Richard Dawkins: The Enemies of Reason

[ParanoiA]

I agree that that's what he focuses on primarily in the show, but he definitely tackles mainstream religion as well, and the "harm" issue from mainstream religion is stated right up front as his premise for the entire show.

 

The direct assault on mainstream religion may not be actually there in so many words, but it's hovering just beneath the surface.

 

It is, but the surface isn't breached. Probably because he wants to be more careful with it. Just a hunch, mind you, because I watched a half hour Q&A with him just after a reading from his God Delusion book, and he fields several questions on this, obviously. I thought he came across far more thoughtful and careful when criticizing religion. Although he tries to make a case for child abuse concerning the concept of hell. Not sure I'm on board for that, but he has a point at least.

 

You should watch that one, unless you're already well versed in Dawkins. I'm not, so I find much of this fascinating. I'm looking forward to reading God Delusion too.

[Pangloss]

Yah I just find it hard to see how such an intelligent man would find a few tarot cards and tea-leaf readers to be "The Root of All Evil" (his name for the series). That's a pretty strong statement for something that so clearly falls under the category of "mostly harmless". Clearly he wants you to know he's talking about organized, mainstream religion.

[iNow]

Yah I just find it hard to see how such an intelligent man would find a few tarot cards and tea-leaf readers to be "The Root of All Evil" (his name for the series). That's a pretty strong statement for something that so clearly falls under the category of "mostly harmless". Clearly he wants you to know he's talking about organized, mainstream religion.

 

I think you'll find that he does not call the practitioners of these practices "the root of all evil," but the illogical belief in their efficacy and importance, especially in the face of clear, consistent, and repeatable evidence to the contrary.

[John Cuthber]

People don't, as a rule, kill people.

In order to get your soldiers to kill the oppositions soldiers its easiest to make believe that they are not killing other humans at all. You need to find some way to label the opposition so that they are, for example, vermin. Then it's not killing people; it's just pest control.

A good way to make the "other side" look like vermin is to label them as dirty unbelievers (I accept that labeleing them as dirty believers of the "wrong" faith worked very well for Hitler but the difference between "no faith" and "not our faith" is easilly overlooked).

 

Religion is clearly one way to do this- race is another. There are probably others too.

 

The other thing you need to do in order to get people to kill other people (in addition to dehumanising them) is to give some sort of moral justification for the deaths.

"they invaded our land" or even "they invaded our friend's land"

works quite well but who can argue with "God says it's right"?

Well I can because I don't believe in any God. On the other hand, those brought up to believe, for example that wafers of bread and a sip of wine turn into flesh and blood on the way down the throat are used to accepting absurd notions.

Start them while they are young believing in Santa Claus and keep them mystified by misrepresenting the truths that science has produced and they will be much easier to manipulate from the point of view of those in power.

Even the mild mannered church of England still encourages a lack of thought on matters of "faith". As such it is just as dangerous as any fanatical band of nutters.

Once you accept that it's OK to tell lies then you have crossed the line. Unless you accept Genesis as historical fact then you have to accept that preaching it as anything but an ancient myth or a metaphor is dishonest.

Race is another contentious point. My observation is that people are poeople and there's not a lot of difference between the so called races. That makes racist belief irrational (at least in my experience). It's easy to raise a rabble with a cry along the lines of you fear them because they are different so burn them to death. (It's funny, but they never seem to phrase it like that)

To try the same with "They are damn near identical to you- burn them to death" won't work so well.

Only if you can get people to act irrationally can you get a race riot started. (and like any riot, once it's started it's very hard to stop). Religion and the anti- science movement are a part of promoting that irrationallity.

 

Wouldn't we be better off without them?

 

As for "If the UK would receive a government, which is totally in line with the point of view of Dawkins, would the UK be a good place to live?

If the UK would receive a government, which is totally in line with the point of view of ANYBODY, would the UK be a good place to live? Hell no. "

 

There's a world of difference between a dictatorship by Dawkins and a government based on his viewpoint ie that all decisions should be based on the best available evidence.

 

If someone sets up a country which subscribes to the latter then I am going to apply for nationallity.

[ParanoiA]

Yah I just find it hard to see how such an intelligent man would find a few tarot cards and tea-leaf readers to be "The Root of All Evil" (his name for the series). That's a pretty strong statement for something that so clearly falls under the category of "mostly harmless". Clearly he wants you to know he's talking about organized, mainstream religion.

