Richard Dawkins - The Root of All Evil? [Documentary - free download]

Dave!

Hey, I haven't actually seen this docu just yet, but I am in the process of watching it.

I hadn't heard anything about it, but stumbled upon it today, and thought I'd share it with you people. Richard Dawkins is a famous evolutionary scientist, and in this documentary he argues that the world would be better off without religion.

It can be downloaded at these locations:

Part 1: http://www.antonioedward.net/component/option,com_remository/Itemid,28/func,fileinfo/filecatid,50/parent,category

Part 2: http://www.antonioedward.net/component/option,com_remository/Itemid,28/func,fileinfo/filecatid,49/parent,category

(they're both in mp4 format (they work in Quicktime), and are great quality)

Or alternatively you can find it broken up into different parts on YouTube:

Part 1.1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CPaD6D54L4o
Part 1.2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YGeL1yFeK6I
Part 1.3: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=76UDVB-ofpI

Part 2.1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_kcKInudkq4
Part 2.2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T27Ef_xvYMs
Part 2.3: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qPBdz-TXlaI
Part 2.4: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dTKLM09FeNM
Part 2.5: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RwD9HOrjLRw
Part 2.6: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mGLPViVW5ms

*phew* I haven't actually checked all the YouTube videos, but they seem to be in order.

It looks like an interesting documentary anyways! Enjoy

Rev Hellfire

Nice one. It's an interesting documentry for sure and well worth the watch. But I feel its not a very effective one, its certainly not going sway anyone who's sitting on the fence with it's overly simplistic approach to religion and its place in society. But that just my view most of the others here have loved it, but then again it sits well with their views.

Dades

Thanks DaveMcG,

See this thread for the post-doc discussion from last time.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2054870453

Methinks I'll rewatch it anyway.

(I'm assuming for the moment the links are okay on Boards)

5uspect

Its a good documentary alright (you can get from google video too). I agree with Rev Hellfire tho, Dawkins is preaching to the athiest choir and will not influence many mainstream religous types. I recommend his book the Devils Chaplin. Its a collection of some of this best essays and has a good section on religion amoung other topics.

aidan24326

Thanks for the links DaveMcG. Missed it when it was on Channel 4 the first time.

UU

Thanks a million OP for that. Although, I don't quite agree with everything Richard Dawkins says, I do think he is quite a character and certainly does a good job in challenging religion. I do think that pure science has the potential to be just as letal as religion can be because of the ever so common human ego-centred frame of thought.

5uspect

There's a good dispatches on C4 now about Islam in the UK, somewhat more indept and balanced than the Root of All evil.

aidan24326

Just watched this yesterday for the first time (thanks again for posting the links DmcG) and while it was an interesting documentary there probably wasn't alot in it that I didn't already know, and having read Richard Dawkins' books I was aware of his views on the subject and his theory of religion as a virus of the mind (ties in with his idea of memes as cultural replicators).

I thought he presented his views quite well and was pretty restrained given his obviously strong feelings on the subject. The American Pastor who accused him of arrogance was himself an arrogant prat.

I agree with his views in many ways, that atheists have spent too long pandering to the fanciful and often downright nonsensical notions of many religious believers, and in the need for political correctness have stopped short of saying 'yes I think you're a complete idiot to believe such total sh*te'.

Basically he is saying that religious faith or the general heading of 'religion' seems to give people license to believe absolutely anything without having to explain themselves in any way, other than to play the 'faith' card. Whereas in any other context such fanciful ideas (gods in the sky,eternal life/damnation in heaven/hell,an entity who hears your prayers) or downright false ones (earth only a few thousand years old,people in lourdes being 'cured' by miracles,a man in a robe turning wine into christ's blood etc.) would rightly be dismissed as the ravings of a loony, or at the very least considered uneducated and ill-informed.

So why does wearing a badge called 'religious faith' entitle anyone to make such outlandish claims without having to offer a shred of evidence and with their often absurd 'beliefs' not open to any ridicule in the way that such fairyland nonsense otherwise would be? Even if his documentary mightn't have swayed too many minds on the subject, it's good that prominent academics like him are attempting to open up this important issue to more public debate.

Rev Hellfire

It all depends on how much value you place in the idea of the 'truth' of religion. To me its not that importent, whats importent is do people get any benfit from it.

