>> re: well court-martial to the broadcas tonight, two conversations, two authors, two subjects. one is h to recognize failure, two the evoluti of god. firs jim collins, one of erica's best-sellg authors on busess and adership and recognizing failu. >> you wou think-- at least i would have thought-- that the wagreat enterises fall is they back lazy. ey just become sort of f and corps lent and they never rlly wanto do anything new or innovative anymore and sure enough,f you do become la andomplacent and don't do anything new anymore you will fall. thatoesn't reay show how the migh fall. it's undisplined pursuit of re. it's overreachi. it's going too far. 's doing too much. it's undcipline big thecht. >> ros second, robt wright, his ne book authors anew pepective ond god. >> when pele look at another group ofeople and think ty can nefit from peaceful coexisnce, collaboration, cooperation or just coexistence they will usually find a basis forolerance intheir religion. >> rose: ande end with an appreciation for don hewt, the foder of "60 minutes". he died age 86. jim collins, robert wright, and appreciaon of don hewitt. next. caioning sponsored by rose communications from our studi in new york ci, this is charlie rose. >> rose: jim collins i here, he is, as you know, one ofngho be-s onubjects of business a leadership. his books "good to great" and "blt to last" have sold more th seven million copies combed. "fortune" magazi has called him the j.k. roing of management literure. his latest is called "how the mightyall." i am pleased thave jim collins back at this table. welcome. >> i'm very pleased to be her rose: thank you, god to have you here. hodid this comebout? "howhe mighty ll" and why someompanies never give in and why some coanies-- extding beyo your tut-- look le they're falng t before it'se reo turn around. start with the title and at the inquire was thated to this. >> well, like erything tt we do, it's all drin by cuosity. the interestg thing is that this study began... this little inquirybegan in 2005 long beforehe mighty started fallinlike dominos and i've alwaysbeen interest hogreat enterpre cans self-destruct but it's bn in the back of myind. and then i h two experiences in my life that came together t rae a qstion they' not in sequen but they came together and the first time it started to grab me as a questionas when francisassle bin asked know go the west point. and francis hasslebein who is one of ameca's great leers and sh said ould you come t west point andteach a ce discussion." i said "i'dbe happy to." and i picture c debts. said "wonderful frans." and who will be t students? >> she said 36 people. u.s. army generals, 12 "fortune" 500 c.e.o. types and leaders from the social seors all at tables of two, two, two, ea. >> rose: i said. ay, what's the queion, what's the case you'd ke me to lead the discussion on? she said "you'll like it, the united states of ameri." so here's this case discussion with these student and i'm thinkingo myself what can i ink this group about america and i had a wonderful ment named bill lazier. and he alwampressed upon me yodon't have to have the answers. what you have to have is t questis. rose: my mantra. >> exactly. and if you have the questions, good answers wl come. and i thought a ieo west pointis question. theuestion s: where's america? is americat an inflecon point? and if so, which way? becae great tions athens, 500 b.c.e. rome, egyptian old kingdom, egyptian new kingdom, mians crete have fallen. so i put to the group america renewing its gatness or is th united stateof america dangerously on the cusp of fallinfrom great to good? the estion was rhetorical but the room exploded into this really remarkabl debate. there'no correlation by sector there was a lot of discussion and eat passion for the question. t the rea crical moment me at a break. chief execive of a very successf company comes up to me and hesays "i'm very intereed in the question at you asked this morning but ie be thinking about m company all morng. we've had this amazin run of success and that worries me. scares me. i'mrightened by ou success. and what i want to know is when u're on top of the wor, when you're at the height of your ccess how would you know if you might be dangeusly on the cu ofalling? >> rose: because it makes you immuneonsight? >> it coulbe that all of your success covers the fact that yoare already indecline. and that by th time you ke up to see it, i might be t late. that was his fear. d this came han in handith a very psonalxperience. and i was flecting back on t way home from this experienc that my wife and i had beeto, jone, we're cing up on our 29th yearf marriage which i consider to be a goo start. and in 2002 we went running outside of asp and we r to the top of the.. i shoun't y we.t running up towards ththing called the electricath. at about ,000 feet altitude i startewalking and i ca out of the tree linend joae kept running. i could see h headi up to the top of the pass which was almost 14,000 feet inhis bright red sweatshirt. that was august. in october we reived the diagnosis that led to two mastectomies. and what hit me was the image of being thextraordinary picture of health, the redweatshirt pounding up the trails to the top of the path looking as betiful and astrong as ever. but if you run the timeline, she was already ck. >> ros inside her cancer was growing. >> iide her ccer was growing. and these two eeriences, the west point experience and the reflectis of that came together and i thought you know, there's something there. ought to go back and study great