An atheist scientist's view on religion

"We are all atheists about most of the gods that societies have ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further."

"The Root of All Evil?" is a television documentary, written and presented by Richard Dawkins, in which he argues that the world would be better off without religion.
http://en.wikipedia....ot_of_All_Evil?

Part 1 : The God Delusion
http://video.google......l Evil?&hl=en

Part 2 : The Virus of Faith
http://video.google......l Evil?&hl=en

I saw this when it came out and really enjoyed it.

I can see why Richard Dawkins didn't like the title "The Root of All Evil?" as mentioned in the above Wikipedia entry. "Scientific industrialism" - like the "traditional" religions of the world Dawkins attacks - fell woefully short of a blessing to mankind too. One only has to think of the development and mass production of nuclear and conventional weapons with the massive destruction and loss of life they produced in World War I and World War II and threaten to do so again in the future given the right set of circumstances, or the development and mass production of those oil and gas guzzling motor vehicles that are bringing on global warming due to the excessive and unnecessary pollution they produce as well as killing and maiming large numbers of human beings in accidents every year.

I like what Donella H. Meadows, Professor of Environmental Studies at Dartmouth College, said in her article "Quality of Life" appearing in Earth '88: Changing Geographic Perspectives, a National Geographic Society book, about "scientific industrialism." She said on page 342 that:

"The founders of scientific industrialism, in order to prevail over the doctrinaire irrationality of the Middle Ages, emphasized specialization, reductionism, logic, and quantification. In doing so they restored a much needed balance and then went to far. For the sake of objectivity they condemned intuition, holism, spirituality, everything unmeasurable and indefinable. That condemnation has lasted for centuries and has shaped us all. ... it is clear that the industrial society that has dominated the world over that period is obsessed not with Quality but with quantity."

I have no doubt that much of Mr. Dawkin's atheist and scientific viewpoint was shaped by the ideas that came out of the scientific industrial era. The first question I would ask Dawkins, if I had a chance, is does he see atheism and the scientific method as the big ideas that'll show us the way for reversing the excesses and serious problems created by the scientific industrial era as well as keep the new society from straying off the path for hundreds of years?

Another part I liked in the above mentioned National Geographic article is where the author said:

"People may be properly nourished and fully employed, but if they are granted no personal dignity and are trained to no standard of character or excellence, if there is no Quality at the core of their lives, they will either withdraw sullenly into themselves or pursue material extravagance and sensual stimulation as shallow substitutes for Quality."

The second question I would ask Dawkins is does he believe atheism and the scientific method are adequate for the task of giving man the "personal dignity" and "standard of character" necessary to prevent the sullen withdrawal and pursuit of material extravagance and sensual stimulation mentioned above?

If something that is seemingly irrational brings only positive effects, it is logical to be seemingly irrational.

Is the scientific method or atheism responsible for the destruction caused by the nuclear bomb or possible damage from other technology? It is fairly evident that the knowledge obtained from the scientific method can be used for wonders or horrors, so is it not more fitting to look at why the tools were used for horror? Was the reason why connected to the scientific method?

How is not being a member of an organised religion an affront on personal dignity? Dawkins himself showed his pleasure in intuition, holism, and spirituality. He also showed his disdain when these things blinded and contradicted logic with the result of atrocities being committed.

If something that is seemingly irrational brings only positive effects, it is logical to be seemingly irrational.

What irrational thing do you see that brings positive effects? You lost me on this one.

Is the scientific method or atheism responsible for the destruction caused by the nuclear bomb or possible damage from other technology? It is fairly evident that the knowledge obtained from the scientific method can be used for wonders or horrors, so is it not more fitting to look at why the tools were used for horror?

In the case of nuclear and conventional weapons, it was scientists, who generally had an atheist or agnostic outlook, using the scientific method to improve on the destructive capabilities of the existing weaponry. Neither their atheism nor the scientific method provided them with the wisdom to refuse the money and special privileges and not build such weapons they knew would frequently kill and maim innocent noncombants.

Was the reason why connected to the scientific method?

You can say the same thing about the Bible and the Koran as well. Is the reason why these so-called religious people behave so badly a result of their religious text or is it a result of the people who misconstrue it and use the religion they've made-up as a tool for oppression and aggression?

