• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

"Root of All Evil?" doco by Richard Dawkins

darlets

New member
Joined
Apr 29, 2007
Messages
357
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?
 

Alesia

New member
Joined
Apr 27, 2007
Messages
90
MBTI Type
INFP
I like it. Thanks for introducing me to Atheist Nation.

It's a well done film, but rather introductory for me. It's for the novelist at comparing science and religion.

But is religion the root of all evil? No, of course not. Atheist Russia and China have their evils, too. "Evil" would exist and has existed in ancient empires, not because of religion, but simply man's territorial nature. The fight for resources. Wars have been raged millions and millions killed and tortured for land. Simply to expand the empire. Chimpazee's, our closest cousins are highly territorial and fight for territory. Much of our species on earth fight for resources and are hence territorial. It's survival of the fittest. That's what this "root of all evil" is.
 

darlets

New member
Joined
Apr 29, 2007
Messages
357
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."

The naming of the doco was unfortunate and really had little to do with the subject matter. It's really a companion piece to "The God Delusions" where he goes on to expand on his ideas. I would like, as is true with docos which are interviewed based, to see the complete conversations. This one seemed to suffer less for this than most, but Dawkins still had the power of the final edit.

I just found that A.N website today and will be having a look at some of their other videos in the future.
 

C.J.Woolf

respect the brick
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
424
MBTI Type
INTP
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."
It's like Channel 4 wanted to make Dawkins into another Michael Moore. Bastards.
 

Langrenus

New member
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
358
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.
 

hereandnow

New member
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
335
MBTI Type
INTP
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.

When he talks about biology and evolution his approach is fresh and consistent. Re: religion - he's much more "passionate" and feels as though he has to talk down. In many cases he's correct.
 

sundowning

New member
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
251
MBTI Type
ISTP
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.

Certainly there are cases where this is true, but not in all. Generalizing one way doesn't validate a generalization opposite.

However, this is essentially irrelevent; whether or not religion is the cause or merely an excuse, it still enables social disasters to a disturbing degree. Were the 'excuse' of religion stripped away, a lot of bad behaviour - both as a direct result of it and indirectly through cultural concessions - would cease to have a justified/rational basis.

It's speculation whether or not we'd be better off for it; I suspect we would, given the relative freedom enjoyed in secular countries. However, it's possible societies would find other ways to justify their shit, as we can see in our own.
 

HilbertSpace

New member
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
143
MBTI Type
INTP
I don't think the intent of this documentary was to evangelize so much as to present a point of view, and even more to put out there a sort of flag in the sand. One does not have an interview with the likes of Ted Haggard with the aim of converting him, nor was in done in such a way as to cause people currently following him (or, who were following him at the time - Ted managed to bring himself down quite effectively, after all). If he were interested in bringing down fundamentalist preachers, he'd be taking the same approach as the Amazing Randi - who once took a radio scanner into a revival meeting and captured the preacher's wife prompting him so that he could seem to just know the names and afflictions of the various people.

Dawkins has explicitly admitted that his more confrontational style is at odds with the more conciliatory views adopted by the late Stephen Gould (who advocated NOMA, or Non-Overlapping Magesteria, indicating that science and religion should not be considered competitive because they are talking about entirely different subjects). He would also dispute the theistic interpretation of evolution - that evolution is an acceptable theory, but that it is merely the way God chose to work. He fully acknowledges that such compromise positions are entirely appropriate if your main goal is to make sure that science, rather than Christianity, is taught in public schools. His goal, on the other hand, is to force into the public square the issue of religion itself, which he sees as a (not to use too loaded a term) clear and present danger to values that have defined Western civilization since the enlightenment. The less extreme you think the situation currently is, the more over the top you will find his behavior.
 

Langrenus

New member
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
358
sundowning said:
Certainly there are cases where this is true, but not in all. Generalizing one way doesn't validate a generalization opposite.

Fair point. However, I didn't at any point say "this is true in all cases". I said "many cases". I also remain unconvinced at just how much wicked behaviour would be stripped away without the convenient veil of religion to hide behind - but this is generally because I have a poor opinion of the human race, and I'm pretty convinced that people would find another set of excuses in one way or another

HilbertSpace said:
The less extreme you think the situation currently is, the more over the top you will find his behavior.

