X Greetings! You are not currently logged in, but please don't let that stop you from voting up any videos you like. :)
|
| |||||||||||||||
religion,science,atheism,richard dawkins Richard Dawkin's The Root Of All Evil (God Delusion & Virus)
Comments  playlists with this video Religion and the Sift by James Roe
• Documentaries by Fedquip
• Religious Rants by benjee
• Dawkins / Atheism by eric3579
• The Ultimate Richard Dawkins Playlist by BicycleRepairMan
• favs by R0SENCRANTZ
• Documentaries - the truth and other entertainment by rbar
who voted for this video mauz15
- benjee
- dodger
- zendhe
- Wargasm
- Enzoblue
- theo47
- Fiver2
- NickyP
- Ranger
- Farhad2000
- winkler1
- deputydog
- dag
- ant
- BoneyD
- bl968
- Lucefin
- coreburn
- qruel
- kamil.t
- Sageous
- Fred_Chopin
- eric3579
- jwray
- Fedquip
- steroidg
- siftbot
x22who voted against this video gorgonheap
who has this post bookmarked jwray
- Fred_Chopin
- swampgirl
- enon
Richard Dawkin's The Root Of All Evil (God Delusion & Virus) Related Videos
| Watch this Video NextFriends O' the Sift Top New Videos by Vote                Subscribe Top 15 Sifters of All Time Top 15 Sifters of the Past Week 11. dan00108
(169 votes) Newest Appreciated Comments        | ||||||||||||||
Stumble This
Yes, I agree with him...that's fine. Yes, we know...he's an atheist. Check. Yes, he confronts religious types and stands up for science. Gotcha. WE GET IT. I've seen more Richard Dawkins videos in the past 3 months then just about anything else. What does this video say that the several other videos didn't?
Let me distill it down for you all his message (and I'm not disagreeing with it at all mind you): Religion bad; Science good. There, you have Richard Dawkins in a nutshell.
I think this is the best anti-religion documentary I've ever seen - of which there's multiple parts of on here. It was previously posted by HAMFIST back here: The Root of All Evil with Richard Dawkins - pt 1 - but was pulled from YouTube a few months ago. And there's always the 'Hidden From My View' playlist - so your Sifting sessions can be spent happily ignoring them all, Goofball...
I do agree however that humanity is taking some backwads steps lately. Sad when tha happens...
1. I accept the scientific method of relying on material evidence and on the idea that a series of tests often lead to a valid conclusion. I also accept that (this positive) science and theology are two different fields and should not be confused. Yet when it comes to ask questions about the meaning of life and our purpose of being, those who are involved in science make a significant step further and leave their own methodology, since those areas do not have a recourse to material evidence. Therefore the initial choice of trusting science only or atheism is casting one's votes for another kind of belief. Of course that does not necessarily mean an organised religion, but it is possible to develop into one, i.e. the practices of cold war Socialist countries or the then officially atheist Albania that often were highly liturgical. If one believes in scientific methodology as meaningful for one's existence, that's o.k. But it is a belief, and that's where it will have to face other belief systems.
2. Regarding evolution, it's too bad that Dawkin switched over to our evangelical brethren and, after treating the issue of Catholic Lourdes, did not go on analysing the Catholic position on evolution. Here is a quote from Pope Pius XII: "the teaching authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions . . . take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter—[but] the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God" (Humani Generis 36).
3. This Pope was indeed mentioned by Dawking regarding the latest dogma of Assumption. The Pope did not sit alone and think of himself that this should become a dogma. That's an accusation on Dawking's part that I find very offensive. What the Pope did was a serious study of the long history of Christians believing in Assumption and found it reasonable to promulgate it. In fact I have found articles of Orthodox Christians in which they criticised the promulgation as unnecessary, as it had alway been present in their theology, liturgy and iconography. It was exactly this long presence of the idea of Assumption that made the Pope reflect. He did not make it up.
4. I do recognise that religious people, Christians and Catholics too, have had a significant role in instigating wars and hatred. And I am sorry for that, since I am part of their circle, the church. And I know that being sorry does not heal the wounds religious individuals and groups inside the church or other churched have inflicted. But I remain with this church believing in and being witness of the desire in many to reflect and revise their attitude, even in the presence of others who stick to their unhealthy approach. The church is a very complex group of much wisdom and stupidity intermingling. I choose to work with the wisdom part.
5. From the bottom of my heart I love atheists. I love how they promote frankness. Their denial of God's existence makes me feel humble about our truths. They shake us, religious people, up from our intellectual and indeed spiritual-theological slumbers, and I do not even mind if they promote a little agenda of presenting facts or views that would underlie their belief and miss out on others that would not, - as shown above.
6. I have in mind many other priest colleagues who would by and large share these views. Cheers, and keep up the good work!
Actually thank you - I've been hoping (praying?) for a theologian to provide a counterpoint to what has, up to now, been a fairly one-sided issue here on VideoSift.
I agree with you on point 2 especially. Dawkins has gone after the "soft target" of wacky seeming evangelical Christians and then tries to paint all religion with the same brush.
Name one.
How about two:
Stalinist Russia and the DPRK
But seriously, if we're talking about secular societies, those two examples are about as secular as you can get. Secular != democratic. And if we're using the word "pernicious" I would say that Stalin's oppression of the Russian Orthodox Church was just that.
Also, I don't think I'd be breaking Godwin's law by citing Nazi Germany as another secular government that put science above all else in backing up its doctrines.
First of all, the question of God, and his acceptance or not is subjective to each individual and as such each is allowed to make up their minds. I do not question or argue against that, I will wholeheartedly admit that I am not entirely clear on it either.
