It's like Channel 4 wanted to make Dawkins into another Michael Moore. Bastards.As far as the name goes
"Dawkins has said that the title "The Root of All Evil?" was not his preferred choice, but that Channel 4 had insisted on it to create controversy.[1] His sole concession from the producers on the title was the addition of the question mark. Dawkins has stated that the notion of anything being the root of all evil is ridiculous."
I saw this the other day.
link
This is a doco by Dawkins where he goes "intervews" religious folk.
Has anyone else seen it?
Thoughts/Opinions?
I am beginning to dislike Mr Dawkins, primarily on the basis of performances like this. His complete and utter inability to understand the rationale (well, lack thereof in his/my opinion) behind religion is fine; however, he does have a tendency to needlessly talk down to people. If they're evangelic nuts that's ultimately just an opinion, and there is no way you're going to have a rational argument with them. Trying just looks a little pathetic. There were also a few telling comments from the group of scientists he interviewed (e.g. the guy who says, as the mike is fading, that he effectively refuses to teach kids who are 'indoctrinated' into believing in creationism...surely scientists should be actively trying to engage these kids) that did not come across at all well.
He also overlooks the fact that religion is ultimately a convenient excuse for conflict rather than the actual reason in many cases. Who's to say how the Israel/Palestine question might have been resolved without the pressures of religion, but I personally find it likely that military, economic, social and ethno-cultural imbalances would somehow continue to cause enormous problems. Of course, suicide bombings would probably not occur - but perhaps higher-level conflict (and let's remember that Israel is a nuclear power) would.
Also incredibly disappointed at how much of this was lifted directly into The God Delusion.
Most of all these programmes just make me feel depressed.
He also overlooks the fact that religion is ultimately a convenient excuse for conflict rather than the actual reason in many cases. Who's to say how the Israel/Palestine question might have been resolved without the pressures of religion, but I personally find it likely that military, economic, social and ethno-cultural imbalances would somehow continue to cause enormous problems. Of course, suicide bombings would probably not occur - but perhaps higher-level conflict (and let's remember that Israel is a nuclear power) would.
sundowning said:Certainly there are cases where this is true, but not in all. Generalizing one way doesn't validate a generalization opposite.
HilbertSpace said:The less extreme you think the situation currently is, the more over the top you will find his behavior.
To be honest it's pretty irrelevant to me if Richard impresses atheists, since we're not the group he should be (or is, if you read the preface to The God Delusion) concerning himself with.
That's good. With the Great Mushy Middle who don't have a strong opinion either way, the perception of how many people agree with a position matters. (aka the Bandwagon Effect.) The fundies have influence out of proportion to their numbers because they're loud, and being loud increases their perceived numbers. If Dawkins and others can increase the perceived numbers of rationalists, they will gain influence and the fundies will lose it. All without persuading anyone....it seems to me that he's really using this to rally the troops, as it were, and to make the point that the evolution debate in the US is a symptom, rather than the central problem.
For example, when he talks about touring the US, he talks about people coming up to him at book signings and thanking him for saying what they were thinking. He doesn't talk about people saying that he opened their eyes.
Could that be called meta-persuasion?
I understand that. My point is that without a suitably large middle ground of individuals ready to be persuaded by Dawkins-esque logic the process might actually be quite difficult.
Of course, marginalisation is made more difficult by political correctness, etc...
If 40% of Americans do not believe in evolution* this means (presumably) that a majority do; I doubt there's a great deal more middle grounders to be persuaded here?
*I find it difficult to believe this figure, but I'm pretty sure this is what Dawkins quoted
Exactly. If you attack their ideas as ideas and not as beliefs then they are forced to defend the indefensible. When they show themselves to be kooks the Great Mushy Middle, who had been starting to say "Well, maybe they have a point," start to say "Naaaaaah!" instead....once it's in the open, young earth creationists will marginalise themselves.