If people want to believe in pink dragons in their garage I'm all for it, if they gain benfit from it then it's not that absurd from where I'm looking at it. And to be honest if a society grows up which follows said pink dragon and gains more good than harm from it then I'm all on for that.



Ps. Anyone know any other good documenaries ? Not downloadable even.
Might be worth a sticky with a list of recommended reading and viewing.


edit: Changed my post cos its all been said before.

5uspect

Rev Hellfire wrote:

It all depends on how much value you place in the idea of the 'truth' of religion. To me its not that importent, whats importent is do people get any benfit from it.

If people want to believe in pink dragons in their garage I'm all for it, if they gain benfit from it then it's not that absurd from where I'm looking at it. And to be honest if a society grows up which follows said pink dragon and gains more good than harm from it then I'm all on for that.

But when they try to pass it off as science in schools, or blow thenselves up in the name of their pink elephants than what? I have no problem with people beleiving what they want, I do have a problem with such beliefs being accepted by governments as something that must be protected as if they were fact and giving them a priviliged place in society. I feel religions should have no more importance that say groups of people who like eastenders.

Playboy

Its crap. Dont even bother watching it.

Sapien

Playboy wrote:

Its crap. Dont even bother watching it.

What's wrong with it?

Rev Hellfire

Certainly where religion crosses over into science it should be fought against.
And there is no doubt that in the US this is happening to alerming results.

Governments reflect the wishes of society and if society wishes to hold a religious view there is no reason why that should not be the case.

Personally I think religion will always be with us, its something people need and will continue to look for. The idea that it will disappear as we become more educated doesnt seem to hold much water, esp when you look to the states and the emerging theocracy there.

Playboy

Sapien wrote:

What's wrong with it?

Everything. He should stick to writing books. He comes across very poorly in the show, just as much a fundamentalist as the people he is trying to expose. He takes so many cheap shots instead of tackling the more difficult issues in the science religion debate.

Sapien

Playboy wrote:

Everything. He should stick to writing books. He comes across very poorly in the show, just as much a fundamentalist as the people he is trying to expose. He takes so many cheap shots instead of tackling the more difficult issues in the science religion debate.

I don't think he won anyone over. I don't think he wanted to. It was a sermon to the choir, and I certainly got a kick out of it.

Dades

Dawkins does come across badly, like someone who been banging his head against walls for years and has just given up trying to be subtle about it.

He can talk and write a lot of sense though.

aidan24326

The Atheist wrote:

Dawkins does come across badly, like someone who been banging his head against walls for years and has just given up trying to be subtle about it

But is this not the whole point? He's saying sod this subtle approach, let's call a spade a spade here.

You can believe what you want, pink dragons or anything else, and if someone gets some psychological benefit or comfort from that belief then fair enough. I agree with that much.

But like 5uspect said it's another matter entirely when this crap is being passed off as fact in schools, and government are protecting these delusional ravings and their mouthpieces just because they present themselves under the all-knowing label of religion.

Personally I didn't think Dawkins came across badly at all.

robindch

> Personally I didn't think Dawkins came across badly at all.

Likewise. There were bits which he could have polished a bit more, and a few bits he could have extended or dropped, but in general, I thought it was pretty good for a 100-minute look.

Stephen

Playboy wrote:

Its crap. Dont even bother watching it.

Family Guy wrote:

Oh Reginald... I disagree! *screech*

.

pH

Here's a small bit from JONATHAN MILLER'S BRIEF HISTORY OF DISBELIEF
http://youtube.com/watch?v=etiZv_rOOgc

stevejazzx

The Atheist wrote:

Dawkins does come across badly, like someone who been banging his head against walls for years and has just given up trying to be subtle about it.

He can talk and write a lot of sense though.

Yeah I got this impression also, he kept jumping in during his interviews with the various religous **nuts he talked to but even at that I thought he came across well, always tempered even in the face such absurdity; "Yes I think friend was right to murder that doctor"!!!!!
The Pastor of the fundamentalist church disturbed me the most, followed closley by Islamic guy. The part where Pastor says "I wouldn't like these people to not think for themselves" is followed directly by a scene where he's on stage getting people to shout out the word 'obidience' and 'we must obey' .....amazing stuff, scary as usual.
Overall i enjoyed it and would say it definitely worth a look.
Thanks for posting OP.

Tim Robbins

I watched both of those documentaries.
The problem with Dawkins is that he takes the worst most extreme faith arguments and then rubbishes them.
This is a political style of debating and not scientific. He should be taking the best faith arguments and challenging them.

