I searched for this and didn't find anything, sorry if it's a repost, but I believe this would be interesting to most of you:

Read:

• The Root of All Evil? on Wikipedia
  

  quote:

  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 said that the title "The Root of All Evil?" was not his own choice, and he wasn't in favour of it, but that Channel 4 insisted on it to create controversy.

  
  
• Richard Dawkins on Wikipedia
  

  quote:

  Clinton Richard Dawkins DSc, FRS, FRSL (known as Richard Dawkins; born March 26, 1941) is an eminent British ethologist, evolutionary theorist, and popular science writer who holds the Charles Simonyi Chair in the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University.

Watch:

• DVD version (Torrent)
  
• MPG version of chapter 1 (Torrent)
  
• MPG version of chapter 2 (Torrent)
  
• [[ LINK REMOVED ]]
  on Google Video
  
• [[ LINK REMOVED ]]
  on Google Video
  

My comments:

Although it is an impressive piece of work, Dawkins often seems too radical himself. His belief is that religion doesn't give anything that could be seen as being "good": moral laws exist without religion, religion leads to non-thinking, et cetera.

Quoting Nietzsche, "He who fights with monsters should look to it that he himself does not become a monster."

Being an agnostic myself, and growing in a religious family, I tend to frown upon religion, but I wouldn't go as far as Dawkins went. If you consider religion a "philosofical suicide", where people stop questioning and follow an absolute truth, religion could easily be replaced by any given "ism". Therefore, such war would have no end, and you'd only change the nature of the ideologies science would fight against, and possibly turn science into one of the ideologies it fights against (in a similar fashion, Buddhism managed to become an irrational religion in some sects even though critical thinking and some sort of scientific method lie in its core).

Good food for thought, nonetheless

___________________
Indiana Clones Upcoming Sets
[ I May Upload Something Someday ]

Here's how I look at it. Where do you draw the line between religion and mental illness? It's a very blurry line.

If somebody claims that they see or hear things that don't exist, that person is labelled schizophrenic, as per official psychiatric diagnostics. If somebody claims that you need to say a certain word or prayer X number of times a day, otherwise something bad will happen, that's obsessive-compulsive disorder.

Religious people are mentally ill. Their problem is they never grew up. What I mean is, little children have lots of superstitious beliefs, such as being afraid of the dark, or believing in some weird things. But they discard groundless beliefs as they get older. However, many people remain children, in terms of their naivete and impressionability. A lot of Americans would fall into this group.

___________________
"The favorite American pastime is not baseball, it's moral crusades."

I thought you were asking about Richard Dawson...

I don't know who Dick Dawson is

quote:

Originally posted by HardTranceProd Here's how I look at it. Where do you draw the line between religion and mental illness? It's a very blurry line. If somebody claims that they see or hear things that don't exist, that person is labelled schizophrenic, as per official psychiatric diagnostics. If somebody claims that you need to say a certain word or prayer X number of times a day, otherwise something bad will happen, that's obsessive-compulsive disorder. Religious people are mentally ill. Their problem is they never grew up. What I mean is, little children have lots of superstitious beliefs, such as being afraid of the dark, or believing in some weird things. But they discard groundless beliefs as they get older. However, many people remain children, in terms of their naivete and impressionability. A lot of Americans would fall into this group.

Dawkins does make this analogy, referring to religion as some sort of group schizophrenia at some point. I admit it does make sense, since we ditch the stories we're told when we're young as we group up, except for some beliefs (such as religion, in this case).

The problem is that we all end up with some thoughts that we never question: not because we haven't grown up, but because there was no need to dispute that at any moment.

___________________
Indiana Clones Upcoming Sets
[ I May Upload Something Someday ]

Ah, thanks for this Lira. I've heard about this series but never got the chance to see it.

Richard Dawkins is a profoundly intelligent man and I don't think that it would be too much of a stretch to call his books "The Blind Watchmaker" (which I have just read) and "The Selfish Gene" (which I have just begun to read) life-changing in the way that they compel you to view the natural world. I've been told that this series is fairly militant in its antipathy towards religion, so I'll let you know what my perspective on it is - as a fairly militant atheist myself - once I'm done watching it.

