboration or coexistence th another people, they will nd tolerance in eir doctrines, by and large. at's what's going on here. whereas, when theyeel threened by a people, in material terms, or threat to eir values. theye going to be more likely to find belligerence itheir scriptures. and think that's what was going in ancient times, when d seemed to be changing mood and the good news is that

although all of at is in the sts of these religions and surfaces periodicay today even. thgood news is that when peop find themselves in a kind of interdependent retionship. when they see at they can gain through colloration or that they don't need to be threatened, then doctrin of tolerance te to emerge. >>oyers: are you suggesting in this book thatod is ultimately dened, the character of god is ultimately dined by the conduct and interpretation o god's followers? >> as i follow god through t book-- that is what gois. a construct. he consts of the traits that are attributed to him at a given timey people. now that dsn't mean that theology can't get us closero the truth about something th

may deserve e term divinity. but yes, i thinkn the first instance, god is an lusion. and i'm tracing e evolution of an illusio >> moyers: so wherdo you come out inhe old conflict among the who say that religion is goodor people and those who say ligion serves power? you know, marx's argumenthat religions a tool of social control. >> well, i think rigion is like other belief stems in that pple will try to use it toheir advantage. >> moyers: that's humanature. >> that's hun nature. we all try to game the stem. d if there are huge discrepancies in pow, the powerful will try to use religion to their advante. don't think it has to be tha way and i think,ou know, often ligion assumes a benign and goodorm. and i think the's a kind of a danger in being too cynica aboureligion.

i think there's a dangern thinking that the soalled ligious conflicts are fundamtally about religion and thatithout religion they wouldn't be here. i mean, for exampl richard wkins has said, if it weren' for religion the would be no israel-palestine conflict. i me, i think that's a, not true. that conict started as an essentially secular ruggle over land. and b, it leadus to kind of throw up our hands and say, "well, what can yodo?" as long as peoe are religious, there's no point in addresng any grievanc or rearranging the facts on the grod to try make things better. i thk there's been a dangerous over-emphasis on t negative effects of religious bief in e modern world. although, it has many negave effects. >> moyers: i don't find y traces of cynicism in thbook. in fact, i wanto ask you about somethinyou say toward the end. you say that, "human bngs are organic machines that e built

by natural selection to deal with otherrganic machines. they can visualize other oanic beings, unrstand other organic beings, and bestow love d gratitude on oth organic beings. understanding the divi, visualizinthe divine, loving the divine--that would be tall order for a mere han being." but we've not given trying, have we? >> no. and i think, you know, in way shouldn't. i mean, i ink if there is you know, somethg out there called moral uth. and we should continue to trto relate to it in a way at brings us cler to it. and it-- >> moyers: i don'tnderstand what you mean. out there? >> well. well-- >> moyers: what di- did i say that? >> moyers: yea you've said it several times. mean--

>> ihould be careful. >> moyers: --if you n't-- because i don't-- what do i mean. trscendent is a very tricky word. and i t into trouble from hardco materialists by using it because pple think, "oh, you an spooky, mystical, etreal stuff." don't know exactly what i me by transndent. i may meaneyond our corehension. may mean, you know, i may me prior to the creation ofhe universe or something. i don't know. but i do think that the stem on earth is such that hunity is repeatedly gin the choice of either ogressing morally in the sense of acceptingore people into e moral circle or paying the price osocial chaos. okay? i would say we'vbeen there before ande're there now. that, you know, are approaching global level of social organation. and if peoe do not get better at acknoedging the humanity of people around the world very

different circstances, and even putting themsves in the shoes those other people, then we may y the price of social cos. sohe system is set up that way. d that's just an intriguing fa to me that seems to create a kind omoral axis that we can't help b orient ourselves toward or trto orient ourselves toward. >>oyers: i expected to find you shrouded in ssimism after exploring thousands ofears of how belligerent the great fahs can be. but at the e, you seem to put a light in theindow. and a glow comes from itf some hope that thesreligions, these great faiths, caovercome millenniof belligerence and accommode. >> well, they have shown t abity to do that. i ink one of the more encouraging fas about the history of judsm, christianity and islam is that if you ask "when where theyt their best? wh did doctrines of tolerance emerge?"

i answered that they werin periods that werin some ways analogous to modern globalized environment. in the ancient world, e closest analog to thmodern globalizedorld is an empire. a mui-national platform. and i thinall three religions have swn their ability to adapt constrtively to this kind of environment. that doesn't mean th'll do it now. and, you know,he moral progress tt is needed is not assured. but l three of them have this adaptive capacity that'seen proven >> mers: and you say it's going to te an extraordinary amount of smart thking to deal with this world that'sn the verge of chaos, you writ and world-- and a chaos to which e great faiths have contributed. >> one tng that in a certain sense the prhets of all three abrahamic faiths got right, at inhe modern world, is in a way wh all of them were saying was

salvation is possible so lg as you align yourse with the ral axis of the universe. okay? now they meant differe things by salvation. in the hebw bible, they often meant social salvati. inhristianity and islam, they might be more inclinedo mean individu salvation. and of course they didt say thmoral axis of the universe. theyaid god. but to them gowas the moral axis of the unerse. but i ink when you put it abstractly like that, applies tohe modern world. in other words, if we wanto secure the salvation of e obal social system, of the planet, inther words if we want svation in the hebrew bible sense the term, we do ve to move ourselves closer what i would call thmoral axis of the unirse, which means drawing more of humanitynto our frame of referen. getting bett at putting ourselves in their sho. expanding the realm of tolence. and it haso happen symmetrilly.

