The Root Of All Evil?

[Redwire]

yes, should be interesting. The thing about Dawkins is, though he is clearly a vey intelligent bloke, he seems evey bit as evengelical and rabid about (a) his own beliefs and (b) condeming the religious evangelicals that he clearly detests so much.

 

I always find it interesting that there is a basic and unsettling irony there that he nevers seems to acknowledge.

 

Maybe he thinks he has something very important to say.

 

I disagree with much that Nick Cohen says but I thought his bit in the Observer today is interesting.

 

The most uncompromisingly atheist series British television has dared to screen begins tomorrow at 8pm. Channel 4 is allowing Richard Dawkins to explain how religion is a 'virus' that spreads murder and ignorance.

 

In The Root of all Evil?, Oxford's professor of the public understanding of science uses the very Darwinism fundamentalists reject to explain why they are so keen to 'abuse childhood innocence' in religious schools. Children can't follow the scientific method and test everything their parents say. If they decide to find out whether it is truly dangerous to walk off a cliff, they will be in no position to pass on their genes when they grow up. Evolution has preprogrammed them to believe what adults tell them.

 

With a shockingly irresponsible Labour government preparing to use sectarian schools to divide our country by religion and race, Dawkins is giving us a warning as well as an argument. Channel 4 dramatises it by sending him to confront fundamentalists of all faiths. He treats them with donnish puzzlement rather than aggression.

 

You can't say the same of his interviewees. A Muslim in Jerusalem tells him to prepare for the Islamic world empire. A Protestant pastor in Colorado has the charm of the boy next door, until Dawkins asks him about biology. He chases Dawkins out of his church, screaming that he has called his children 'animals'.

 

A north London rabbi comes back with what I think will be the dominant criticism. Not believing in God because of the evidence for evolution is itself a form of religion, he says. This dunderheaded trope is everywhere. As Ophelia Benson of the Philosophers' Magazine put it: 'Not playing poker does not make me a gambler. Not playing football does not make me an athlete. And not being a theist does not make me a believer. Not believing is not simply a kind of believing - it's not believing.'

 

Mind you, after Sikh fanatics closed a play in Birmingham and Christian fanatics hounded the families of BBC executives, Channel 4 will probably be grateful if the worst thing to hit it is a philosophical howler.

 

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/comment/sto...1681663,00.html

[Ostrich Man]

He's one of the least full of s*ite people on earth.

aye....like youd know

[Des]

He's one of the least full of s*ite people on earth.

 

I agree with just about everything written in this piece.

[John am Rhein]

I agree with just about everything written in this piece.

 

That piece is full of sh*te

[Flasher]

That piece is full of sh*te

 

 

Indeed. Particularly this quote. "As GK Chesterton pointed out, the problem when people don't believe in God is not that they believe nothing, it is that they believe anything."

 

What a load of tripe.

[Bailo]

I agree with just about everything written in this piece.

An excellent rebuttal to what I think will be an interesting piece tonight - thanks for pointing it out John.

 

Surely religion isn't the root of all evil, merely human interpretation of religion? Therefore, humans are the root of all evil? I'd wager as many good acts have been performed in the name of religion as evil acts have been.

Edited January 9, 2006 by SuperDjibril

[John am Rhein]

Surely religion isn't the root of all evil, merely human interpretation of religion?

 

No, even Richard Dawkins said as much in an article I read on Friday/Saturday - I think it was in The Independent (?).

 

It's just an eye catching title for the programme, basically.

[Zoob]

yes, should be interesting. The thing about Dawkins is, though he is clearly a vey intelligent bloke, he seems evey bit as evengelical and rabid about (a) his own beliefs and (b) condeming the religious evangelicals that he clearly detests so much.

 

I always find it interesting that there is a basic and unsettling irony there that he nevers seems to acknowledge.

 

I don't want to get into a whole discussion about semantics, but I see nothing ironic about Dawkins' position.

 

Evangelical Christians rabidly try to spread their beliefs based on faith. Dawkins tries to spread his beliefs based on evidence and fact. If there was only one unified religion in the world, people wouldn't be able to hide behind it when trying to justify the unjustifiable. But we live in a world where we have several different religions and different interpretations within the same religion. The different religions can not all be right, and logically speaking, they are far more likely to all be wrong.

 

If people want to be nice to each other, I'm all for that, but I'd wager everything I own in believing the world would be a far more friendly place if people shared Dawkins views.