Watching the first episode now.

EDIT: Okay, that was awesome, his interviews with the evangelical minister and that Islamic cleric in Jeruselum being particular highlights. While it is pretty clear that Dawkins isn't too big on religion, I don't think he said anything in there that wasn't justified.

Just to quickly respond to your comments, Lira:

quote:

Originally posted by Lira Although it is an impressive piece of work, Dawkins often seems too radical himself. His belief is that religion doesn't give anything that could be seen as being "good"

I don't think he's arguing that, he's merely saying (rightly in my opinion) that to believe in "the unseen" above and beyond that which is real constitutes a dangerous act of cognitive dissonance. To believe passively in God is one thing, but to believe that the traditions of religion should be given precedence over the simple facts of reality (and then to fiercely fight for these traditions in a socio-political context) is, quite simply, "bad" for society.

Religion may have some "good" aspects, but the point Dawkins that makes is that - on the whole - to give precedence to "faith" ahead of fact and reason is a unhealthy attitude, which - at its extremes - will manifest itself in the sort of fundamentalism that he presents in the first episode. If even the more mainstream, passive religious adherents argue that "faith" is a virtue, then on what grounds could it be argued that the fundamentalist extremists are not the most virtuous of all?

quote:

moral laws exist without religion

They do.

quote:

religion leads to non-thinking

It can and does.

quote:

Quoting Nietzsche, "He who fights with monsters should look to it that he himself does not become a monster."

Wise words indeed, but at what point would you argue that Dawkins is "monsterous" in his criticisms of religion?

quote:

Being an agnostic myself, and growing in a religious family, I tend to frown upon religion, but I wouldn't go as far as Dawkins went.

For what reason? Because you believe that some of his criticisms are ill-founded or because you believe that religion, for whatever reason, does not deserve to be criticised quite that frankly?

quote:

If you consider religion a "philosofical suicide", where people stop questioning and follow an absolute truth, religion could easily be replaced by any given "ism". Therefore, such war would have no end, and you'd only change the nature of the ideologies science would fight against, and possibly turn science into one of the ideologies it fights agains

People will always believe in dangerously stupid things and go to war over dangerosuly stupid things, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't be passionately arguing against them. The evangelicist Dawkins interviewed who believed that the Earth was less than 10,000 years old (and who then accused Dawkins of being "arrogant" for pointing out that the evidence suggested otherwise) and the immam who believed that all western women "dress like whores" both deserve to have their idiocy exposed and combatted on international television. Many other stupid ideas have been exposed and defeated in the history of mandkind, so why not these ideas, or the ones that will inevitably succeed them? Wouldn't you like to see these sorts of ideas debated into irrelevant obscurity? Do you believe that this can ever happen so long we adopt the politically correct approach of assuming that the beliefs of all people are inherently worthy of respect and that all are equally likely to be true? Should these beliefs be coddled or protected lest we offend someone, or do you believe that the best way to combat these sorts of people is through the merciless employment of facts and reason?

I could understand why Dawkins' attitude may offend or alienate some people, but - frankly - I think he's spot on. Now for part 2.

___________________
http://eschatonnow.blogspot.com/

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade I don't think he's arguing that, he's merely saying (rightly in my opinion) that to believe in "the unseen" above and beyond that which is real constitutes a dangerous act of cognitive dissonance. To believe passively in God is one thing, but to believe that the traditions of religion should be given precedence over the simple facts of reality (and then to fiercely fight for these traditions in a socio-political context) is, quite simply, "bad" for society.

He seemed to be against the passive belief in God as well. It sounded to me as if he were against any kind of faith, which I'd oppose.

I humbly believe that having faith is a necessary step before acquiring reason. It's just a matter of what individuals took this step, and what individuals didn't.

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade Religion may have some "good" aspects, but the point Dawkins that makes is that - on the whole - to give precedence to "faith" ahead of fact and reason is a unhealthy attitude, which - at its extremes - will manifest itself in the sort of fundamentalism that he presents in the first episode. If even the more mainstream, passive religious adherents argue that "faith" is a virtue, then on what grounds could it be argued that the fundamentalist extremists are not the most virtuous of all?