He also uses trendy electro music and cool imagery for his own points and scary imagery and stupid music when he is rubbishing the extreme faith position - this is propaganda.
He is only really arguing against extreme faiths and not moderate ones.
But anything extremes in anything is dangerous, not just faith or religion.

He doesn't really enter the evolutionary debate at all, he just says there's loads of evidence, but doesn't discuss any of the evidence.
As an atheist, I was disappointed.

robindch

Dawkins did bring in a few regular Joes, but they're not as memorable as the clowns. It's been a while since I saw it, but wasn't the first ten minutes of the first episode taking a look at Lourdes and didn't he get to speak to a few Irish people too?

Picking one nut in the USA wasn't unreasonable, since, as he pointed out, (a) the guy is the head of the christian evangelist movement and can be taken as representative of a very large group of people, and (b) lunatic views based upon messianic and apocalyptic readings of the bible are mainstream, unlike in Europe. Same in Israel, as the on-going religious war there suggests.

> He doesn't really enter the evolutionary debate at all, he just says
> there's loads of evidence, but doesn't discuss any of the evidence.

It was a program about religion, not evolution. If you'd like to examine claim and couter-claim about that "debate", try:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html

stevejazzx

Tim Robbins wrote:

I watched both of those documentaries.
The problem with Dawkins is that he takes the worst most extreme faith arguments and then rubbishes them.
This is a political style of debating and not scientific. He should be taking the best faith arguments and challenging them.

He also uses trendy electro music and cool imagery for his own points and scary imagery and stupid music when he is rubbishing the extreme faith position - this is propaganda.
He is only really arguing against extreme faiths and not moderate ones.
But anything extremes in anything is dangerous, not just faith or religion.

He doesn't really enter the evolutionary debate at all, he just says there's loads of evidence, but doesn't discuss any of the evidence.
As an atheist, I was disappointed.

I see your point about him picking essentisally easy targets of extreme faith and that the arguments weren't extensive but rather straight ahead.
I think though, as has been suggested earlier in this thread that he has tired of treating the subject too calmly.
I don't think that this was to the detriment of the documentary because he was honest in his approach with each interviewee. The program was inevitably one sided but I don't imagine that in religous documentaries they take much time out to consider that perhaps there is no god.

5uspect

This essay shows that Dawkins is growing tired of being polite regarding religion. It was written shortly after 9/11 and is quite aggressive, he does say in the indroduction to this work in the Devils Chaplin that he would probably tone the language down if he were to write it today but it was an exceptional time. Worth reading all the same.

Dades

5uspect wrote:

This essay shows that Dawkins is growing tired of being polite regarding religion. It was written shortly after 9/11 and is quite aggressive, he does say in the indroduction to this work in the Devils Chaplin that he would probably tone the language down if he were to write it today but it was an exceptional time. Worth reading all the same.

Enjoyed that, 5uspect.

Liked the 'contributions' of Douglas Adams and particularly that of Gore Vidal. Memorable, indeed.

Dawkins admits that it's not really religion that motivates people to violence, but the labels that it allows people to place on one another. I don't this as strong an argument as he does.

Religion historically is responsible for every culture we see today. Taking away the religion, or the 'label', will still leave the culture and every prejudice that comes with it. People are naturally xenophobic and will alway fear another way of life.

Tim Robbins

The Atheist wrote:

Enjoyed that, 5uspect.

Liked the 'contributions' of Douglas Adams and particularly that of Gore Vidal. Memorable, indeed.

Dawkins admits that it's not really religion that motivates people to violence, but the labels that it allows people to place on one another. I don't this as strong an argument as he does.

Religion historically is responsible for every culture we see today. Taking away the religion, or the 'label', will still leave the culture and every prejudice that comes with it. People are naturally xenophobic and will alway fear another way of life.

Yes but wars and fights existed before Religion was established. Check the "Punic Wars" for example.
Evolution explains war and fighting better in my opinion. It is part of the survival instinct, not to trust and hence like what you don't know.
It also explains,a 'kill or be killed' philosophy.

robindch

> Yes but wars and fights existed before Religion was established.

The Punic Wars? That's rather a long time ago!

Most of the conflicts in the world today -- Israel v. Lebanon, Russia v. Chechnya, Muslim-Thai v. Non-muslim Thai, etc, etc, etc -- use religion as a basis for motivating fighters to murder each other. Neutralize the religion and you take away the reason. What do you imagine would happen then?

