Is Religion the Root of all Evil? Part 2
My thoughts on the second part of Richard Dawkins' Channel 4 programme. (By the way, did anyone else notice that there were very few adverts during this programme, and would anyone like to speculate as to why?)
In part 2, the Prof tackles religious schools. “There is something exceedingly odd about the existence of sectarian religious schools. If we hadn’t got used to it over the centuries, we would find it bizarre.” Religion, he says, is alone in being allowed to define children by their parents’ beliefs – you don’t hear, for example, of “Labour children” or “Tory children” in the way you hear about “Muslim children” or “Christian children”.
When schools teach creationism as truth – that the world was created in six days, 5,000 years ago, more recently than when most archaeologists agree that the agricultural revolution took place! - it is miseducation, “innocent children being saddled with demonstrable falsehoods”.
So far, so good.
He points out that there are 7,000 ‘faith schools’ in Britain, and that is set to increase, with more than half of the new Academies expected to be sponsored by religious organisations.
But unfortunately, he goes no further in discussing government policy, or mainstream ‘faith schools’, and instead takes the path of least resistance and takes up the cudgels against private, ‘extreme’ religious schools.
It was a sorely missed opportunity to argue with those who agree that the ‘extreme’ (I dislike that word, for these reasons) version is bad, but would defend mainstream ‘faith schools’ on the grounds that they do teach science, don’t teach creationism, teach kids about different religions, don’t really force it down people’s throats, get good exam results etc. You’d have to look elsewhere for a good argument on this.
Dawkins interviews Rabbi Gluck from North London, who presents the indoctrination of children as the right of communities to pass on their culture and traditions. Dawkins also tells us about Accelerated Christian Education (ACE), in which there is no R.E. because every subject is taught in a ‘Christian’ way (Noah’s Ark figures in the geography syllabus, health education informs pupils that AIDS is the wages of sin).
Adrian Hawkes, of the Phoenix Academy, argues that if there is no god, then there is no lawgiver, and therefore no reason for anything to be considered right or wrong. Professor Dawkins rightly expresses astonishment that you would do good things just to please god, rather than because they were good things. He might have mentioned (but didn’t) that democracy is a lawgiver in the absence of god.
Dawkins went on to expound his idea that religious superstition is a dangerous virus, passed on by clerics, teachers and parents. Maybe that’s a useful analogy, I’m not sure. But if it is, let’s take it further. Viruses are transmitted from person to person in ways which medical science can explain. But the ways in which they are passed on – and the effect they have on individuals – is also strongly influenced by the social conditions in which they live. Viruses spread more quickly, and harm more gravely, in conditions of poverty, inadequate housing, poor nutrition, lack of freedom and democratic accountability, and lack of access to medical services. I reckon that religious superstition does too, but Dawkins does not address this.
There was an interesting interview with a woman to tries to help people recover from childhoods terrorised by religion (conducted, correct me if I am wrong, in the lovely Clissold Park). There was a witty expose of the Bible’s claims to be a moral code, when in fact its Old Testament at times advocates rape, human sacrifice, and killing family members who try to convince you to follow other gods; and its New Testament introduces St. Paul’s “nasty, sado-masochistic doctrine of atonement for original sin”.
There was also some horrifying stuff from the USA about ‘Hellhouses’ – theatrical performances designed to terrify you into following God – and the murder of doctors who carry out abortions. As a thought-on-the-side, I wondered how a country which has these things, and has so many millions of ‘believers’, also made the excellent CSI (premise: evidence is everything) its favourite TV show.
We did have an interview with a liberal cleric, Bishop of Oxford Richard Harries, who Dawkins takes to task for ‘cherry-picking’ the Bible. And a thought-provoking discussion about “how science reveals the true origins of human morality” – through “altruistic genes”, Dawkins argues.
At the end of two hours TV, what is my overall view of all this?
Dawkins is right to counterpose science to religion. But to me, his failing is that he counterposes only science to religion.
At the end of last night’s programme, Dawkins returns to the theme with which he opened last week: “The here and now is not something to be endured before some eternal life. The here and now is all we have got. Atheism is life-affirming in a way that religion can never be.” Amen to that, as they say.