Instead of replying right away, I'd like to think for a while on this.

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade They do. It can and does.

I agree, by the way, I was simply citing, since most religious individuals think those are void examples

In fact, if I didn't believe it, I'd be one twisted agnostic

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade Wise words indeed, but at what point would you argue that Dawkins is "monsterous" in his criticisms of religion?

Because it reminds me of simple intolerance: Once you see Chapter 2, you will see that he's even against moderate Christians, who are more tolerant.

The last thing we need is science to behave like a fundamentalist religion: "they're completely wrong and we're right", as such thought would share traits with both ethnocentrism and religiocentrism.

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade For what reason? Because you believe that some of his criticisms are ill-founded or because you believe that religion, for whatever reason, does not deserve to be criticised quite that frankly?

Although this might sound strange at first, I'd say he should've given the same message, albeit in a less "frank" tone, due to his own theory of memes.

Both you and I didn't have trouble seeing his point and agreeing with the most important points he's trying to make. That's because we already think somewhat similarly about this issue, so there was no clash.

However, put yourself in the shoes of someone who is religious. The frank tone might sound offensive, and your "will to believe" will simply lock your comprehension. No matter how good his points are, they won't be able to reach those who took the leap of reason, if you allow me to bastardise Kierkegaard's thoughts and use this expression.

If he said the exact same things, in a more receptive tone, he might even open the eyes of some people who had never thought about this before.

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade People will always believe in dangerously stupid things and go to war over dangerosuly stupid things, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't be passionately arguing against them. The evangelicist Dawkins interviewed who believed that the Earth was less than 10,000 years old (and who then accused Dawkins of being "arrogant" for pointing out that the evidence suggested otherwise) and the immam who believed that all western women "dress like whores" both deserve to have their idiocy exposed and combatted on international television. Many other stupid ideas have been exposed and defeated in the history of mandkind, so why not these ideas, or the ones that will inevitably succeed them? Wouldn't you like to see these sorts of ideas debated into irrelevant obscurity? Do you believe that this can ever happen so long we adopt the politically correct approach of assuming that the beliefs of all people are inherently worthy of respect and that all are equally likely to be true? Should these beliefs be coddled or protected lest we offend someone, or do you believe that the best way to combat these sorts of people is through the merciless employment of facts and reason?

I tend to see all this from a dialectic view, and Newton's third law( the one with reciprocal actions) would be a good analogy.

Imagine you and some other person who is beside you. Imagine, for a while, that you're not interacting in any way. Since his existence is completely indifferent to you, there's no reason why you should be against (or for) him.

Now, imagine that the other individual finally does something. If this action goes against something you want/need, you will perceive this action as undesired, and you will have negative views toward this other individual (the opposite is also true) and might, probably, do something to revert the situation and avoid such undesired action. The more he tries to harm you, the more passionate you'd be at defending yourself, and that's where Newton's third law comes: the harsher you are at someone, the harsher his existence will judge you (i.e. either he will fight you or ignore you, in a fight-or-flight situation).

If you're to convince someone else that science is, in fact, good (which I believe it is), you must have this person link "science" to "good things". If, by any reason, he perceives religion as something fundamental to his well-being, and you attact this foundation, he's going to attack both you and what threatened his belief.

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade I could understand why Dawkins' attitude may offend or alienate some people, but - frankly - I think he's spot on. Now for part 2.

Do post after you watch it

___________________
Indiana Clones Upcoming Sets
[ I May Upload Something Someday ]

In an Iraqi town by the name of Haditha, a group of religious, Christian Marines murdered dozens of civilians (known to be innocent) in cold blood.

But I guess they love Jesus because, you know, "real men love Jesus," as all those American billboards say.

