The Root of All Evil?

[sean]

Via Wikipedia

 

The Root of All Evil? is a television documentary, written and presented by Richard Dawkins, in which he argues that the world would be better off without religion.

 

The documentary was first broadcast in January 2006, in the form of two 45 minute episodes (excluding advertisement breaks), on Channel 4 in the UK.

 

Dawkins has said that the title "The Root of All Evil?" was not his preferred choice, but that Channel 4 had insisted on it to create controversy. His sole concession from the producers on the title was the addition of the question mark. Dawkins has stated that the notion of anything being the root of all evil is ridiculous. Dawkins' book The God Delusion, released in September 2006, goes on to examine the topics raised in the documentary in greater detail.

 

Part 1: The God Delusion

Part 2: The Virus of Faith

 

Sean

[Lozen]

And here I thought you were a yogi.

[sean]

Did you watch it?

[Ian]

I recently read a very nice little book called "The Dawkins Delusion" in which the writer, a microbiologist turned theologian, examines the progression of Dawkins' work.

 

He has lots of praise for "The Selfish Gene", and also says that "The Blind Watchmaker" is an excellent piece of writing, provided you understand it as a rebuttal of one particular 19th century argument for the existence of god, which argument was peripheral even at the time.

 

Since then, however, the author argues that Dawkins has been guilty of exactly the tactics he condemns in true believers, to a point now where just spits sarcastic fury and eschews reason altogether.

 

I work with a couple of scientists who've been to Dawkins' lectures in the past. The suggestion is that he's a bit of an arsehole, frankly.

 

Quick edit: article here.

Edited March 16, 2007 by Ian

[cloud recluse]

Havent had time to follow up on Seans links here,but I have seen Dawkins in debate with others & Ive got to say I have found him predictably flawed.

 

Now,my science-head freinds do asure me that as an expositor of ultra-orthodox neo-darwinian biology,Dawkins is unparraleled,& a highly recommended read.

 

But then he tries to get philosophical,& his arguments become crude rehashes of some tired old lines.

 

Now I can see that Dawkins suffers from some quite justifiable exasperation over some matters.Eg,Creationists forcing their crappy,ignorant pseudo-science onto educational institutions.Very depressing,very tedious & very disturbing all at once.

 

But then he himself takes up the banner of Fundamentalist Atheism,& seeks to purge the world of blasphemers!Not violently,I admit,but with 'argument' that is quite weak,& verging on mere insult.

 

I suppose this is the one thing that gets me,the failure to acknowledge Atheism as a trans-empirical metaphysical commentary,a Leap-Of-Faith !!! Its a tired old blunder.

 

Now I have NO PROBLEM with Atheists who acknowledge their position as a Faith,as a subjective leap into comentary on the unknown.But Dawkins muddleheadedness on this becomes quite boring.

 

Then theres the equally crude 'history' of religion,& the alleged higher morality of science.His depictions here are crude generalities that mask the real sources of human evil,those capacities that will use ANY ideology to justify themselves.

 

Im actually running out of steam writing this,as Dawkins really becomes irrelevant outside of Biology.Perhaps he should just stick to what he was trained in,or at least study the philosophy & history of science a bit first.

 

And perhaps I will check out those links soon

 

Regards,Cloud.

Edited March 16, 2007 by cloud recluse

[Peregrino]

Howdy Cloud!

 

I agree with you on Dawkins--he's great at debunking simple-minded "magical thinking" (like that of Creationists or the "moon hoax" conspiracy theorists), but terrible when he tries to take on philosophical topics beyond his sphere of expertise. This debate is an excellent example:

 

Text: http://darwiniana.com/2006/10/28/dawkinsquinn-radio-debate

mp3: http://www.reitstoen.com/dawkins.php (Scroll down to "The Richard Dawkins--David Quinn Debate.")

[freeform]

Dawkins Likes To Sell Books!

 

simple... so he needs controversy... so rather than attacking 'blind faith' he attacks 'religion' (often a proponent of blind faith)... blind faith is also evident in pretty much all our institutions - politics, economics, medicine and certainly science (although most scientists will deny this)... so if he did go after 'blind faith', his message becomes dilute and uninteresting which sells less books...