eerprises that fell, great enterprises that self-destrucd and ask the estion "are the seeds of thr decle and are themarkers of their declin in ple long before you ever see it? are you rong on the outside but aeady sick on the insid or tose that wonderful question from e person at west point, how would you know? >> rose: all right, stage one i bris. >> yes so w found tse five stage and i'll just quickly menti whathey are and then we c circle back to them. stage one is bris born of success. stage two is undisciplined purst of more. stage three is denial of risk and peri stage four is grping for salvation. and stage five, the stage you never wa to go to, i a pip lags to irlevant or death. now, two quick pois on ts. it doesurn out that you look from the outde like you're still climbing all the way to the end of stage tee. you don'tvisibly fall until st' e through three of five stages before younow. you look gat. certainly on t outside you lo great. en stage four it really sho. it's clear to everody. if second is youan go to stage four and come back. >> rose: want people to know out there what's interesting about these kindof conversations which try do in my head and i think back to your wife, what yo try to say is that let's assume this perhaps can't extendeyond aorporate entity tlife in general. >> exactly i'll just share th you a little two asides on that. the first is that our work has always been abouthe questions. and it just so hapns that we use business. one of t things that was teresting is i got a call from a profsor of classics who said that he's teaching how the mighty fall with macbeth. and he said "this is t tragedy " it happens t show up i siness but it's therc of rategy. and the second thing that was teresting, i sharedhis with chiefxecutives before it was published and e c.e.o. came up to me anhe said "do youind if i share it with... and i thought he wasoing to say "thi framework withmy management team. but the words out of his mouth were "with my chilen." i want my children to deunderstand hubris bn of success, dial of risknd peri the mighty can fall. and they've bn privileged. >>ose: hubs means that... it does mean se senseof don't just think you're so damn good. it may very well be that a series of facrs. and don't think that hang done it once mes you can do it forever. and to never believe that you actually understand l the reass for your succs. to always be qstioning, questioning, questioning for the asons. there's a wondful moment that taught ts to me where i learned about in an experience with sam walto, arguably one of ther3hentury. builwhat became the largest company in the world. a grp of brazilian biness people bght a discount retail chain in latin america and they wanted to lear about howto run a better retailing chain. and so they asked a number of people if theycan visitin the united states and sam walton tually invites them up. so they show up in bentonville, arkans, and sam walton drives up in his pickup truck and there's a dog and dog hairer wher and these brazilians are iving around with sam walton who is inis tical low k m kind of way,ven though he's incredibly iense. what's string is was the most successful retailer in americand for the firsttwo days, all he did was ask the questions. all he did was to sayhelp me understand, how does brazil... how doeshis work? can we understand is better? " and final they realizede'd invited em to learn from them now, you think of the ones that i've gothe answers, i know wh i've been suessful and here is the most scessful turning it around and saying "what a wonderful opportity to learn from these people." anwhen you go fm being a knowing person to being a arning person, you're staving off the huis. >> rose: i no what i know, i want to know what you know. >> that's exactly right. and further, in someone like sam's case, i think they always see everything they'vedone as a work iprogress. i may have done the 5th symphony but i need to figure outow to do the 6th and the 7th. everything is just start. >> rose: so then this idea of being able to undispline pursui >> yeah. so now what's very interesting. so you have e hubrisorn of succs and it leads to sge tw you would think-- at least i uld havehought-- that the way great enterprises fall is ey become lazy. they just becomsort of fp u lenr really want to anythinnew or innovate anymore. and sure enough, of course, if you doecome lazy and mplacent and don't do anything new anymore you will fall. that doest really show h the mity fall. it's undisciined pursuit o mo. it's overreaching it's going too f. it's doingoo much. it's undisplined bigheft. so, r example, you look at a company like rubbermaid which was numr one for two years in a row. athe very moment itas in stage two, theyere introducing a neproduct every single day, 365 days a year. th is not come pla sent behavior. and yet five years later,hey did notxist as an indepennt company. they were acquired. what we find is that the hubris leads to an obsession with growth often, an uisciplined pursuit of b acisitions. it can be an undisciined pursuit of more fame, more succes, more short-term value whateveran lead you to ma a seriesf undisciplined moves. at t same time the question is how mit big thingshappen? so if youake the case of texas instruments mong to digital signal processinghips, at the time the started tt it was a lile thing. and they hadll their big businesses over here, semiconductor chip other things, andthey did that little speak and spell. and itas a little tiny fly eel but it showed promise. just like microprocsors. intel didn't