Richard Dawkins - The Root of All Evil?
Sat, 2008.11.29 - 23:41 — müzso
IMDb
"The Root of All Evil?" is a documentary by Richard Dawkins in which he explains why he thinks religion is the worst thing that could ever happen to science and in general to mankind.
I think it's a great programme (it was broadcasted on television on Channel 4 in 2006) and I appriciate the effort Dawkins made to "spread the word". I'm an atheist as well and I share a lot of of Dawkins's point of view regarding religion. However there're some points in his arguing which I disagree with.
Watching this film made it quite clear to me that Dawkins is very passionate about his ideals, his "belief" (if I may say so
). If I understood it right, he thinks that there should be no place for any sort of religion on Earth (or the universe) and all mankind should deny the existence of a "higher being". He seems to be uncomfortable even with the idea that others might be just happy being believers. While he's a rational and educated man, he seems to be just as unwilling to compromise as the religious people he talks about. It appears to me that both parties (Dawkins and the religious folks) are not ready to accept the other just as they are. I can understand both of them: they feel threatened by the other party and therefore "close their minds" for an understanding of the other. But this won't lead to any good.
Dawkins seemed to me a bit aggressive in his interviews with the representatives of various religions. Eg. during his discussion with Pastor Ted Haggard he seemed to loose control. And I do not get the purpose for having this interview in the film. Atheists already know that the pastor's "facts" (theories or whatever) are complete nonsense and religious people will only feel frustrated by watching Dawkins talking like that. So what's the point? Whom is he trying to convince?
I also didn't like how Dawkins differentiated between the way he interviewed various people. He was quite attacking with the representatives of churches placed in western countries (eg. Pastor Ted Haggard and Rabbi Herschel Gluck) and a lot softer with the muslams (eg. Yousef al-Khattab). In the case of Gluck he said "the age of the Earth, five thousand years, I'm ... that is ... I'm sorry rabbi, that is rediculous." While I agree with the contents of the sentence, I would not throw that in the face of a rabbi who in fact really believes what he says. What the hell did the rabbi do to Dawkins to get attacked like that? Why did he not ask the same questions from Yousef al-Khattab in Jerusalem? Probably he thought it'd be unwise to provoke a religional extrimist in his own country. However it doesn't seem to be really fair regarding the other interviews.
On the other hand I can fully understand Dawkins agitation. Religion is a "great tool" to control large masses and it seems that even western civilizations are deeply affected by it. It must be very frustrating to see science (or free thinking, or freedom to speech) suffer from the influence of various churches. Eg. I'd be quite mad if some religious folks told me that computers are "tools of the Devil" and I'm not allowed to work with them anymore. It's also true that a lot of evil was committed in the name of some god during the history of mandkind. Just think of the crusades where christian armies ("knights") slaughtered thousands of innocent people. Think of the many scientists who were hunted and executed in the name of religion.
Dawkins also told a story about one of his professors: I do remember one formative influence in my undergraduate life. There was an elderly professor in my department who had been passionatly keen on a particular theory for, oh!, a number of years and one day an American visiting researcher came and he completely and utterly disproved our old man's hyphothesis. The old man strode to the front, shook his hand and said "My dear fellow, I wish to thank you, I've been wrong these fifteen years". And we all clapped our hands raw. That was the scientific ideal. Of somebody who had a lot invested, a lifetime almost invested in a theory and he was rejoicing that he had been shown wrong and that scientific truth had been advanced.
This is really a very nice story (anecdote), but if somebody has been working in scientific research, he/she knows that 99% of scientists are not that grateful to somebody who had "destroyed" their work of a lifetime in just an "instant".
Actually this is true in general and should not be limited to scientists. It's quite normal for a human being to feel loss or even anger/hatred, if something -that he/she has invested a lot of work and effort into- is taken away.
I think this is comparable to the religion problem. Religion was there before the scientific approach emerged. It became part of most cultures and is passed from parent to child. It's something that almost everybody believed in in the past and most people invested a lot of effort in their beliefs. Then "suddenly" scientists came and started to tell you that all you believed in was "bullshit", there's no God, etc. I think that makes most people angry (at least). Why did he/she go to church all the time, why listen to all the sermons, ...? Was it all for nothing? You see: most people invested a lot of effort in being a believer. If you tell them to deny it, it'll only make them mad (probably at you).
Dawkins also talked about the problem of "intelligent design" being taught in schools as an equal to evolution theory. I'd feel quite frustrated as well if my kids were "forced" to learn stuff like that. I think every parent should have the right to choose what belief system his/her kids are taught in school. I believe that no government or church should have the right to deny that choice. Hopefully I won't face this problem, when I get to have children of my own.
To summerize: Dawkins's film is interesting, but I hoped to see a more professional/neutral approach. The film is more a crusade against religion, than a scientist's documentary.
PS: the film is available in full length on Google Video.
"The Root of All Evil?" is a documentary by Richard Dawkins in which he explains why he thinks religion is the worst thing that could ever happen to science and in general to mankind.
I think it's a great programme (it was broadcasted on television on Channel 4 in 2006) and I appriciate the effort Dawkins made to "spread the word". I'm an atheist as well and I share a lot of of Dawkins's point of view regarding religion. However there're some points in his arguing which I disagree with.