 

I remember seeing another program on Channel 4 that was a kind of reply to Dawkins' one... at one point Dawkins and other Atheists are asked why the world should be Atheist... all their replies were very similar - an immense number of people have been killed because of religion, and Atheism would naturally put an end to it... so the presenter of the program asked 'do you know any wars or masacres started by Atheists?' - they all shot themselves in the foot by saying 'no' - "so what about Hitler, Stalin, Mao etc...?" you should've seen Dawkins' face! :lol:

[sean]

My two cents. I think Dawkins is clever and readable/watchable to an extent. I got into reading him and Dennett for awhile years ago, and I still think Dennett's "Consciousness Explained" is a great Western introduction to Buddhism (though I doubt he would ever agree with that). The whole Dawkins-Dennett camp appear to be in what I would call vertical kindergarten. But I appreciate that they are addressing some of the more obvious nonsense being passed off as holy/spiritual/religious and that most philosophers just leave alone out of some outworn respect or political correctness. I think it's safe to say that most all of us bums have "been there done that" and have moved on to deeper inquiry, but the sad fact is that the majority of world religion, shit - even world mysticism, is still at what Ken Wilber would call the mythic membership level - authoritarian, paternalistic, hierarchical, conformist, emotional without critical thinking, ethnocentric, nationalistic, militaristic, etc. ad nauseum.

[Trunk]

My two cents. I think Dawkins is clever and readable/watchable to an extent. .. But I appreciate that they are addressing some of the more obvious nonsense being passed off as holy/spiritual/religious and that most philosophers just leave alone out of some outworn respect or political correctness.

I'll pitch in another 2 cents to that kitty.

 

authoritarian, paternalistic, hierarchical, conformist, emotional without critical thinking, ethnocentric, nationalistic, militaristic, etc. ad nauseum.

Ouch.

 

As far as honest atheists, I really like Julia Sweeney's "Letting Go of God" (scroll down to the speaker icon, click it - after a minute or so of intro, Julia starts in). She's sweet, funny, intelligently introspective

 

This might be a bit quirky for a theist to say, but I think that it's more important for people to be honest with their own experience (and honestly allow for that to change, as it will) than it is for them to agree with what I might think is truth. If I'd never had a spiritual experience, I wouldn't be theistic... maybe I would allow for the possibility of theism if I did some readings of mystics, but that'd be a real stretch. Religion just sounds so blatantly silly.

[cloud recluse]

Howdy Cloud!

 

I agree with you on Dawkins--he's great at debunking simple-minded "magical thinking" (like that of Creationists or the "moon hoax" conspiracy theorists), but terrible when he tries to take on philosophical topics beyond his sphere of expertise. This debate is an excellent example:

 

Text: http://darwiniana.com/2006/10/28/dawkinsquinn-radio-debate

mp3: http://www.reitstoen.com/dawkins.php (Scroll down to "The Richard Dawkins--David Quinn Debate.")

 

Howdy Pilgrim!

 

Yeah,hes a bit predictable,aint he?

 

I do want to read more of his stuff on darwinian evolution,Ive been repeatedly told its a great exposition,but beyond that (going by what Ive seen so far) hes not really coming up with much outside his area of expertise.

 

This may sound like a cheap shot,but I would be intruiged to find out a bit about his background & why hes seems so devoted to his religion.

 

I had a quick glance at that transcript you linked,and was once again turned off by the level of it all.I didnt actually read through to the end,coz I got a "Here we go again" feeling Does Dawkins deliberately go for the easy targets.Quinn seemed a bit average,as far as I actually read.

 

My computer access is a bit limited right now ( Im in a nomadic phase,travelling around a bit),& once settled,I do actually want to check it out,as well as Seans links that start this thread. I dont want to become blindly knee-jerk "Anti-Dawkins". But I really dont feel Ive been overly unfair to him so far.