decide "wee going into microprocesrs" in 1974. the logic functions we put on a singlehip, it was little step. but it's that ttle fly wheel gains momenm and i turns out wait minute, we can put the logic functions on therewe can make aickle.s..chip and people can use tm in communications and suddenly yove gone from oneurn to ve turn to ten turn and this lile thing... notour big thing you're paying atttion to memo chips, youay attention to that and renewt as ifour fe depends on it, because fu get starts to grow over here and en you pve its success empirically, then youan make a bet on sething that's proven. where mpanies get in trble they abaon the big thing they already have and they make a big uncalibrated beton mething that they think is going be the big thing. e of the great stories of decline is ames department stores. ey invented th mod that wal-mart won with. one of the big differences betwn those two companies, ames was in the northeas, wal-mart w four years behd, ey were in the soueast. both of them start to build momentum with that and l of a suen ames inexpribly decided that they we going to lauh a bi acquisition to movento a whole diffent model of retailing. and one of the big differences, sams jus kept maring out across the cntry in concentric circles. ames went a big uncalibrate leap, bncalibrated bet d that washe start of the decline and eventual wal-mt came in an they stopped. >> rose: you are getting to a later point in ter of what are you... gssing forsalvation. fruently those kindsf moves also are grasping f salvation. >> yes. rose: you realize you're in deep. >> yup. >> rose: so therefo you rch for things at we have to do ishange our business model, at we have to do is change our strategy. we're in the wrong business. >> revolutionrarely work. >> re: success is around the corner if we just do something else rathethan what we do we'll be able keep the thundering herds athe gate. >> yeah. and by the time you get to stage four, tt's ectly what haens. we had to briefly hittage three because it takes us bright into the.... >> rose: deal of risknd peril. >> denial of risk and pil. so you've got this azing success. and the interesti thing about stage two is erybody, including you, can feethat you are real great. >> re: right. >> but younter stagehree and warning signs stt to mount. there's intern evidence, maybe inventory rns are coming down orst the sk profile of certain businesses o there'sounting evidence that somhing that you really bieve in may not work after all. and there starts to be what i would call a culturaldenial. instd of a high questions to statements rat on the part of the ief executive, youhave a high statemes to questions ratio. and you discount negative data. you amplifyositive data. you lose that oductive parano. you know,we had to predict 11 of the st three recessions that's a good approach. and the real issue i not that ey're mounting but that you deny them. that you discount them. then y combine tt with hiddenisk and there's wondful concept called the water line. it was advanced by w. gore bill gore, and heasically said all comnies must tak risks, all ople must take risks, all nations must tak risks. the qution is are they above the water line or below the water line? if you take a ri that'sbove e water ne where iit goes agnst you and blows a hole on the side of the hull, it's above the water line, you' patch it, it will be painful butou'll be able to sail on. t if you take a risk belo the water line where if that... it explod a hole below that water line, you'll go wn. sohe question is is risk takingood or bad is th wrong question. the question is, is it above the water li or below the water line? and wha we find i companies can ask themsves as people by taking a risk where the upside is boundut the down side is gigantic. whether it be masse levera ratios, whetheit be launching a ge uncalibrated satlite syst. whetr it be in ce of climates, put little sty in the book aut climbers th were gng up to do a climb and there were storm clds in the differen. famous climb called thenaked edge. and they didt ask theuestion "whas the up de if we go up? what's the down side if the storm tus really bad?" well, the up side is weget to do our planned clb.epide. what's t down side? >> rose: we die. >> we could die. they went ahead anyway, the storm turned again them, they were hit byightni and they died. and so what we find is there this notion of not just risk by asymmetric risk. >> rose: oh, i see. in other words the do side is worse than thepside. >> much worse tn the upside. d that leads into things goin agnst you whether it be the grual erosion or whher it be the riskurned bad and you star heading downwards and at's when you enter stage four. the essee of stage four is not th you'realling, it's grasping for salvati in respse to falling. >> rose: give me the story. >> well, first ofll, tho are great positivstories becau ib ion't mean, xerox, new corps, these are a companies that were in decline tha came back. in the case of.b.m., what's ry interesting is that you have... there waa say your brought in, byhe way, very rarely do outside saviors, ceainly outside charismatic saviors producereat results. the weht of evidence is very much against that. it can happen. he w the ception of a successful outsider. no gersh her came and the first thg everybody wanted to do with the "wt's your plan? what's your direction." remember that famous moment where he said "the last thing i.b.m. eds is a digital." wh he meant is i need to make sure i he my team i place, i need to makeure i have the right people in