The Root of All Evil

The Sunday Herald reports that Oxford’s “ambassador of rationality”, Richard Dawkins, is expecting a load of complaints “by the sort of people who tried to close down Jerry Springer: The Opera”. The first part of his two-part anti-religion polemic, The Root of All Evil?, is due to broadcast on Channel 4 tomorrow (Monday) at 8pm.

Dawkins:

…you’re simply not allowed to attack someone’s religion. You can attack their politics or their football team, but not their faith. I think it’s very important that this should be seen as complete nonsense. Why shouldn’t people be required to defend their religion?

Monday’s episode is entitled “The God Delusion”. Next week’s is “The Virus of Faith”.

Although the polemic is directed at religion in general, Ofcom will probably receive complaints from those belonging to the particular religions featured. Section 4.2 of the Broadcasting Code:

The religious views and beliefs of those belonging to a particular religion or religious denomination must not be subject to abusive treatment.

They may also try to argue that atheism (or even evolution) is a religion and that Dawkins is trying to “seek recruits”, thus contravening section 4.5. Can of worms, that one.

Looking forward to the show, and the backlash.


81 Responses to “The Root of All Evil

  1. Pete says:

    Might be nice to organise a mass write-in/phone-in session SUPPORTING the programme. The self-appointed thought police always feel vindicated by the fact that most people who contact broadcasters and the ITC do so to complain – when the truth is that people who like to be entertained, challenged or even offended don’t make a big song and dance about it.

    It would be funny if something like Dawkins’ academic religion-bashing got more praise than complaints. 🙂

  2. marc says:

    Bring it on! About time we had some common sense on telly. But who do you think added the “?” in the title? No Dr D I suspect.

  3. Stuart says:

    Apparently Dawkins wasn’t keen on the title at all

  4. Andrew Nixon says:

    When Dawkins was on Jeremy Vine’s Radio 2 show the other day Vine spent most of the opening interview moaning about the title. He’d obviously made up his mind before seeing the program.

  5. Andy A says:

    Andrew writes:

    When Dawkins was on Jeremy Vine’s Radio 2 show the other day Vine spent most of the opening interview moaning about the title. He’d obviously made up his mind before seeing the program.

    I heard that, too. Vine must have thought he was being a bit of a Rottweiler, and banged on about the title, even after Dawkins had said that it was a bloody area for discussion, for goodness’ sake. Which of those words didn’t Vine understand? This was before I knew there was a question mark on it. Even without one, one can see that a title is just a title and is not making a statement. If it were, there’d be no need for the programme. Prat!

  6. Andrew Nixon says:

    Vine was always going to be biased. His previous jobs include working as a reasearcher for a BBC religious (ie. christian) program, and has written two novels set in the C of E.

  7. Andrew Nixon says:

    And I just remembered that Vine also brought out that old piece of bullshit about Hitler being an atheist and the leader of a secular government! He needs some better reasearchers!

  8. Stuart says:

    Anyone interested in the Sunday Herald’s shabby record of collaborating with religious bigotry should take a look at Garry Otton’s excellent book ‘Sexual Fascism’ (also good on the antics of CARE, Christian Institute and similar quasi-religious hate groups,by the way).
    As for Mr Vine’s slack research – maybe he should take a look at Professor Johan Neumann’s landmark essay on German church collaboration with the Nazis. An English translation can be found at
    http://www.secularism.org.uk/thechurchesingermanybeforeandaft.html
    Funnily enough, it points out rather emphatically that, rather than ever being an atheist, Hitler considered himself to be on a bit of a crusade, and that both Catholic and Lutheran bishops praised him for it.
    Now where have I had heard something like that recently?

  9. Rosalind says:

    Hello. I’m a Christian, who read Dawkins article in The Independent on Friday. I did not find it offensive at all! These are obviously his views and he’s entitled to them.

  10. Andrew Nixon says:

    Hello. I’m a Christian, who read Dawkins article in The Independent on Friday. I did not find it offensive at all! These are obviously his views and he’s entitled to them.

    A refreshing change from the comments christians usually put on this site. Thanks!

    Which reminds me, anyone know of a certain Dr Shell’s whereabouts?

  11. marc says:

    Refreshing, yes, but Dawkins, unlike Rosalind has made a learned conclusion. Not accepted years of idiotic (and biased) “teaching.”

