This is one of the most compulsive programmes I've seen on the TV! Granted I'm biased towards the views of Dawkins -- I've read all his books, most twice over, but my own views were fashioned before I encountered the great man :-)
The hate emanating from the right-wing, American Christian, and the Muslim in his interview with them was palpable and *terrifying*!
It's not a question of 'if' the right-wing Christians take control in the US, it's 'when'. God help us all when that comes about!
I admittedly only watched parts of it and shall be watching the whole thing later, but it seemed a bit basic really, the teapot? Maybe if the teapot answered the big questions in life then I would believe in it, completely irrelevant, this program was supposedly about science vs religion, which is a pathetic argument if one looks at the true definitions, but the analogy at the end was more for johnathan miller's brief history of disbelief.
He didn't seem to put up much of a fight against the evangelist, who did make some good points.
I dont buy it, belif is a strong force, and we all have our own belifs, even if they arnt officaly recongised religions. It is the peoples attitudes towards there belifs & more importantly the belifs of others which is at falut.
Very interesting documentary. I agree wholeheartedly with his assertions on fundamentalism, I also agree that we should not accept things as true just on someone elses say so.
I thought that as a man of science, he would have backed up his belief about evolution with some facts.
His choice of interviewees was clever and served to give credence to his arguments. The American bible belt does not represent mainstrem christianity, many of their views sicken me, a bible believing, spirit filled Christian. As a right of reply it would be easy for the church to seek out some of the more eccentric scientists who would tell you that the world will come to an end tommorrow or in the next year or so.
As to the title 'Root of all Evil.' It is generally accepted that more suffering is due to poverty than war. The root of poverty being apathy and greed, not faith and religion. It is also fair to say that science has done it's fair share of damage to our environment and to our land, making it less able to sustain life without the aid of fertilizers based on diminishing fossil fuels.
The atomic bomb, a device capable of destroying the world several times over, is not the child of faith or religion, but of science. Infact most of the weapons used in war are sold by the 'civilised' west, so the root of these wars is ultimately greed. If you study the bible closley is teaches love for the planet and for our fellow man, nothing else. The problems happen when people take thease scriptures and twist their meanings, as no doubt our friend will do next week(apologies for pre-judging).
As to the teapot analogy. I think the point was made earlier, who cares? The teapot will never have an effect on anyones life. I believe that faith and right understanding of the nature of God will have a very positive effect.
Another analogy for you: If I were to build the most powerful computer known to man and turn it on. Will it be able to learn for itself? Answer: not without the input of it's creator.
Having said all this.I can understand anyone resenting the church and organised religion as it often fails to reflect the nature of God.
You'll find a lot more evidence for evolution and a debunking of creationist theory over on the 'Culture' forum, Paul. This isn't the place for debate on this subject :-)
i thought it was about time some tv company broadcast something like this; there is a huge amount of religious stuff on the box, and no-one ever says "Hey, wait a minute ... did you just say the virgin Mary was taken up to Heaven in a cloud??? How do you KNOW?" the religious lobby should be subjected to far more scrutiny and challenge. Let's hope that The Root of All Evil is just a start.
his arguments dont take account of the political dimension @ heart of discussions on religon and science. i c lots of groups using religion 4 poliitcal purpose-banning abortion and same sex marriages and pushing 'intelligent design' in faith based schools over evolution.
Burns,Barrymore,Gallaway and a few others to name a few
******Mrs diddy named her star after me****** " I've been here before, but you don't know me " Member # 27 Ross&Rachel Club= they're class seriously *****I pretend 9 TO 5*****
...And why is evolution what everyone always talks about when it comes to religion? What is its importance?
Most (all?) religions have creation stories. Humanity's discoveries regarding evolution, along with geology, cosmology and astronomy, tend to directly contradict those stories. In addition evolution is fundamental to our modern understanding of biology. If evolution were suddenly found not to be fact after all, the whole field of modern biology would collapse. We face a potential flu pandemic because of evolution. We have "super bugs" and insecticide-resistant pests killing crops because of evolution.
Evolution is incredibly important, whilst at the same time treading on people's fundamental religous beliefs. That is why it is such a hot topic of discussion.
Originally posted by rationalist: i thought it was about time some tv company broadcast something like this; there is a huge amount of religious stuff on the box, and no-one ever says "Hey, wait a minute ... did you just say the virgin Mary was taken up to Heaven in a cloud??? How do you KNOW?" the religious lobby should be subjected to far more scrutiny and challenge. Let's hope that The Root of All Evil is just a start.
I agree with this entirely. Christians do not have a monopoly on truth and should always be open minded.
Although I still believe this programme lacked integrity and made claims without backing them up with evidence. Evolution to the extent Dawkins advocates, is by no means accepted by all scientists. I am all for programmes challenging the Christian,or any other faith. Unfortunately, by targeting fundamentalist, who are unrepresentative of the Christian church, and failing to back up his evolution argument, meant the program was not as good as it could have been.
