Richard Dawkins and
Like many here, I watched the first episode last night of this TV documentary. I was particularly interested in seeing it as I had discussed a paper he had written, ridiculing religion, at one of the ecumenical staff meetings I attend at a local university (I am there by invitation, as I'm not staff!) More of that below.
I had also listened to Dawkins being interviewed on the Jeremy Vine show on Radio 2. The Channel 4 people had sent out the title without the question mark and the two men must have spent the first 5 minutes with Jeremy Vine asking how he could justify this title when the worst atrocities the world has ever known were committed by people who were not religious - Hitler, Stalin and Mao. Dawkins got angrier and angrier, insisting they get off this "boring subject" to get back to talking about the programme, but Vine would not let it go. Dawkins had to agree about these worst atrocities, but said that Hitler was a Catholic (did his Catholicism motivate his evil? - I doubt it) and that though Stalin and Mao were atheists, their atheism had no connection with their evil.
So in other words, if you're "religious" and do evil, it's the fault of the religion, but if you're atheist, it's notÂ….. Hmm
Personally, I believe that it's never the core teachings of the religion - even Islam means peace and Jesus spent his time teaching about love and forgiveness. It's always the way that men have either read something literally, misunderstood it, or, have corrupted it and used religion as an excuse for power and tribalism. The conflict in Northern Ireland wasn't about religion (if the terrorists had really been Christians - either Catholic or Protestant) they would have been practising love and forgiveness, not hatred and bigotry. No, as so often happens, it's tribalism and the greed for land.
The fundamentalist thinking that Dawkins encountered last night was scary - oh yes, but it's not the majority world view. As I explained on my thread The Roots of Fundamentalism, it's always born out of fear and ignorance.
In it, I quote from Chief Rabbi Jonathan Sacks who wrote a book called "The Dignity of Difference" and it caused such a storm, he was forced to retract it, then re-write it, leaving out this sentence ".. no one creed has a monopoly on spiritual truth." He was asked, on the thought-provoking documentary "Children of Abraham" last year, what causes the difference between an inclusive religious belief and the closed mind of the fundamentalist and he replied that it all boils down to a key factor in our psychological makeup – insecurity.
"I define fundamentalism as the attempt to impose a single truth on a plural world. And what really lies behind it is fear – a profound insecurity, that makes you feel when you meet somebody who’s not like you, or doesn’t agree with you, that that challenges and threatens your very being.
Aggression is always a sign of insecurity and insecurity is always at bottom, a lack of faith, not the presence of it."
I wish that Channel 4 had called the programme "Fundamentalism the Root of all Evil?" which would have been much closer. Dawkins is ignoring all the goodness that comes out of people's individual practice of their religion. The anti-slavery movement in Britain came out of the church, opposing the government. The idea of setting up charities was also a Christian one.
To get behind the way Dawkins thinks, I just want to share some of the outcome of the discussion I had on the paper: "Snake Oil and Holy Water" by Richard Dawkins at the local university.
An agnostic physicist introduced the meeting and went round the room, asking for various peopleÂ’s ideas of God and their observations on this paper. He particularly wanted to discuss two themes from the paper. The first:
I once asked a distinguished astronomer, a fellow of my college, to explain the big bang theory to me. He did so to the best of his (and my) ability, and I then asked what it was about the fundamental laws of physics that made the spontaneous origin of space and time possible. "Ah," he smiled, "now we move beyond the realm of science. This is where I have to hand you over to our good friend, the chaplain." But why the chaplain? Why not the gardener or the chef? Of course chaplains, unlike chefs and gardeners, claim to have some insight into ultimate questions. But what reason have we ever been given for taking their claims seriously? Once again, I suspect that my friend, the professor of astronomy, was using the Einstein/Hawking trick of letting "God" stand for "That which we don't understand." It would be a harmless trick if it were not continually misunderstood by those hungry to misunderstand it. In any case, optimists among scientists, of whom I am one, will insist, "That which we don't understand" means only "That which we don't yet understand." Science is still working on the problem. We don't know where, or even whether, we ultimately shall be brought up short. http://www.forbes.com/asap/1999/1004/235_print.html
Interestingly one professor said that he believed that science was only in its medieval stages and had not yet reached the ultimate understanding and that when it did, science and religion would be found to be identical.