Not so, not so at all. I'm a devout (excuse the phrase) atheist and have deep-seated objections to religion - I also see the current situation as ridiculously extreme, and nothing depresses me more than listening to some 'believer' attempt to justify their irrational hatred of another human being or explain why it's their job to strike the fear of god into a child. I'm just struggling to see how this documentary really helped to advance any cause - for people sitting on the fence I think that a lot of it would come across as preaching, and I don't personally see that as a healthy response to the growing influence of religious ideas. When people are caught between two sides shouting at each other they have a tendency to switch off (or, more worryingly, just side with the side shouting loudest).

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.
 

HilbertSpace

New member
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
143
MBTI Type
INTP
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.

It's a fair complaint. I've read God Delusion, but in his talks both before and after the publication of the book, 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.

I have no doubt that the God Delusion convinced at least some people to switch over to atheism, but I suspect that they were limited to people who were already on the fence. I haven't looked at it, but Dawkins also said that his site contains letters from people who have become atheists based on his work. Personally, I think that his evolutionary work makes a better argument than his works about atheism.
 

C.J.Woolf

respect the brick
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
424
MBTI Type
INTP
...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.
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.

Could that be called meta-persuasion?
 

HilbertSpace

New member
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
143
MBTI Type
INTP
Could that be called meta-persuasion?

Yeah, and I think that's actually a good point - Dawkins has repeatedly called for more political and social participation on the part of atheists - partly to dispel some notions that strike me as medieval (atheists are immoral and responsible for all current social ills), and partly to counter-balance religious political pressure.

There's been a fair amount of sociological research that indicates that people associate frequency of perception with relative importance or frequency of occurrence. It's one of those things that might make intuitive sense evolutionarily, but which might have other consequences in a media dominated world.
 

Langrenus

New member
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
358
Fair points both. I suppose the question is the extent to which this meta-persuasion matters - the concern doesn't seem to be with religious moderates, but rather with evangelicals or other devoutly religious individuals. These people are highly unlikely to be persuaded out of their beliefs because the guy next door disagrees with them; more likely they'll redouble their efforts.

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
 

C.J.Woolf

respect the brick
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
424
MBTI Type
INTP
The goal of meta-persuasion is not to persuade the irrational, it's to marginalize them; to decrease their political influence; to reverse irrational policy and make rational policy.

I don't care if the fundies never come around to my way of thinking (they won't); I just want to stop them fucking with my world.
 

Langrenus

New member
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
358
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...
 

ptgatsby

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
4,476
MBTI Type
ISTP
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...

I think that in general, marginalisation is done by oneself, rarely by others. Dawkin's probably see it differently, but he is effectively the main player in ripping down the PC block to speaking out against religion. This puts forth a face and voice to rationalism. It's simply a big game and it starts by making people talk about rationalism. The value of it will carry itself forward, it doesn't need to be fought tooth and claw the whole time - once it's in the open, young earth creationists will marginalise themselves. It's big picture effects, social change, that he's starting... He doesn't need to be popular or anything else to inflict long term change.
 

HilbertSpace

New member
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
143
MBTI Type
INTP
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

There's a number of studies that correlate these figures. Since it is a very contentious issue right now, it might be reasonable to discount the numbers somewhat (or change the statement to say that 40% of Americans say they don't believe in evolution).

This page has a tabular breakdown with some analysis. It states that 47% of Americans claim a belief in the strong version of creationism (young Earth < 10,000 years old, life created in its current form), and 40% have a theistic idea of evolution. Only 9% profess a belief in evolution as a non-theistic process.

In talking with people on the subject, my own anecdotal experience backs these numbers - I have had innumerable people witness to me when they saw me reading certain types of scientific literature.
 

C.J.Woolf

respect the brick
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
424
MBTI Type
INTP
...once it's in the open, young earth creationists will marginalise themselves.
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.

Or so I hope.
 

Langrenus

New member
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
358
That depresses me even more HilbertSpace - I was, for once, trying to credit the American nation with more intelligence than the figures suggested. My natural pessimism should clearly have been given free reign.

I still don't think I agree with this marginalisation thesis - as believers keep telling me, this isn't about science or rationality per se, it's about faith. Don't confuse some evangelical church leaders attempting to dress their views in a pathetic veil of science as proof that the whole edifice will come shattering down if only we can make them see the underling irrationality...it hasn't happened in the past 2000 years, I see absolutely no reason why it will change now. Attacking ideas as ideas without reference any inclusion of the faith angle just strikes me as a weak position to work from. The most sane individual in the world can still come back and say "well sorry, I just believe in this" and there's bugger all you can do.

Ahhh, releasing the pessimism felt good...
 
Top