Religion: The Root of All Evil

[boyntonstu]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I_1Gpt6dKFo

An excellent video of how the faithful delude themselves and others.

[Pure Argent]

Thanks, B! I enjoyed those videos. Never seen them before.

[JAStewart]

The show is actually called The Root Of All Evil?

Dawkins wasn't happy with the title.

[Safe-Keeper]

Aye, a good programme there. It's basically the filmed version of The God Delusion (or perhaps it's the other way around), and for the best experience you should read the book, too. It has more shades of grey and goes more in-depth about the documentary's subject.

The show is actually called The Root Of All Evil?

Dawkins wasn't happy with the title. Neither am I. To state that something is the root of all evil is just ridiculous.

[scimystic]

I'd agree that 'The root of all evil' is a slight exageration. The view from over here on the flip side of Popper's Inversion is of religion as the root symptom. Basically; as the most significant case of survival into the modern era of an archaic and rationally superseeded way of thinking. To explain, let me paste in here a paragraph and its endnote from towards the end of my main essay:

High noon; cards on the table; I am talking now about finally winning our ancient debate. I am talking about backing up our Dembskis, Collins', Plantingas, and Tiplers into a clear logical corner from which they will be able to see that they cannot emerge with both reason and their 'truths'. If my Point #1 cannot be controverted – and/or, if my main question cannot be answered – then I do not believe that this choice can be avoided. I would not presume to prejudge it for them, but I would suggest that in either case our present confusion and deadlock will be broken. We will either be able to welcome them at last into a meaningful dialogue, and get our major disagreements resolved; or we will be able to go ahead and write them off in the clear and honest sense that we would write off a person who believed himself to be a poached egg. We would not of course entirely cease to listen to such a person, but I think that we - and perhaps more to the point, any self avowedly rational debate audience - would insist upon settlement of the poached egg issue before being willing to consider seriously anything else that they might have to say. I am therefore proposing a shift to this as our default position in relation to all who proselytize for irrational knowledge systems. Basically, that we should abandon our traditional attack in terms of 'our truths' v 'their truths' (post-structuralism being correct in that no resolution is possible at that level) in favor of the simpler and deeper attack of informing them that their proposals cannot be understood to qualify as knowledge upon any basis that can be understood to be capable of yielding knowledge*; with expression of our willingness to demonstrate this to them through direct physical observation. I think that such a shift would, to say the least, get their attention; and would dramatically reclarify and re-energize our debate.

* We are here, from yet another angle, at my underlying point. We can see ourselves to have nothing but our perceptive and cognitive faculties through which to prefer the defining proposals of any irrational knowledge system (for example, Catholic Christianity) over those of any other (say, Scientology, or Voodoo). But we cannot, through honest reference to these faculties, arrive at an irrational system. The honest question “What should we embrace as knowledge?” is a direct appeal to observation and observation grounded reason. We can understand these to be capable of yielding – through their apparent interaction with reality (ultimately, through their apparent constraint by reality) – a functional distinction between knowledge and non-knowledge. We cannot understand the dishonest question “What would we like to embrace as knowledge?” to be capable of any such distinction. Basically, we can find no coherent constraint on ‘what we would like’. [Que Annie Lennox; and 'Sweet Dreams are Made of This'.] Anything - and so, in the end, nothing - can be clearly selected. Bottom line: The final basis that must be invoked by the theists in support of their defining proposals can be clearly seen to be inoperable.

If the above seems to be making some sense then the full essay can read at http://www.poppersinversion.blogspot.com

Best regards,

Keith

[boyntonstu]

Aye, a good programme there. It's basically the filmed version of The God Delusion (or perhaps it's the other way around), and for the best experience you should read the book, too. It has more shades of grey and goes more in-depth about the documentary's subject.

Neither am I. To state that something is the root of all evil is just ridiculous.


Actually the rejection of data and science in favor of a belief is the root of ALL evil.

The belief that you must accumulate a lot of money is the root of money evildoers.

The belief that you must have power over others, is the root of power evildoers.

It is believing without accepting any new information that is the root of all evil.


My main beef is the belief in life after death.

