I've just finished watching this and thought some of it was quite good. I thought it would be interesting to start a discussion on this.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X2epvSAGuLc
Printable View
I've just finished watching this and thought some of it was quite good. I thought it would be interesting to start a discussion on this.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X2epvSAGuLc
I have only watched parts 1 & 2 and most of part 3, but I think I've gotten the idea of it. While I do agree with many of his points, I believe he's approaching the issue in an overly aggressive way (which is somewhat hypocritical considering how he decries the religious indoctrinators and their forceful tactics, i.e. hell houses). His approach is too impassioned - it is hardly consistent with the dispassionate method science is based on (i.e. he has a bias that IMO is almost as strong as the bias of the religious authority figures).
By no means am I siding with religion - I do agree that relying on an ancient document of questionable authorship in every aspect of life is an overly strong reliance. I also find the violence prescribed by the Bible to be contradictory with the fundamental Christian teachings of 'love thy neighbor' and 'love thine enemies'. I consider myself fortunate to have been only somewhat imposed upon with religious doctrine - I consider myself to have a fairly level head and a rational approach to things in life.
While irrational religion is certainly a negative force, I can hardly classify it as the root of all evil. It is simply too strong (and inaccurate IMO) a comparison. Religion has historically been the driving force behind both good and bad things. A contemporary example - many religious associations contribute aid to the needy, and no matter what political agenda they might have behind their acts, helping those in need of help is still good (the action, not necessarily the intention).
I look forward to seeing how the discussion turns out. Thank you Chris for introducing such a thought-provoking subject.
Andy
That's because religion is essentially man-made. Yes, there are claims (which may be true or not, depending on the religion) of divine inspiration, but that's normally only the "seed". The "culture" that eventually grows from that is pretty much always man-made, constructed of dogma, tradition, etc., that have little to do with the original teachings or writings or spiritual experiences.Quote:
Originally Posted by sdbl731
Humans are, by their very nature, both good and bad. It should come as no surprise that a human-created institution would be both good and bad.
The biggest problem in the world is not religion or corporations or any conspiracies or governments. It's PEOPLE. Humans are capable of extraordinary and selfless good, and also of almost unbelievable evil, as well as a day-to-day carelessness that can end up being very bad, indeed. IMHO, blaming all the world's problems on "religion" is far, far too simplistic and lacks clear understanding of human nature.
OW,
I most certainly agree. I just took Humanities last year, and in so many ways this rings true. Our best friend and our worst enemy is human nature. It has perplexed thinkers and philosophers for centuries, and likely will continue to do so.
It is convenient, if incorrect, to look at religion as a single entity as opposed to a patterned quilt made up of millions of people. However, calling religion the root of all evil (or even hinting at such a conclusion) is about as simplistic and inaccurate as calling money the root of all evil. As you said, religion is a human construct, as is the concept of currency in my example.
What do you think about the video itself? I stick to my opinion that despite the veil of science, the method in which the study was conducted is hardly scientific. You could just hear the disgust in the narrator's voice - passion, and emotion in general, is the difference between science and a disguised flame war with organized religion. IMO, his good points are marred by his general attitude and approach to the study.
Andy
Oh, I saw it when it was on television. My impression was and still is that Richard Dawkins doesn't know anything at all about human nature, and his grasp of history and the humanities is questionable if he really sees religion as the cause of everything "bad" in the world. '
For someone who claims to treasure reason and value scientific method, he sure does go for the most simplistic possible answers (and in this show, he found the most lunatic fringe people he could find to interview, too).
To be fair, he didn't pick the title. That was pretty much forced on him by the production company, as I understand it. But I still find Richard Dawkins rather silly, and his conclusions are absurd.
I did like some of the points he made. Though they were really obvious things like you shouldn't indoctrinate children, use religion as an excuse for murder or base morality souly (pun intended 8) ) on a divine being. I also didn't like his attitude much either, but it's also that he played into how great atheism is and then went ahead bashing (in my opinion a lot of them were) crazy people. In my opinion the documentary wasn't scientific in any way, which is funny as he's supposed to be a highly intelligent scientist. It was more like an exploration of his opinions so we can all pat him on the back for not being a religious nut.
There's also what you've said about it being a human constuct. You can look at anything created by man with a negative bias (yes he clearly has a negative bias) and say how it's evil (or even go one step further and say it's the root of all evil. There's also the fact that people do evil outside of religion that he never mentioned. I even heard of an atheist killing people, I think it was even in the name of her belief. I'll even go as far as saying you could make a similar documentary about atheism if you look at things selectively.
Well, I don't know how to avoid that. If parents have strongly held religious beliefs, how do you AVOID teaching it to your children? When they ask you, "Why do we go to church?" or "Why do we pray to Mecca?" or "Why do we give Ganesha offerings of milk?" you just clam up? Or you say, "Because mummy and daddy are totally delusional," or what?Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris_com28
My husband and his brothers all went to Lutheran School, and yet not one of them became a Lutheran... (My husband is a Theistic Rationalist, and his brothers are some combination of that and maybe a bit of agnosticism.)
So what is "indoctrination", anyway?
Or as an excuse for any other kind of anti-social behaviour. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris_com28
Given the nature of divine beings and our tendency to create them in our own image, and the fact that our own image is hot and cold and evil and good and all things contradictory, no. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Chris_com28
Well, fringe lunatics are fringe lunatics. You can find them in every area of interest and every field of human endeavor. This is something that Richard Dawkins (and his incredibly irritating fanboyz) just doesn't seem to understand, as far as I can tell. YES, there are religious nutjobs. And there are political ones, too, should we outlaw politics? Oh, and what about the academic nutjobs, should we do away with academia? (No, better not; Richard wouldn't have a job.)Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris_com28
It was one big long rant, with cherry picked "evidence". ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris_com28
Exactly.Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris_com28
Of course you could. And you could make a similar one about politics. And about celebrity gossip/fandom. You could about most things, really. Just look for the nutjobs on the fringe, hold them up as examples of what the ideology you're trying to dis does to people, and voila! Instant rantumentary! ;) (I don't know if that word has been coined previously, but I like it, and I hereby claim it if nobody has done so previously.)Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris_com28
Word.
:)