    If you really think long and hard enough, and bother to examine the pro and con arguments impassionately, you quickly realise that if there is a god, it certainly doesn’t give a short sh*t about what humans think or do – let alone is responsible for putting us here in the first place.

    Hitler, for example, was a Christian (of sorts) ummm… and there’s no doubt that his hatred of the Jews came from Roman Catholic teaching.

  12. tom p says:

    Andrew – I did a quick google for him and found one blog comment made in december at some christian blog and that he was a signatory to some letter from a bunch of churches whingeing about gay civil partnerships (which was posted in Dec 05), but otherwise nothing since Sep 05.

    maybe (hopefully) he’s given up his mission to convert the world to narrow-minded bigotry

  13. Andrew Nixon says:

    I do almost miss his demented ramblings. The way in which he went on coming up with points that had been thoroughly debunked, tried to dress his bigotry up as being worried about “harmful” things, the way he saw everything in black and white, and the way in which he frequently used stats to back up an argument even though he hated them. Ah, the good old days.

    Anyway, after looking forward to watching this program, I thought it was on at 9, and turned on Channel 4 to find “Celebrity” Big Brother! Oh well, I’m sure it will be repeated soon.

  14. nadir says:

    hi
    big fan of dawkins work and books
    missed the programme
    anyone know where i could find it on the net
    or any plans for a repeat on uk digital terrestrial

  15. Kath Shaw says:

    Excellent programme. How exasperated Dawkins was by the blind arrogance
    of so many of the contributors. I was left feeling scared and exhausted
    on his behalf.

  16. Paul Hurst says:

    A good topic of discussion for athiest and thiest alike.

    Not sure that either camp has a monopoly on the truth even though both would claim it!

    Personally I’m a Christian but not keen on some of my ‘intolerant bretheren’ who seem to fall into the same holes as ‘intolerant’ athiests. Maybe its intolerance that causes so many problems?

  17. Andrew Nixon says:

    Maybe its intolerance that causes so many problems?

    Intolerance is the problem, but not of the kind some might think.

    The problem is that we don’t tolerate the beliefs of others, it’s that we don’t tolerate the rights of others to have particular beliefs. And that kind of intolerance is much more likely to come from the religious.

  18. Andy Gilmour says:

    Perhaps the problem is that we tolerate the rights of others to foist their beliefs on the rest of us. And our children. Even when those beliefs can be shown to be insupportably contrary to scientific evidence. I am perfectly happy for anyone to believe what they want in the privacy of their own heads/homes/private churches/etc, but when they start making claims to authority and ‘power’ on that basis…

    I’m related (by marriage) to US creationists and their insidious organisations, and their beliefs and tactics are making significant inroads over here. Prof. Dawkins’ show was an excellent wake-up call for the complacent majority.

  19. Caroline chapman says:

    As a scientist myself, the problem with Dawkins is that he is far too defensive about the theories he claims to support. Any scientist should welcome questions and debate about a theory, as if the theory is sound then a simple robust response should be able to be put together, if it cannot then the scientist should welcome the opportunity for further research to find an answer. However if anyone questions some of the claims made by evolution, Dawkins is far to quick to attack the questioner. The motives behind the question (whether religous or not) are completely irrelevant. Dawkins brings down the reputation of science by resorting to personal attacks on people who don’t agree with him, rather than offering rational scientific answers. This in itself sets alarm bells ringing over the robustness of his convictions.

    The claims of evolution offering an explanation for the origins of life raise huge numbers of unanswered questions and vast gaps in evidence that scientists should take seriously.

  20. tom p says:

    Hi Nadir,

    I reckon it’s a pretty fair bet that it’ll be on More 4 in the not too distant future

    Andrew – so do I, almost.

    Andy G – There’s a very interesting piece on their methods here http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/barbara_forrest/wedge.html (found via butterflies and wheels)

  21. Andy Gilmour says:

    Tom P,
    Yeah, “Wedge” strategy (that they hilariously try to deny now!?!) has been out there for a while. It’s what they’re trying to pull with these Vardey academies over here. They were behind schedule, though, and it looks like the Dover, PA, school board kinda jumped the gun a bit. Discovery Institute weren’t exactly too delighted with them, because they knew they didn’t have sufficient influence/’pro-theocracy’ justiciary/etc in place. Reading some of the excerpts available via “No Answers in Genesis” website http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/ is incredibly amusing. Particularly the intellectual kicking that Dr. Michael Behe got.