Life is beautiful, he says. Quite right. But what he does not say is that life does not look so beautiful if you live in a slum, or under military occupation, or in fear, or if you don’t know where your next meal is coming from, if you are exploited or discriminated against.
Leon Trotsky said something more complete that Dawkins does: “Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression and violence and enjoy it to the full.” Dawkins’ atheism allows him to appreciate that life is beautiful, but he says nothing of the need to cleanse it of anything other than religious superstition, and in doing so, weakens his attempts even to do that.
I reviewed part one here.
- Janine's blog
- Login or register to post comments
- Printer-friendly version
Atheological musings
As with part one, the empahsis on the "extremist" fringes was not helpful. On various occasions throughout both parts, Dawkins suggested that such people sat on an unborken spectrum with more moderate believers, perhaps even constituted the logical endpoint of faith. I don't think he really managed to prove that though.
I thought the last twenty-or-so minutes were by far the strongest. The discussion with Richard Harries was interesting and much more relevant given that such people are the kind of believers we are most likely to meet (at least I hope that's the case). I really liked the bits about the immanence of morality as a counterpoint to the religious idea that it needs to be imposed externally. It's an idea which I think is potentially very liberating.
I still think the show was a missed opportunity. There's a seemingly endless stream of shows extolling the virtues of faith, but very little putting the case for atheism. Indeed, I can't think of a comparable show in recent times. I doubt it's won atheism many new converts. Pity.
Programmes on Atheism
The series by Jonathan Miller I thought was very good.
A brief History of Disbelief
Though it was about disbelief rather than atheism. Miller makes the distinction that disbelief is about never even thinking about whether there is something to believe in as opposed to atheism being a negative attitude to belief per se i.e to raise the question and answer it in the negative. Disbelief means never seeing any point in asking the question. Miller I think seems to argue that atheism may be required as an antidote in an age where theism is dominant, whereas in a future society atheism will not arise because the question will not arise.
Arthur Bough
Religion
I think Dawkins sets up a series of straw men, only too easy to knock down. I guess the Left is happy to go along with the illusion that religion is simple fantasy and full of stupid notions. Yet asserting something is so does not make it true.
For example, Janine refers to: 'St. Paul’s “nasty, sado-masochistic doctrine of atonement for original sin”' Well how is the idea that, if i may crudely summarise, that there is some way to break free from a cycle of evil 'sado-masochistic'? There is nothing sadistic or masochistic in the idea, whether you agree or disagree, of atonement.
Original Sin and Sado Masechism
You obviously did not see or else did not understand Dawkins explanation of this. Dawkins points out that St. Paul's doctrine is based on a myth - the myth of the existence of Adam and Eve, and Adam's act of original sin. According to the Old Testament, without this original act Man was free of Sin, but after it all future men are guilty of original sin because the sins of the father's are visited upon the children. Thus even a neww born baby is from that moment on sinful.
If we then turn to the New Testament and St Paul his argument is that Jesus crucifixion was to atone for this sin of mankind. But as Dawkins argues if God had wanted to forgive Man for this sin, there was no need to put Jesus (who is God anyway) through severe pain and anguish, he could soimply have said "I forgive you." He didn't, so why. Dawkins argues that to put his son (who is at the same time Him) though the torture and suffering of crucifiion unneccesarily is to demonstrate sado-masechistic tendencies i.e. God must enjoy pain and suffering because otherwise why inflict it on himself.
Now of course, there is another explanation (in fact several). One is that the whole thing is a load of bunk from start to finish. Another is that the Old testament was written by a bunch of bloodthirsty Hebrew warlords to justify their various military campaigns. Another is that the New Testament was written by a lot of Men long after Jesus died who never knew him, and had little real udnerstanding of what he was or stood for, and who carved out a political and social position for themselves constrructed upon his popularity, and a mythology built around him largely made up of old stories stolen from other historical figures.
The last at least we know to be true in the way that the Apostles pushed out Mary Magdalen's followers who as I have written elsewhere was the closest person to Jesus (now accepted by the Catholic Church) and whose views appear to be in conflict with the views later expounded. Many of the more far fetched aspects such as the resurrection, Virgin birth etc. certainly only appear much later. There also seems to be some convincing evidence now that Jesus the historical figure rather than they mythological figure was indeed some kind of teacher, more like the Dalai Lama than the conventional description. Indeed, the Wise Men story is much like the way such wise men are sent out to find the new Dalai Lama when the old one dies. The early period of Jesus life of which the Bible says nothing also coincides with the period in which such a teacher would be trained, and there is strong evidence that Jesus in fact went to Kashmir, where he was trained in the writings of the Buddha. Much of his teachings, for example, the Sermon On the Mount, are almost word for word transcriptions of teaching of the Buddha.