How is not being a member of an organised religion an affront on personal dignity? Dawkins himself showed his pleasure in intuition, holism, and spirituality. He also showed his disdain when these things blinded and contradicted logic with the result of atrocities being committed.

I'm opposed to the same "organized" religions that Dawkins is. But I don't see how "organized" atheism employing the scientific method will ever be able to get the world out of the serious mess it's in. History shows it will probably only make matters worse whether wittingly or unwittingly.

I'm opposed to the same "organized" religions that Dawkins is. But I don't see how "organized" atheism employing the scientific method will ever be able to get the world out of the serious mess it's in. History shows it will probably only make matters worse.

Why are you opposed to them?

Where in the film did Dawkins promote an "organized" atheism? Are you talking about science itself?

It seems there are a lot of assumptions you are bringing into the argument that have not been made by the atheist in the film. Either that, or I am misinterpreting the film.

GREAT point cnorwood!! The scientific method (and scientific industrialism) never killed anyone directly. It is the human being that is imperfect and does all the killing. Scientific industrialism has been a huge benefit to my life. I have no complaints....so far. I don't think scientific industrialism or aethism has gone to far....the "quality" part of life just has to catch up.

Also, it is useless to point fingers at past fossil fuel usage and motor vehicles as some evil on this planet. Hindsight is 20/20. People have always used whatever they have at their disposal to make their lives better. We are probably doing something right now that may cause harmful effects in the future and we have no clue about it.

Could we do better? Sure. I'll stick with scientific industrialism as the best vehicle to help us escape our flawed evolutionary program.

Why are you opposed to them?

Because organized Christianity and Islam are both based on a misconstruction of the Bible and both are used to exploit and oppress the masses and as a justification for human aggression - especially in the case of the jahadi muslims.

Where in the film did Dawkins promote an "organized" atheism? Are you talking about science itself?

It seems there are a lot of assumptions you are bringing into the argument that have not been made by the atheist in the film. Either that, or I am misinterpreting the film.

I just assumed that since Dawkins believes "the world would be better off without religion" as stated in the above Wikipedia entry, he would believe the world would be better off with atheism and the scientific method. Isn't he trying to win hearts and minds for atheism and science to replace religion by making the film?

In the case of nuclear and conventional weapons, it was scientists, who generally had an atheist or agnostic outlook, using the scientific method to improve on the destructive capabilities of the existing weaponry. Neither their atheism nor the scientific method provided them with the wisdom to refuse the money and special privileges and not build such weapons they knew would frequently kill and maim innocent noncombants.

Someone had to make the weapons of the world, and the scientists you speak of probably created the weapon that has actually been used to kill few people, caompared to other weapons. I believe many many more people have been killed by the firearm that have ever died to a nuclear blast. You can blame atheism and the scientific method all you want, but they are relatively new things (atheism being old, but few embracing it, until now), whereas killing and weapon making are as old as civilization itself. So make a different point, cause calling atheists and scientists murderers is plain wrong.

both are used to exploit and oppress the masses and as a justification for human aggression

How are they able to do this even with intelligent people? I think this is where he said it was due to "the process of non-thinking called faith" that they are able to convince, since it does not require any substance to have belief. This would be alleviated if a religion was not based off of faith.

I just assumed that since Dawkins believes "the world would be better off without religion" as stated in the above Wikipedia entry, he would believe the world would be better off with atheism and the scientific method. Isn't he trying to win hearts and minds for atheism and science to replace religion by making the film?

In the film, religion seems to be defined as organized religion based on faith. You may even be able to drop the organized part, but all his examples are of organized religion. The whole scientific method thing is to contrast it with faith. Showing the difference between the two, he shows that faith has room to lead groups to war due to belief. I did not see where he advocated atheism and scientific method as a religion though. This could be my misinterpretation though. I guess it would also depend on if the viewer thinks that the absence of a faith based religion is atheism.

GREAT point cnorwood!! The scientific method (and scientific industrialism) never killed anyone directly. It is the human being that is imperfect and does all the killing. Scientific industrialism has been a huge benefit to my life. I have no complaints....so far. I don't think scientific industrialism or aethism has gone to far....the "quality" part of life just has to catch up.

Also, it is useless to point fingers at past fossil fuel usage and motor vehicles as some evil on this planet. Hindsight is 20/20. People have always used whatever they have at their disposal to make their lives better. We are probably doing something right now that may cause harmful effects in the future and we have no clue about it.

