Richard Dawkins: 'The Root of All Evil?: The God Delusion' (Online Video)

- No, Dawkins does not think Science will prove there is no god. Basic logic: you can't prove a negative proposition in the absence of complete knowledge. - He was not happy with the title of the series: he does NOT say religion is the root of all evil. Channel 4 wouldn't change it, the best he could do was get a question mark in the title (which is conveniently left out here). - as for the arguments about scientists etc... just go read the book? The classic example was Einstein, who used "God" in a pantheist non-Judeo-Christian sense, and spent the rest of his days fighting the way his name was used to justify religion. Yes, he did say that in so many words. - understanding of religion... nope, he's quite familiar with the way religion in England has enlightened theologists, and has had many rewarding discussions with Archbishops & Cardinals. Don't think he was quite ready for that Haggard character, though - now we know more about him, don't we? The book is far better and more complete than that short TV series, made over a year ago. Read it before bashing it, eh?

It's ironic to hear Richard Dawkins disparage faith considering he 'believes' that science will prove there is no God. He has no proofs to back up this belief and yet he has mounted a one man campaign against a belief in God. He also makes the astonishing claim that religion discourages independent investigation of truth. Most of the great scientists in history have been religious so this misstatement is easily refuted. He really should go back to doing science and leave religion alone since he doesn't really understand or care to understand it. He is just taking today's headlines and exploiting them for his personal agenda.

Anonymous #1 and #2 are correct in their statements. It is ironic to hear Dawkins disparage faith. However, it is not true that Dawkins thinks science is going to disprove God.

This isn't the point #1 was trying to make however. The irony is the faith that Dawkins puts in his concept of science. To pick one field for example, evolution as pointed out to him in the video, which was quick to interrupt, is the theory of evolution. It is not without unanswered questions, missing pieces. It is not a complete theory that is proven to be fact. Dawkin's faith is that in time the theory will come to fruition in that all the holes will be plugged, the questions answered, and it will be referred to as the Law of Evolution.
The "truth" is everybody works on faith, individuals like to think they know alot, but truly we know very little. We like to think we know our cars will start in the morning, but the truth is we do not know what events have taken place overnight that may prevent the automobiles function. When we turn the key with such confidence, we believe it will start as a matter of faith, not knowlege. If we did not put so much faith into so many things throughout everyday life, we would be paralized unable to make any choices or any actions due to all the things we do not know.

Dawkin's great contradiction is his adamant profession that reasonable people don't have faith, don't believe in God, and certainly don't believe in Creation. He views the teaching of anything other than Evolution an attack on science, and considers "religious" schools that teach Creation rather than evolution as dangerous to children, that they are having views forced upon them without choice.
Yet if Dawkin's could have his way, every school would teach evolution and only evolution, which is the exact same optionless position he has a problem with in the private religious schools. If he were consistant and "rational" he would promote teaching of all supported ideas, aswell as teaching students -how- to think, rather than -what- to think, to equip them decide for themselves what is reasonable and right.
Sincerely,
seijirou302@hotmail.com

If Anonymous (posted at 17:00) is correct in his statement of Dawkins' position (and I am not certain that he is -- I think he is trying to make Dawkins sound more acceptable than Dawkins' own diatribes suggest that he really is), the problem is that Dawkins sets up a false dichotomy between science and religion. While it may be true that some religions are not based on rationality, not all are rationality-free. As a Christian, I am pleased to say that Christian teachings is based on a long line of rational thinkers dating back to St. Paul in the First Century A.D. (Romans being a work of tremendous rationality). St. Thomas Aquinas may have been the greatest philosopher over the past 2000 years.

Science does have a different approach, but not really. It does accept certain models and theories as the "generally accepted" views, and does not lightly accept challenges to these viewpoints changing only ponderously over several years. In that way, it is very much like Christianity which also accepts certain viewpoints as being the "orthodox" or "Christian" positions and changes them only very slowly over several years. But make no mistake -- Christianity does change over time as it reassesses what it knows and understands both from the texts of the Bible and from God's general revelation as discovered through science.

