Richard Dawkins' Documentary: The Root of All Evil

[Sam]

I saw these videos linked to in Darth Wong's forum (glad to see that you're back, btw), and I thought they would stir up some debate over here, so here they are.

Part 1: The God Delusion:

Part 1-1
Part 1-2
Part 1-3

Part 2: The Virus of Faith:

Part 2-1
Part 2-2
Part 2-3
Part 2-4
Part 2-5
Part 2-6

I'm currently watching Part 2-3, and what I have seen so far has been very concise and factually accurate. I'm interested to see what the members of FAITH have to say about this series.

I ask politely that people refrain from trolling in this thread, because Dawkins is not a man who walks on eggshells when discussing religion and he will probably offend religious viewers at some point. Fundies need not reply, we know what you have to say.

[Tostig]

To be blunt I was unimpressed with the series after the calibre of his writing. It seemed to me as though the substance and weight of his arguments did not come across well in the medium of television. He undermined himself by dismissing the "normal" people he met who put their point across well after the interviews. Further more he could have put more emphasis on the origins of belief, setting it up the start of organised religion much like he did in his books. Finally Dawkin's reliance on interviews with obvious extremists did him no favours, he would have been better to attack more commonly held laissez-faire religion than to point out what everyone who might have an open mind already knows - that suicide bombers are nutters.

In conclusion it was good, but not a touch on his writing. I was quite disappointed.

[Sam]

Finally Dawkin's reliance on interviews with obvious extremists did him no favours, he would have been better to attack more commonly held laissez-faire religion than to point out what everyone who might have an open mind already knows - that suicide bombers are nutters.

This is taken from Dawkins' Diary;

As for my "extremist" interviews, would that Pastor Ted Haggard were extreme. In neo-con America, he is mainstream. President of the 30 million-strong National Association of Evangelicals, he has a weekly phone conversation with Bush. My other "extremist", Yousef al-Khattab (Joseph Cohen) of Jerusalem, was supposed, as an American Jew turned Israeli settler turned Muslim, to see both sides and give a balanced perspective. Wrong!

We did invite the Archbishop of Canterbury - and the Chief Rabbi and the Archbishop of Westminster - to be interviewed. All declined, no doubt for good reasons. Happily, the Bishop of Oxford accepted, and he was as delightful as ever.

Same old stuff, same old stuff. Inaccurate generalisation, random assertion and deliberately emotive language designed to mislead the viewer. So like I say, I'm not surprised. For example, early on at Lourdes he states that, "People come here, wallowing in the mud and expecting to be cured. In reality you're more likely to catch something than be cured." Does he back this up with some sort of convincing statistic? Er, no, actually.

Can you provide some better examples? When 80,000 sick pilgrims (and millions of others, according to wiki) bathe in and/or drink the untreated water from this spring each year, it's sheer common sense that picking up a disease is more likely than getting a miracle cure, of which there have allegedly been 66 out of millions of pilgrims.

He goes on then to massively manipulate rather shaky statistics and, taking them out of context and omitting ones that don't quite fit with what he's saying, makes his questionable assertions. It's just a stream of emotive assertions and 'history' (in the manner of The Da Vinci Code, of course), omitting various facts and even making some things up. He uses lots of interesting phrases such as 'no doubt through some tautological religious explanation'. Then he goes on to connect with other subjects where there is no connection at all.

Care to provide some examples? I would like to know where you are getting all that from.

[Zenith Darksea]

Same old stuff, same old stuff. Inaccurate generalisation, random assertion and deliberately emotive language designed to mislead the viewer. So like I say, I'm not surprised. For example, early on at Lourdes he states that, "People come here, wallowing in the mud and expecting to be cured. In reality you're more likely to catch something than be cured." Does he back this up with some sort of convincing statistic? Er, no, actually. Then he interviews a woman who came as a pilgrim, asking her what she expected to get out of it. Then he asked her, "And a cure?" Then conveniently she was cut off, leaving Dawkins' typical insinuation. He goes on then to massively manipulate rather shaky statistics and, taking them out of context and omitting ones that don't quite fit with what he's saying, makes his questionable assertions. It's just a stream of emotive assertions and 'history' (in the manner of The Da Vinci Code, of course), omitting various facts and even making some things up. He uses lots of interesting phrases such as 'no doubt through some tautological religious explanation'. Then he goes on to connect with other subjects where there is no connection at all.