___________________
"The favorite American pastime is not baseball, it's moral crusades."

This is kind of like social darwinism where Spencer argues that systems like welfare keeps the 'inferiors' reproducing faster than the 'superior. So whats really happening now, is that 'inferiors' are producing faster than the 'superiors' and this leaves many of them to take radical stances on issues such as religion, so the real problem is not religion rather its the followers.

quote:

Originally posted by HardTranceProd In an Iraqi town by the name of Haditha, a group of religious, Christian Marines murdered dozens of civilians (known to be innocent) in cold blood. But I guess they love Jesus because, you know, "real men love Jesus," as all those American billboards say.

man oh man, you make me laugh.

I love Jesus. I guess I'm a real man now.

___________________
Vernato

The world would be better without religion? Some people need something to believe in. Some people need a divine being to watch over them. Some people need to think that, even though the world is a screwed up place, they can still go to a beautiful place after they die. Some people need an establishment of religion in their life, they need to be a part of an organization that gives to the poor and teaches them to be charitable and forgiving.

People seem to forget that part about religions. Yes, we all know that certain aspects of religion (mainly the establishment itself, specifically christianity) involved persecution and violence. But religion, and the sense of belonging, from a popular belief, gives people an enriched life. All religions have their elitists, but that is no reason to crap on one's belief.

We can look at history and see many undesirable events fueled by religion. The crusades, the spanish inquisition, the rise of the KKK, the Holocaust, the bosnian genocide, 9/11. Places in which religious fanatacism oppresses the people (Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Iran).

Were these spawned by religion? Were they spawned by the establishment? Were these spawned by individuals? By small, secular groups? Answer these questions for you're own sake, and believe what you want.

But I, for one, will leave this alone. I'm tired of this ideal that "Having no religion and no beliefs (In a divine creator) makes you above the people that do."

We must have forgot about the present-day christian missionaries, even though they force religion onto others, they also care for these people and culture them. And Pope John Paul II. If we didn't have religion, would he have been there to denounce Bush's Invasion of Iraq? The pope, the one who is supposed to be closest to the Christian god, denounced Bush's actions. Bush, the man who said god told him to invade Iraq.

quote:

Originally posted by HardTranceProd In an Iraqi town by the name of Haditha, a group of religious, Christian Marines murdered dozens of civilians (known to be innocent) in cold blood.

They aren't christians. Christ didn't teach anything that justified murder. If they are religious, they have twisted interpretations of this religion. This reason also shows that Osama Bin Laden is not a true Muslim.

Very good post Marc.

___________________
Vernato

quote:

Originally posted by Marc Summers The world would be better without religion? Some people need something to believe in. Some people need a divine being to watch over them. Some people need to think that, even though the world is a screwed up place, they can still go to a beautiful place after they die.

people dont have an innate belief in deities- it is introduced to them by their respective culture. thus nobody 'needs' religion anymore than they need a personal computer. from my perspective it is a far superior idea to lead considerate lives because its the right thing to do, rather than because the scriptures tell us to. there is no reason why people cant act in 'christian' ways without being burdened with some irrational belief system.

quote:

Originally posted by Marc Summers We must have forgot about the present-day christian missionaries, even though they force religion onto others, they also care for these people and culture them. And Pope John Paul II. If we didn't have religion, would he have been there to denounce Bush's Invasion of Iraq? The pope, the one who is supposed to be closest to the Christian god, denounced Bush's actions. Bush, the man who said god told him to invade Iraq.

um, so what youre saying is you need religion to combat religion?

i think you need to take a step back and distinguish between religious achievement, and achievement by a person that happens to be religious. just because the pope says the invasion was wrong doesn't mean anything. indeed, its a religious leader sticking their nose where its thoroughly unwanted (religious leaders shouldnt be there to make policy). and im sure you can see the parallel between that and his stance on birth control.

there were & are plenty of people that criticised the invasion of iraq who had nothing to do with religion. the pope has a much wider audience and his opinion carries more weight, but does his opinion actually MEAN any more? i certainly dont think so. in fact i think the idea of elevating an unelected person, who speaks to the magical god none of us can prove exists, then allowing him legitimacy to preach how the world should act to be rather intellectually ridiculous.

there is nothing to prevent the human race from behaving in a right & just manner. we have rationality to govern our actions, we certainly dont need religious text.

___________________