 |
|
Approximately two-thirds of a person's body weight is water. Blood is 92% water. The brain is 75% water and muscles are 75% water. |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
Is religion the root of all evil?
Posted on Thursday, January 26, 2006 (CST) by Thoth
 At a time when criticising religion is now considered a 'hate crime', eminent scientist Richard Dawkins' two-part Channel 4 programme, The Root of All Evil?, should have been a welcome riposte to backward-looking religiosity.
Instead it was the type of crimson-inducing programme whereby peering through half-closed fingers seemed highly advisable. There is plenty to say about religious belief, why it emerges and what role it plays today. So it is depressing that Dawkins seems to have little to offer. And what he does say contains all the insight of a saloon-bar loudmouth.
Dawkins' main presentation was reasonable enough. In primitive times, man's mercy at the hands of nature gave the impression that supernatural forces controlled the Earth. Religious worship arose as the need to appease what man saw as powerful Gods. So far, so good.
Yet when
explaining why religion continues to play a part in modern life,
Dawkins' explanation is to flash the 'you must be stupid' card.
Religious worship, and with
it religious symbols and texts, emerged as man began to realise there
was something more important than the individual - the social group. In
The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life, French sociologist Emile
Durkheim pointed out that the symbols of God are often the symbols of
society too. As Durkheim pondered: 'Is that not because the god and the
society are only one?' (1) In worshipping God, people are in fact
worshipping the idea of society. Durkheim derived this proposition from
how all societies divide the world into two categories, the sacred and
the profane. Sacred things, often represented in religious symbols, are
'considered superior in dignity and power to profane things and
particularly men' (2).
No doubt Dawkins would
dismiss this behaviour as irrational madness at work. In fact, it is a
fairly rational reflection of the relationship between the individual
(profane) and society (sacred). As Durkheim argued: 'Primitive man
comes to view society as something sacred because he is utterly
dependent on it.' (3) Religious worship - or the worship of the social
group - creates values and beliefs that form the basis of social life.
In pre-modern times collective worship enabled members of a social
group to formulate and communicate bonds that helped forge social
solidarity.
Religion isn't 'the root of
all evil' as such, but a primitive attempt to understand what it is to
be human and thus provide meaning and purpose to our action.
Ironically, Dawkins fails to appreciate how religion has contributed to
the humanism he is seeking to defend. Instead he presents atheist
humanism as something straight out of Aldous Huxley's Brave New World -
all machine-like creatures bedazzled by reductive technology yet blind
to what makes us truly human.
By fixating on irrational
explanations, Dawkins ignores why values, beliefs and solidarities are
a key plank of major religions. This is why he gets tongue-tied when
arguing with an Islamic fundamentalist - amusingly a former New York
hipster who looked like he had gone from worshipping The Strokes to
worshipping Allah (perhaps he'd heard their new album). All this guy
was interested in was discussing the importance of values and why the
West was devoid of them. Mulling over the existence of Allah was of no
concern to this Cat Stevens-like convert. His concerns were rooted in
society, not theology.
Singling out religion for diminished humanism sets up a false battleground
Dawkins' response here was
revealing. For all his scientific arguments, he seems to take more
exception to the concepts of truth, absolutes and commitment to a
higher cause. Yet these are invaluable tramlines that can guide
purposeful human action. Dawkins casts the existence of firm belief
systems as being responsible for conflicts around the world. So for
Dawkins, the dispute between Jewish settlers and Palestinians is
reducible to religious dogma rather than more complex issues arising
from politics and oppression.
There is also a broader
point to be made here. An understanding of religion, and the role it
plays, cannot be isolated from the specific social and material
conditions that give rise to it. To do so means you could end up
reaching misanthropic conclusions about why individuals have
attachments to religion. For such an avowedly staunch humanist,
Dawkins' own assessments can come across as anti-human.
The other problem is that
singling out religion for diminished humanism sets up a false
battleground. In fact, even today religion expresses kernels of
humanism that sometimes appear progressive compared to contemporary
thinking. For example, the major religions recognise that as humans are
capable of making moral choices, we are fundamentally different from
animals. How many secularists share such views today? Elsewhere,
religion's understanding of truth and selfless commitment to a wider
community or cause appears preferable to today's culture of narcissism
and navel-gazing.
There is a programme to be
made on critically examining religion, but this was not it. Certainly,
the irrationality of religious belief and how it has been a bulwark of
reaction needs to be taken to task. And at a time when a human-centred
worldview is at the lowest-ever ebb, banging the drum for human
subjectivity should be done as loudly and as stridently as possible.
Unfortunately, not only does Dawkins fail to address the social climate
responsible for shrill anti-humanism, he ends up dismissing the very
qualities needed to reconstitute our place on the world's stage.
Many aspects of religion
certainly have a shameful and woeful repute. Dawkins is in danger of
doing the same to atheist humanism.
The Root of All Evil?, Channel 4, first part 9 January, second part 16 January.
Article Source
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| | The comments are owned by the poster. We aren't responsible for their content. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
No Comments Allowed for Anonymous, please register |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Is religion the root of all evil?
by Blueapple on Friday, January 27, 2006 (CST)
(User Info | Send a Message) | | I believe the truth isn't in either extreme of being pro-religion (deferential to the status quo or the world as we know it) or absolute atheism. I confess to being exceedingly hostile toward religion, but am a believer in the Force (if you will) or unseen world (due primarily to my own history of unexplained experiences). True spirituality doesn't need a name or doctrine, dogma. Organized (or named) religions ARE, effectively, the root of all evil because they're the root of all IGNORANCE. They're what's (primarily or ultimately) behind the ignorance of desperately-needed (real) science/progress - anything that even MIGHT prevent us from screwing ourselves, other species, Nature. And the main action that NEEDS to be taken to that end is to expose and neutralize the real government (the National Security state) that's based on the same idiocy that promotes poisonous notions like Original Sin and belief that the Bible is the Absolute Word of God - talking donkeys and all. Religions prevent truth. Period. Religion is ultimately what prevents (desperately-needed) revelations of (presently) unexplained phenomena; not (allegedly) secular governments. The United States has become the New Ayatollah Empire. Yippee! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Is religion the root of all evil?
by Blueapple on Friday, January 27, 2006 (CST)
(User Info | Send a Message) | I realize the whole picture isn't as black and white as that. Religion has improved the lives of many a major league sinner (or criminal) and, up until the UFO/close encounter phenomena became sufficiently ingrained in the public consciousness (since the early '90s at the very latest), it was the only type of study, albeit limited, of such phenomena.
The best justice is done with as much forgiveness as possible. Why punish when the logical way is to solve problems and move on? Armageddon is a state of mind only. Peace. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Is religion the root of all evil?
by gaias-child on Saturday, January 28, 2006 (CST)
(User Info | Send a Message) | | I agree with the article there is a programme to be made on this topic but this wasn't it. Professor Dawkins did not come across very well at all. It seemed to me that far from having no religion, the good professor has made science his religion. Religion is at the root of many evils but surely not all. Perhaps when religionists of all stripes see the wisdom in Mohameds words " there can be no compulsion in religion" then the evil can be expelled. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