Watching this film made it quite clear to me that Dawkins is very passionate about his ideals, his "belief" (if I may say so
). If I understood it right, he thinks that there should be no place for any sort of religion on Earth (or the universe) and all mankind should deny the existence of a "higher being". He seems to be uncomfortable even with the idea that others might be just happy being believers. While he's a rational and educated man, he seems to be just as unwilling to compromise as the religious people he talks about. It appears to me that both parties (Dawkins and the religious folks) are not ready to accept the other just as they are. I can understand both of them: they feel threatened by the other party and therefore "close their minds" for an understanding of the other. But this won't lead to any good.Dawkins seemed to me a bit aggressive in his interviews with the representatives of various religions. Eg. during his discussion with Pastor Ted Haggard he seemed to loose control. And I do not get the purpose for having this interview in the film. Atheists already know that the pastor's "facts" (theories or whatever) are complete nonsense and religious people will only feel frustrated by watching Dawkins talking like that. So what's the point? Whom is he trying to convince?
I also didn't like how Dawkins differentiated between the way he interviewed various people. He was quite attacking with the representatives of churches placed in western countries (eg. Pastor Ted Haggard and Rabbi Herschel Gluck) and a lot softer with the muslams (eg. Yousef al-Khattab). In the case of Gluck he said "the age of the Earth, five thousand years, I'm ... that is ... I'm sorry rabbi, that is rediculous." While I agree with the contents of the sentence, I would not throw that in the face of a rabbi who in fact really believes what he says. What the hell did the rabbi do to Dawkins to get attacked like that? Why did he not ask the same questions from Yousef al-Khattab in Jerusalem? Probably he thought it'd be unwise to provoke a religional extrimist in his own country. However it doesn't seem to be really fair regarding the other interviews.
On the other hand I can fully understand Dawkins agitation. Religion is a "great tool" to control large masses and it seems that even western civilizations are deeply affected by it. It must be very frustrating to see science (or free thinking, or freedom to speech) suffer from the influence of various churches. Eg. I'd be quite mad if some religious folks told me that computers are "tools of the Devil" and I'm not allowed to work with them anymore. It's also true that a lot of evil was committed in the name of some god during the history of mandkind. Just think of the crusades where christian armies ("knights") slaughtered thousands of innocent people. Think of the many scientists who were hunted and executed in the name of religion.
Dawkins also told a story about one of his professors: I do remember one formative influence in my undergraduate life. There was an elderly professor in my department who had been passionatly keen on a particular theory for, oh!, a number of years and one day an American visiting researcher came and he completely and utterly disproved our old man's hyphothesis. The old man strode to the front, shook his hand and said "My dear fellow, I wish to thank you, I've been wrong these fifteen years". And we all clapped our hands raw. That was the scientific ideal. Of somebody who had a lot invested, a lifetime almost invested in a theory and he was rejoicing that he had been shown wrong and that scientific truth had been advanced.
This is really a very nice story (anecdote), but if somebody has been working in scientific research, he/she knows that 99% of scientists are not that grateful to somebody who had "destroyed" their work of a lifetime in just an "instant".
Actually this is true in general and should not be limited to scientists. It's quite normal for a human being to feel loss or even anger/hatred, if something -that he/she has invested a lot of work and effort into- is taken away.
I think this is comparable to the religion problem. Religion was there before the scientific approach emerged. It became part of most cultures and is passed from parent to child. It's something that almost everybody believed in in the past and most people invested a lot of effort in their beliefs. Then "suddenly" scientists came and started to tell you that all you believed in was "bullshit", there's no God, etc. I think that makes most people angry (at least). Why did he/she go to church all the time, why listen to all the sermons, ...? Was it all for nothing? You see: most people invested a lot of effort in being a believer. If you tell them to deny it, it'll only make them mad (probably at you).
Dawkins also talked about the problem of "intelligent design" being taught in schools as an equal to evolution theory. I'd feel quite frustrated as well if my kids were "forced" to learn stuff like that. I think every parent should have the right to choose what belief system his/her kids are taught in school. I believe that no government or church should have the right to deny that choice. Hopefully I won't face this problem, when I get to have children of my own.
To summerize: Dawkins's film is interesting, but I hoped to see a more professional/neutral approach. The film is more a crusade against religion, than a scientist's documentary.
PS: the film is available in full length on Google Video.
All of my own contents here (if not noted otherwise) are licensed under the
Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 License. My posts reflect my personal opinion and shall not be associated with any of my employers.
Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 License. My posts reflect my personal opinion and shall not be associated with any of my employers.
Comments
I've followed your
1. Religion equals fanaticism. Here Mr. Dawkins shows us pilgrims who irrationally believe in supernatural healing. I think that intelligence and belief are independent of each other. If those people were not religious, they would follow an equally stupid way, eg. buying pi water or something like that.
2. Believing is a delusion without rational explanation. No. I know quite a few christians, and their belief "system" can have amazingly complex structure and perfectly logical. The only points of difference (compared to scientific view) are some basic assumptions. How do you know that the laws of phisics we know today are just the same as a couple of 1000 years ago? And I have to think - yes, are those constant numbers really constant?
Besides I think that beliving that one knows the Only Scientific Truth is a delusion by itself...
3. Religion and science are contradictional, and religion means "no doubt". Here my first thought was Protestant Reformation. I think those people were dubious, actually. And religion and science contradictional? Most (if not all) european scientists up until the 18. century were believers or as it happens priests or monks.
These were enough for me to cease watching.
You mentioned the Crusades, too. Weren't they all political decisions? Yes, maybe the masses were thinking "Oh we can get rich by killing in the name of God". But what about gothic and baroque art? Wouldn't you miss those masterpieces that were created in the name of God, too? Where would be todays architecture without cathedrals? Where woud be todays music.. oh, forget that one.
All that said I have to admit that I am an atheist, too. But I also think that religion is not harmful. (Natural) science and religion is orthogonal. And religions also teach morality which is more effective than any police.