> It also explains,a 'kill or be killed' philosophy.

I can't think of any biological system which operates upon a "kill or be killed" basis. Too expensive, you see. Much cheaper to have some kind of co-operation.

Dades

robindch wrote:

Neutralize the religion and you take away the reason. What do you imagine would happen then?

They'd find some other excuse to kill each other?
Money, land, skin colour, basic cultural differences - take your pick.
Fear is a great motivator too.

galactus

Typically unsubtle Dawkins.

On Lourdes:
"...in reality they're much more likely to catch something from the thousands of other pilgrims who have wallowed in the water"


PS I see he gives Darwin the credit for evolution, rather than Wallace. Tsk, tsk.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

robindch

> "...in reality they're much more likely to catch something from
> the thousands of other pilgrims who have wallowed in the water"

It's probably true, though, isn't it?

> I see he gives Darwin the credit for evolution, rather than Wallace. Tsk, tsk.

Probably caused by lack of time. See the first para of:

http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/WorldOfDawkins-archive/Dawkins/Work/Articles/1998darwinism.shtml

...where he notes Wallace's discovery.

Tim Robbins

robindch wrote:

> Yes but wars and fights existed before Religion was established.

The Punic Wars? That's rather a long time ago!

Most of the conflicts in the world today -- Israel v. Lebanon, Russia v. Chechnya, Muslim-Thai v. Non-muslim Thai, etc, etc, etc -- use religion as a basis for motivating fighters to murder each other. Neutralize the religion and you take away the reason. What do you imagine would happen then?

> It also explains,a 'kill or be killed' philosophy.

I can't think of any biological system which operates upon a "kill or be killed" basis. Too expensive, you see. Much cheaper to have some kind of co-operation.

So what if it's a long time ago. That's how far we have to go back to analyse mass movements in Europe, before organised religion has kicked in Europe.
If your not happy analysing europe fair enough, go to Africa and Rwanda, Tutsi V Hutu. I don't think organised religion was to blame there.

Evolution has created two philosophies:
1. kill or be killed.
2. Mutual co-operation for survival.

Both exist in the human species. If only 2 existed, we'd all be happy with each other and there would have been no killing power struggles etc. That#s my view,

Zillah

Tim Robbins wrote:

Yes but wars and fights existed before Religion was established. Check the "Punic Wars" for example.

What the hell are you talking about? The Punic Wars were a series of wars between Rome and Carthage, both of which were deeply religious nations. The Romans spent massive fortunes on extensive temples and allowed the reading of divine portents to hugely influence their day to day lives. The Carthaginians were believed to have engaged in ritual prostitution as well as occasional human sacrifice in institutionalised religion. Their prime deities were Ba'al and Tanit if I'm not mistaken.

Schuhart

The article is much better than the documentary – its good, fierce writing. I haven’t read anything else by Dawkins, so I’ve nothing to judge where this fits in to his work. But I did feel that both the documentary and article are only of polemical value.

Clearly religions cause problems. That’s not to say that all problems are caused by religion, or that religion has never done anyone any good. Maybe visiting Lourdes does help some people reconcile themselves to their fate. It would strike me that a more dispassionate approach is needed to identifying what exactly we see as wrong in religion. For example, the way it can stunt science.

Its role in promoting division and irrationality should be explored – but sensibly. The Opium War had little to do with religion, and plenty to do with naked commercial interest. Religion has contributed to other conflicts, but might not have been the prime factor. And, finally, religion has certainly been the prime cause of some wars.

However, all the time I think the primary objection to religion is simply that it just ain’t so. Jesus might have been a decent person with a humane outlook, but he was not divine. No god sent an angel to recite the Quran into a prophet’s ear. The Jews are waiting for Godot. There is no china teapot orbiting the Sun.

I share the ‘straw man’ concern about the documentary. The Islamic convert was just telling us what we want to hear – theists want to force their beliefs on you and put A Wear into liquidation. If he engaged with mainstream figures from different faiths it would be more interesting. The brief engagement with a moderate Church of England clergyman was about the most useful moment in the whole thing – and was really just a flavour of what a real discussion might have been like. Yes, its necessary to explore with moderates how they can seem to drop whole chunks of the manual. But that's space that needs exploring.

stevejazzx

The Atheist wrote:

They'd find some other excuse to kill each other?
Money, land, skin colour, basic cultural differences - take your pick.
Fear is a great motivator too.