It's no more than I'd expect from a man with such deep faith in his atheism.

[Big War Bird]

Dawkins seriously needs to read Clash of Civilizations to understand why hard line relgion snetiment is on the rise and what might be done about it. However, from the diary entry, he seems not to be a fan of the neo cons who are defending secualrism with arms.

[Zenith Darksea]

there have allegedly been 66 out of millions of pilgrims.

66 confirmed cases. I expect that very few are actually counted, and we can't say how many there have been in the distant past. It was hardly an official statistic either. He just got some guy to have a vague guess.

Care to provide some examples? I would like to know where you are getting all that from.

Well for example, again from the early part, Dawkins talks about the formulation of Christian doctrine. He gives in particular the example of the Immaculate Conception of Mary (like Dan Brown, Dawkins uses the sinister term 'The Vatican' which is of course hugely inaccurate and really quite sloppy - as if I were to refer to eighteenth century Virginia as 'Washington D.C.', completely wrong), saying that it was invented six hundred years after Christ's death. Of course it wasn't suddenly 'invented' in a room on the Vatican Hill in the sixth century (especially as all that was on the Vatican Hill back then was a small, insignificant Church), it had already been standard doctrine for as long as anyone could remember. It was simply clarified and asserted to prevent the growth of heresies that denied it. In short, he makes all the same mistakes about the early Church that Dan Brown makes and then uses this as a basis for ridiculous assumptions (in this case that Christianity was made up overnight by the Council of Nicaea etc.).

On the whole he's not as bad as he could be, but I'd really like to see someone approach the subject who hasn't already decided what their conclusion is.

[Darth Wong]

66 confirmed cases. I expect that very few are actually counted, and we can't say how many there have been in the distant past. It was hardly an official statistic either. He just got some guy to have a vague guess.

"Confirmed" by religious officials, not scientists.

Well for example, again from the early part, Dawkins talks about the formulation of Christian doctrine. He gives in particular the example of the Immaculate Conception of Mary (like Dan Brown, Dawkins uses the sinister term 'The Vatican' which is of course hugely inaccurate and really quite sloppy - as if I were to refer to eighteenth century Virginia as 'Washington D.C.', completely wrong), saying that it was invented six hundred years after Christ's death. Of course it wasn't suddenly 'invented' in a room on the Vatican Hill in the sixth century (especially as all that was on the Vatican Hill back then was a small, insignificant Church), it had already been standard doctrine for as long as anyone could remember. It was simply clarified and asserted to prevent the growth of heresies that denied it. In short, he makes all the same mistakes about the early Church that Dan Brown makes and then uses this as a basis for ridiculous assumptions (in this case that Christianity was made up overnight by the Council of Nicaea etc.).

The arbitrary selection of certain texts as "true" and other texts as "heretical" is most certainly equivalent to invention of the faith.

On the whole he's not as bad as he could be, but I'd really like to see someone approach the subject who hasn't already decided what their conclusion is.

Care to show an example of bad logic on his part, other than your assumption that Catholic "confirmation" of miracles is the same thing as scientific verification?

[Punkus]

I don't know much about the videos posted, but I have something to add that I feel is pertinent to any honest debate on the topic.

66 confirmed cases. I expect that very few are actually counted, and we can't say how many there have been in the distant past. It was hardly an official statistic either. He just got some guy to have a vague guess.

For those who are unaware, there is a term in the drug industry called "the placebo effect." What this term really means is that in any case study of a new drug, researchers will almost always find that a certain percentage of the control group - the placedo pill group - will begin to do better much as the group that takes the actual test drug.

This effect can be seen anywhere else in the world, and it is no surprise that some people claimed to be cured after this experience.

This is the dictionary definition of 'placebo'.

******

My bigger question regarding Christianity and the Christian God is: if he exists, why doesn't he show us in a way that helps us believe? Would it hurt anyone to show us all a real angel once in a while?