myeats. >> re: make sure we n execute. >> make sure we can execute and i've got to confront all the diicult facts we have to confront and it'sot going to happen in ve days or ten day or even a hundred days. when a newspapersks "can we track yo progress over 100 days" hesays "no, we're going dark, we have work to do." and it was this very almos pedestrian quantitative disciplined process of figuring out where i.b.m.ould still be the best in the world. and then making a series of very diiplined decisions that we not sexy,o n trtion and rebuild the culture and rebui the coidence of results that then d to the transition. that's a completely different approach than "we need to do a big miracle acquisition." he never did onef those. "we need to do a complete cultural transfortion and toss t everything fro the p.a. " as he said "i fell i love with i.b.m. andhat ittood for." so it was building o strength in a very almost peter drucker y, step by step, turn byurn. of course he stopped the le bleedi but that's not how you builgreatness. it was averyedestrian process. anneulcahey of xerox cam into another companythat was i late stage four decne. an sider, almost no one knew who she was. she did all the same types of activities of right peop, it's not abouher, disciplined sts oducing great results. the antithesis of silver bullets. >> re: let me come to general conclusions. here is the problemhat i or others have. it's not about this book, it is a larger issue. u look after... yolook at these companies and u want to kn how would we know? so you go look at case studies, what happened and figure t wh are the lessons from those ca studiesfter the fac. what is always... it' a bit like youeed to have gd judgnt. well, thas... i know tha what is good judgment and how would good judgmenpply in circumstce a, circumsnce b, circumstance c? you clrly have to have principles and you have to have createive renewaand you have to have a capacity in a sse to the absence o hubri you have thave a certain humility and at the se time you have to have certain boldness and confidence. all the things speak you. those are wos that speak to u. on the one hand humility, on e other hand boldness. onhe one handisk taker on the other hand prudence. on the o hand this, on the other handhat. it is all there and y derstand that those arehe. you're still lt with the hd, tough decision making responsibility of saying "within thoschoices, how do i make the ght choice?" and i'm noture this boo or any other book has the capacity to tell yo that. >> no. >> rose: bause in the e, you've lrned from history or you will repeat story. on t other hand, new waters are cstantly flowing int every river and so is consntly changing. >> i'll offer two thoughts about that. the first is that... the more i look at things, the more i come toheonclusion that the root of much of i ishat ishe truth of the ambition of those in power? and i your ambition as a leader is really about you, it's abo th success you have, it' about the attention you get during your time, it's about the alth yo accumulat, that leads to... is more likely toead to the absence of the disciplined decisions that would produce great sults. if ittarts with those people li anne mull kay hiwho are deeply passionatebout the cause, about the company, about the work,t reall isn't about them. and itreally isbout something biggerhat they're going to create that is going too long beyondhem, whether it be music or a buildingr a set of idea or a company, tha that leads to a different set of decisions that flow from that root question when you have,ts it ull out? whatou're creing that is bigger tha your is it about you? anif i take all of our work and i just sort of come back to... when i look a thosewho make one set of decision versus the othe and i say whers the root? that is, i believe,ne of the roots. >> re: "howhe mighty fall and why some companies never give in." ji collins. his obably most famous book is called "good t great." ba in a moment. stayith us. >> rose: robert wrig is here. hibooks include "the moral animal" "nonero" and "three scntists and their gods." his new ok is called "the evolution of god." offers a newerspective on religion and the scriptures. i'm pased to have robert wright bacat this table. lcome. >> thanks for having me. >> ros tell me what you e as... d we could just... i could ask this question andhen 0 minutes later you could say "that's the awer. this pattern. patter which in t essce of this book, this patte in the evution of judaism and christianity. >> so inhe scrtures of all thre abrahamreligions, the bible and th koran, sometimes god is saying, u know, be nice to the unbeevers in the koran you know? he adves muslims to say "you've got your religion, we've got ou." other timehe says"killthe fidels." on the one hand he's ying "wipe out a city because they don't belie in me" and at other times "the israel litsnot ly suggest peaceful co-ext tee of w the neighboring people who have another god but tually invoke that g to validate theelationship." ey say you've got your god; we've got our god,tg i wanted to see what the pattern is terms explaining tse mood fluctuationsith an eye to seeing what brings out the bt and worst in rigion. th basic idea is pretty simple. when people lo at anoth group of people and ink that they canenefit from peaceful co-existencefrom collaborati cooperation, o just co-existce, they will usuly find a basis for tolerance in theirreligion. and i think toy that'srue. people will find the toleran scriptures in theicriptures when it's in their interest to do so. >> ros let