 

But what I have done,is pick up (at a discount ) a book titled DEEPER THAN DARWIN, by John F, Haught. Looks very interesting.While fully supporting Darwinian evolution as good science,it then questions how deep into reality the scientific can ever actually take us. It seems to be a more sophisticated response to Dawkins with potentially interesting observations on the nature of religious statements. My initial impression of Quinn wasnt that interesting ( but then,I didnt read the whole thing admittedly).

 

Reagrds,the randomly generated Cloud

 

 

 

 

My two cents. I think Dawkins is clever and readable/watchable to an extent. I got into reading him and Dennett for awhile years ago, and I still think Dennett's "Consciousness Explained" is a great Western introduction to Buddhism (though I doubt he would ever agree with that). The whole Dawkins-Dennett camp appear to be in what I would call vertical kindergarten. But I appreciate that they are addressing some of the more obvious nonsense being passed off as holy/spiritual/religious and that most philosophers just leave alone out of some outworn respect or political correctness. I think it's safe to say that most all of us bums have "been there done that" and have moved on to deeper inquiry, but the sad fact is that the majority of world religion, shit - even world mysticism, is still at what Ken Wilber would call the mythic membership level - authoritarian, paternalistic, hierarchical, conformist, emotional without critical thinking, ethnocentric, nationalistic, militaristic, etc. ad nauseum.

 

I would have to pretty much concur with your entire post here Both Dawkins & Dennett are authors Ive wanted to read in far more depth than my preliminary skimming,for their expertise in their areas.

 

But their refusal of even the possibilty of a greater depth in inquiry I do find REALLY tiresome.But that probably says more about my own limitations than anyone elses.

 

 

This might be a bit quirky for a theist to say, but I think that it's more important for people to be honest with their own experience (and honestly allow for that to change, as it will) than it is for them to agree with what I might think is truth. If I'd never had a spiritual experience, I wouldn't be theistic... maybe I would allow for the possibility of theism if I did some readings of mystics, but that'd be a real stretch. Religion just sounds so blatantly silly.

 

Thats not 'quirky' at all.You just sound like a Theist that isnt driven by fear.

[Wayfarer64]

I first heard Dawkins' ideas on a PBS series that I remember as -"The Incredible Accident" or something silmilar, which was a round-robin of profound thinkers from several disciplins.

 

I understand many people's frustration with the many narrow-minded concepts being pawned off as religious thinking. Religion has aften gotten in the way of spitituality. In many cases religion has been the evil depicted by Dawkins.

 

But as is the case with any net dropped onto a subject as large as religion, the myths are thankfully nabbed, but alas with the experiental being swept into the catch-all... & so, an injustice is done to those who's minds are expanded and nurtured by spirituality as well as given depth through scientific disciplines.

 

These ways of seeing the world/universe are not mutually exclusive. In fact this is one reason that Taoism has such a strong pull for me. It is based on observance of nature, and an acceptance of nature as the role-model for our own evolution as spiritual beings.

 

I just reread the Celestine Prophesy and enjoyed it again. Even these sorts of books that offer a novelized version of spiritual questing have merit for me.

 

I wonder what it is that Dawkins fears beyond the obvious nonsence of so much religious thinking? His narrow-minded approach is as worrisome as any other dogmatic approach to the subject of human spirituality.

[hagar]

Speaking as a philosopher, this might come across as a bit psychoanalytic, but here goes:

 

The Dawkings debate really boils down to why we should listen to a scientist that speaks about something beyond language and science. And from my perspective, and through all my tedious hours of reading scientific theory, the reductionism inherent in Dawkings argument is nothing but a soul turning its spiritually starved self towards the "irrational" believers.

 

My experience is that most religious people are wise, reflecting and open. I'm not trying to be polemic. The dogma towards believers, either fundamentalistic or naive really does not describe reality. The bigges assholes I've ever met were atheists and humanists. Why? Because they live in a reality where there is nothing greater than themselves. And isn't that a source for delusions of grandeur and depression, then you tell me...

 

h

[xenolith]

Fear is the root of much (though sadly not all) evil.

 

The currency of religion is fear.

 

Fear is the final protection mechanism of the ego in the face of the self's waking awareness.

 

Beyond which fear has no value.

 

 

As if it ever did.

Edited March 21, 2007 by xenolith