anyone see dawkins on uk TV last night

[bananabrain]

saw the eminent dr richard dawkins (or "ranting rick") socking it to religionists on channel 4 last night. here's a link to the website.

http://www.channel4.com/culture/micr...otofevil1.html

dr dawkins is at his most interesting and convincing when he's giving darwinian explanations for things. however, when he's getting outraged about "judeo-christian superstition", he just comes across as a very angry man with no sense of nuance about religion. he just thinks it's stupid and that all religious people are basically evil liars. now, fair enough, he's entitled to his opinions, but i get rather irritated when he reduces the entire religious experience to the PoV of literalist christian bible-bashers. it is not evident from the programme that he has the slightest knowledge of how the Torah works from a traditional jewish PoV, nor did he appear to be interested in knowing. he just takes the text, interprets it himself and then tells off these rather bemused midwestern fundamentalists for their views. it was, rather unfortunately, a systematic misrepresentation of judaism to include it in this even as inspiration. the one bit of judaism in the programme was him insulting rabbi herschel gluck (an extremely good man who i am proud to count as a friend) and then refusing to allow him to answer. i was disappointed.

b'shalom

bananabrain

[E99]

Hello Bananabrain


I watched the first episode and didn't bother to watch the second. He is known in the Creationists circles as a brilliant scientist, in the sense that he knows his stuff, but more dangerously so how to magically put his abiogenesis theories across as if they are fact. Gloss that appeals to the public. As you say, his Darwinian diatribe is seemingly convincing, but the most absurd theorising are his ideas on abiogenesis.... making animate life from inanimate life.... on paper only, that is....With a few twists of the pen and a sprinkling of spice, it all becomes real !





On this programme he challenges theologians, but he has very little knowledge and understanding about the scriptures, pre-translational concepts, and the workings of God. The programme was contrived, and was basically a vehicle to promote his atheism. It all seemed to be soft targeting.
He has apparently refused a challenge to debate his theories by creationists on a pro-creationist website, and if he did actually take up debate with some creation scientist theologians that I've come across, his evo-abiogenesis theories and anti-theological ideas would be put to the test.





I did get the impression that he was rankled with religion, and is atheistic because of religions history of war-mongering, he seemed to be primarily searching for answers as to why we have to kill in the name of God all of the time. In this sense I sympathised with him and saw him in a different light….thinking that maybe he is closer to God than he realises.

[I, Brian]

I saw the listing, but didn't feel like forcing myself to watch a program evangelising secular fundamentalism...

[Thomas]

Also notable was his choice of representatives of Christianity - I know he's going to extremes to make a point - but as a newspaper critic said, it would have been better to see him go up against a Professor of Moral Theology, rather than some easy-target evangelist.

I think the programme was fundamentally dishonest from that perspective.

Thomas

[bananabrain]

i only saw the second one, in fact - and i was struck by the way he was spectacularly rude to the hasidic rabbi he interviewed at the beginning, if only because said hasidic rabbi is a mate of mine and one of the most right-on people you could want to meet. it's such a shame, because it could have been quite an interesting programme, but at the end of the day, those sensible chaps and chappesses at "spiked" make my point for me:

http://www.spiked-online.com/Articles/0000000CAF1A.htm
http://www.spiked-online.com/Articles/0000000CAF20.htm

have a read!

b'shalom

bananabrain

[Awaiting_the_fifth]

I actually quite enjoyed the program, as much as I would enjoy a program made by a Jew or Christian, for example, about their beliefs.

This man's religion is science, and he believes in it strongly enough to tell us that it is not a belief, it is the truth, much like a man with strong theistic convictions might say about his religion.

I do think he was quite rude to a number of the people he interviewed, and that was not really acceptable.

He did choose some very extremist people to interview, but how else should he demonstrate his point if not by showing us what religion can do at it's worst?!

And I must say that I do agree with one of his main points, (I think it was the main theme of the 2nd episode) that some of the things God and his people do in the OT are, by today's standards, not just immoral/unethical, they are downright evil.

All in all, it certainly was not a balanced argument for/against religion, but there have been plenty of theistic programs on TV, why not some Atheistic ones too?

[I, Brian]

The trouble I have with that approach, is that there's an aggressive argument in Islam that claims that scientific rationalism is directly responsible for the major genocides in the 20th century.

Would Channel 4 really care to produce a program that shows scientists are evil and demonstrate science at it's worst is representational of science as a whole?