I started off by sharing the Christian Science understanding of what God is and then read them these comments of astrophysicist Laurance Doyle from SETI Institute (taken from Science and the Sacred: Separate or Synonymous? on spirituality.com: Video webcast - sadly no longer online)
Quote:
You can be the world's expert, but if the data does not back it up, if you cannot demonstrate the truth of it - you have no final authority. The final authority in science is what the universe has to say about the subject.
I think that's the difference between dogma and belief. A scientist at no point encounters the dogma, or shouldn't (accept the dogmatic response) "I'm sorry, that's just the mystery. You're going to have to accept that on blind belief." That is anathema to science. The scientific process is, question, question, question, and only truth will survive.
"Where science runs into a conflict with the sacred is in not accepting a limited version of the Source – a limited version of Mind. You can’t convince a scientist who works with googleplexes and galaxies and accelerating universes, much less quantum probabilities, that God is a tribal god that will fight. In the scientific community, a colleague of mine said, "You’re not trying to mix religion and science, are you?" I said, "Oh, no, no, no. I’m trying to make religion scientific."….
"The philosophy I have of science is that youÂ’re doing science when you take the evidence of intelligence above the evidence of the senses. The earth used to be thought to be flat. Well, it took evidence of intelligence to say it was round, because the senses say itÂ’s flat."..End of quote
There was a hush in the room and they were all intently listening. The agnostic physicist said to me that he deeply identified with what IÂ’d just quoted.
Einstein came up and it seemed a good opportunity to tell them that it was reported that Einstein used to spend hours studying Mary Baker EddyÂ’s primary work Science and Health and that he is once said to have remarked to the librarian: "Science and Health is beyond this generation's understanding. It is the pure science. And, to think that a woman knew this over eighty years ago!" They all laughed, but I hope it will give them pause for thought.
Then the conversation moved to:
In any case, the belief that religion and science occupy separate magisteria* is dishonest. It founders on the undeniable fact that religions still make claims about the world that on analysis turn out to be scientific claims. Moreover, religious apologists try to have it both ways. When talking to intellectuals, they carefully keep off science's turf, safe inside the separate and invulnerable religious magisterium. But when talking to a nonintellectual mass audience, they make wanton use of miracle stories--which are blatant intrusions into scientific territory.
The Virgin Birth, the Resurrection, the raising of Lazarus, even the Old Testament miracles, all are freely used for religious propaganda, and they are very effective with an audience of unsophisticates and children. Every one of these miracles amounts to a violation of the normal running of the natural world. Theologians should make a choice. You can claim your own magisterium* separate from science's but still deserving of respect. But in that case, you must renounce miracles. Or you can keep your Lourdes and your miracles and enjoy their huge recruiting potential among the uneducated. But then you must kiss goodbye to separate magisteria* and your high-minded aspiration to converge with science. http://www.forbes.com/asap/1999/1004/235_print.html
*magisterium: teaching authority especially of the Roman Catholic Church (I was relieved that none of the professors knew what that meant either!)
(I felt last night that it was very sad that he had to put those dear people at Lourdes into a programme with evil in its title. They are not mass killers. What evil goes on at Lourdes?)
Back to my discussion. Most people that night felt that Dawkins were incredibly arrogant calling people ignorant just because they believed in miracles. The maths professor said he used to laugh at dowsing until he discovered he could do it!
I took a deep breath and then told them I didnÂ’t have any problem believing in the miracles of the Bible, because, in a small way, I had experienced similar things in my own life. I said that there is a higher reality (that most people are oblivious to) than the physical world and its limitations and that Jesus was totally conscious of this and so was able to transcend all the so-called laws of matter.
I then told them the previous week I met Philip, whose healing I describe on https://www.healthypages.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?t=1592 and
who had staggered into a talk about Mary Baker Eddy dying and racked with pain and disability and how he then found he was pain free and the next day his legs were the same length and he could eat anything and instead of death he is alive and kicking!
The agnostic physics professor said: "Well, that’s exactly what Richard Dawkins needs to know. Surely this chap must have X-rays and hospital records? That’s the sort of proof we need. This sort of news shouldn’t just be shared with a small group of academics in this room – the world should be told about it. You Christian Scientists have a duty to let the world know about what is going on."