 

People don't use atheism to justify acts of murder, but people do use religion to justify acts of murder. Hence I don't see there being any unsettling irony that Dawkins needs to acknowledge.

[Bailo]

1. The different religions can not all be right, and logically speaking, they are far more likely to all be wrong.

 

2. People don't use atheism to justify acts of murder, but people do use religion to justify acts of murder. Hence I don't see there being any unsettling irony that Dawkins needs to acknowledge.

First point: Why? What if God appears to different people in different ways, i.e. Allah is Allah to Muslims, but God to Christians?

 

Second point: People don't use atheism to justify acts of murder, but what if an atheist does commit a murder? Have their lack of beliefs failed to stop them commiting such an act? You can't compare lack of belief or a belief in nothing to religious beliefs like that.

 

Also, people may use religion to justify murder but what part does mental illness play in those that do (e.g. "God made me do it").

[Zoob]

First point: Why? What if God appears to different people in different ways, i.e. Allah is Allah to Muslims, but God to Christians?

 

Second point: People don't use atheism to justify acts of murder, but what if an atheist does commit a murder? Have their lack of beliefs failed to stop them commiting such an act? You can't compare lack of belief or a belief in nothing to religious beliefs like that.

 

Also, people may use religion to justify murder but what part does mental illness play in those that do (e.g. "God made me do it").

 

 

Many ancient religions detailed more than one God. There can not be multiple Gods and only one God at the same time. In most modern religions when there is just one God, there are hugely significant fundamental differences between the religions - what God did, what God wants of us, who the true prophet(s) of God were.

 

The religions are based on fantastic mythical tales, which contradict each other. They can not all be correct, because of the contradictions. People who are evangelically religious believe that their fantastic tales are correct, but the other fantastic tales are false. I believe that all the fantastic tales are false. I use logic to guide me to my conclusions.

 

Regarding murder: Sure, athiests will commit murder, but I believe we live in a world where people are able to decide their own moral principles. Most people think that murder is wrong, regardless of whether or not they believe in God. But most people should be able to decide whether contraception is acceptable or not, without being told that using contraception will lead to an eternity in Hell.

 

Throughout history, conflict has arizen and religion has been used as a 'justification'. I think you absolutely can compare the wars, slaughters, terrorism that have been done in the name of religion with the complete absense of these things that have been done in the name of atheism.

 

People who commit murder as a result of mental illness is a completely different topic, regardless of whether or not they claim that 'God told them to do it'

[Bailo]

I think you absolutely can compare the wars, slaughters, terrorism that have been done in the name of religion with the complete absense of these things that have been done in the name of atheism.

I completely disagree. Nothing can ever be done under the "banner" of atheism, as it's not a movement that inspires collectivism from those who subscribe to it, unlike religion. But as pointed out in the Guardian article back a page, plenty of horrors have been done in the absence of faith as well e.g. Rwanda, The Holocaust.

 

Which leads me to conclude that it's not faith or non-faith that causes atrocities, its the most common denominator in all these instances: humans.

[cymrococh]

One could argue that the holocaust was based on religion.

[Swan Red]

One could also argue that it wasn't.

 

It's a moot point. It would appear that people are essentially tribal, that there are problems with people identifying with those outside of their social/racial/religious group. That difference is to be castigated rather than celebrated. It happens at all levels, from people going to war with other tribes/nations/religious groups to people fighting based upon their own small territorial aspirations, gang fights football hooliganism etc etc.

 

Religion in many cases is the justification for these disputes as opposed to the cause and in the absence of religion people would just find something else to fight about.

[charlie clown]

and there is the slaughter by, for example, Pinochet, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, of milions for, at least partly, anti-religious reasons.

 

I have never bought this view that atheism does not create war or mass murder, its absolute rubbish to suggets that that is the case.

[Zoob]

Religion is a form of ideology, and as pointed out, there have been non-religious ideologies that have resulted in wars, slaughters etc. The point about tribalism is a good one, because humans are tribal in nature. The problem with religion is that the tribal nature of it can never be overcome, unlilke more clearly ideological differences. (It's not as if religious fundamentalists are suddenly going to concede that others' interpretations of religion are correct and their own are wrong).