IMO, that would be the inevitable balance to Dawkin's approach.

[lunamoth]

Originally Posted by I, Brian

The trouble I have with that approach, is that there's an aggressive argument in Islam that claims that scientific rationalism is directly responsible for the major genocides in the 20th century.

Would Channel 4 really care to produce a program that shows scientists are evil and demonstrate science at it's worst is representational of science as a whole?

IMO, that would be the inevitable balance to Dawkin's approach.

I think you are right I, Brian. The polemics will just get more and more extreme with each swing of the pendulum. Maybe that's what it takes to eventually get people back to the center--to see the very worst of each side. Not that I condone that, esp in this age of nuclear destruction, polemics and extremists can be more dangerous than ever before.

lunamoth

[Jaiket]

Originally Posted by bananabrain

he just thinks it's stupid and that all religious people are basically evil liars.

You have the ability to read minds?

Originally Posted by I, Brian

Would Channel 4 really care to produce a program that shows scientists are evil and demonstrate science at it's worst is representational of science as a whole?

IMO, that would be the inevitable balance to Dawkin's approach.

I missed the show. Did Richard Dawkins accuse religious people of being evil? That would certainly be intolerant.

[I, Brian]

Originally Posted by Jaiket

You have the ability to read minds?

I think he watched the show, and that stated it for him.

[Awaiting_the_fifth]

I don't think he went so far as to say that all religious people were "Evil Liars" (although I would say that a few actually are) He simply considers them (us) to be irrational.

By the way, Jaiket, good to see you posting again, I for one have missed your input.

[seattlegal]

Originally Posted by Jaiket

You have the ability to read minds?

I missed the show. Did Richard Dawkins accuse religious people of being evil? That would certainly be intolerant.

Here are some Dawkins quotes for your consideration, although they are not from this specific television program.

[Jaiket]

Ok. I had a little sift through some random Dawkins articles.

While I am prepared to agree and argue the points he makes regarding biology, in concern to religion he's on his own. He does actually appear to believe religion turns people into frothing loonies. I want it to be clear that I do not share his convictions.

[Tao_Equus]

Hi folks


I think I have said before on another thread that Mr Dawkins is a career athiest. This programe demonstrates that and then some, (wish I could get paid what he does for being so unoriginal ). In that same light however most of his interviews were to career religionists. I think the world would be a much better place if people learned to disregard all of them and look in their own hearts for answers.

Regards

TE

[Devadatta]

This documentary hasn't been shown in my neck of the words but from the Web site descriptions & the reviews I've read here, it sounds like he's speaking out of alarm and frustration as much as anything. As a scientist & rationalist, he naturally distrusts the irrational and is quite understandably alarmed when he sees the irrational on the rise.

Defending the rational is one of Dawkins' preoccupations. Defending religion, which makes a special study of the irrational, is the preoccupation of many of the participants in these forums. Unfortunately, that often results in either/or statements that lead nowhere.

The more fruitful thinking I feel explores how all these tendencies interpenetrate. When Brian talks about "secular fundamentalism", it may be on one level only a polemical jab, but on another it shows how slippery & interconnected these ideas are. In one of the articles BB points to, the writer talks about the close relationship between religion & humanism in Europe. They're not either/or. They over-lap.

But the either/or world is hard to break down. We must always be defending one ideological order as against another. Totalitarian thinking must be religious, or it must be secular. Terrorism must be exclusively powered by modern ideology, or it must be a purely religious phenomena. And to point to an underlying identity in these modes of thinking is usually to invite little more than flames - or silence.

Or you can call it "nothing to do with" thinking. My religion, discipline, philosophy, tradition, sect, pastor, rabbi has nothing to do with that aberration, that error; there is no relation.

Why? Because I'm under threat. My science, my Christianity, my Judaism, my Buddhism, my system of government is under threat, and I will defend it. And while defending it I have no time for underlying identities, only for surface differences.

Funny how everything & everybody is under threat. I guess this is as good a definition of samsara as any.

So Dawkins was over the top. Like every outraged rationalist he retreats from the irrational in a spirit of disgust & fear. But I don't think we can retreat from the facts he points to. We don't have to make the same mistake.

Or maybe I'm just naive. Maybe we can never let down our ideological guard, even here.

But I'll leave off with a question: deeply ensconced in any tradition, however well-taught, can we really know what it is? Can we really see, under, over, around & through?