When a murderer kills you he/she is not ending your life according to their illogical beliefs.

This is especially true of Islamic Jihadist suicide bombers and their belief in obtaining a glorious afterlife with an endless supply of virgins.

BoyntonStu

[hamelekim]

Actually the rejection of data and science in favor of a belief is the root of ALL evil.

The belief that you must accumulate a lot of money is the root of money evildoers.

The belief that you must have power over others, is the root of power evildoers.

It is believing without accepting any new information that is the root of all evil.


My main beef is the belief in life after death.

When a murderer kills you he/she is not ending your life according to their illogical beliefs.

This is especially true of Islamic Jihadist suicide bombers and their belief in obtaining a glorious afterlife with an endless supply of virgins.

BoyntonStu

I don't know about that. Scientific thought can be used for horrendous things, like wiping out genetically inferior people, mentally or physically handicapped in the name of scientific progress.

Religion has played a very important role throughout human history, and it hasn't been negative in the sense of religion in and of itself is bad, although some religions could be considered evil, Baal child sacrifice comes to mind.

During the first half of the 20th century scientific reasoning was used to justify sterilizing people, wiping out Jews, Gays, etc...

I would argue that the root of all evil is human nature, and that any political/economic/religious institution can be used by humanity for evil.

I do agree about Islam though. It is most definitely a religion of violence and domination in its purest form, just as Christianity is a religion of extreme pacifism in essence.

[Ethan Thane Athen]

...
I do agree about Islam though. It is most definitely a religion of violence and domination in its purest form, just as Christianity is a religion of extreme pacifism in essence.

Pacifism? What like 'Smite the unbeliever?' I think you'll find the bible has as much, if not more, exhortations to violence as the koran. Many of the more extremist Islamic notions have little to do with what the koran actually says. For example: if you extracted the koran's equivalent of the ten commandments they would include: 'Placing women on a pedestal and revering them'; and 'Tolerance and understanding of non-believers'.

Exactly as with the bible, people can pick and choose and twist whichever bits suit their purpose.

[hamelekim]

Pacifism? What like 'Smite the unbeliever?' I think you'll find the bible has as much, if not more, exhortations to violence as the koran. Many of the more extremist Islamic notions have little to do with what the koran actually says. For example: if you extracted the koran's equivalent of the ten commandments they would include: 'Placing women on a pedestal and revering them'; and 'Tolerance and understanding of non-believers'.

I am not talking about God Judging, which is really what you are arguing against, which is a whole other discussion.

I'm talking about how Christians are told to conduct themselves. They are supposed to be generous to a fault, and love everyone, even those who hate them, and despise and use them. They are not told to smite anyone.

If you want to get into a discussion about the old testament, start with the fact that God used Israel to pass his judgments on those who he wanted to punish for their sin. In fact, there is a very interesting belief, and I think it's true, that the people who God had wiped out were either Angel Human hybrids, or they were extremely evil societies who sacrificed babies, etc...

Of course God has every right to wipe out all of humanity for being inherently evil.

As for Islam. It is not a religion of peace, and those who espouse the peaceful nature of Islam are like the weak Christians who attend church once a year or who think gay marriage is fine.

Exactly as with the bible, people can pick and choose and twist whichever bits suit their purpose.
Yes, you can do that with anything. But if you have a proper hermeneutics then you don't run into issues like that. You must always look at context, you cannot take a single verse out of context and apply it however you want.

[Rairun]

Actually the rejection of data and science in favor of a belief is the root of ALL evil.

The belief that you must accumulate a lot of money is the root of money evildoers.

The belief that you must have power over others, is the root of power evildoers.

It is believing without accepting any new information that is the root of all evil.


My main beef is the belief in life after death.

When a murderer kills you he/she is not ending your life according to their illogical beliefs.

This is especially true of Islamic Jihadist suicide bombers and their belief in obtaining a glorious afterlife with an endless supply of virgins.

BoyntonStu

Values aren't grounded in empirical data. The belief you must accumulate a lot of money isn't any different from the belief that it's not necessary to be rich. Science doesn't tell anyone how to live; it just gives us the means to achieve our goals, whatever they may be.