Almost identical with the time of the crucifixion a Jewish teacher is recorded as having returned from Palestine to Kashmir, and took the name in Kasmiri equivalent to The Shepherd. He is buried in a temple in Kashmir beneath another teacher - a Muslim. X-rays of the lower body have shown that it has two marks in the feet in positions consistent with them being from a nail driven through both feet if one was placed on the other. This is not of course proof that it is the body of Jesus the historical figure, because plenty of people were crucified by the Romans, though not that many were nailed to the cross. There are however written and oral recordss stating that the man had claimed that he was Jesus. If true it blows apart the resurrection myth, about which many prgrammes have been produced setting out the strange circumstances - short time on the cross, the application of a sponge to the mouth after which death like symptoms occurred etc., etc.
Arthur Bough
Don
'strong evidence that Jesus in fact went to Kashmir, where he was trained in the writings of the Buddha.'
Can you provide a source for that?
Maybe
It is from a TV Documentary, off BBC Four entitled "Did Jesus Die?"
Did Jesus Die BBC Four
The reference also contained here about Mary Magdalene going to France is fairly well established, and there is lots of information from various sources about how the Vatican was blackmailed by a village priest in France who uncovered her remains, and so the story goes the fact that she had born a child to Jesus. The rest of this story is linked to the idea that the Holy Grail is mistaken Latin - Sang Real meaning Holy Blood (i.e. the blood line of Jesus) which was to be protected by a secret society (I presume the Illuminati), rather than San Greal - Holy Grail.
Further details here:
Jesus' Tomb in Shrinegar
Arthur Bough
Dan Brown
This of course is the basis for The Da Vinci Code, and there is now an entire industry (including a tourist industry) about this stuff.
All of which makes me rather sceptical about it.
The Da Vinci Code
Dan Brown took the information that had already been collated by many authors over a considerable period, and then did what many fiction writers do - he took existing information and wove it into a story. I completed a novel myself a couple of years ago, and did exactly the same thing. But the fact that what I wrote as fiction was fiction did not change the basis of the real events I used as being fact.
I am sceptical too about a lot of this stuff, but a lot of it was produced a long time before Brown by people who have not been part of the industry now grown up around the Da Vinci codes. The fact that the Catholic Church forc centuries tried to diminsh the role of Mary Magdalene as Christ's closest collaborator, deliberately tried to slur her as being a prostitute etc., and that she was effectively carved up by Peter is not at issue, the Catholic Church have admitted it, and apologised for it.
The existence of the tomb in Shrinegar is not in dispute, though of course who is buried there is another matter. But, we do know that a man named Jesus did live. Which version do you prefer, that he died on a cross and was miraculously resurrected, or that he was a man like any other who didn't die but either lapsed into or was encouraged into, by drugs, a death like coma from which he awoke, and was whisked away along the silk road to India where he lived out the rest of his life.
Arthur Bough
A load of tosh!
It was a load of shite. As a Theist it made me laugh. Is Dawkins a professor! O h deary me maybe he should stick to science, he is no philosopher. Something for the chattering classes, not for someone with some grey matter!
Grey Matter
As someone presumably with grey matter (doesn't everyone have that or do you question the science of anatomy too) perhaps you could back up your outburst with some facts or argument. Oh no I forgot you are a theist, and therefore things like facts and evidence get in the way of your bigotry.
Arthur Bough
Atonement
You, and Richard Dawkins before you, ask, Why the atonement? You ask a good but very profound theological question. The answer lies in the holiness and justice of God, and in his love and mercy. It is contained in the full content of the Bible, the sacrificial system of the Old Testament and God's endless grace. Can any human being grasp the holiness of God? Can we grasp what it meant for Jesus to live a life without sin? Even to lust after a woman or a man is to sin, so what hope have we, who take sin so lightly? Even the best of us may think a small sin to-day will not matter - tomorrow we will make up. But no such let-out was available for Jesus: he could not sin even once if he was to fulfill his mission. Can we understand the atonement? Not fully, for God's way and his understanding are far above ours.