 

You may be right. It seems more likely, to me anyway, that he's saying it's the combined effect of all of the various unsubstantiated beliefs in the supernatural and the declining interest in actual science that is the root of all evil.

 

And then consider how spirituality in one area promotes spirituality in another. It's not so hard to accept feng shui when you have astrology, wicca and etc.. This stuff is terribly prolific and I have to wonder too, about the sanity and health of humanity when more people seem to trust this stuff than real science.

 

I guess I just think it's a good conversation for everyone to be having. I know it has annoyed me my whole life...

[1veedo]

I think you'll find that he does not call the practitioners of these practices "the root of all evil," but the illogical belief in their efficacy and importance, especially in the face of clear, consistent, and repeatable evidence to the contrary.

Dawkins didn't want the series to be called "the root of all evil." The produces picked the name and they couldn't get Dawkins to do the show for them until they changed the title to "The root of all evil?" (notice the question mark), and he didn't even like that title but still agreed to do the show. I think ParanoiA is right when he says Dawkins is careful when criticizing religion (post 51) and the proof of this is the fact that Dawkins doesn't even like the title of his own TV show.

 

Religious people are just bunching up their panties because they feel threatened by Dawkins but in reality he's taking a very calm, objective, and I'd say thoughtful approach to the topics of God and other superstitions.

 

The funny thing is that most religious people would agree with The Enemies of Reason if they didn't already know who Dawkins is.

[Blade]

R. Dawkings could / should have used more material from Derren Brown fore illustration.

 

like:

Derren Brown "voodoo"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lW2yKlNFFuU

 

Derren Brown "instant conversion" part 1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Sq-YUdq1OI

 

Derren Brown "instant conversion" part 2

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-DylNVUN_3I

 

Derren Brown - Cold Reading

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=btP_vy5cQq4

[shadowacct]

There's a world of difference between a dictatorship by Dawkins and a government based on his viewpoint ie that all decisions should be based on the best available evidence.

 

If someone sets up a country which subscribes to the latter then I am going to apply for nationallity.

1984??

Kim Il Sung?

 

Of course, I'm exaggerating a lot, but I really believe that this will be the final consequence of a government, based on Dawkins ideas. It certainly will not start with this (that is not what Dawkins wants), but it may well end with this.

It will start with calling the ideas of large parts of society harmful (e.g. the Roman Catholics, the Muslims, or whatever religious group). All kinds of rights these people have in society will be withdrawn (e.g. their holidays, their century-old rights on the use of land and buildings), because they are regarded as being harmful and harmful things should not be supported by the government. After some time, there will be common consensus that religion is not good for society, so it is decided to make organized religion a forbidden thing. Next step will be intervention in the private life of people (e.g. parents may not raise their children with their personal faith and the things they find most important). Of course, children all will receive a unified governmental thought-control during their young school years. Finally, we have a new "GOD", called "REASON". In reality, however, reason will be dead by long at that time.

 

I have seen too many examples of regimes which started off with some 'good ideology'. They developed into the worst regimes mankind has known in its history. I do not say that this is Dawkins idea, I'm 100% sure not.

But history has shown, that if such ideas are combined with power (e.g. through a government), then they turn into a monster. Here I think that Severian is right. Dawkins represents a certain power through his affiliation at a prominently visible organization, and as such he has a responsibility to represent (and use?) that power wisely.

 

There is another important reason, why a government, such as described by John cannot work. The decisions, made by such a government are based on only one aspect of human life: reason/intellect. In real life, human life is controlled by many (sometimes competing) forces. Emotion, feelings, love, beauty, all of these cannot be controlled by reason. E.g. the decision to keep an old but impractical building, is that based on reason? I do not think so. It is kept, because someone thinks it is beautiful. Another person may find it valuable, because it is so old and mystical. Yet another person likes the cool and dark rooms because they give him a feeling of being connected to earlier generations. From a rational point of view, the building should be broken down right now and be replaced by a modern one, which is highly efficient with energy, which uses the occupied space in a more practical way, etc. But here, ratio does not work. Trying to organize life completely based on ratio, only uses 20% (or so) of man's capabilities. Wouldn't that be sad? Life would become narrow.

