Darwin's Rottweiler On Religion

[Kether]

Some time ago, Richard Dawkins presented his views on the subject of religion in a two-part documentary on British television. Provocatively titled "the root of all evil?" (given the general tone of the program, one does wonder why they bothered with the question mark), it presents a militant atheist view that I basically agree with quite eloquently. You can watch/download part one here (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6193866746249268230) and part two here (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8239331458224461127) at Google Video. There is also a Wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Root_of_All_Evil%3F) on the documentary, from which there are links to reviews and criticisms.
Hoping this will stimulate some interesting discussion,
Kether.

[scameter]

The root of all evil... lol Well, I guess you've found your place then my friend: atheism. :)

[Winfried]

Atheism is no place. "Where are you going?" "I'm going to atheism." It doesn't work. It's a view of life. Just like christianity,buddhism, Toaism, the Islam, You get what I mean.
Too bad though, that everyone wants to see everyone else get the same view as them (well maybe the buddhists and Toaists less then others). I refer to the Inquisition, the scores of atheist sites telling you there is no god, the scores of sites telling you Jesus loves you, the few sites telling you God hates everyone etcetera.

[Kether]

Too bad though, that everyone wants to see everyone else get the same view as them (well maybe the buddhists and Toaists less then others). I refer to the Inquisition, the scores of atheist sites telling you there is no god, the scores of sites telling you Jesus loves you, the few sites telling you God hates everyone etcetera.
If it's the truth, then it is right to persuade others to agree with it; that people try to do so is not the problem. However, being dogmatic - closing one's mind to argument, forming such strong emotional attachments to our views that the thought that they could be false is agonising - is undoubtedly wrong, and even dangerous, because preventing argument can mean burning argument at the stake. Any belief system can be treated in this way; Christians can do it, Muslims can do it, Marxists can do it, and yes, atheists can do it.
Appealing to logic, debate, and evidence represents the antithesis of this kind of religious belief, and this is the kind of methodology that needs to be employed if we are to discover the truth, and to avoid a lot of hatred and dogmatism at the same time.
The root of all evil... lol Well, I guess you've found your place then my friend: atheism.
'The Root of All Evil?' is a ridiculous title, but to be fair, Dawkins didn't actually choose it - Channel 4 decided on it for him, and wanted something provocative. I'm not sure I understand the rest of your post; 'found my place' is not what I would say. What do you mean? Atheism is not a place, as Winfried pointed out. I don't think it probable that there is a god, but that's actually got nothing to do with my opposition to religion, which is based on my support for science and logic. And could you explain the existence and position of the 'then' in that post? I can see no logical connection.
I'm not trying to be aggressive, by the way: I just don't understand what you mean.

Has anyone watched the documentary yet? I think the second episode is far better than the first, although the first does have some interesting interviews with people of faith.

[Winfried]

Having seen the documentary now ('twas a good way to spend 1,5 hours), I haven't heard anything I haven't heard before. The exact same arguments that made me lose the little faith I had two years ago.
It is still a good one, anyway.

[Winfried]

I was thinking of this (http://www.ozyandmillie.org/2005/om20050822.html) comic strip while watching the documentary. (Yes, I do enjoy online comics). It gets it right to the point, I think.

[scameter]

I know that atheism is not a place. That is not what I meant. I meant kether, that you have found what suits your views, specifically those views of religion. I do not think religion is the root of all evil; I think that is absurd. If you trust the atheistic view of religion, i.e. that it was all created by people, then actually people are the root of all evil, which I think is entirely the truth, just as we are the root of all relative concepts, such as good, evil, beauty, perfection, the use of symbols, and so on. Religion, yes, has been used in the name of evil, but it has also been used in the name of good, as well as in the name of neither as in the case of Taoism. I think people have both evil and good, aggressive and passive qualities within them, and are capable of using both. I think they are tempted to the side that they have been taught to side with, as well as which one causes them the most pleasure; but, sometimes people will choose, and indeed go against what they have possibly been taught, the side that is the more compassionate and truthful and logical and promoting of happiness, generosity and other such things, which I think are the true core of religions. They, as with anything created by people, can be and have been used to evil purposes from the common view of evil, as well as good purposes, but as I said, that is true of everything we create, even science. I like religion because I think it is interesting to study people's attempts to interpret the mysterious and spiritual aspects of life and their minds; I do not think it is simply as scientists say, just their attempt to explain nature with mysticism, nor the common atheist view, that it is the promoter of restriction and the root of evil and limitation in our society. I think religion is similar to science: it is simply there, holding truth, but we are capable of using it for almost any purpose. I do not think religion or science are inherently better than one another, I think they could even be mutual. But, hardly ever can two beliefs held as strongly by people as are science and religion be mutual. Buddhism is one of the few that has done this to an extent.

[Winfried]

What I really miss in this ongoing theological debate, is the use of religion for social purposes. Going to the church gets you in touch with other people who can affect your life. Taking part in a ritual makes you feel like you belong in a group, which can bring you a blissful feeling.
I think religion is similar to science: it is simply there, holding truth
Religion is not similar to science. Religion is based on faith, whereas science is a way of seeing the evidence and trying to make some sort of logical explanation out of it. Religion provides an explanation, then seeks evidence to back it up, neglecting the evidence which contradicts it.

I'll go sleep now, my clock says its 00:13

[Smurf]

Hmm, could somebody give me a blurb on what happens in it, I have sloooow dial-up, about 31.2 kb/s :(

That would be great :thumbsup:

[Thomas Knierim]

Blimey, what kind of Internet connections do you have at home? It took me 16 hours to download the first part of the film. I guess a fast Internet connection is one of the blessings of living in the EU instead of living at the Himalaya foothills like myself. :lol:

The film is very well presented. For me, there are two key scenes in it. The first one is the interview with Ted Haggard, who reprehends Dawkins for his alleged arrogance. Haggard's reaction is humanly understandable since Dawkins' prior statement "you obviously know nothing about evolution," was a little undiplomatic, although probably true. The second key scence was the Jew turned Muslim shopkeeper who denounced Western women as whores and told Dawkins "to clean up his show at home".

Dawkin's arguments in the discussion with these two people lacked "attack force" in my view. This may due to the fact that he was trying to be polite. It may also be due to the fact that he is a scientist and not a philosopher. When Haggard and the Muslim brought forward their views I immediately thought about the philosophical means of undermining their arguments. He still did a pretty good job when Haggard made the mistake of calling the evolutionary process "accidental".

I think both figures, Haggard and the Muslim shopkeeper, are in the end quite scary. It was right to portray them in that way, because Christian fundamentalism is becoming a disease in America, while Islamic fundamentalism is a disaease that has already spread to many different areas in the world. These people represent something which presently causes a lot of tension and conflict.

The film made me aware that once somebody has fallen into the faith trap, it is very difficult to get that person to think rationally again. Therein lies the true danger. The religious fundamentalist believes that his/her opinion is on par with science. That isn't the case. Science is above religion and faith. Philosophically speaking, it is not an alternative world view, but a meta-view. Science can disprove (or at least discredit) religious dogma, but religious dogma can never disprove or discredit science.

Finally, I really loved the final statement: "We are all atheists about most of the gods that societies have ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further."

Brilliant!

Cheers, Thomas

[scameter]

I disagree winfried. They are quite similar. It is simply that religion relies on revelatory, or perhaps invented, truth, dealing with things not immediately experiencable physically, and has faith that such things can exist, whereas science attempts to describe the nature that it lives in using logic, both of which it has faith in's validity. Science is also pursued religiously, and I also believe the scientific method to be a sort of dogma, as well as the limitation of their evidence.