    I’ve actually been in the AnswersInGenesis hq in Kentucky several times, and had to remain polite while shaking Ken Hamm ( ultimate Creationist propagandist) by the hand. My tongue was almost bleeding I had to bite it so hard. He was on Robert Winston’s (not very good) programme, and I was appalled at what a soft ride he got. I can understand why Prof. Dawkins refuses to debate Hamm & his ilk, though. They are immune to any reasoning, have unshakeable belief in their absolute “truth”, and will produce reams & reams of pseudo-science – all of which will require careful, line-by-line refutation. If someone DOES cut them down by producing the scientific evidence, then their work will simply be denied as inadequate (favourite tactic of Behe), or tiny variations/inconsistencies with other scientists’ work will be cited as ‘proof’ that the scientists are in error.

    AiG alone publishes 3 different “creation science” magazines, plus a range of cd-roms & “teaching” materials for schools quite apart from its website. Like the wedge strategy document says, they’re out to blind the general public with their seemingly-plausible pseudo-scientific claptrap, not convince the scientifically literate. And there’s plenty of evidence that they’re doing better every year…especially with their “missions” to the UK.

    Good thing there’s a few of us who aren’t prepared to sit back and let them have it all their own way!

  22. Tony W says:

    A considered response to Dawkins’ “Root of All Evil”

    In a recent television programme for Channel 4, Richard Dawkins made the following assertion;

    “In the absence of religion, good people would do good things and evil people would do evil things, but it takes religion to make good people do evil things”

    In the following essay I want to deconstruct this proposition, apply the principles of critical thinking and demonstrate that it is a statement of astounding naivety.

    1. The property of ‘good’ and ‘evil’
    Dawkins’ proposition assumes that ‘good’ and ‘evil’ are properties that can be independently attached to both people and their actions. For his proposition to have any meaning we must carefully establish the terms ‘good’ and ‘evil’.

    There are essentially two possible ways in which Dawkins could use the terms ‘good’ and ‘evil’.

    a) The existence of good and evil in an objective and absolute sense
    This position asserts that ‘good’ and ‘evil’ have an absolute existence in an ontological sense and therefore there is a standard by which the merit of all actions could be assessed. This in turn would mean that a single moral code can be applied to all people at all times in all cultures.

    From this position we might assert that the act of human sacrifice is an act of evil and therefore ancient practitioners of such an action were themselves evil. A more generous view might hold that such people were innocent in that they were simply unaware of the reality of the absolute standard.

    In order to hold this view of good and evil we must accept the existence of a point of reference beyond human experience and the material universe itself. For the standard of good and evil to be truly absolute and universal it must find its reference outside the confines of space and time. Holders of this view must therefore be deists or theists in order that the ‘keeper’ of the standard be meta-physical.

    b) Good and evil are subjective properties
    Most people, if pushed, would say that they hold this view but would almost certainly be horrified by the nihilistic world-view that underpins it.

    Taking this world view allows us to say that ‘good’ and ‘evil’ are relative concepts and that every society can choose which actions fall into each category. So, for example, most people would now agree that the keeping of a slave would be an evil act. The very fact that most people consider it to be evil is what confers the property of evil upon the act.

    Good and evil simply become expressions of societal preference and are used as expedient mechanisms for enforcing law and order upon groups of people. Society agrees that it is wrong to kill someone and we punish murderers accordingly by putting them in prison. The ancient societies that practised human sacrifice committed no crime because, as a people group, they had internally decided that this was a right and proper way to behave.

    Adopting this position actually makes the concept of absolute morality redundant as we are forced to accept that each action is weighed by, and contingent on, prevailing societal norms.

    The weakness of this position becomes clear if we consider what happens when societies collide. Should we happen on an isolated island race who consider it appropriate to practice cannibalism, we would be powerless to condemn it. Even more pressing is the situation in which neighbouring communities fail to agree on definitions of good and evil such that group ‘A’ believes it is acceptable to kill members of group ‘B’.

    Nevertheless, we mustn’t fall into the trap of evaluating the validity of this world-view on the basis of the palatability of the outcome! Adherents of this position would argue that, yes, the world is a confusing place in which morality is a fluid concept. Philosophers such as Nietzsche understood this only too well and were able to drill down to the heart of the nihilism behind it. In turn this philosophy became the ‘inspiration’ for the 20th century atheist tyrants such as Hitler and Stalin.

