Ropes I Know

June 14, 2008

The Root of All Evil?

Filed under: Atheism, Religion — Tags: , , , , — Yeti @ 22:13

Part 1, The God Delusion:

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 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.[2] Dawkins’s book The God Delusion, released in September 2006, goes on to examine the topics raised in the documentary in greater detail. The God Delusion explores the unproven beliefs that are treated as factual by many religions and the extremes to which some followers have taken them. Dawkins opens the programme by describing the “would-be murderers . . . who want to kill you and me, and themselves, because they’re motivated by what they think is the highest ideal.” Dawkins argues that “the process of non-thinking called faith” is not a way of understanding the world, but instead stands in fundamental opposition to modern science and the scientific method, and is divisive and dangerous.

Part 2, The Virus of Faith:

In The Virus of Faith, Dawkins opines that the moral framework of religions is warped, and argues against the religious indoctrination of children. The title of this episode comes from The Selfish Gene, in which Dawkins discussed the concept of memes. 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.

For the moment, I just want to say that I mostly – if not totally – agree with Dawkins.

Advertisements

2 Comments »

  1. I’ll get my neck wrung for this, but oh well. If you’ll visit my blog at http://themasterstable.wordpress.com, you can examine for yourself the disconnect between what Richard Dawkins claims one particular verse of scripture means vs. what Jesus himself says it means. This is just one example of how perhaps the world’s foremost atheist authority is not the best interpreter of scripture.

    Comment by Clark Bunch — June 15, 2008 @ 4:14

  2. Clark, thanks for commenting.

    I’ll get my neck wrung for this, but oh well.

    No, you won’t. As an atheist, I generally don’t run around wringing other people’s necks because they believe things that I don’t believe.

    you can examine for yourself the disconnect between what Richard Dawkins claims one particular verse of scripture means vs. what Jesus himself says it means.

    I’ld be quite astonished if Richard Dawkins and I would agree on some specific interpretation of a bible verse, which – by the way – is not a single verse, but appears several times in the bible. Incidentally, the first appearance is Leviticus 19:18, which reads something like (I’ve never read an english version of the book, but several german translations):

    Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself

    This clearly is linked to the children of thy people, so regarding the first appearance of this concept, it is hard to not interpret it as meaning love another jew.
    You’re surely right that most of the other umpteen mentions of this concept refer to strangers (at least those being around) as well.

    Regarding

    what Jesus himself says it means

    I could not care less. Why should I care about a suggested interpretation, that some of the apostles credit to Jesus, written down hundreds of years later by unknown authors? Large passages of the new testament are explanations of what was possibly meant by verses in the old testament, specifically what Jesus supposed they should mean.
    Sure, Dawkins probably is not the first authority to do biblical exegesis, nor am I. But both Dawkins and I are able to see a contradiction (either written in the bible or appearing in how some believer or other condescends to interpret it, depending on the occasion).
    Thank you for your attention.
    Yeti

    Comment by Yeti — June 15, 2008 @ 5:53


RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: