RICHARD DAWKINS' "The ROOT OF ALL EVIL"

[equanimus]

While no 'apologist' himself, he takes potshots, but the argument reeks of cynicism

kid-glove,
True, but I don't think that's reason enough to not take him seriously. It seems he describes himself as "a perverse thinker who loves finding the worm in somebody's prize rose." (I stumbled upon these pieces from a post on this blog.) And by the way, I must admit I'm a cold cynic myself, but I do see the difference between saying something useful and merely stating thet "everything sucks."

and his views on Dawkins book is wrong(ly interpreted) at many levels. He deceives to be middle-ground, but if you read the books, and double check the facts, you will be convinced of his intentions. With this piece, he is the one guilty of partaking in 'high ground'. Sheer hypocrisy!!

I see where you're coming from. I've often heard people say that Dawkins' books are not a fraction as "extremist" as they are thought to be. Yet to read any of them. (Lazy reader, you see.) I recall an interview (BBC?) in which I liked the way he conceded that he's being an apologist for atheism without much fuss.

But in the larger context (looking beyond whether he interprets Dawkins or the New Atheists right on some counts), I think Gray's essay is excellent and very useful.

[equanimus]

Gray puts it like, "Yet Dawkins seems convinced that if it were not inculcated in schools and families, religion would die out. This is a view that has more in common with a certain type of fundamentalist theology than with Darwinian theory"

He could be excused if he got that 'impression' without indulging much into Dawkins. Wonder if he ever got to read the book in full.

Again, I've not read the book, but based on the passages you've quoted, I'm not sure I understand what Gray got wrong. Some explanation would help!

As Steven Weinberg put it, "With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion." Gray sorely misses the picture.

QFT.

Well, I guess that would pass as a good wisecrack, but how true is it really? I'd be more willing to concede this point if it's about any kind of indoctrination. And who's not indoctrinated?! For instance, it could be argued that the thousands of commenters in the YouTube video are indoctrinated by Dawkins even if that's not his intention. (As I type this, I'm reminded of the ever-so-useful line from The Life of Brian -- "How shall we **** off, O Lord?") Of course, not that that makes them "bad," but the point is to distinguish between any kind of indoctrination and religion specifically.

[equanimus]

As Steven Weinberg put it, "With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion." Gray sorely misses the picture.

QFT.

Not to mention that this is exactly the kind of Utopian promise that Gray mocks at!

[kid-glove]

Statement1: Yet Dawkins seems convinced that if it were not inculcated in schools and families, religion would die out.

No, Dawkins was stating his own inference, relevant to Darwinian survival. He was inferring why it had been propagated. That it was propagated along with various other (vital) qualities that was needed for survival.
He also says, "The religious behaviour may be a misfiring, an unfortunate by-product of an underlying psychological propensity which in other circumstances is, or once was, useful. On this view, the propensity that was naturally selected in our ancestors was not religion per se; it had some benefit at the time, and it only incidentally manifests itself as religious behavior." So, some of the religious qualities (as we know now) are knowingly or unknowingly propagated, some for the right benefit, slowly but surely it had been manifested into what we known infer as 'religion'.

Dawkins suggests from early man to stone aged tribes to whatever social system until now, with strict adherence to elderly generation, had carried 'religious behavior' for generations. He was neither suggesting/speculating the scenario Gray was hitting at. While it's a fanciful speculation, it misses the point.

Statement2: This is a view that has more in common with a certain type of fundamentalist theology than with Darwinian theory

It is remotely 'fundamentalist'. It's wonderful Gray abides by his cynical agenda. But here, it's beyond logic - farcical journalism.

[kid-glove]

Regarding that Steven Weinberg quote, it is very much relevant. It was said in context of religion, but could be extended to any such indoctrinations that causes damage. But Religion has become a reason as well as an excuse to take up evil, it's so easy to look past it, but it should not be. It was used in a good context. As seen below,

3. The argument of atheists that religion is the cause of human mistreatment is wrong. It is not religion that causes human misery. It is humans themselves. So, atheist or no atheist, humans are going to continue to be killed. "

is the point many New Atheists make. That any belief without reason is dangerous. The massacres committed by so-called atheists does not stem from atheism, but from tyranny and a desire to rule without opposition. That they were atheists was just incidental. Gray also argues that many religious beliefs are based on typically secular revolutionary views (I recommend Jason Burke's 'Al-Queda' for a more insightful comparison between the two phenomena). Yes, he is right, but only partially. Religious extremists may be fighting for justice or may be fighting for just their religion. The former is common to all oppressed people, from Palestine to South America. That doesn't prove anything about atheism. The latter is what New Atheists are concerned about. As Steven Weinberg put it, "With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion." Gray sorely misses the picture.

[kid-glove]

As Steven Weinberg put it, "With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion." Gray sorely misses the picture.

QFT.

Not to mention that this is exactly the kind of Utopian promise that Gray mocks at!