In fact, the only real difference between them is the fact that Christianity believes that some knowledge is the result of a pre-existent God who has revealed them to us. Scientists, meanwhile -- when acting as scientists and not mouthpieces for neo-atheists dogma like Dawkins does -- take no position on the issue of whether God exists or not, but try to limit their claims of knowledge to what is testable using the scientific method.

BK

I understand the frustration of the many rationalists living in our modern world where many religions are used to promote inequitable and even unchristian attitudes: that one class of people are morally superior because of their beliefs, that unbelievers are pre-destined for damnation, that natural disasters can be interpreted as a divine punishment for the behaviour of gays and other minority groups, that Evolution is evil and Creationism/Intelligent design should be taught as factual subjects in schools, that God should bless just America or the Queen instead of asking for blessings on all people, that we are on the brink of the End Times and so need not take strong action to protect our physical climate and ecology from destructive human activities.

But the apparent hopes of Richard Dawkins and others who share his views that all religion is evil and should be vanquished from the earth are unlikely to be fulfilled in the foreseeable future. People tend to believe in God because it satisfies a need to believe their lives and sufferings are meaningful on the highest possible level and they have a life in the ‘hereafter’ to hope for themselves and their loved ones.

When Richard Dawkins or any of us criticise history it carries an interesting irony. Think on it. If not for history occurring precisely as it did, chances are we would not exist. A history without religious ideologies, institutions, wars and oppressions would have resulted in a whole different set of circumstances governing the particular meetings and matings of those men and women who were our ancestors. The intricate sets of interconnected events that brought our present generation into being are more delicate than we can imagine.

But Dawkins isn't trying to stand science in the face of religion, just in the face of irrational and regressive religion. Dawkins said “a religion old or new that stressed the magnificence of the Universe as revealed by modern science might be able to draw forth reserves of reverence and awe hardly tapped by the conventional faiths.” Pandeism is that religion.

That quote is actually Car; Sagan, who was quoted by Dawkins. I don't know if it could be said to reflect Dawkins' sentiment. Sagan was lukewarm to Pandeism, but wouldn't rule it out (and of course Pandeists say that quote is supportive of Pandeism). But Dawkins would say that even Pandeism (or any other Deism) introduces a useless God into the equation, and that Pantheism is no God at all.

asYBut you can't say God is guiding evolution, since evolution by definition has no guide, there is no intelligent design

Religion is TAUGHT! It is not fact. If you believe that a being exists that created the world around you then you have to be able to hold up that argument. A bible is useless. I know of many books of science from the not too distant past that are now useless...Why? because as we progress so does our knowledge. Religious people are reading and believing things from a time when we knew nothing about the world around us. The only reason this proposterous notion is allowed to thrive is because most of us has food on the table, a roof over our heads, money in our pockets and people to talk to. After that you go searching for something to fill that other void...Why am I here?

I don't know what will happen when I die. I for one would love to think that I will go to this place called heaven where I will have everything I want and happiness for eternity and I will swim in an ocean of fluffiness with happy dogs running round me dancing with glee. Yes I will see all of my dead relatives and sing and hug and dance with them and I will be able to marvel at gos creation. ER!!!!!!! Does that sound like a pipe dream? OH YEAH! It is!

I don't see much thinking going on here. Just a bunch of bleeting atheist sheep following their Judas goat to the slaughter. You see, in the aroma of your pompous arrogance you have thumbed your ignorant nose at any notion to think, observe, search or study. You place such blind, leap in the dark, faith in your religion "atheistic evolution" you think you don't need to study, examine, reason or think. Intelligent design is an extremely exact science - it shows beyond a shadow of a doubt that there is no possible ratio that can account for your existence outside of the fact that there is a highly intelligent designer.
I'm always amazed at the blatant hypocrisy of your crowd - you act like thinking is going to be made illegal. Your system is that which is arrogant, close minded, and totalitarian. You are the ones who impose censorship on any thought that does not praise the blind fanatical fundamentals of your Taliban stype intolerant atheistic world view. C'mon, you got your head so deep in the sand, the Chinese are starting to charge you rent. I dare you! Stop all the arrogant pomp and pseudo-intellectualism and examine intelligent desight. You will be so amazed, you will praise your Creator.