me understd that. if you are looki forolerance you can find hit the scriures? >> well, certainly all t scriptures are now sufficiently ambiguous. >> rose: that's my poi, yeah. >>ou can find anything u want in the kan or in t bie. >> rose: tha, in fact. you go to islam is there any place in the koran that pple are...he radica fundamental ee such as al qaeda that osama bi laden n find things that he can say "ah, the bie speaks to me"? >> on th one hand, can find a vers that litally say.. well, it says "kill t polytheists wherer you find em." but on the other hand if you look closy at the context of th verse, then what it says is basicallynless they're on your side in this particular war. and that iustrates. what i'm saying is that when he saw it being in hisnterest to ly with people. ey are allies d think wld ben his side. if you look at the koran closely that's whas going on. he was a warrior for much ofñi e cors. there are a a lot of belligerent verses in ther but it's clear i context that i would argue it's actually not fundentally about rigion. i argue the religious conflicts are not fundamentally about religion, e so-calledeligion colicts. people wilalways manage to invokeheir religion to justify the killinthey do just as th'll manage to invoke patriotism to stify killing if it's a nationalist war. thergument i make the book is that in ancient times as now, at brought out the queion of whether a religion would b belligerent tolerant was not some intrinsic inherent feare of the religion, some interna character, it s much more fas on the ground,hat's in your interest too now. there's mu more pragmatism to religi than i think is appreciated. >> rose: suggesting religion was created in order to... >> i srt the book... the term "the evolution of god" in t title refers to e evolution o ideas about god. what antipolgss call cultural revolution. i start back in hunter gatherer days when soar as wean tell every society the planet believedn mini gods. and at that point, religion is not what we thinkf as rigion today as n that it dn't have a moral compent. wasn't about doing goo or don't cheat,on't steel. >> rose: no code there. >> because hunr gatherer societie, you've got 30, 40 people,t's not that much of a probm keeping people in le really. religion was about morehat ience is about today, which is guring out how the world works in particular whyatastrophes stri and trying to figure out how to increase the number o successeand decrease the nuer of catastrophes and the eories they came up with were okay, outhere there are these beings we can't see and they're like humans. if they do something bad to you, they're mad you. you must havdone something to offend them. that lodge sick theain thing rly religion is about. and as tim goes on a society getue ties and states, religion changes in t character of god changes. it becomes more abo morality and good. >> rose: when did that happen? >>efore the god of israel rael. one themis that there's more ntinuity between prison israel looits religion and israelite religion. everyone wants to say their relion is special. we have this revolion and then erything changed. i y to show it's an olutionary path. ere are gods that are much about goodness. >>rose: does this book have some place between pro-faith and atheist lerature. or believers or non-believers? >> ion't subscribe to any claims of scial revetion so i'm not a christian, muslir je. but wouldn't cal myself an atheis i tell my story from the poi someone outside of the faith, bubut i argue in th book and i believe thathere is evidence that there is a larger purpose working rough nature. so tha doesn't necessarily imply an interventionist god or the nd of god these people believe in. i don't know if i'm right in is kind of direconalty in, for exampl human history, a moral direction that i demonstrate inuman history or y to donstrate. if thatr&, i can't team you anything with eat confidence abt what's behind it. >> ros but there is a... nature has purpose? >> i tnk so. d i think more than scientists realize, saying that isnot compatible with science. and it doesn't mean there's ooky forces out there. >> rose: ectly. >> it can be a strictly materialist physical sysm abiding by the law o nature was set in motion for some purpose. think of a car as having a purpe, it was designedto do something but we don't think there's anhing special about it. it's just a machine. >> rose: but wh set it in motion? >> well, i don't know. and i woul't say is necessarily who. could be a intelligent being. but, you know, we have? science examples of thingshat areurposeive butot set in motion by an intelligence, and that's like you and me. animals have goals and purpose, right? i mean, theyursue goals, but ey're designed by a process tural selection, not by an telligent being. uld be there's a god behi it but i just don't know. >> rose: and ifou don'tnow, that means what? >> well, even though. i mean, in my case... people are different in terms of what gives th spiritualustenance. what would be great is if i coulbelieve there's a god and if i'm good i'll gooeaven althou there's a down side thinkingou have to be good to go t heaven. that would be my favorite. t in the absence of that, pele are different interms of what does give thempiritual suenance. ople like to say "well, we're made of the same stuff as srs and that makesme feel good." that doesn do much for but it does help me to think that there is a purpose unfolding whose dection you can discern and it has a moral dimension. i'll tell you where i think we are inhistory. i think-- and thi gets