 

However, this does not detract from the fact that religion has been used as justification for all sorts of things that may well not have happened had it not been for religion. We can never know for sure, but it's unlikely the inquisition, crusades, burning of 'witches' would have happened, and the current problems in the world - ideological clashes between fundamental muslims, Christians jews and hindus would surely be easier to resolve if the participants weren't deferrring responsibility to their own special version of a magical being. Without the religion, the solutions to issues - land, wealth, opportunity, standard of life, etc would be easier to tackle.

 

and there is the slaughter by, for example, Pinochet, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, of milions for, at least partly, anti-religious reasons.

 

I have never bought this view that atheism does not create war or mass murder, its absolute rubbish to suggets that that is the case.

 

Are you suggesting then that Atheism does create war and mass murder?

 

I simply don't see how people can dispute the point that people kill in the name of God, whereas people do not kill in the name of Atheism. The fact that an athiest can commit murder is of no more relevance than the fact that a religious person can commit murder for reasons that have nothing to do with their religion.

 

It's impossible to know whether there would be less killing without religion. I happen to think that there would be - because people would have less to 'hide behind' (hiding behind a deity is easier than hiding behind economic, or political issues). But to suggest that it's rubbish to say atheism does not create war, is somewhat confusing.

[Hassony]

 

It's impossible to know whether there would be less killing without religion. I happen to think that there would be - because people would have less to 'hide behind' (hiding behind a deity is easier than hiding behind economic, or political issues). But to suggest that it's rubbish to say atheism does not create war, is somewhat confusing.

I could say that there would be less deaths if the whole world were muslims or the whole world were jewish

[Puskas]

I agree with just about everything written in this piece.

 

That article is garbage. IMO of course.

[Puskas]

The point about tribalism is a good one, because humans are tribal in nature.

 

I agree with this. Tribal instincts are still very strong in our species (regular match goers know exactly what I'm talking about). But humans are capable of overcoming their tribal instincts by using their intelligence. Anything that gives humans another excuse to fight each other is pretty bad - whether that be religion, racism, or tribalism.

 

I don't have huge problems with religion per se - I'm quite happy for people to believe whatever makes them happy - it's organised religion that I really despise - just another excuse to grab power over people and/or make money.

 

And it's usually a few despotic individuals who manage to spoil everything for everyone else - talk about any of the atrocities in the thread and behind each one you will find one or a few despots. Everything else - religion/racism/different coloured beads in hair - is just a handy brainwash for the despot to use to stir up his followers and get them to blindly do what he wants.

Edited January 9, 2006 by Puskas

[Gomez]

I'm with the Pastafarians.

[Puskas]

I'm with the Pastafarians.

 

Ramen.

[pipnasty]

"You don't honestly believe THAT, do you?

 

Good stuff.

[Bailo]

name me one war that was waged in the name of atheism

As I've said before, that's impossible. Wars have been waged in the absence of religion, but will never be waged in the name of atheism as it is not a collectivist mantra, it doesn't unite people.

 

People of the same religion unite not only around their core faith, but share similar views on moral standards, laws, social matters. Athiests only share a core belief that there is no God, there is no reason for them to share the same social/economic/legal/financial rules and laws. Therefore, you can't compare religion and atheism as two "movements", merely one is the denial of the other.

 

I watched the programme and was impressed by the overall jist of it. I don't agree with some, agree with others. His almost 1st point about the shared support system is very true, and the indoctrination of young and old through a general belonging to something. After growing up in a very religious family, I saw firsthand friends of mine profess faith while in the comfort zone on Church, only to fall away once isolated at school etc. Some of the intense "praise" sessions almost took on a brainwashing appearance, with booming voices over loud music, emploring us to "surrender". Some took it very seriously, passing out, crying, screaming - I don't believe any God would cause that to happen, I think it's just a herd mentality, temporary insanity if you will. It was scary stuff and more than enough to push me further and further away from the C of E to my agnostic position now.

[Eskimo]

People of the same religion unite not only around their core faith, but share similar views on moral standards, laws, social matters. Athiests only share a core belief that there is no God, there is no reason for them to share the same social/economic/legal/financial rules and laws. Therefore, you can't compare religion and atheism as two "movements", merely one is the denial of the other.

 

Sorry mate but that's bulls***...

[Bailo]

Sorry mate but that's bulls***...

Care to elaborate on that? Frustrates the hell out of me posts like that. I stand by that post 100%.

 

The notion of a 'moral void' when there is an absence of religion, is an interesting one.