When I studied political philosophy, I was impressed by analysis of the many philosophers I read, but not one of them presented a convincing solution to the problems they found. It was only when I realised the Bible was true that I found not only the most convincing analysis yet but also the only convincing solution. The Bible tells life as it is, but it also gives us the answer to the human condition - faith in Jesus. Surprising as it may seem, it works: we can't explain it, it just does work, and thousands - millions - will agree from their own experiences.
I doubt I can explain the atonement satisfactorily to you - perhaps I don't even understand it myself. But this I know - I know it is true and it works.
Lust
Why is lust sinful?
All together now: "Because the Bible says so". It's a no-brainer, folks.
Personally, I enjoy it a great deal.
Perhaps a good thing too
Its a good job most of God's children enjoy a good lust too, or else their wouldn't be any God's children.
Arthur Bough
Lots of men have committed ev
Lots of men have committed evil acts..maybe they are the root of all evil? Or, how about human beings? Maybe we should commit mass suicide.
My point..hate is the root of all evil. And every race, every type of person who hates will find any reason to practice it. Surely we're smart enough by now to figure something as small as that out. And maybe then we will finally stop attacking everyone who is different.
Reason and History
(Sorry, I couldn't work out how to log in)
Love of money is "the root of all evil" (St Paul).
Richard Dawkins said a great deal that many Christians would applaud - straw targets, as one writer says. How many Christians in UK think it is OK to kill someone for supposedly breaking a Bible rule? None, I hope: that is totally opposite to everything Jesus stands for.
However, one of Richard's repeated themes was simply wrong: Christianity is not "blind faith"; it is no more blind than his insistence that evolution is "fact". Yes, microevolution is fact, easily seen and repeatable, but surely no scientist believes that macroevolution is fact: it cannot be replicated, so it is a hypothesis. It is scientists' interpretation of data; perhaps one day RD will be faced with a professor who turns his theory upside down: I hope he will go and shake his hand and congratulate him.
Christianity is rational and is based on historical evidence backed up by archaeological findings. Many people have set out to prove Christianity to be untrue and have not only failed but they have been totally convinced of its truth: some have written books about it. It would be interesting to know if anybody who set out on that mission did succeed. It shouldn't be that difficult: all you have to prove is that Jesus was not crucified OR that he did not die on the cross OR that he was not buried OR that he did not rise again in the body. In fact, the evidence in favour of the truth of those events is overwhelming, but it is "historical" evidence, which Dawkins, a scientist, may not understand or appreciate, even though we accept without question many historical events with less evidence for them than exists for Jesus's death and resurrection.
Proof
You say that Christianity is rational and based on fact. I think that there may well be rationality in Christianity, all moral philosophies have some degree of rationality. I was at a meeting a year or so ago when a speaker had just returned from visiting communities in the Arctic Circle. She said that all of the people in these communities took it as being a duty to provide stranger's or visitors with whatever they asked for. This had the aspect of a moral code, and she said the people were most upset when they could not provide something she asked for. But this moral code was based on a rationality. As she said because of the climate if someone asked for say a button, not providing it might mean the person died because of being unable to keep a coat sufficiently fastened. As no one would themselves want to die for that reason it was rational to establish it as morality.
As I have written in another post much of the teachings of Jesus Christ are virtually identical to the teachings of the Buddha from some 500 years earlier. Interestingly, as far as Budhists are concerned the idea of God is not the same as for Christians. Buddhists believe in Enlightenment through meditation, and this Enlightenment does not lead them to Heaven but reintegrates them with the Universe "the dewdrop slips into the shining sea". In other words GOD is everything and each living thing is therefore part of God. Again many of the teachings of Buddha have a rational kernel. For example, the idea that unhappiness comes from desire is based on simple observation. If I want to win the Eurolotery and pin all my hopes on it, I am setting myself up for dissapointment and unhappiness.
But the fact that some of the teachings of Jesus or Buddha or any moral philosophy have some rational basis does not mean that acceptance of them as a religion is rational. I can quite easily take some of the teachings of Jesus or the Buddha and recognise htem as sound principles on which to decide upon moral courses of action without imbuing the source of these teachings with supernatural qualities, true and rational because they come from God.