Firstly, What kind of a Utopian promise? "With or without religion", there will be evil things. But that Religion has become a reason or an excuse to take up evil is what we are talking about.

Secondly, I'm much more interested in South park's "Go God Go" than whatever cynicism Gray has conjured in that essay. At least it laughs/mocks in an earnest way. Gray takes himself seriously. I have no problem with that, but he has failed with his examples and references, the least I'd expect is to find the right "worms" in somebody's prize rose (in his own figurative words). What I find is blind assertions, and that really irritates me. That is all.

[kid-glove]

There is an agenda among atheist-doubters to paint a wrong picture of 'atheism' (as broadly used in mainstream thinking) as some form of 'indoctrination' in itself, and a hypocritical 'high ground' stance, and that it is spreading a false 'Utopian promise' (in case of Gray).

I loved how South Park(in Go God Go) mocks at fictional 'Utopian promise', the scenario goes like this, three atheist groups fight over "Great Question", and turn 'irrational' to fight for their 'truth'.

But, such categorizations are wrong. Atheism is about truth. It is open for reasonable debate with logic and reasoning. Whether this debate (and hunger for truth) would soon metamorphose into irrational or unreasonable behavior (as in that SP episode ) of other forms, is an amusing idea. But in my opinion, as soon as one touches irrationality, they're no atheists anymore. It is about finding rational solutions in any given context.

[kannannn]

As Steven Weinberg put it, "With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion." Gray sorely misses the picture.

QFT.

Well, I guess that would pass as a good wisecrack, but how true is it really? I'd be more willing to concede this point if it's about any kind of indoctrination. And who's not indoctrinated?! For instance, it could be argued that the thousands of commenters in the YouTube video are indoctrinated by Dawkins even if that's not his intention. (As I type this, I'm reminded of the ever-so-useful line from The Life of Brian -- "How shall we **** off, O Lord?") Of course, not that that makes them "bad," but the point is to distinguish between any kind of indoctrination and religion specifically.

Equa, I understand the concerns on the possibility of 'Militant Atheism', but as Thilak put it, it is a possibility that has to be overcome through reasoning. Perhaps, the human tendency to fall for personality cults is itself a meme. Perhaps, through education and promotion of enquiry that meme can as well be stemmed. The point is, religion does not, for obvious reasons encourage such enquiry and reasoning, which ultimately drives some of its followers to commit acts they wouldn't as normal, sane humans.

But, such categorizations are wrong. Atheism is about truth. It is open for reasonable debate with logic and reasoning. Whether this debate (and hunger for truth) would soon metamorphose into irrational or unreasonable behavior (as in that SP episode ) of other forms, is an amusing idea. But in my opinion, as soon as one touches irrationality, they're no atheists anymore. It is about finding rational solutions in any given context.

[kid-glove]

the human tendency to fall for personality cults is itself a meme. Perhaps, through education and promotion of enquiry that meme can as well be stemmed. The point is, religion does not, for obvious reasons encourage such enquiry and reasoning, which ultimately drives some of its followers to commit acts they wouldn't as normal, sane humans.

Psychological inclination to superstition(tested positive for even animals & birds), and 'false promises', is something to be worked on as well.

[anbu_kathir]

As Steven Weinberg put it, "With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion." Gray sorely misses the picture.

The Non-eastern religions clearly have it wrong in thinking that religion is about good and bad. That is simply not the point of it at all. Mythology and ritual (the prime components of religion) are not meant to differentiate the world into good and bad, right/wrong etc etc.. It is meant to 'point at' that 'mystery' which lies beyond all concepts (which are automatically dual), all reasoning and logic. Science can never do that because in science, concepts are truth. In religion, concepts are not truth. A concept can at most be a pointer to Truth, and not anything else.

This prof. from the Univ of Virginia offers a course on consciousness which deals with the relationship of Quantum physics to Consciousness. The most relevant part to this discussion would be Chapter 1, I believe.

http://faculty.virginia.edu/consciousness/

One could also have a look at this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Power_of_Myth
This is one of my favourite collections of videos on mythology and their implications to human life. The book is available in stores in India,but not the videos, I think. You can get them for free (illegally of course) from here.
http://insanefilms.com/?cat=747

In other words, religions deal with metaphors, not Reality. It is therefore more closer to art than science. For this reason, religion can never be substituted by science, because it would mean the same thing to say that science can substitute art, which is impossible. The precise problems lie not in Religion itself, but only in taking the metaphors that religion offers to be literal reality.

The point is, religion does not, for obvious reasons encourage such enquiry and reasoning, which ultimately drives some of its followers to commit acts they wouldn't as normal, sane humans.

One merely has to look into the philosophical, psychological traditions of Hinduism and Buddhism to know about enquiry, reasoning related to the most basic themes of all Life. Even the Gnostic traditions of Christianity, the Sufi traditions of Islam have such insights. It is in good reason that the psychologists and the psycho-analysts of today are incorporating these insights from the Non-dualistic interpretations of religions into their routines.

Love and Light.