I have to say, I'm a realist, and my world is no less beautiful.

[ThiudareiksGunthigg]

66 confirmed cases. I expect that very few are actually counted, and we can't say how many there have been in the distant past. It was hardly an official statistic either. He just got some guy to have a vague guess.

No, he got a priest who is an official at Lourdes give the figure of the cases which have been 'confirmed' by the Church - it was not a 'vague guess', it was the official figure. And, as he points out, 66 cases of 'miracles' out of millions of pilgrims over a century or more is not very impressive statistically. Especially, as he points out, none of those cases involve things which are unquestionably miraculous - like missing limbs growing back.

Well for example, again from the early part, Dawkins talks about the formulation of Christian doctrine. He gives in particular the example of the Immaculate Conception of Mary (like Dan Brown, Dawkins uses the sinister term 'The Vatican' which is of course hugely inaccurate and really quite sloppy - as if I were to refer to eighteenth century Virginia as 'Washington D.C.', completely wrong),

No, he doesn't use 'the Vatican' in the stupid way Brown does. Brown refers to 'the Vatican' doing things in the Fourth Century, which is so ridiculously anachronistic it's comical. Dawkins is referring to the doctrine of the 'Assumption' (not 'the Immaculate Conception') and that definitely was a doctrine confirmed by the Vatican - in 1950. An ex cathedra statement by the Pope as the result of a Papal appeal to theologians and bishops for an assessment of the doctrine is an action by the Vatican by anyone's definition.

... saying that it was invented six hundred years after Christ's death. Of course it wasn't suddenly 'invented' in a room on the Vatican Hill in the sixth century (especially as all that was on the Vatican Hill back then was a small, insignificant Church), it had already been standard doctrine for as long as anyone could remember.

Both of these points are wrong. Dawkins correctly states that the doctrine was confirmed (not 'invented') in the pontificate of Pius XII (not 'the Sixth Century'). And it had not been standard doctrine for 'as long as anyone could remember'. It only became 'standard doctrine' with the issuing of Munificentissimus Deus in 1950 - before that it had simply been a tradition which Catholics could believe or reject as they wished. This tradition had been around since the Fourth Century, but it had long been disputed on the (entirely reasonable) grounds that it's odd that such a remarkable event in the First Century should go completely unremarked on for over 350 years.

The only thing Dawkins gets wrong is the idea that this doctrine says that Mary never died, when it actually simply refers to what happened to her body after her death. But his main point is entirely valid - the passage of time turns it from a folk tale into a 'tradition' and then theological musings by a Pope 1500 years later turn it into 'fact'. He then goes on to contrast this peculiar process with how science determines facts.

It was simply clarified and asserted to prevent the growth of heresies that denied it.

Wrong again. It was a statement to settle the disputes within the Church about whether this popular tradition was doctrinal or simply a tradition. Prior to 1950 it was not heretical in the slightest to deny it and many eminent Catholics, including theologians and bishops, did just that.

In short, he makes all the same mistakes about the early Church that Dan Brown makes and then uses this as a basis for ridiculous assumptions (in this case that Christianity was made up overnight by the Council of Nicaea etc.).

He does nothing of the sort.

On the whole he's not as bad as he could be, but I'd really like to see someone approach the subject who hasn't already decided what their conclusion is.

Dawkins makes no bones about what his conclusion is and that he is presenting that conclusion and his reasons for it. There's this weird idea these days that only someone who begins from a neutral point and works to a conclusion (or, even worse, works to a wishy-washy 'hey, who can tell? All ideas are equally valid ... ') is worth paying attention to. Dawkins isn't pretending to present a neutral point of view. He's arguing a point. That's a perfectly valid thing to do.

[Darth Wong]

I have one question for all the people who believe in Christian "healing miracles": why don't Christians have an average longer lifespan than everyone else? There is absolutely nothing in the statistics to show that Christians are less likely to suffer complications in hospital, less likely to die of various diseases, etc. How can that be, with all of these miracles?

[Sam]

I'll list a few things in the series which I find disturbing.