Finally, you say that all anyone has to do is prove that the "facts" are false. No it is up to those who would have us accept them that they are true. As the links I have given above argue the balance of probability is certainly against those "facts" being true. As Dawkins points out Paul's doctrine of Original Sin makes no sense if God/Jesus was omnipotent - God could simply have said "I forgive you" without all the drama. Secondly, a normal crucifixion lasted 30 hours, yet Jesus was on the cross for just 6. Thirdly, there is every likelihood that the reason for his apparent early death was the administration of drugs via the spong put to his mouth by the disciples as there were many drugs known at the time that would have induced a death like coma. Fourthly, the stories of the Disciples did not talk about a miraculous resurrection, which you would have thought they would have done. These stories only appeared seevral hundred years later as the Gospels were written (and there were many other Gospels written which did not contain the stories included in the Bible, but the authors of the Bible rejected a number of these other versions of events). Finally, as the link I have provided above argues there is evide not only to suggest that the reason that nothing is said in the Bible about Jesus early life is because he was in India being given religious instruction by Budhists (hence the wise men from the East), and that he returned there after escaping the Romans after the failed crucifixion attempt, and lived out his life until he died aged 80, and was buried in Shrinegar.
Can I prove that is true, no, but using your criteria above all you have to do is prove it is false. Given that in recent times we have very little evidecne of supernatural events such as miracles or resurrections, but plenty of evidence of events eplainable by science, including people coming out of death like comas, or even back from the dead after there heart has stopped, I would suggest that on the balance of probability the lattere xplanation is more likely to be true.
Arthur Bough
Quick crucifixion
I am interested in the idea that Jesus survived crusifixion and lived out the remainder of his natural life in Srinagar. The 'coma inducing drug' theory of the quick crusifixion is relatively new to me and seems very plausible. As a catholic I recieved more than my fair share of religious education (indoctrination) and the quick crusifixion was explained by the wound in Jesus' right side. this was said to be from the spear that he was impaled on while on the cross. A quick death was gauranteed by piercing both lungs and the heart. Death was intended to be hastened, prior to the impaling, by the breaking of Jesus' legs. This would have hastened the process of asphixiation which is how a person dies on the cross. He didn't die quck enough so the impaling was used. The thing that was never explained to me was why they were so keen to get this dirty deed done and dusted so quickly
Exactly
What also seems strange is that Pilate also thought it odd that he had died so quickly, which rather cuts across the idea that they did want to get it over with quickly. mY udnrestanding is that the wound from the spear was made because it was thought odd he'd died so quickly. According to the BBC programme I have given the link to above the death came pretty quickly after the sponge had been put to his mouth.
As the programme outlined it is quite possible that the Disciples might have thought something miraculous had happened if he did simply fall into a death like coma and revived, and even that he might have believed it himself. We are more used to people coming back from the dead now, but it would have seemed odd back then. But whether it was induced or natural it seems the most likely explanation, and having done so the first thing you would want to do would be to make a quick exit. None of the original stories talk about the resurrection as it has later come down i.e. the body disappears and then he comes back only to ascend. That is only introduced by the Apostles several hundred years later.
I think the fact that the coincidence of nothing be said about his early life coinciding with the period a young student would have been trained in the teachings of the Buddha, the almost word for word similarity of some of the teaching with those of the Buddha, and the fact that this man says in Kashmir that he is Jesus (why would you do that in a country where there is no significant Christian presence at that time), and the fact that a body is buried there with nail marks from a crucifixion gives some credibility to the idea. As I said above far more a likely scenario than a supernatural resurection anyway.
Arthur Bough
Evidence
Arthur, You are missing what I was trying to say. Dawkins and others say religion is blind and dogmatic. No doubt some is (but then so is science in some aspects). However, Christianity is based on historical events. The authenticity of these events can be tested by applying the highest levels of intellectual power and investigative skill and rational thought, as is science. Historical "proof" is different from scientific "proof", but is still valid. You may not personally be convinced of the evidence, but it is deeply misleading to suggest that there is no evidence.