    Dawkins, like many atheist intellectuals, would subscribe to this second position on morality but, when discussing the concept in public, he tends to fall short of explaining the less comfortable ramifications of his belief.

    2. What does Dawkins mean by a ‘good’ person?
    Dawkins refers to ‘good’ and ‘evil’ people in a way that suggests that all people fall neatly into one or other category. The reality, of course, is much more complex in that people are a mixture of the two.

    At different times and in different circumstances a single will act in good and evil ways and that to reduce everyone to one or the other is too simplistic. I presume even the Tomás de Torquemada, the Grand Inquisitor, performed some acts of kindness in his life.

    I accept that, on average, a person is likely to exhibit one mode of behaviour more than another and I presume in the remainder of this essay that this is the basis that Dawkins uses to identify people as good or evil.

    3. The concept of a good person doing evil
    At the heart of Dawkins’ statement is the assumption that one can detach the internal moral standing of the person (their inherent goodness or evilness) from the acts they perform.

    It would seem that Dawkins is arguing that whilst someone might have the propensity to be good they go on to commit acts of evil, presumably after being manipulated by some authority figure.

    This position seems rather weak in that all people acting freely and without duress must be considered moral agents who take responsibility for their own actions. In this sense a ‘good’ person who persistently commits acts evil must actually be properly re-defined as evil. The man in the dock who tells the jury that he really does want to help old ladies over the road but can’t stop himself from mugging them for their purses instead is unlikely to be given a sympathetic hearing!

    There are, of course, situations in which good people come under the influence of a more powerful evil person thereby causing them to commit acts that they would not ordinarily perform. It may be this that is at the heart of Dawkins’ revulsion of religion but we shouldn’t allow this to excuse his sloppy thinking. Dawkins is clear in his statement that only religion provides the context in which a good person can be encouraged to do evil. A cursory inspection of the 20th century reveals countless examples of such situations that have no religious foundation whatever. Why Dawkins feels at liberty to sweep the entire activity of the Third Reich under the carpet is mysterious in the extreme. In short, for Dawkins’ statement to bear weight we must either assume that all Germans who complied with Hitler’s regime were intrinsically evil, or that Hitler’s actions were somehow founded on his personal religious faith. Few people would hold either of these to be true.

    4. Would Dawkins’ statement be proved to be true if good religious people were ever shown to commit acts of evil?
    In short, no! Clearly the above situation occurs all the time. As a Christian I can testify that most days gives rise to some evil action or thought on my part.

    For Dawkins to be proved correct he must demonstrate two things;

    a) that my acts of evil are inspired by my faith and not committed in spite of it. So, for example, if I treat someone with contempt I would have to have done so because some tenet of my faith encouraged me to be contemptuous of others and not because I had overlooked a requirement to offer people respect.

    b) that good atheists never commit acts of evil.

    5. What about evil people who are inspired to acts of good by faith?
    Dawkins, in a display of shallow thought unbecoming a man of his intellect, seems not to have considered the converse of his argument.

    He asserts that people who are essentially good can be made to do things that are evil by religious faith but conveniently ignores evil people who are inspired to acts of kindness by this same route. For Dawkins’ statement to have any validity he would have to show that the number of good people whose religion causes them to do evil is greater than the converse. Of course he can do no such thing.

    Anecdotally, it is possible to quote the experience of terrorists, murderers, gang-leaders, drug dealers and prostitutes who have all been transformed into saints by discovering that they are cherished by the God who loves them. Dawkins simply can’t ignore the reality of the experience of so many people even if it happens to suit his argument to do so.

    6. If religion did not exist what would replace it?
    Dawkins believes that one day, if enough people would listen to reason, religious faith might die out completely. He also seems to think that this would herald a brave new world in which good people were free to do good things. This position is naïve in the extreme.

    A more accurate description of the world recognises that evil people will attach themselves to any cause capable of furthering their aims. In this context religion, in the hands of a powerful leader, becomes a useful vehicle to manipulate others . To suppose that religion is the only such vehicle is intellectually dishonest.