Love and peace,
Judy
PS: Here is a link by the way to a thought-provoking article about the argument between creationism and evolution (which came up a lot in the programme last night):
Monkeys, intelligent design, or none of the above? http://tinyurl.com/dkfs7
Jeremy Carper
Reprinted from the January 9, 2006, issue of the Christian Science Sentinel.
RE: Richard Dawkins and "The Root of all Evil?"
Aggression is always a sign of insecurity and insecurity is always at bottom, a lack of faith, not the presence of it."
Well i disagree on this one Judy because the core issue of agression can have many different root causes. In my experience irrational behaviour is often the result of an abused child, indoctrination or past life repercussions. Yes in same cases insecurity can come from fear and as faith actually means trust, it can signify a lack of trust inbuilt due to life experience. However, a lot of what we see going on in Jerusalem is about what is mine and thine (attachment) and the core of selfishness on both sides. So when and if people move into their hearts of love, let go of wishing to own lands/property and move into the community of US sharing we will indeed see a different story unfold.
I am sure that you will agree there is a long way to go yet. It seems that it is only when the religions dissolve that peace will indeed reign and I think this is at the core of Dawkins belief. As witnessed on the prgramme a lot of these problems are coming from the top e.g. some religious leaders are saying no, they cannot come here - it is OURS.
I see a lot of the fundamentalists including atheist fundamentalists are just using religion as a means to vent their own anger within that has not been healed. In my view if it wasn't religion they would focus their anger on something else and as we know anger and hostility is the biggest predictor of heart disease. So these people do have big heart blockages.
My view is that religion will get swept away in its own time as more and more people come to the realisation that they do not need religion to be one with God. In fact I would go as far as to say that God never asked for worship and Jesus advised people to pray alone.
The walls of separation will come down and I think that people like Dawkins are all playing their role in helping those walls to come down so that the people gain their freedom, liberation and spiritual independence. Man certainly does cause a lot of harm in the name of religion/belief for and against. However, that does not mean that I agree with everything that Dawkins says because I do not.
It really feels like the darkness of fundamentalism (in all its guises) is facing the light of love in more ways than one; in recent days it has been made very clear to me that nobody is being asked to be a martyr for the cause of love. Martyrdom was created by religion to control spiritual man and this runs deeply in human consciousness. Humanity has a golden window of opportunity to break this negative cycle. I look forward to viewing a world that is full of beings that are loving less moving into becoming love beyond measure.
Although I strongly adhere to the fact that the light of love of Gods truth is steel compared with the iron fist that humanity now faces. Love means acceptance in unconditinal love to me yet we see such a lack of acceptance of others in all walks of life - we even witness it on these forums.
And as is states in the bible these roots of less good will be pulled up because they were not planted by God.
Love beyond measure
Kim xx
RE: Richard Dawkins and "The Root of all Evil?"
H Kim,
Thanks for this - you and I are thinking along the same lines here.
I just want to clear something up though, where you wrote:
Sacredstar
quote:
Aggression is always a sign of insecurity and insecurity is always at bottom, a lack of faith, not the presence of it."Well i disagree on this one Judy because the core issue of agression can have many different root causes. In my experience irrational behaviour is often the result of an abused child, indoctrination or past life repercussions. Yes in same cases insecurity can come from fear and as faith actually means trust, it can signify a lack of trust inbuilt due to life experience.
Kim, you can't take one part of the quote out of context!
The words are from an interview with Chief Rabbi Jonathan Sacks who was talking specfically about fundamentaism, not about aggression:
He was asked, on the thought-provoking documentary "Children of Abraham" last year, what causes the difference between an inclusive religious belief and the closed mind of the fundamentalist and he replied that it all boils down to a key factor in our psychological makeup – insecurity.
"I define fundamentalism as the attempt to impose a single truth on a plural world. And what really lies behind it is fear – a profound insecurity, that makes you feel when you meet somebody who’s not like you, or doesn’t agree with you, that that challenges and threatens your very being.
Aggression is always a sign of insecurity and insecurity is always at bottom, a lack of faith, not the presence of it."
Love and peace,
Judy
RE: Richard Dawkins and "The Root of all Evil?"