I do take the point though that christain media goes virtually unchallenged.
Pauljimmyn. Richard Dawkins, his books, lectures and appearances on other TV and radio programmes should be well known to most people who take this subject seriously. There was certainly not enough time to cover this subject in this programme.
There is a tremendous amount of Christian bashing around at the moment. In fact, religeon bashing overall, but there always is when a left government is in power.
what I wonder is will Channel 4 give a right to reply from some sane Christians? I could travel around the world cherry picking loonies to make a powerful case against almost anything. That is easy to do. I find some of Dorkins assertions to be very strange (bordering on the crazy) but, putting that aside, I really would love to hear an intelligent counter view.
The thing that really strikes me is the similarity between Dorkins world view and those of the fundamentalists he complains about. In many ways, Dorkins views represent another religeon, that of humanist secularism of which he is an evangellist. His view of God seems very wierd and seems to be born of prejudice rather than honest research into the nature of God. In fact, I have noticed that those who advocate for the non-existance of God always seem to know least about Him.
Come on Channel 4. Give us an opposing view now so we have some balance in the arguments.
With respect, freemycatfish, there is and has been plenty of what you're asking for -- religious programmes, on the TV and radio. Not so long ago it was difficult to find a programme not dedicated to religion on a Sunday.
For once, a TV company has been brave enough to question 'Religion', can your 'faith' not accept a little criticism?
i forgot to watch the 1st part, which is ashame as i wanted to catch it. especially becuase it would probably become useful for my R.E course. Luckily the 2 parters repeated late late late night, so have set the VCR
Originally posted by Roy P: >and failing to back up his evolution argument
Pauljimmyn. Richard Dawkins, his books, lectures and appearances on other TV and radio programmes should be well known to most people who take this subject seriously. There was certainly not enough time to cover this subject in this programme.
Possibly not, but he was guilty of what he and others accuse Christians of. Presenting his belief as fact. There was certainly time to expand his views beyond the confusing 'gentle slope' analogy. If he wanted to present a balanced programme, then perhaps it should have focused less on trying to discredit the church minister and more backing up his own beliefs. Books are all very well, but he chose to make a television programme, and he should have backed up his beliefs there.
It's also worth say that there are many books on the christian faith also, they neither prove nor disprove the existence of God.
>it should have focused less on trying >to discredit the church minister
I think he did that for himself, didn't he, Paulj. And it was important to 'discredit' that specific minister, considering the power that he has over other leaders.
freemycatfish: >Come on Channel 4. Give us an opposing view >now so we have some balance in the arguments.
You might find the programme 'Dark Enlightenment' tonight on More4 at 9.00pm interesting. It follows Richard Dawkins' second and final part of his 'Roots of All Evil?'
In tonight's 'Roots?' there's a contribution from the Bishop of Oxford. Apparently only he agreed to take part. Other notable religious 'heads' including the Archbishop of Canterbury were invited to contribute but they declined the offer.
Originally posted by freemycatfish: There is a tremendous amount of Christian bashing around at the moment. In fact, religeon bashing overall, but there always is when a left government is in power.
This is a good thing. Organised religions have way too much power and far too little is done to curtail their political influence. Witness the disgraceful behaviour of the Catholic Church in its attempts to influence the debate on homosexual marriage in Italy. Bash the world's religions more, I say.
quote:
...what I wonder is will Channel 4 give a right to reply from some sane Christians? I could travel around the world cherry picking loonies to make a powerful case against almost anything.
He didn't "cherry pick" a loonie with teh American Christian. That guy is an average example of what tens of millions of Americans believe. Yes he is a loonie; but he was hardly "cherry picked".
quote:
I have noticed that those who advocate for the non-existance of God always seem to know least about Him.
Possibly. The other option of course is that those of us who lack any emotional attatchment to an alledged deity can take an objective look at that deity and its teachings.
Originally posted by Pauljimmyn: Possibly not, but he was guilty of what he and others accuse Christians of. Presenting his belief as fact. There was certainly time to expand his views beyond the confusing 'gentle slope' analogy. If he wanted to present a balanced programme, then perhaps it should have focused less on trying to discredit the church minister and more backing up his own beliefs. Books are all very well, but he chose to make a
I certainly agree that Dawkins made apoor effort at backing up his belief that religions are the root of all evil, but I'm nor sure that is what you are refering to above. The "gentle slope" analogy refered to evolution. Evolution most certainly is fact and not simply Dawkins' belief and so he was required to spend very little time explaining it.
Originally posted by Roy P: >it should have focused less on trying >to discredit the church minister
I think he did that for himself, didn't he, Paulj.
Only allegedly, as again Mr Dawkins failed to back up his accusations. I thought that what I saw of the minister was fair and reasonable. As for the allegations of what happened aftwerwards. Again just hersay.