    Ethnicity, politics, and access to resources such as land, fuel, food and water are all reasons that people enter into conflict and these would exist with or without faith. Even current conflicts that are superficially religiously motivated can be attributed to a matrix of more complex factors if analysed fully. For example, the catholic and protestant antipathy in Northern Ireland is essentially a political division in which each ‘side’ happens to adhere to different expressions of Christianity. On closer inspection the most vociferous opponents in this conflict have a rather distant connection with their church and those working hardest for peace are the most committed Christians on both sides of the divide. The faith dimension becomes a useful ‘peg’ on which to hang allegiance and a shibboleth by which to test commitment to the cause. When a man walked into a pub in Northern Ireland, before serving him, the landlord asked him to declare whether he was a catholic or a protestant . He replied that we was an atheist and the landlord continued the challenge by asking whether he was a catholic atheist or a protestant atheist.

    7. Conclusion
    It is hard to believe that a man of Dawkins’ stature could publicly declare this assertion on national television. Subjecting his statement to rigorous thought shows that from any angle it is intellectually deficient and desperately naïve. In the past Dawkins was renowned for providing a robust critique of religion which stimulated challenging debate. In more recent times his assertions have acquired an increasingly desperate character, much in the way of a child to whom nobody is listening. If Dawkins hopes to re-enter the serious debate he will have to do much better than this.

  23. Andrew Nixon says:

    In turn this philosophy became the ‘inspiration’ for the 20th century atheist tyrants such as Hitler

    Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear.

    Couldn’t be bothered doing any research then?

  24. Andrew Nixon says:

    or that Hitler’s actions were somehow founded on his personal religious faith. Few people would hold either of these to be true.

    Well that is true.

  25. Tony W says:

    Well, what can we say about Hitler’s inspiration.?

    Few would deny the influence of Nietzsche on the development of the Third Reich and this world-view is completely incompatible with any form of theism. Nobody could simultaneously subscribe to nihilism and theism with integrity.

    For a man such as Hitler to attain the powerbase necessary to create the Third Reich he must have used and manipulated every institution open to him. Undoubtedly this included the established church in Germany. I do not doubt the capacity of the church to be used as an instrument of evil when in the hands of evil people; history tells this loud and clear. So, to the extent that the church colluded with the Third Reich it should rightly be condemned as an expression of evil.

    To decide whether Hitler was a Christian or not we need to know whether he had a living faith through which he had a transforming relationship with Christ. The answer to this question must surely be a resounding no. The following quotes from Hitler can’t leave us in any doubt on the issue.

    “National Socialism and religion cannot exist together”

    “Christianity is a rebellion against natural law, a protest against nature”

    “The only way to get rid of Christianity is to allow it to die little by little”

    “Christianity is an invention of sick brains”

    Even if Hitler thought himself to be a Christian (and the above comments don’t substantiate this view) this is of little consequence. The atrocities committed by Hitler are so heinous that they cannot be reconciled with the teachings of Jesus.

    And we haven’t even touched on Stalin yet! Or was he a Christian too?

  26. Andrew Nixon says:

    From Mein Kampf:

    I believe to-day that my conduct is in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator. In standing guard against the Jew I am defending the handiwork of the Lord.

    The result of all racial crossing is therefore in brief always the following: (a) Lowering of the level of the higher race; (b) Physical and intellectual regression and hence the beginning of a slowly but surely progressing sickness. To bring about such a development is, then, nothing else but to sin against the will of the eternal creator.

    A folkish state must therefore begin by raising marriage from the level of a continuous defilement of the race, and give it the consecration of an institution which is called upon to produce images of the Lord and not monstrosities halfway between man and ape.

    It is a sin against the will of the Eternal Creator if … Hottentots and Zulu Kaffirs are trained for intellectual professions.

    When He [Jesus] found it necessary He drove those enemies of the human race out of the Temple of God; because then, as always, they used religion as a means of advancing their commercial interests. But at that time Christ was nailed to the Cross for his attitude towards the Jews; whereas our modern Christians enter into party politics and when elections are being held they debase themselves to beg for Jewish votes. They even enter into political intrigues with the atheistic Jewish parties against the interests of their own Christian nation.

    Whoever would dare to raise a profane hand against that highest image of God among His creatures would sin against the bountiful Creator of this marvel and would collaborate in the expulsion from Paradise.

    For it was by the Will of God that men were made of a certain bodily shape, were given their natures and their faculties.