Could we do better? Sure. I'll stick with scientific industrialism as the best vehicle to help us escape our flawed evolutionary program.

Dead is dead. Whether the killing is done directly or indirectly doesn't make a difference to me. I guess the view points on scientific industrialism are going to fall largely along the lines of who has reaped the benefits from it and who hasn't or who has suffered or is suffering from it. I still think it's going to take something more than just atheism - in place of organized religion - and advances in science to bring about the utopian society we need.

As far as the scientist creating the bomb, did you know many did it because they knew that the germans were capable of it? They knew that the Germans were working on it, and if they figured it out before us... It was a huge decision they made, not an easy one. Some even devoted the rest of their lives to make sure it would not be dropped.

Not only that, the Japanese were also working on the Atomic bomb. I think they were closer than the Germans too. If I remembered correctly; One of the scientist who helped the Russians to acquire such technology via spying, when caught, said something about not wanting the United States to have a monopoly when it comes to the bomb thereby possibly dominating the world.

Scientists are at the forefront of human advancement; they have the power to some degree to change the world. In fact the president of the U.S. at the time had no knowledge that this sorth of ability was possible. If I am correct Albert Einstein with backing from other scientists wrote a letter to him urging him to begin the Manhattan Project.

Edit: Grammar

Edited by 123456, 03 September 2006 - 12:37 PM.

Wow, those were really informative, thanks cnorwood19!

If I am correct Albert Einstein with backing from other scientists wrote a letter to him urging him to begin the Manhattan Project.

If it wasn't for my recent history test involving this subject I wouldn't have noticed this, but it was actually the other way around, scientists at the time tried to use Einstein's signature as a way of validating their claims and getting their letters past the secretary.

EDIT: Fixing quote.

Someone had to make the weapons of the world, and the scientists you speak of probably created the weapon that has actually been used to kill few people, caompared to other weapons. I believe many many more people have been killed by the firearm that have ever died to a nuclear blast. You can blame atheism and the scientific method all you want, but they are relatively new things (atheism being old, but few embracing it, until now), whereas killing and weapon making are as old as civilization itself. So make a different point, cause calling atheists and scientists murderers is plain wrong.

The scientific method has been around for quite along time. Notice the Wikipedia entry on the history of the idea.

I'm sure the primitive hunters who made the first club and spear weren't using the scientific method or had the benefit of prior knowledge in the area, but what about the people behind the development and mass production of the modern machine guns and the artillery that were much more accurate and destructive than in past wars? Alot of chemistry, physics and experimentation goes into modern weapon making. Also, the individual(s) who devised the first firearms were probably Leonarndo da Vinci types well versed in the knowledge of their day that would've included a rudimentary scientific method.

As far as calling the atheists and scientists involved in the development and mass production of weapons - both conventional and nuclear - "murderers" goes, what can I say? Money and special privilege was more than likely more important to them than the lives of others.

How are they able to do this even with intelligent people?

You're asking a really tough question here. I guess it has to do with flaws or weaknesses in human character. Probably an absence of the right level or right type of moral intelligence.

Showing the difference between the two, he shows that faith has room to lead groups to war due to belief.

Wars aren't always fought over religion. I don't think religion was a cause of World War I and II. I think the issue was over territory, wealth, and power. However, the upper strata of the countries promoting the war effort probably invoked "God and Country" as propaganda to obtain the support of the masses. I don't think an end to religion will be an end to war.

Spirituality is fine in my opinion, but organized religion has to go. New agers are not going to start a genocide. In any case I see religion slowing dying off as a serious threat to society in the future. There has already been a decrease in believers in the US and it will get worse for them with their children.

Spirituality is fine in my opinion, but organized religion has to go. New agers are not going to start a genocide. In any case I see religion slowing dying off as a serious threat to society in the future. There has already been a decrease in believers in the US and it will get worse for them with their children.

That's why there's a real serious need for “the emergence of new forms of psychospiritual orientation and devotion, which are equivalents of the religious systems of the past” as Erich Fromm recognized in his book The Revolution of Hope: Toward A Humanized Technology (1968). Something new to replace the old that will uplift humanity and give it a "reverence for life" as Fromm recognized is needed. Atheism is totally inadequate to do the job.