back to... we'veen the history of relion, as trieto show in thebook. thsocial system is now a global one, okay? ansocial systems are fragile. ey can collapse orcohere. would say the coherence of the social system depends o moral progress. that is to say, depends on people getting beter in putting thselves in the shoes of people halfway around world, appreciatinghat and so on. sohe kind of salvation in society in the kind ebrew ble sense of the word, just meaning holdin the society together depds on moral progress. at's been the casegain and again and religion h played a role. >> rose: exactly. what re has religion played? they have given thframework to find the moral purpose? if religion of the israites succeeded in iting 12 tribes that havnot been united. so christianity lped the roman empire cohere. islam founded a multinationa empire. time and time again religion has played a role in expanding the social sysm, in bringing people who are prevusly not in thsame tribe intothe same tribe. i an the story of history a one level is thetory of expanding social orgizations. i'm arguin that that expansion entail it isind of moral progress apeople have to expand that i call moral circle and say, yeah, ok, thospeople are...hey're one of us, too. different nation, bute're in the same empire, they're one of , too. i'm sayi the world is at a point where we're all going to ha to get better out saying that to everyo in the world anjust that traditionally religions have playea role in expandinthis kind of mor imaginatioand i try to show that christianity, islam and judaism are all capable of aying that. they've done it before. they've adapted thr doctnes. >>ose: do they py it the same way? >> there areifferences.t that te same thing but their impact is the sa. the conseqnce of them being there, whether it's islamicr christian or jew dayic. >> whathey have in common this pragmatismthat when ey.... >> rose: y can find what you wfd what's necessarin your doctne to hold the socl system togher. that's what th have in common. no, in individual salvation, the idea that, you kno, you personally can go to heaven and that large play the religion is about is very big in chriianity and isla and much less sin judais in judaism, the tm salvation in the hebrew bible is usually talking about theocial system. >> rose: do you think people would be different if they did not think ereas-- forack of a better word-- merit in doing good? >> i mean, it used to behought the th century there were people who were like you know, i don't believe in d but if we tell everydy there'so god, society will fall apart. it's ieresting that now among those so-called new aiests, chris fir hitchs, it' almost the opposite aim. which is tt religion i the source of all evil which i think is afalse and dangerous false to think that allf our problems all the probms in the middle east derive from just religis fervor as opposed to actual problems on the ground that we can work out. >> rose: rht. >> but it's interesting it's just flipped. i think it's largely a post-9/11 think. i think between radical islam and kind of christian fundamentalism in americ certain peop who just like... dislike both of those things and there are ings i dislike in both of them, have to say, have kind of generalized and said "ll, religion in general is the source of the problem." and one point in my book is that no, relion has very often played a very constructive ro and it still can. the questi you're aski is will society fall apart without it is a questn we don'tknow e answer to yet. >> re: take a look at christianity and lakt mammed anu lo atesus, what do they share anhow are they differt? >> i think more than people reale because i argue in the bo that jesus... the jesus of the gospel is misleing a at real jesus was le about universal love. i think that doctrine comesuch morerom the apostl paul and i thk jesus was more an d-fashioned firend imstone.... >> rose: social activis >>o, the opposite. this is one common interptation of him mow is e ki of left wg resionism thathe sufficient that'srue isll the stuff abou feeding the poor. and he may have bn big on feedinthe poor, tt's possle. >> rose: bute was in sence... you were going to say. i think he was a fire and brimstone apocalypticreacher if you want... judgmenday is coming. that paris clear in th gospels. but i think thatas much more the coref his message and i think they was jewish apocalyptic preache he wasalking to fellow israelitis. he wasn't. i don't think he was interest in spreading the goel to the nations. i think he was a local apocalyptic preacher with fiery rhoric and that's what mohammed was in e days when he was a street preachern mecca. now, unlikejesus, mohammed actually acquires power before he gets killed. his moment, unlike jesus's, actuallyucceeds in tting power beforenyone kills him. so then you see a secd mohammed in medina who becomes a statesman and a warrior and all of thapart of the koran is... stands in star contrast with the jesus... even t jesusthat i think really existed, just because he has remained a street preacher. >> rose:f all the fire and brimstone preachers at the time and to succeed... and to follow and all of the qualitie that hammed had, why didhose two succees and mohammed? >> rose: yes. >> they succeeded in different ways. i an, jesus himself, hi follower i'm sure, when he was crucified did nothink they had succded. that was notheir plan. i mean, messiahs were thoht of as people who saved you in a convenonal... the way a political leader would, the messiah was going to save all of israel as a leader. he