    Of course, one doesn’t discuss such a question with the Jews… Their very existence is an incarnate denial of the beauty of God’s image in His creation.

    Anyhow, the Jew has attained the ends he desired… the enemy of Aryan humanity and all Christendom is laughing up his sleeve.

    And only for such action as is undertaken to secure those ends can it be lawful in the eyes of God and our German posterity to allow the blood of our people to be shed once again. Before God, because we are sent into this world with the commission to struggle for our daily bread.

    The most devoted Protestant could stand side by side with the most devoted Catholic in our ranks without having his conscience disturbed in the slightest as far as concerned his religious convictions. The bitter struggle which both waged in common against the wrecker of Aryan humanity taught them natural respect and esteem.

    Almighty God, bless our arms when the hour comes. Be just, as Thou hast always been just… Lord, bless our struggle.

    Still think he’s an atheist?

  27. Andrew Nixon says:

    Oh, and can you give a source for those quotes you gave please?

  28. Tony W says:

    From the inconsistency of his public declarations it is clear that Hitler was a man who was prepared to use adapt his rhetoric to manipulate his hearers to his own ends; what we may glean about his own personal position is doubtful save from the fact that the very inconsistency is incompatible with Christian teaching.

    The quotes that you raise provide a fascinating insight. Hitler’s exegesis is so completely confused he can’t seriously be considered a member of mainstream Christian thought. His stance on the ‘sacking of the temple’ is one such example. The incident is an example of Jesus’ disgust at the manipulation of ordinary people by evil people for their gain. It is a forceful demonstration that Jesus will not countenance the use of religion to further the financial or political interests of the ruling classes. A more damning indictment on Hitler’s activities it would be hard to find. For sure, if Jesus had visited Germany during between 1932 and 1945 we would have seen similar outburst of his anger and he would have levelled his harshest words at the church who failed to speak out against the Third Reich.

  29. Tony W says:

    The quotes are taken from, “Hitler’s Secret Conversations 1941-1944” published by Farrar, Straus and Young, 1953. The collection is taken from the minutes of Hitler’s personal stenographer

  30. Monitor says:

    Tony, I think Andrew was objecting (rightly) to your assertrion that Hitler was an atheist. He was not trying to show that he was a Christian (however you choose to define that term). So I think that your response to him should have included a “thank you” for setting you straight, and an apology for getting it wrong in the first place.

    A promise not to repeat the old lie would also be very welcome.

  31. Tony W says:

    You are quite right to pick me up on a number of points. I am so used to hearing people trying to place Hitler firmly in the Christian camp that I assumed (wrongly) that Tom was trying to do the same.

    I am also willing to acknowledge that my own placing of Hitler into the atheist camp is simplistic.

    What can we say for sure about Hitler’s personal beliefs? Possibly not a great deal given that we might have good reason to doubt anything that he might have said on the issue himself. I am not sure that Mein Kampf, written almost 20 years prior to the worst atrocities of WWII, sheds much light on the belief system of Hitler at the time of the Holocaust.

    For most of his life it would appear that the object of Hitler’s worship seems to be directed towards impersonal ideals with elements of pre-Judeo-Christian thinking thrown into the melting pot. Could we settle on deism as a suitable compromise?

    The heart of this thread is a discussion is the recent Dawkins’ broadcast. Having admitted some of my own sloppy thinking could we now consider Dawkins’ statement that I started my original contribution. Surely you must agree that his statement is a puerile comment from a man who should know better.

  32. Tony W says:

    BTW, apologies to Tom for misinterpreting his intention.

  33. Andrew Nixon says:

    Surely you must agree that his statement is a puerile comment from a man who should know better.

    If you mean the statement: “Religion: The Root of All Evil?”, then you should be aware of two things.

    Firstly, Dawkins did not choose the title, and has said that he would not have chosen that particular title if given a choice.

    Secondly, there is a question mark at the end, indicating that the title is a, well, question. ie. a point of discussion. The title is essentially saying “Is religion the root of all evil?”.

    Dawkins has himself said that religion is not the root of ALL evil, but to say it is the root of NO evil is an equally ludicrous proposition.

  34. Tony W says:

    Sorry, I didn’t mean the title of the programme. I was referring to the quotation from Dawkins during the programme that formed the basis of my original critique.