Money skin color and cultural differences are all areas from which the human race to seem s more tolerent, although you are right to signal them, these areas are cetainly not unqestioned and seem to be improving through time, for e.g take skin color, in America one hundred years ago black people had no place in society at all and now their place is firmly established although I do accept there is a lot political motivation for such they are certainly a lot better off these days.
Religon is the one area that remains unquestioned by the majoirty of societies around the world.
Armed with religon motivators can convince childern to kill. As long as religon exists we are going to have this extremist reaction to evolution. People terrified to embrace modern ideas will intensify their religous beliefs just to reinforce it's status.
They cannot do this other areas like money, skin color because it would not be quantifiable by any means.
They can justify murder through selective intepretation of thier holy books without much (or any) condemantion from their fellow members.
There is litreally no other way to justify murder these days. Religon is essentially the last loophole for extremists whose minds have been ravaged from the perpetual hynotism and hype that has enveloped them from a small age.
Wheter the motivation is poltical or genuine human evolution, people are gradually moving away from closemindedness, take the recent acceptance of homosexuality in mainstream society as an example.
Religon is one of the few areas where the human race is moving backwards in it's thinking becoming less inquisitive, more extreme and more hopelessly dependant on flawed leaders.
Get rid of religon and you rid the world of a massive chain that has straddled ours necks and spines for countless generations. You give people no option but to look for intelligible answers to the world.

robindch

> I think the primary objection to religion is simply that it just ain’t so

Yes, up to a point. But there are two underlying things which people forget about when thinking about religion:

1. It instructs people to believe incomprehensible, impossible or contradictory things uncritically, and that it's good to do this, and then that it's good to act upon these beliefs. This is madness, and your point arises from this madness.

2. As above from Dawkins, it labels people. And once people have labels with which to create ingroups and ougroups, well, it's only time before some political leader exploits that and the trouble starts. The prevalence of religious conflict on the planet suggests that religions are the most efficient way of creating conflict and as stevejazzx says, other means of division simply aren't as effective.

> its necessary to explore with moderates how they can seem to drop
> whole chunks of the manual

All religious moderates that I'm aware of subscribe to the two basic points above. The difference between the religious moderates and the fundies is not a matter of philosophy or basic creed, it's a much simplier matter of degree.

Dades

Taking a side step...

Does anyone think that the complete "removal" of religion from society would not leave a huge, unpredicible vacuum? I mean if we are talking about the kind of people who can be pursuaded that it is right to kill on religious grounds, isn't is possible they'll be just as dangerous once the threat of their own god is removed, and the cultural predjudices remain?

Sort of like what fundie Christians believe people act like when they have no god. Obviously we know that you don't need a god for a moral code, but I'm not so confident I could say the same about everybody - particularly societies that are dictated by religion.

And how exactly does one remove religion anyway, or is this all just moot?

stevejazzx

The Atheist wrote:

And how exactly does one remove religion anyway, or is this all just moot?

Well not communism, China although offiaclly classed as an atheist country still has around 400 million people(about the fifth largest religon in the world) following confusanism or some such thing....
So you remove religon through scientific discovery, the evidence for evolution will become so overwhelming that slowly more and more people will at least consider it and once that happens we will see a movement away from religon.
You ask what happens if there is no religon? A period in human history where desperate people try to ressurect a dying idea.
In a way the modern world is extremely non religous in action. Essentailly what is growing is not religon but religous extremism, fundamentalism.
This is a reaction to the percieved evils of the world, power, greed, materialism, capitalism, sexual depravity etc.