However I question religious presence when it comes to issues of national policy and the liberty of its citizens. As for what Dag said...
All the examples you put forward so far have one significant common thread the existence of a higher political order imposed on a population through the systematic elimination of any opposition. The higher political order does what is most beneficial to it's further existence, it eliminates all possible opposition through violent force flying whatever idealogical concept best suits their needs. In Nazi Germany there was the Night of Long Knives, the burning of the Reichstag, and of course the genocide of jews included political dissenters, communists and homosexuals.
In Stalinist Russia it was called the NKVD during World War 2, where the paranoid Stalin would regularly conduct purges to eliminate any possible dissent from the military and the populace. Stalin did not trust his own intelligence thinking it was all lies, thus Russia's response to Germany's invasion was so slow. Then the KGB came that watched over the entire population, again purging any possible dissent.
Exactly where atheism and theism reside in these two engines of war and control I don't really see. Neither Hitler or Stalin cared about religion, they cared about power and control, it's not like they were astronomers mapping space for the benefit of man's evolution, their research focused on war exclusively, there was no correlation between atheism and belief in science and their power over the people. It was fear, control and propaganda. Hitler himself is quoted as saying that he is not here to elevate man but to make use of his weaknesses, he exploited the weakness of a battered nation placing their blame on a political ideology (communism), a race (jews) and anyone else (homosexuals, anarchists and so on) he thought unfit for his vision of a 1000 year Reich.
Never have I proposed that we use science in any such manner, what I see is theism being used time and time again throughout history as a way to placate the population in various endeavors of conflict. I believe religion is beneficial to human development, and I have been brought up as such, however I do not see it's place in the offices of goverment in the conduct of policy. Either as a tool to placate the populace into supporting an unjust war through fear or to sell a political candidate as something he really is not. What God fearing man sends his men to die when he clearly didn't get the facts right but somehow the intelligence is cherry picked but we don't talk about it? And Bishops? Are they so high and mighty? What of the sexual scandals?
Even if the religious texts are from God, clearly his main mantra about you know loving everybody even if they are different is not followed by those who pretend to be devout Christians. There is no God in Iraq marching for the US. What the administration did is use religion and it's supporters to win the Whitehouse twice. This administration doesn't care about family values, or abortion, or stem cells or healthcare. It's machine was engineered to capture the gut feelings of all voters, to activate them, this is how an election during a war on two fronts and questionable economic status was voted on family values, topics like abortion and homosexuality.
Was it really as important as the conduct of military foreign policy under the banner of freedom? The escalation of military forces in Iraq (150,000 currently) with additional 20,000 coming in. Which is dismal to say the least and huge military gamble, there is no additional reserve after that number, and after there is the draft. US forces are engaging fleeing forces from Somalia, in similar operations carried out in Afghanistan. All this to assure a viable source of Oil for the US in the short future as oil reserves reach peak oil levels after which less and less barrels of oil will be produced. Blah blah blah This is all covered in the excellent History of Oil sift
My issue isn't with religion as with it's application as a political tool. That is the proper definition of Secularism, being the ideology that holds that religious issues should not be the basis of politics, it's only extremists who hold that religion has no place in public life for that is an issue for each person to decide for themselves on their own.
I was just kidding about the communist thing - unless you are one. Which is also fine of course.
I shouldn't qualify this, but I guess I will. I don't believe in a god. But I do believe in tolerance - and the trendy disdain that most of us here have for theistic/spiritual beliefs is just another form of dogma and conventional wisdom.
Sure a lot of evangelists are nutty cook-jobs, lacking in a moral compass or worse. But they are human beings before they are religious nut-jobs.
Classifying them and labeling makes them "the other" and that is the big proglem that has dogged humanity since we were chimps, and is the real cause of all of the strife you mentioned, not religion -it's Man's inhumanity to man.
And I take no responsibility for the belligerent harassment some <ahref="http://www.videosift.com/video/Doin-Nails-for-Jesus--from-Jesus-Camp">people on the sift express towards theists as I do not condone such actions myself.
– Mary Midgley, The Myths We Live By (2004)
Just kidding, this is a great discussion.
When it is said that Soviet was an evil, secular society - of course it is correct, but it is not evil, because it is secular; it is evil AND secular. The fundamentalistic taleban regime are evil excactly because (or at least partly because) it is religious.
Faith cannot be proven with science, that's why it's faith.
I'd rather live in a society that freely exalts gods above men and the State than one where the State or a tyrant is propped up as a god.
Belief without any evidence is foolish.
Excellent post.
Julian Jaynes proposed in his controversial 1977 book 'The Origins of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind' that in pre-Homeric times (before the historian Homer) people did not have the highly developed minds that we take for granted today.
What we call the 'ego' today was for these ancient people what they called a 'god'.
When danger threatened suddenly the god's voice was heard in the individual's mind. This function of the mind has since evolved and become integrated into what Jung called the 'ego'.
Science has nothing to say about the origin of consciousness, aside from Daniel Dennett's reductionist ideas which I don't accept. Religion on the other hand SHOULD have something to say about origin of spirit/consciousness but it has become so sidetracked over the millenia with social control that it has completely lost its way.
Religion in the ancient, shamanic, spiritual, natural sense would be very welcome in the world right now, and would be welcomed by every individual on this planet.
Religion gets a bad rap because it has tended over the last 3-4000 years toward social control, no matter which of the religions you choose to look at. This is why the seperation of church and state is VITAL.
If any one of us were to go back in time and go into Jesus's church, we would be going in there to LEARN, to learn about ourselves, our minds, our consciousness, our spiritual centre. When we 'graduated' we would not need to go back, and we would be informed and learned enough to teach others.
Science teaches. Religion controls.