Do accept my apologies Judy I was most unwell this morning. Have been down with infections of chest, ears and cold as well. Just starting to feel a bit better this evening. Everyone here seems to have bugs at the moment and they are going around and around. Sorry to jump in it just kinda a jumped out at me like things do. 😉
Love and hugs
Kim xx
RE: Richard Dawkins and "The Root of all Evil?"
Though we saw the spiritual side of Richard Dawkins come out at the end, his relentless crusade to discredit all religion is so glaringly one-sided and lacking balance, that I feel I need to say a little more.
He dragged up some ghastly OT "thou shalt not's" - I didn't write them down, but, remembering something about stoning, looked up some of those. Now this is to me, evdence of a passage from the Bible that comes from human opinion and NOT divine revelation from God who is infinite unconditional Love itself:
If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them: Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place; And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard. And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear. (Deut. 21)
Well, I'm sure some parents reading this will sympathise 😀 but obviously even fundamentalists (apart from perhaps the Taliban) reject those parts of "sacred" texts, yet will criticise others (like me) who only take what is inspired as my guide.
While Richard Dawkins dug out some ghastly examples of human opinions, (like that above) the human part of the 10 Commandments given to Moses have formed the basis for just about every law we have in the democratic West and similar moral codes are to be found in all religions. They are a basis for human rights, women's rights and law and order in all civilized societies.
Richard Dawkins spoke about people acting morally only because they were afraid of hell and damnaton - I totally disagree. I believe we act rightly because it is our spiritual identity to reflect God's goodness. I have written more about this on the thread "Is the Bible/Koran out of date in our society?" on 17 January 2006.
This morning, I picked up the excellent Rough Guide to a BETTER WORLD - and how you can make a difference (I really encourage everyone to ask for one - it's free) http://www.roughguide-betterworld.com What interested me is that they acknowledge (unlike Dawkins) the good that can come out of religion:
Speaking out - Faith-based advocacy
Faith-based communities, in rich and poor parts of the world, are key players on the road to creating a better world. Because successful development is not down to governments alone, but only takes place when players across society are engaged – individuals, business enterprises, trade unions, financial institutions – faith leaders play a key role as agents of social change.
"When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor are poor, they call me a communist."
Dom Helder Camara, Brazilian priestAt one time faith groups were criticized for being more interested in converting people than helping them to find ways to overcome poverty. In some societies it was left to the state to look after “material” matters and religion to concentrate on “spiritual” matters. Today many of the major religions recognize that their spiritual vocation includes fighting for political change.
The ancient Hindu maxim Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam, for example, means “all of creation is one family”. Maimonides, the twelfth-century Jewish philosopher, explains in his Eight Degrees of Charity that the most effective way to help the poor is to empower them to overcome their poverty. Muslims picture humanity as a body, and any discomfort or pain in one part of the body causes the whole body to suffer. And the Islamic principle of zakat, whereby a 2.5 percent donation of capital to the poor and needy is given, is an important way of putting beliefs into practice. Concern for a more compassionate society has also been central to Sikh Gurus, while Sikhs believe that concern for the wellbeing of others must mean promoting the rights of all people to a decent livelihood.
Whatever their differences, the major religions share a core belief that the earth and its fruits are made for all and not for the few. It is this common belief that fuels widespread moral outrage among believers of all traditions at the “scandal” of poverty.
For many with a religious conviction, prayer represents the most powerful form of advocacy.
Faith communities were global long before the word globalization was coined. Churches and mosques, for example, reach into almost every village and town and their leaders have first-hand experience of the reality of life for the majority of the world’s people. Along with other communities – women’s groups, trade unions, slum dwellers’ organizations – faith groups are a potent force for information distribution and social mobilization, a powerful base from which to challenge unfair political structures. And research suggests that when it comes to whom poor people really trust, it is less likely to be politicians, economists, police, or the army and more likely to be people in the church, the temple, the mosque, the synagogue or chapel.
Despite the debates that continue around the distribution of condoms and whether such schemes encourage casual sex, faith-based institutions, according to Njongonkulu Ndungane, Archbishop of Cape Town, are key players in the response to diseases such as HIV/AIDS. One of the reasons, he says, is because “for the majority of people, regardless of their social or economic position in society, when they become ill with any chronic illness, including HIV/AIDS, the first port of call is to their spiritual source for guidance and support.”
Love and peace,
Judy