it's not enough r just the muslim world or just the wt to do it. but i do think it has to hapn. >> moyers: you makme think that perhaps iyour head god is the reasoning principle rough time? >> interestingly the is this idea of the los. >> moyers:n the beginning was the word, is h the new testament, t book of john, trslates it. >> one pce the word logos pears-- yes, is that word in that passa is the translation of the greek tm logos. d in a way, the term reappea in the koran when mohamm says jesus is the word ofod. but it also haan important place in jewish though d in fact, one of the thinke i fasten on to in the book as some-- an ancient thker who had i think pretty good candidate r modern theology, is philo of alexdria. >> moyers: jew? >> yeah. and who lived around t time of jesus, except in a mh more ban environment. and he had aess to greek

philosophy. and he had thiidea that god is the logos. is this kindf logic that is the anating spirit through history. and he said some things that look remarkable from a moder int of view. he sai where history was moving w toward this world of tremendous interdependence a th was part of god's plan was make it so that individual peles and even individual specs would need one another. were dependent on onanother. and at as history wore on, that would bece truer and truer. and as a rult, the world would move toward thisind of unity. i ink in terms of a logic you know, animating story, that's a reasonly modern way to think of the divin if you want toonstruct a theology that, i wld say, can be rendered in a w that is compatible with modern scice, i think pho of alexandria is a good place to start.

>> mers: i keep coming back thou to what you instructed us in thibook when you talk about how everything we do a see our response to it's aected by brain whichas not been preparedy natural evolution for the complexi of the social orr today. and you say, "the way the man mind is ilt, antipathy can imde comprehension." rationality. "hating protesrs, flag burners and evenerrorists makes it harder to understand them we enough to keep others om joing their ranks." >> it's tricky balance to strike bause on the one hand, undetanding terrorists and how they became terrorists, whicis in our interests if we want discourage the creatn of more teorists, tends to involve a kind of sympathy that in tur can ad you to say they are not blame for what they did. d you don't want to say that because as a practal matter, you have to punisheople when

you can when ty do bad things. so you don't want to l go of the idea of moraculpability, but you do need to kind ofut yourlf in their heads. and that is really a great challee in the modern world. >>oyers: are human beings likely to growut of their need for god? >> i think it's going to be long time before a wholeot of them do, ithey do. so religion will be the dium by which peoplexpress their values for a long time to co, so it's impoant to understand whatrings out the best and the worst in it. and i think,ou know, the answer tthat question depends partly on how abstctly you defineeligion. you know, the is this william james ote about how religion the idea that there is an unseen order and our sreme interests lie in harmonisly adjustg ourselves to that orr. and it's good definition becae it encompasses the great

variety of t things we've called religion, think. and not ny definitions do. you define religion that wa i think it'll probably be wi us forever, because if y define religion that way, i' regious. and that's defininit pretty broadly if i qualify. >> moyer the book is "the evolution of god." robert wright thanks very mu r being with me on the journal. >> thankfor having me. >> mers: this week, regina benjamin was nominated by president obama be our next surgeon geral, charged with keeping the american pubc informed about our hlth. she's a member of thboard of ustees of the american medic association and repient of a macarthur foundaon ¡genius grant.' but re important, she's a country ctor, a family physiciaalong the gulf coast of alabamaserving the poor and uninsured. after huicane katrina destroyed her clinic a sond

ti, she mortgaged her own home rebuild it. the day it was to reopen, fire burned the clinic tohe ground. moving to a trair, dr. beamin and her staff nev missed a day of work dr. benjamin wl no doubt bring that same hic to the fight for health care refo. many of e folks in regina njamin's bayou town are so or, that sometimes she's pai with a pint of oters or a couple of fish. she buys medicine for r patien out of her own pocket, and she makes house calls. now meet h. edward hanway, t chairman and ceo of gna, the country'fourth largest insurance company. at the beginning of the year cigna bled hard economic times en it announced the layoff o 1,10employees. but it reported rst quarter profits of $208 million on revenues of $4 billion. mr. hanway has aounced his retireme at the end of the year, and the livingill be

easyfinancially at least. he made $11.4 milliodollars in 20, according to the associated press, and me years more than that. that a lot of oysters, although he lags bind ron williams, the c.e.o. of aetn insurance, who me more than $17 million dollars last yea or john hammergren, the he of mckesson, the biggt health care company in the rld. his coensation was nearly $30 million. here's the difference. to dr.regi benjamin, health care is a serve, helping peoplen need with grace and compassi. to ed hanway and his highly id friends, it's big busine, a commodity to bsold to those who can afford it. d woe to anyone who gets between themnd the profits they reap fromick people. that behavior includes speing nely a million and a half a day-- a day!-- tmake sure health care reform comes out thr way. ov the years they've lavished millions othe politicians who

are writing and voti on the bills coming out of committe noit's payback time. see for yourse here on our website, wre you'll find a link to campaign conibutions and the politicians who rit now are deciding who winand who loses the heh care debate. that's it for e week. i'm bill mers and i'll see you next time. captioning sponsored by public affairs tevision captned by media cess group at wgbh access.wgbh.org