The new American christian reborn fundamentalist movement is particulary hypocritical as they oppose captialism and materialim in principal but openly practice such things in their dialy lives. Islamic fundamentalits are polarised to the exteme opposite wanting to murder capitalists, materialists etc.
The problem with American set is that their way of life has been controlled for too long by a capitialist authority who have placed an overwhelming climate of consumerism upon the culture and despite their best religous intentions they are victims of their own greed, the very smae idaes they pray against at church on sunday.
The problem with the Islamic set is that their ideas of purity are so antiquated that they fail to embrace any aspects of modernity including mainly science and technology. Their ideas in relation to sex and women are particulary ancient also. They see any new expression of sexual culture as a grave evil, homosexuality etc, although these ideas prevail amoung Christians in the States also, political pressure to accept women and colured people as equals just tips the balance to a general positive.
So in America political correctness is in direct conflict to christian fundamentalism. So we have at least some kind of balance there.
There isn't any balance within Islamic fundamentalism.
Therefore Islamic extremists would become more intense the closer the world came to moving away from religon because there is no balance, no questining of it's main ideas and principals. This is essentially what is happening at moment. The developed western world moves closer and closer to complete Amerisation of culture and the Islamic world becomes more and more intnese to resist. So essentially the problem is not Islams refusal to accept western culture but it's inability to understand anything from western culture past it's percieved evils. Basically Islam won't lie down and become a good litlle consumer like everyone else. In fact Islam is hitting back at the greed of western society and it's ability to create advanced technology while millions starve, but this retialition is retarded as it aims to kill common people randomly. A real retalition would be political and targeted at govenments, an even better retaliation against western culture would be to set a beautiful example of how life should be lived in their own countrys but they have failed to this also.
The problem is that Islam doesn't seem to consider any western percieved idea of freedom as real freedom. Everthing is tied to consumerism, so we are only free so long as we have a place of comfort in society. No politican advocates atheism, anarchy and non consumerism as a way of life. The Islamic idea of freedom would ironically work better if you take away the religon as it would be essentialy a Ghandi like lifestlye of complete refusal of all materials which aren't absolutely vital for the sustainance of life, but this kind of freedom isn't progreesive enough for human life anymore, our scientific endevours are becoming more and more advanced closer to discovering real truths about the universe so we need western culture in this way.
What we are left with is a muddled mess of the new and the old. If humans are to continue to evolve then surely somewhere along the line religon has to go.

robindch

> Does anyone think that the complete "removal" of religion from society
> would not leave a huge, unpredicible vacuum?

Not really. Take a look at most of the UK, or all of Sweden, Holland, Germany and other places where traditional religious observances have all but died, without any real problems arising.

If one accepts the usual religious notion that humans are inherently evil and must be restrained by authority of one kind or another, then it's easy to see why religious people would think that problems would occur.

But observation shows that it doesn't, suggesting that the religious notion of humanity's evil is simply wrong (surprise, surprise). Actually, the idea is nicely recursive: religion tells you that you are evil and need restraining, and then goes on to explain that religion can do the restraining for you. A nice example of one of Hofstadter's strange loops

> I mean if we are talking about the kind of people who can be pursuaded
> that it is right to kill on religious grounds, isn't is possible they'll be just
> as dangerous once the threat of their own god is removed, and the
> cultural predjudices remain?

I don't think so, since the cultural prejudices which induce people to kill each other frequently arise from the religion in the first place.

> And how exactly does one remove religion anyway, or is this all just moot?

Not quickly, but information and good education, free speech, free travel, a free-wheeling and self-adjudicated moral environment all seem to reduce its power over people. As do buoyant economies. It takes a generation or two, but look at how far Ireland has come since the 1960's...

Dades

Okay so we're talking about the gradual removal of religion through information, education etc., rather than a hypothetical sudden disappearance.

If education and information have never been more accessible, how come the world appears to be gripped in religious fervor? Or is it no different than it has been, just it makes good TV in the days of global media?

Europe aside, the access to information seems to be almost fueling problems rather than solving them.

Rev Hellfire

I'm not sure it's possible to remove religion from society it's something which I personally feel will always be with us for good or ill for the foreseeable future in one form or another. If you think otherwise you're watching to much star trek

People will always need that support that belief provides, the idea that it’s all going to be ok and that no matter how bad their circumstances are there’s something better waiting for them. If look at the states for example where people are more educated than in the past but less satisfied with their lot, the increase in religious extremism there is totally understandable.

Asiaprod

I would agree with Rev Hellfire, I too am not sure it's possible to remove religion from society. To remove the religion one would have to first remove the need. And again in the Rev's words "People will always need that support that belief provides, the idea that it’s all going to be ok and that no matter how bad their circumstances are there’s something better waiting for them."

Its a hope founded on a dependence (could be the other way round too) that will be hard to break. What would one offer them instead

Dades

I'm inclined to agree with the sentiment above too, which is why I was wondering is the question of what would life be without religion, moot.

Education and information are of great assistance in reaching conclusions based on education and information. However faith is based on neither of these, and more importantly neither will fill the gap left behind.