    “In the absence of religion, good people would do good things and evil people would do evil things, but it takes religion to make good people do evil things”

  35. Andrew Nixon says:

    “In the absence of religion, good people would do good things and evil people would do evil things, but it takes religion to make good people do evil things”

    Sounds about right to me. Not in all cases of course, but certainly in some.

  36. Tony W says:

    Oh come on, you can’t really mean that Andrew. The statement is an example of the worst kind of sloppy soundbite. Take a look through my criticism of the statement and then tell me that Dawkins is making a substantive point.

  37. Andrew Nixon says:

    Are you suggesting that religion has never driven anyone to evil?

  38. Monitor says:

    Thanks, Tony, for your retraction. The “Hitler was an atheist” lie has been doing the rounds a lot lately, and it was getting tiresome.

    Re your point on Dawki”s quote (itself a quote of Steven Weinberg): you may have a point. I don’t know because I am too intellectually sloppy to read your essay.

  39. Tony W says:

    Andrew,

    “Are you suggesting that religion has never driven anyone to evil?”

    I never made that claim in my critique. One doesn’t have to in order to blow Dawkins’ statement apart

  40. Andrew Nixon says:

    If you accept that religion does drive people to do bad things, what problem is there with the statement?

  41. Tony W says:

    Dawkins’ statement remains hugely flawed, but rather than repeat it all again there is a full treatment in reply 23. BTW your statement in reply 41 is very different to the statment in reply 38. I can reject 38 without embracing 41.

  42. Andrew Nixon says:

    I would re-read your reply, but as it contains a remarkably simple error, I can only assume it is fundamentally flawed.

    What is it that you think Dawkins is trying to say?

    We can paraphrase the quotation as “It takes religion to make fundamentally good people do bad things.” This is essentially what Dawkins is saying, and I can honestly see little problem with that statement.

    He is not saying that religion causes everybody to do bad things, nor is he saying that religion is the sole cause of all the bad things that happen in the world.

    Do you deny that religion can drive fundamentally decent people to do incredibly horrible things?

  43. Tony W says:

    To bring Dawkins’ statement to anything like a sensible piece of logic it would have to go something like this.

    “The world is full of people who have a tendency to do good things and we call these people good. There are also people who tend to do more bad things than good and we call these people evil. [these first two sentences are slightly tighter than Dawkins’ original, but essentially they are still pretty meaningless because the terms ‘good’ and ‘evil’ are ill-defined]. There are a number of powerful drivers in the world such as politics, ethnicity and religion and evil people tend to be drawn to exercise power through the medium of these drivers. For this reason, some good people can be manipulated into doing evil things by evil people. If, for some reason, one of these drivers ceased to exist it is likely that evil people would be drawn to those drivers that remain in order to rise to positions of power that allow them to manipulate weaker, good people.”

    Granted, its not as snappy as Dawkins’ statement and I don’t suppose it would be an audience winner, but it doesn’t excuse a gross distortion. When Dawkins says ‘it takes religion…’ the implication is that no other would do the same thing.

    The real problem for the atheist is to define the terms ‘good’ and ‘evil’. In the end it is simply impossible and so the terms acquire a provisional and arbitrary quality that makes the whole argument a waste of time.

  44. Tony W says:

    BTW, what is the simple error I made?

  45. Andrew Nixon says:

    BTW, what is the simple error I made?

    I think that it should be obvious what error you made in your original reply, considering we spent a few posts talking about it.

    The fact that you made this error when it had already been mentioned that someone else had made the error towards the beginning of this thread, indicates that you actually didn’t bother to read the other replys to this topic. This leads me to wonder one thing….

    What on Earth made you think that we’d even be interested in your ramblings?

  46. Tony W says:

    OK. Well I thought I had already dealt with that by apolgising for making a mistake, but this doesn’t seem to be enough and you want to make things a little unpleasant. It doesn’t seem to be very open-minded to only want to discuss things with people who agree with you.

  47. Andrew Nixon says:

    It doesn’t seem to be very open-minded to only want to discuss things with people who agree with you.

    Agreed. But the question still stands.

  48. Tony W says:

    But I get the impression that the question is rhetorical and you don’t really want me to answer it. Yeah?

  49. Andrew Nixon says:

    No, I’d like you to answer it. What made you think that a site set up to make fun of the various people who try to censor the media in order to prevent them from being offended would be interested in your critque of Dawkins’ programme?