- The evangelist pastor seems to think that the bible's unalterable status makes it superior to science, which is not immune to new evidence. Odd, no?
- The evangelist pastor getting some guys together, confronting Dawkins, and making threats against him, not to mention the obvious rage he was barely keeping a lid on beforehand. Someone should remind him of Matthew 5:21-22, about how he who hates another has committed murder in his heart.
- Pope Pius XII just sitting down and deciding whether or not a major part of catholicism was true.
- Yousef al-Khattab thinks that sitting down and peacefully discussing the conflict between Muslims and Jews is ridiculous.

These are all just from the first three clips.

I have one question for all the people who believe in Christian "healing miracles": why don't Christians have an average longer lifespan than everyone else? There is absolutely nothing in the statistics to show that Christians are less likely to suffer complications in hospital, less likely to die of various diseases, etc. How can that be, with all of these miracles?

I guess He just wants them to receive the reward for their faithfulness sooner .

[LoZz]

some good points, relgion has caused alot of harm, as well as good!

[Big War Bird]

Not really convincing but interesting nevertheless.

'Healing power of prayer revealed'

Research shows prayer has a beneficial effect

A massive study has found that patients admitted to hospital with heart trouble fare better if someone is praying for them.
None of those involved were told that people were engaging in what is known as "intercessory prayer" on their behalf.

Just over half of these, picked at random, were made the subject of intercessory prayer.

However, on average, the 500 patients prayed for had 11% less complications during their stay in hospital.

In all, the researchers looked at 990 people admitted to the coronary care unit over the course of a year.

Using a standard coronary care scoring system, patients from prayer and non-prayer groups were assessed. Those who were the subject of prayer did better than their fellow patients, although in general, they did not get out of hospital any earlier.

'Could be chance'

The research team, based at a university hospital in Kansas City, US, admitted that no rational explanation could be found to explain away the difference.

But their report said: "We have not proven that God answers prayer or that God even exists. It was intercessory prayer, not the existence of God, that was tested here.

"Chance still remains a possible explanation of our results."

The prayers were said by volunteers from a local church. They were simply sent the patient's first name on a piece of paper, and told to pray for "a speedy recovery with no complications".

Studies inconclusive

Those being prayed for did not even know that a clinical trial was going on, let alone that they were the target of prayer. The scientists believed that knowing that someone was praying for you could conceivably have an effect on outcomes.

Other studies into the effects of intercessory prayer have been inconclusive - it has been found in earlier studies to have no significant effect on leukaemia patients, or those suffering from anxiety or depression.

However, one study into AIDS patients found significant improvements in the number of infections acquired when intercessory prayer was given.

The latest study was published in the Archives of Internal Medicine.

Link

[Darth Wong]

The last time a study like this was published, peer reviewers found that only a specific subset of "complications" was used, selected in order to "cook the books" and produce a desired result. A repetition of that scam wouldn't be surprising in light of the fact that these supposedly significant results do not translate into larger population statistics, and are not repeated in similar studies conducted by independent researchers (link).

For those unfamiliar with the scientific method, one of the first steps in confirming research is "verification" in which others try to independently reproduce the results. Failure to successfully pass this test is generally taken as evidence that the initial study was flawed, if not outright fraudulent. No doubt some would interpret this as "dueling studies" and argue that either or both are "biased", but that's not the way science works. Science always demands that a phemonenon be reliably repeatable by independent researchers: a requirement that has been part and parcel of its success.

[IamthePope]

Looks like a series of videos condenming religiosity. I can't see why I should bother. Sorry

[ThiudareiksGunthigg]

I can't see why I should bother.

Hmmm, an excellent example of one of the points Dawkins makes in the documentary.

[Darth Wong]

Looks like a series of videos condenming religiosity. I can't see why I should bother. Sorry

Yes, protect yourself from dangerous ideas by shutting them out.

[IamthePope]

Would you waste an hour of your time watching a goofy internet movie about the evils of Atheism and Agnosticism?

[Darth Wong]

Would you waste an hour of your time watching a goofy internet movie about the evils of Atheism and Agnosticism?

How do you know it's "goofy" without having seen it?

[IamthePope]

How do you know it's "goofy" without having seen it?

I watched a bit of it. But not the whole thing.