 

We actually have seen such things happening in the real world. Romania was in the process of getting rid of all those 'old and impractical' habitats. Old villages were broken down, the land was used for agriculture and the people were put in a few high flats, occupying less than 10% of the area of the original village. The same happened in the cities, where old 16th, 17th and 18th century buildings were broken down. Fortunately all this stopped after 1990.

[ParanoiA]

It will start with calling the ideas of large parts of society harmful (e.g. the Roman Catholics, the Muslims, or whatever religious group). All kinds of rights these people have in society will be withdrawn (e.g. their holidays, their century-old rights on the use of land and buildings), because they are regarded as being harmful and harmful things should not be supported by the government. After some time, there will be common consensus that religion is not good for society, so it is decided to make organized religion a forbidden thing. Next step will be intervention in the private life of people (e.g. parents may not raise their children with their personal faith and the things they find most important). Of course, children all will receive a unified governmental thought-control during their young school years. Finally, we have a new "GOD", called "REASON". In reality, however, reason will be dead by long at that time.

 

I understand where you're coming from, but why do you think encroached rights and oppression would follow from a Dawkins view? Isn't that possible under really any view? Any government and law set up to execute a particular person's point of view is going to be unjust to somebody. I never liked the question.

 

There's a world of difference between a dictatorship by Dawkins and a government based on his viewpoint ie that all decisions should be based on the best available evidence.

 

How about a Dawkins policy on War and Intelligence?

[Pangloss]

I think you'll find that he does not call the practitioners of these practices "the root of all evil," but the illogical belief in their efficacy and importance, especially in the face of clear, consistent, and repeatable evidence to the contrary.

 

(shrug) I'll be happy to rephrase:

 

Yah I just find it hard to see how such an intelligent man would find tarot cards and tea-leaf reading to be "The Root of All Evil" (his name for the series). That's a pretty strong statement for something that so clearly falls under the category of "mostly harmless". Clearly he wants you to know he's talking about organized, mainstream religion.

[iNow]

Yah I just find it hard to see how such an intelligent man would find tarot cards and tea-leaf reading to be "The Root of All Evil" (his name for the series). That's a pretty strong statement for something that so clearly falls under the category of "mostly harmless".

I take it you're not in marketing or adverstising.

 

Besides, I believe one of the posters above pointed out that this name for the series was not chosen by Dawkins, but was chosen by others. I cannot attest to the validity of this, but it does call into question the veracity of a statement grounded in that as the primary postulate.

[Pangloss]

Well, that's fair enough, I withdraw that specific comment then. I can understand how that sort of thing can happen.

[Severian]

I should also point out that Dawkins' employer, the University of Oxford, is not a private organisation. It is a state university and funded by the state.

[John Cuthber]

Sory Shadowacct, but I don't know much about Kim Il sung's regimen. Given the context in which you mentioned it I presume that when the evidence showed that it had problems it was scrapped and replaced. Either that or you seem to have missed my point.

Have you read 1984? It is about a state that exists by telling lies- the very antithesis of one based on evaluating the whole of the evidence. It's also one of the most desperately bleak books I have read. If anything it's a point in favour of my belief that an evidence based government would be good by showing what an evidence free world would be like.

I realise that the people in power would probablty try to corrupt the government to their onw personal ends but I can't help that would be more difficult if everyone were in the habit of thinking.

 

 

Rationallity doesn't preclude art by the way. The fact that people like old buildings is a reason to keep them. The fact that we could build, for example, more energy efficient ones is beside the point. I don't need to explain why I think that an old building is beautiful, if enough people agree with me then that's the end of the debate- the building stays.

 

I'm not sure about this statement from 1Veedo "I think ParanoiA is right when he says Dawkins is careful when criticizing religion (post 51) and the proof of this is the fact that Dawkins doesn't even like the title of his own TV show."

 

This is the man who wrote "The God delusion" (his title for it) and, in it, says that we should not be defferential to religion. He says in effect that we should think how we would react to someone saying "I live my life according to the laws of the invisible fairies at the bottom of my garden" and realise that's exactly how we should treat someone who says "I live my life according to the laws of one super-fairy who not only inhabits the bottom of my garden but everywhere else as well, but that's OK becase He made everything." Making the case that religion resembles insanity isn't being that careful about it.