People are liable to be (as the Creationist Museum describes non-believers) - "willfully ignorant".

robindch

> how come the world appears to be gripped in religious fervor?

It seems fairly clear that the level of religious belief has declined in western society generally, or at least the public acceptability of religious extremism -- how many regular joes from the west do you hear of these days wearing hairshirts or indulging in weirdness like the Shi'a 'ceremony' of Ashura? (jeez, that one of the woman with a knife and the baby is sick)

I think we hear far more about extremism because of the effectiveness of worldwide media and the effectiveness of religious communicators. They've always been good tub-thumpers, but now they've got a global reach and large budgets. I suspect, based upon not much more than gut feeling, that much of the rise in fervor is an illusion, though a convincing one, and one which is ably stoked by the political colleagues of the religious leaders (in the countries where the two are different )

Countries like Sweden, Holland and the UK do show that religion can die a peaceful death if it's let do so. The trick is to engineer the conditions where it can.

5uspect

The Atheist wrote:

Okay so we're talking about the gradual removal of religion through information, education etc., rather than a hypothetical sudden disappearance.

Are you planning something you're not telling us?!

The Atheist wrote:

If education and information have never been more accessible, how come the world appears to be gripped in religious fervor? Or is it no different than it has been, just it makes good TV in the days of global media?

Europe aside, the access to information seems to be almost fueling problems rather than solving them.

Fundamentalism in the US is nothing new, its always been a bit of a nut house. There is a global increase (some would say death cry) in religion especially extremism. There are bible thumping creationist schools popping up in the UK and other highly secular countries in europe. The instant and oversaturated media allows the spread of these ideas and the illusion that the spread is somewhat greater than it actually is (in a sort of positive feedback loop). In the Root of all Evil Dawkins (at a meeting with some secular americans) refers to the fundamentalist movement as religous facism. This is a good analogy and I sincerely hope that we have learned enough from history not to let this particular breed of theistic totalitarianism get out of control.

I don't think religion will ever disappear. Ideally I'd like to see religious belief become something only a few cranks believe and drift into obscurity (with the usual unfortunate revivals). That said the majority of people in Ireland would probably get on grand without any religion, sure don't we have the GAA?

robindch

> sure don't we have the GAA?

Rev Hellfire

I'm not sure that people in the west are becoming less religious, but rather that the nature of their religion is changing. People these days (in the west) adopt a more pick and mix from the goody bag of world religions.
Most I suspect if you asked them would profess to having a religious/spiritual leaning (as would seem to be shown by the recent census, we're not really seeing huge numbers reject it there), but their associating themselves with institutions of religion is greatly diminished.
Personally I’m not sure putting the UK, Holland and Sweden forward as examples of societies where religion has died out is that good an idea. They certainly aren’t turning into utopian societies without it, and some could argue that with the removal of the influence of a centralised religion their societies have become more disjointed and contributed to the dissatisfaction people now feel.

The problem is that societies work best from what I can see when they share a common identity which provides people with a sense of belonging and community. Which is something that religion (along with nationalism) provides, even if you can remove them people will still recreate them.

Dades

5uspect wrote:

Are you planning something you're not telling us?!

Maybe I'm brewing the world a big pot of secular coffee.

Rev Hellfire wrote:

The problem is that societies work best from what I can see when they share a common identity which provides people with a sense of belonging and community. Which is something that religion (along with nationalism) provides, even if you can remove them people will still recreate them.

Exactly - it would just be a vacuum waiting to be filled.

stevejazzx

revhellfire wrote:

The problem is that societies work best from what I can see when they share a common identity which provides people with a sense of belonging and community. Which is something that religion (along with nationalism) provides, even if you can remove them people will still recreate the

The Atheist wrote:

Maybe I'm brewing the world a big pot of secular coffee.

Exactly - it would just be a vacuum waiting to be filled.

Wrong. I agree there would be something to be filled in the abscence of religon, of course, but the something that we fill it with might be something progressive based on relaism rather than mythicism.
Just because there is a whole doesn't mean we'd have to stuff it with the same superstious ideas we've had for the last few millenia.

Dades

stevejazzx wrote:

Wrong.

stevejazzx wrote:

I agree there would be something to be filled in the abscence of religon

I never said what I thought would fill the vacuum. But since we're there, in less educated societies I wouldn't be so sure it would be "something progressive based on realism".