didn't succeed by the expections he had during his life. now, the memy of him became a religion that succeeded ihink changing a lotfter his death. but i think that's more o a tribute to t apostle paul and how fertile the roman empire was. hoready it was for a multinional religious movement. i think christianity was signed to be a successful multinational moveme designed large baby paul. i ink that's where t doctrine of a love that crosses ethnic and national bounds comes . >> rose: sowithout paul... >> i thinkt would all be.... >> rose: no wait, finish. witht paul... >> well, it might be very different. there were different fms of christianity a some were more like paul's thanothers. i think any chstianity that succeeded would have h to b pret much like paul'in the sense of emphasize ago brotherhood that cross national boupdz. >> rose: so jesus would not have succeeded without ul? >> he would have h to adapt his messa but people are adaptable. mohammedhanged a lot in his career. >> rose:hy did mammed succeed? why is it today the twouge faiths... stand where ey are? i think because both of them fell on fertile grod. >> rose: there was a need for them wherehey existd? >>ohammed was on the periphe of t empires, both of which were kind november a state of dey. andhe vement... which actually spread laely after his death. he didcquire powernd did start panding but it only became an empire after h death. laely kind of took ove the instruments of empire fro those. but i think mohammed mself got to where he g before he died being very crafty a pragmatic leader,much more pragmatic than peopl realize. they thi of mepled the stereotype i, you know, fervent religious guy, the stereotype on thright wing of ameri would be, yo know, religious whacko, probably. t if you actually read the koran, i think he he's a very pragmatic rson who's willing to amend doctrin as necessary to eand h coalion, to keep it going together, to keep it goin so when he thinks he can bring chstians and jews on bod you see the koran saying things like "jesus is thspirit of god, jesus is the wo of god." righout of the the bible." the hebrews arethe chosen peopley god." all this is in the ran. and that comes a a time when mohammedtill thinks he can bring christiansnd jews boarin a common fait or commonolitical movement depending on how you wanto look at it. and then there's much less flatteringtuff after the missioseems to have failed. so.... >> rose: but mohamd was more a political leader than jesus was. >> yes. he sueeded as a political leader a way that jesus didn't. >> rose: but he wasore of politics tn jesus. >> and very adaptable. and i think in his religious doctrine in order to be a successful polital leader. >> are at a moment in ligious evolution >> i think so. >> rose: and that moment i >> the moment is either religiontake what they've always been good at, whichs holding the social system together and adapt to a time when the social sysm is the ole world, which will mean obably changing some of their doctrines and certainl moderatingome of the more radical elements in them. or thehole system may fail. i mean, actualhaos. i think that's the moment that wee at and there multaneously this challenge from scices the problem. and reducinghe number of kind of well educatedeople who are professoring religions. they have these two challenges happening the same time. >> rose: the book calledthe evolution of god robert wright author of "the moral animal" and "non-zero thank you. >> thank y. >> rose: pleasure to have you. >> rose: d hewitt, the famous creator of " minutes," di today at age 86. he was a legendary producer a cbs. he was thereor the first kennedy/nixon deba. >> the first queson now to senator kennedy. >> rose: heent on to hav an illustrious career at the "cbs evening news". >> this is the "cbs ening news" withalter cronkite. >> rose: a then the founding of "60inutes." it is perhaps america's greates broadcasin the history of news broadcasts. it is a show that has sod the test ofime, the principles therein whercreated by don hewitt. hence said ""60 minutes" is about fo words: go tell a ory." he chose correspondents who could tell a story and the storiethey told. remember this. every piece y sawn "60 minutes" whi don hewitt was executive producer bore some imprint from him bore they went on th air the had to pass his muste here is some of the appearances he made on this program over our 19-year history. you are there almos at the creati of television. 1948 was your first job. >> yeah. yeah. i came to television... didn't even know at it was. i was working at united press as a picture edir and a y called mwith a friend of me o worked at sebts and he said hey're looking for a guy with piure experience." said "wait a minut what the hell does radio network wan th picture" anhe said "no, tevision." and i sai "wh vision? you mean you sit home and look at pictus in a box? so that's it. i went over the and my god i felt like dorothy in the emerald city. i couldn't believe it. cameras and lights and booms. i wa mesmerized. >> rose: what was the first show. >> douglas edwards with the news preceded cnkite. i did thatnd i used too the brooklyn dodger baseball games. >> rose: directing them? >> no, no, i was the associe... i came in a an associate dirtor and six months later they me me a rector and i took overhe evening news d it just... it's one o these careers that i can't ally believe it all happened to . i'm constantlyinching myself. >> rose:ake me bac to. firsof all, dougdwards. i me, it was storyrue that you once wanted dou edwards because