 

I think Paranoia is dead right saying "You may be right. It seems more likely, to me anyway, that he's saying it's the combined effect of all of the various unsubstantiated beliefs in the supernatural and the declining interest in actual science that is the root of all evil. " and it puzzles me that anyone of a scientific nature doesn't agree.

[Royston]

I think Paranoia is dead right saying "You may be right. It seems more likely, to me anyway, that he's saying it's the combined effect of all of the various unsubstantiated beliefs in the supernatural and the declining interest in actual science that is the root of all evil. " and it puzzles me that anyone of a scientific nature doesn't agree.

 

In the UK at least, one of the main reasons for a decline in science is that students would rather take an easier option like media studies for example.

 

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/11/06/science_decline/

 

This was last year, I'll try and find a more up to date report.

 

The problem with Dawkins reasoning is that he seems to blame conflict, declining interest in the sciences, and anything else you care to mention on so-called irrational belief. Well this is definitely how he comes across, and it seems that there are other human traits that definitely play a part e.g ooh, that country has lots of resources, so we'll take those, and we'll go in the name of <insert belief here> so it's morally viable. What does power and greed have to do with irrational belief. That may seem like a tired cliche' but you can't reduce complex issues down to this Dawkonian view.

[ParanoiA]

The problem with Dawkins reasoning is that he seems to blame conflict, declining interest in the sciences, and anything else you care to mention on so-called irrational belief.

 

Agreed, but I don't have too much of an issue with it. It's a good something for everyone to chew on. How much of our beliefs are truly rational, or at least supported with some kind of verifiable evidence? And how much does this kind of belief hurt? On the surface it may not seem like much at all. But I think when you consider the snowball effect and the ways these beliefs effect our judgement in every day life and within the context of war and rule of law - I'm not so sure it's really as harmless as it seems.

 

Though I admit I think he's a little more harsh and confrontational than I had orginally thought. Maybe that's just his dispostion on Part 2, but I felt like he was more argumentative in that one. Although, he certainly seems to admit a placebo effect concerning homeopathy and similar things - and he even admitted value in that.

[john5746]

Well, I watched the show and found it rather tame for Dawkins. He can be a jerk, no doubt. That doesn't make him an enemy to reason. People are letting their prejudice get in the way of the material. Of course these quacky alternative medicines do nothing but delude the person into thinking they are getting some benefit.

[JohnB]

I'll possibly get shot for this but.....

 

Am I the only one who finds it amusingly ironic that the main claim to fame of the proclaimed leader of the "If I can't it or measure it, it doesn't exist" brigade is a philosophical/psychological concept that cannot be seen or measured?

[iNow]

Am I the only one who finds it amusingly ironic that the main claim to fame of the proclaimed leader of the "If I can't it or measure it, it doesn't exist" brigade is a philosophical/psychological concept that cannot be seen or measured?

 

Why do you think it can't be measured?

[john5746]

As far as the meme is concerned, I guess it could be measured by the amount of information contained? As in how much disk space it would take. It is a logical concept of something very real - information. Math is a logical concept as well. Religion is an illogical concept?

[AL]

I'll possibly get shot for this but.....

 

Am I the only one who finds it amusingly ironic that the main claim to fame of the proclaimed leader of the "If I can't it or measure it, it doesn't exist" brigade is a philosophical/psychological concept that cannot be seen or measured?

 

Perhaps because "If I can't see it or measure it, it doesn't exist" is an oversimplification and/or misrepresentation of the skeptics' position?

[ParanoiA]

I'll possibly get shot for this but.....

 

Am I the only one who finds it amusingly ironic that the main claim to fame of the proclaimed leader of the "If I can't it or measure it, it doesn't exist" brigade is a philosophical/psychological concept that cannot be seen or measured?

 

Awesome.

[John Cuthber]

OK what's his claim to fame?

[1veedo]

OK what's his claim to fame?

Being one of the world's greatest scientists of all time. Specifically his work in biology is what he's most famous for (eg The Selfish Gene, The Extended Phenotype).

[Severian]

Being one of the world's greatest scientists of all time. Specifically his work in biology is what he's most famous for (eg The Selfish Gene, The Extended Phenotype).

 

And what impact do these ideas have that makes him "one of the world's greatest scientists of all time"? I think you are either very ignorant of science or have a very warped sense of what is important.