 

I'm not at all religious, even if I may follow a general moral code that is similar to that preached by the mainstream religions.

 

I don't need to follow an organised religion to come to the conclusion that murder is normally wrong, you shouldn't steal etc etc. I abide by my moral code not to please a God, or avoid a Hell, but because it is the way I want to live my life. I made the decision, helped by what my (non religious) parents taught me as I was growing up.

 

And obviously there are many many other people in the same position as I am. If we can live 'moral' lives and aviod a 'moral void', there is no reason why everyone else can't do the same.

 

And many of the more specific moral codes adopted by religion are highly contentious - different Christian interpretations on contraception or the subjucation of women by most religions. The Jewish prayer said by men, where they thank God that they are not women. I'm pretty sure the bible says that it's wrong to wear materials made from two different materials, but such things are easily ignored when it comes to the different interpretations of the moral codes.

 

However, if religious people are going to follow a faith and a set of beliefs, shouldn't they follow them all, and not just the ones that have been chosen by the religous leaders and religious scholars?

But is 99% of that moral code (don't murder, don't lie, don't cheat etc etc) also what the Bible and other holy texts preach? Is it such a bad thing that people follow these moral codes, whether they belong to a religion or not?

 

I agree totally about various dodgy moral codes, though I know my Father has fought long and hard to give women equal footing in the C of E and is frustrated by the lack of progress on women bishops. But I do question why this anti-women sentiment is present in any religion.

 

I would take great issue with you that either Rwanda or the Holocaust were without religous pretext on several levels - politically, tribaly, racialy and semantically. Don't forget - most of those who died in the holocaust did not come from Germany, but from Russia, Poland, France, Holland, Norway, Belgium, Denmark, Bulgaria, Yugoslavia, Italy, Czechoslovakia, Austria and even the Channel Islands and relied strongly on the co-operation either by action or inaction of Catholic, Lutheran, Orthodox and even Muslim clergy, bishops and most especially the Vatican. According to Otto Schenk's (Hitler's aide de camps for several years) diaries and testimony under interrogation by the Russians in the war's aftermath, Hitler had considered having himself annointed Pope should he have won the war - this was a movement driven by a man with a Messianic personality.

 

The UN SSCS report (Oct 2003) on the Rwandan Genocides makes it clear that 'tribal and religous (deitific) differences were primary in the ethnographic iconography used to motivate the forces of genocide, and was held as a self evident truth by their progenitors and leaders'.

 

The Nazis had thier own 'fantastic tales' as catinhat so eloquently puts it based on the Wagnerian myth of Gotterdammerung and a fictional Aryanism and the God-warriors of Valhalla. Many of their SS and Waffen SS Divisions were named after such mythical characters, Siegfried, Thor, Odin, Siegmund, Nibelungen and so forth - this was a pseudo racial-religous homogeneity with which they intended to found a new world order and upon which they based their assertions to be Ubermensch and those who had no history or tentative history aligned to this mystical garbage, Untermensch.

 

How much Hitler personally believed in this white-warriors only version of a peculiarly Nordic christian/pagan mythology is still debated today - but if you look at the tangible evidence even of his own demise in the Bunker under his palace at the Reichs Kanzelrei, it absolutely adheres to the Gotterdammerung mythology.

I take your point fyds, but at what point does that cross from a religious war to a war waged by deluded/insane individuals? I think we can fairly say (maybe not) that the victims of The Holocaust were majority religious, so is this a clash of religions or is it the persecution of a religion, along with other minority groups?

 

I think it's very interesting the quote you have from the UN, listing tribal and religious differences as causes in Rwanda, as someone else has already centred in to the nature of religion appealing to our tribal nature as a species - are these two separate causes or one and the same?

 

My orginal point was that the two examples I used were not like The Crusades, not like the resistance in Iraq and current Mid-East tensions, where religions are clashing. But I concede that various individuals, who have the potential for unleashing war and terror, may also be unstable enough to develop God-complexes.

[Stevie H]

that pastor haggard was a beaut wasn't he? faith mass marketed via a motivational speaking conference.

 

thought dawkins put his case very well in the programme last night, no evangelism or extremism on his part, just a rational point of view based on facts and evidence.

 

that religion carries as much power in the modern world as it does is an appalling indictment of the evolution of mankind. the more people sign up to religion, the faster the human race goes backwards.