|
|
Post by jez on Jan 8, 2006 18:49:25 GMT -1
Richard Dawkins - The Root of All Evil?
« Thread Started on Today at 19:54 »
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Channel Four
Monday 9th January 2006 and Monday 16th January 2006
20 00 - 21 00
--
If you can watch this program, please do - I would like to open a discussion here and on other pagan websites and fora about our response to this.
Otherwise, it will be left to the 'usual suspects' to answer for all paganism, and this is, in my opinion, not a 'Good Thing'.
Jez
|
|
|
|
Post by viridis on Jan 8, 2006 21:16:25 GMT -1
I've every intention of watching it  if only for the pleasure of watching my blood pressure go through the roof ;D Dawkins is NOT my favourite person...  |
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Jan 9, 2006 1:16:13 GMT -1
im definately going to be watching. having read selfish gene and the extended phenotype i have a lot of respect for his work.
i do wonder if he will present one extreme of the argument - as a means of provoking discussion?
ive already seen a flaw in his argument in the trailer with the;
'good peple do good things, evil people do evil things , but for a good person to do evil things requires religion'
... Nurenberg rally anybody? also the mini experiment done by derren brown the other night that repeats experiments from the 50's or 60's that showed people will do atrotious tings if told so by someone in authority (regardless of whether that is a religous authority or political etc)
looking forward to talking about this.
lee
|
|
|
|
Post by Blackbird on Jan 9, 2006 16:12:52 GMT -1
I must confess to ignorance here - the only thing I know about Richard Dawkins is that he is something to do with evolutionary studies?
The Observer bills this as: "polemic attacking religion in the modern world, beginning with a look at fundamentalism in the US and Middle East." Does it go without saying that 'religion' is going to be defined as monotheistic and therefore we are going to get an atheist vs monotheist rant without the polytheist viewpoint being even considered?
Sadly, I think my chances of watching are minimal... so a write up would be most welcome. I feel angry already...
|
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Jan 9, 2006 19:54:53 GMT -1
ok, well i liked that. he did raise some interesting points about some groups within the main 3 that are anti-intellectual and 'dangerous' so to speak.
my problems are that he tarred all christians or all muslims with the same brush. he assumes (not very clever for a scientist to do) that all christians are the same and all muslims are the same.
religion is used as an excuse - take Israel/palaestine - its a much about race as it is about religion.
abolishing religion would not end evil, people will use politics, philosophy or race as a means to persecute others. the genocide in rwanda was racial, Hitler, Stalin and mao led non-religous wars and massacres.
he also had a slightly arrogant and condescending tone too which bothered me.
the problem is the extremists and fundamentalists - not the rest of the decent relgous people out there.
|
|
|
|
Post by viridis on Jan 9, 2006 20:23:06 GMT -1
Of which Dawkins is one. Atheist fundamentalist anyone? There were some decent points in there, I agree, but right now I'm suffering my usual anti-Dawk allergy and am incapable of rational thought ;D I'll come back when I've calmed down  |
|
|
|
Post by tenar on Jan 9, 2006 21:06:08 GMT -1
Gah. I must say the most annoying thing about this programme was the condescending tone, which I'm tempted to think was perhaps delibaratly there to offend people and provoke a reaction. Dawkins seems to have rather missed the point; I was brought up to believe that science and religion are for different purposes, not in competition with each other, unless you're a biblical literalist of some sort. The idea that science should somehow be replacing religion shows a lack of understanding of what religion is actualy for for most of its users. He hardly did a good job of proving his apparent point of religion being irrational and dangerous, when the only real examples he used were from extremist ends of the spectrum. He also seems to have confused people with their religion; just because some terrorists claim to be Muslims does not mean Islam, or religion itself is inherently dangerous-that'd be like saying 'my great-grandmother didn't like black people, and she was a christian, so christianity must teach racism'. Just because some people happen to be idiots doesn't mean religion made them that way. I'm not sure if the programme makers are unaware of any non-monotheistic religions, or if they weren't mentioned because it would have been more difficult to use them to prove his point. After watching a whole hour of it I also can't see what his actual point was- is he honestly saying all religions should be done away with? trying to offend as many people as possible for publicity, or does he actualy think that he can convert some people to atheism?  I shouldn't think I'll watch the next one-his statements that 'faith is a virus' from the trailer shows again (as with the 'faith is a process of non-thinking' soundbite) that he has managed to miss the point of it entirely. I'll stick with celebrity Big Brother, at least that manages to be entertaining as well as annoying ;D |
|
|
|
Post by jez on Jan 10, 2006 17:35:21 GMT -1
WOW.
Well, I think everything I was going to say has been said - the idea that only religion causes 'good people to do evil things' is patently untrue, and the rest of the rant was in a similar vein.
But I think it is unlikely that any polytheist will feature, unless he can find a Hindu who hates Moslems, or anyone else who he can use to prove how evil all faith has made the world.
Jez
|
|
|
|
Post by viridis on Jan 10, 2006 18:35:01 GMT -1
Nah - he's always been like that ;D And yes, he does miss the point. Quite impressively, on the whole He misses the point on religion, he also (and this really worries me) misses the point on science. His insistence on scientists knowing things really got my back up - at best we have working hypotheses based on available evidence. New evidence usually leads to a change in the theory. A point he did make in the programme but somehow failed to realise for himself. His extrapolation and arguments ad absurdum didn't help his cause much either. To take a candle-lit vigil and argue that this is the first step on a slippery slope towards suicide bombs etc is as logical as claims that a single reading of On the Origin of Species will lead to an eternity in damnation! As for 'faith as virus' - I suspect its an eyecatching tag so he can talk about memes next week. Given his rather blatant plug of his book yesterday, it wouldn't surprise me in the least. He's a blinkered, bigotted arrogant atheist who gives science and scientists a bad name.  |
|
if only for the pleasure of watching my blood pressure go through the roof ;D