I suppose that there is not a lot of doubt about the Buddha's life and no doubt he thought some nice thoughts; the controversy comes in his theories of the eight-fold path, reincarnation and nirvana. I don't know of any way of checking the truth of these theories: can they be tested scientifically or historically or philosophically? Jesus too no doubt thought nice thoughts - he said some very hard things as well - but what matters is less what Jesus thought but above all what he did. If he did not die on the cross and rise again, that's the end of Christianity, in which case I have to ask, Who cares what he said or thought or whether he went to Srinagar or anything else?
Much of what Jesus said is derived from the Old Testament, which was coming to an end as Buddhism was getting going. On your theory therefore the Buddha probably derived his thought also from the Old Testament. However, Jesus spoke very differently from the Buddha; for example he spoke with authority, the authority of God, who he claimed to be. Uniquely, Jesus says that salvation comes through him alone, not through belief in any particular creed or through certain actions. Not at all like the Buddha.
I Think You Are Confused
I think you are confused about your historical evidence. First of all the Old Testament relates to events around 5-7,000 B.C. in fact to around the time when civilisation was beginning, when nomadic tribes were beginning to settle down. I don't see how this was coming to an end just as Jesus began to teach, it had ended several thousand years earlier. The Buddha, however, was far more recent living just 500 years before Jesus.
I don't know how you can say that much of Jesus' teaching is based on the Old Testament, it quite clearly is not. The God of the Hebrews Jaweh is quite clearly a cruel spiteful God, but the kind of God the Hebrews would have wanted to believe in as their personal God looking after their interests in their wars against other tribes. The message of hatred spewed out on virtually every page of the Old Testament is in stark contrast to the teachings of Jesus.
Additionally, you seem to confuse the actual teaching of Jesus and the things he claimed for himself with the mythical Jesus figure created by the later writers of the BIble who sought to create a supernatural figure in order to give their sect a bit of a boost. These writers came 300 or more years after Jesus died, and a lot of what they wrote is completely without foundation and contradcted by the other accounts of Jesus life and teaching written by his contemporaries including his brother James. Virtually none of the supernatural stuff like the Ascent into heaven is mentioned in these contemporary accounts, and you would have thought it might have been worth a mention as you don't see people just ascend to heaven every day do you. Or there is the other example of the Virgin Mary whose death is never mentioned anywhere from which it was concluded by later writers that she never died. Although again here was absolutely no reason to believe it, no account of it happening anywhere the Catholic Church decided that she too had simply ascended to heaven without dying, and that was decreed official doctrine.
Every society has these kinds of myths that grow like a game of Chinese whispers.
Does the fact that Jesus didn't get resurrected or ascend to Heaven or wasn't the Son of God mean that nothing he said was worth anything. Of course not. There are many philosophers that have never claimed to be any other than totally human, but who have said very profound things, and offered perpsectives on life, and how we should live it that are still valuable. Only those who find the need to look to some "other" whether it be Gods, spirits, or Aliens thereby diminish the power of ourselves as human beings to understand the universe we live in, and to make the rules and create the environement in which we can all live in paradise, and not just the chosen few.
Arthur Bough
I think s/he is extremely confused
"Dawkins and others say religion is blind and dogmatic. However, Christianity is based on historical events. The authenticity of these events can be tested by applying the highest levels of intellectual power and investigative skill and rational thought, as is science. Historical "proof" is different from scientific "proof", but is still valid."
Christianity is not just a set of moral principles. That would make it an ethical philosophy rather than a religion. A religion is by definition based on a belief in the supernatural. You can amass all the evidence you like about Christ as a historical person, but since you will not be able to prove that he was the son of God, or even that there is a god, it will be beside the point.
This is why the idea of faith has become so important in religion, whereas earlier theologians thought they could logically prove the existence of God. The whole point about faith (if you exclude the Pascal's wager argument) is that it is IRrational.
Atheists, incidentally, do not have to prove anything as we are not putting forward a theory about Life, the Universe and Everything. We are saying your 'theory' (and any other supernatural explanation) does not have any evidence to support it and that therefore there is no good reason to believe it.
All this Kashmiri stuff is interesting speculation but a little fanciful I would say. However I have always been struck by the similarity between the Hindu and Christian trinities and of course Christ and Krishna occupy similar positions in these.
Anyway, how have so many evangelical Christians found their way onto a Marxist website? Perhaps they have been Googling on "Dawkins"??
BB