therwas no teleprompter, you wanted him to useraille? >> but, charlie think about that. ppose we didn't have leprompters and you were doi a story ery night. you sat the and they flame had ot and yo ran your hands over a braillecript and you cod... (laughs) to this day everybody laughs about it. i thought it was agreat idea. >> rose: whatid doug edwards say? >> h thought i was nuts. >> rose: (laughs) >> i don'think any of us could ever sit down and tell you what it is that "60 minutes" does that's different. rose: youtarted "60 minutes" and at t very beginning i remember specificallyou said "tell me a story. te me a story." and that really is t formula for mo of it. telle a story. that stohat leslie stahl did last nig was... >> tell me a story. >> it was a drama. >>ose: it was readyor broadcast. >> it was. "chorus line >> horus line. exactly." >> i think we know somethi that nobody elsen this businessas figured out. rtar.is y're more than your eye thateeps you at theelevision set. what youear is whateeps you there. see, i believe very rongly, charlie, that it is you'reore than your eye at keeps you at a television set. >> rose: people hear...you're saying people hear.. explaint to m i believe it, too, but explain what you mea >> i can liveith a pture th's a littl bit grainy and out o focus. i can't live with grainy sound or out-of-fos sound. the minute the sound or the rds don't mesh or the inflections aren't right, i don't ca what's on there. see,before "60 minutes," e accepted wdom inelevision was that what w did was we put words picres. well, no, we're going t put pictur to words. we're going to start wit a ory andecide how to illustrate. i believe tha wha you hear is more important thanhat you see. i ha been in television 44 years d i never saw a picture th excited me as much as a well-turd phrase. i may have leaed that from murrow. >> rose: murrowidn't write at a pewriter, he stood up. he would talk i through and sobody would write it dow >> rose:gr he wrote it. >> rose: but he wouldalk it. >> i do that. i talk... listen, as far as sound anwhat i said o"60 minutes," mike walce and i have had the same conversation for 4 yrs. for 4 years mike has don a narratioat the end of which he invary i can'tebly says me "okay, kid how wa it?" for 24ears i said "i giv you an a. you wanto do it again andee you get a-plus?" >> ros (laughs) and you list to... >> wn i get in the control room, i don't even look. i knowhat ed bradley loo like i know what leslie looks liktohr the track. >> sometimes i put my head on the desk and listen and i whip may head up d i say "it a minute, wait! th inflection is wro." or "that's wordy." or "there's a better word w can use there." an i edit with my ears. >> rose: wn he comesinto the room and you hav toiled and your producer has toiled and yo associate producer has toiled and you've saidt together, you know the story, he comes in and said "i thinkhat you need to dos you need put e beginning in the middle, put the middle in the begiing." >> he does a lot of tt. >> rose:e does new >> he do a lot ofhat. >> rose: and yourweat and your bloo reason r the table. >> wel you know, it's a collaborive process in distance. there's a great thing to be said for distance. oducers will work on this with associat producers for six or eight week certainer or lat you reach a bloc i can look at it with aet of esh eyes and then don comes in at thend when we've actually done a cut of it and he looks at it and immediately see two or three things we can do to me the piece better. and some of it is... he's th bestt it. >>. >>ose: that, in my esmation, is the single mos important reason that "60 nutes" works the way it has over theears is... and he knows i fee this way. >> son of gun has fingeror gut or whater it is and you come in with a pret good piece and hel find outow to make it betr. >> i think the success of "60 minutes" is that i have nevern my lif hired anyone smarter than am. because if they' smarterhan i am, why do i need em? >> rose: you know wt they say? >> it's not true. honest to g. i look at a lot of guys, i look at guylike you and moyers, wallace, every one ofy contporaries is better educated tn i am, they're beer read than i am th're more learnedi a, and why all this goo luck rained me i can' figure out. i thk the most important person on "60 minutes" bar ne, forget mike,orally, steve, leslie, don hewitt. >> ros what is it that's brought you the most... whatdo you wanto tell your grandchildren about d hewitt's tenuret cbs? >> you know it's like one of those thingshat would you lik on the epitaph and theanswer is i don't want one. whatould i tell them? i don't ow. i would tellhem that tt i was verylucky. that i was there at the rit time that i sort of had an affinity for television that i may not havead for anythg else in life. that it all seemed toork for me. that i w this guy who never graduate from college who got all this and woun't recoend that to anybody else. i knew when i was four years old that wanted to be in the news business. >>ose: don hewitt dead at age 86. he was a rerkable producer and a remarkle man. i have had great and good luc in televisio to create is program perhaps most of all, but secondly being part ofhe "60 minutes" familyhich i still am today. itis something that wherever i go makes me feel very pud and whoever i se around the world it is somhing tt risters with people because itstands for quality, it stands for finding outthe sty. n hewitt created tha standard and we will miss him. captioning sponsored b rose cmunications captioned by media access group awgbh access.wgbh.g