34 Comments »

1. Andrea:
   February 24th, 2006 @ 1:59 pm

   I have been wondering if these documentaries would be available in the US since they aired in the UK.
   Thanks for the tip!

2. Jason:
   February 24th, 2006 @ 2:07 pm

   40 authors, 1,500 years, and no contradictions??? Apparently one of the more conservative idiots of the group, but this is exactly the mindset that leads to problems. I could (and have before) point out at least 20 contradictions between Paul’s words and Christs’s words alone, let alone an in-deth study of the Greek, Hebrew and English versions of the text! This simplistic, non-analytical type of thinking is the root of evil, without a doubt.

   Regardless, this pastor says he is open to people questioning him in his congregation, but refuses to let the host even try to get a point across. I dare say he probably won’t be allowing Dawkins back anytime soon after seeing (if ever he does) this documentary…

3. Stephanie:
   February 24th, 2006 @ 2:38 pm

   That is SCARY!! It makes me sick to my stomach when I see a group of people in a brainwashing session like that. I think it is funny that he called Richard Dawkins arrogant…..it was clearly the other way around. I am anxious to watch the entire documentary.

   Why is evolution so hard for us to grasp? Because most of us have been brainwashed since we were small to think it is ridiculous. I have started teaching my son (5) about evolution and he thinks it is really interesting. Once one is educated about it, I think it makes a lot of sense. Isn’t it funny that people who oppose evolution are rarely educated about it…they take the word of non-scientists over scientists whose entire educations are in the study of evolution!

4. BigHeathenMike:
   February 24th, 2006 @ 3:55 pm

   I watched those shows and, man, what a great guy. Richard Dawkins is my hero. I do wish he was tougher on Ted Haggard though. When Haggard accused Dawkins of being arrogant, I almost spit. “Sorry, who’s being arrogant in this conversation? One of us is saying that science has proof of evolution, the other is pointing to a 2000 year old book and saying it has no errors in it and that there’s an acutal, physical place called ‘Heaven’ where good Xtians go when they die.” He is, as they say, a douche.

   I just found your blog and I do believe I’ll be a regular kicking around here!

5. TXatheist:
   February 24th, 2006 @ 6:51 pm

   I’ll get to your recommendation later..hopefully but I wanted to share this link on audio clips of Richard Dawkins.
   http://www.reitstoen.com/dawkins.php

   There are audio programs there and I’ve enjoyed a few of them just today.

6. Jazzy Cat:
   February 24th, 2006 @ 10:13 pm

   There is no clash between science and the Christian religion. Is the theory of evolution the only theory one should be concerned about? There have been many theories over the centuries that have been discarded. Should there be a special reverance for the theory of evolution? Inquiring minds want to know.

7. Terry S:
   February 24th, 2006 @ 10:34 pm

   I checked out the video clip you mentioned. I don’t think I have either the software or the coumputer wherewithall to download the entire program.

   I’ve seen similar types as Haggard before. They are nothing more than hucksters. Unfortunately, there are apparently millions of people who so desparately want to believe in something and/or someone, they throw their own logic and common sense out the window. These big time evangelists are a piece of work (not sure about the grammar there.) These guys (most of them are guys, but there are a few distaff hucksters as well,) have a knack for mesmerizing their audiences. It seems to be a kind of hypnosis. It’s truly frightening.

   I would love to hear from someone who has been there, as it were. Someone who has been a “true believer” hanging desparately onto every word, loosing his or herself in the frenzy. Preferably someone who has come back from the depths (or heights depending on one’s perspective,) of this level of mindless devotion.

   I was not familiar with Mr. Dawkins prior to this little introduction. I reserved a couple of his books at the library and will give him a read. As BigHeathenMike says above, Dawkins could become one of my heros as well.

   A little side note: I happened upon a great little quote in Wendy Kaminer’s book FREE FOR ALL. She quotes the wonderful H.L. Menken who described puritanism as “fear that someone else might be having a good time.” Sounds about right.

8. Stephanie:
   February 24th, 2006 @ 10:37 pm

   The reason evolution is given so much attention is because it is constantly being attacked by unscientific groups. In science, a theory is not just a tentative answer…this is the definition of a hypothesis. A scientific theory has an enormous amount of evidence to support it. A hypothesis cannot become a theory until it acquires a large amount of evidence. If other areas of scientific research were attacked as much as evolution, they would be given more attention. Obviously, it is some of the Christian groups that believe science clashes with the Christian religion. Science would not concern itself with the Christian religion if it was not being attacked by it.

9. Noell:
   February 24th, 2006 @ 10:41 pm

   Jazzy Cat- Yes, the reason Evolution is different than the centuries worth of discarded theories is because of this: Science discards theories when scientist after scientist proves them to be wrong; when overwhelming evidence proves them to be wrong.

   In the case of evolution, new evidence continues to further establish it as correct. Furthermore, and this is the main issue, it is not even science or scientists that are claiming it is wrong. It is a religious and political movement. Do you think science should discard one of its best established theories because of a political and religious agenda? Of course, they have probably convinced you that these are scientists who are questioning it, just because they have found a handful of science teachers, scientists and quasi-scientists. The rest of the entire field of science knows that it is not even a real scientific issue.

10. Noell:
    February 24th, 2006 @ 10:48 pm

    Terry- I’m sorry you weren’t able to get the video. It took my husband the entire day to download it onto his computer. It is SO well worth it if you are able to get it. We just watched both parts. It’s funny because Dawkins is extremely bold (yet very polite and calm) with every religious leader he visits with. But with this Pastor Haggart guy, he looks like he is taken aback maybe? I think he might have been shocked to hear what this guy was saying.

    TXAtheist- Thank you for the link! I am ready for more Dawkins!

    I will have more to say on the videos later, but what I’ll leave you with is, if watching that isn’t enough to push you over the edge from agnosticism to atheism, I don’t know what is. (I’m keeping my name, though).

    Who else saw it? What did you think?

11. Jazzy Cat:
    February 25th, 2006 @ 8:00 am

    Stephanie said: (Science would not concern itself with the Christian religion if it was not being attacked by it.)

    The Christian religion has been up front in supporting and advancing science. The earliest colleges and universities in this country were founded by Christians (Harvard, Princeton, ivy league, ect.). Many great scientists were and are Christians. When interpretation of the Bible are wrong (flat earth), then science has been of great service to get to truth. I think macro-evolution is a long way from being established truth.

    I think belief in evolution has been elevated to some people as a system that proves the atheist position. Just as I believe the human causation of global warming issue has become primarily an anti-American, anti-capitalist movement, I believe the evolution debate has become a justification for eliminating the necessity of a supreme being. The thing atheists must answer, as I asked Terry, is why is there something rather than nothing? The big bang does not answer that question. Spontaneous generation is pure nonsense. Obviously something must have the power of self-existence and cannot ‘not be’. I do not think matter/energy has this power? Enter supreme intelligent being.

12. Jazzy Cat:
    February 25th, 2006 @ 8:10 am

    missing word in my last post:
    please add political in this sentence…. Just as I believe the human causation of global warming issue has become primarily an anti-American, anti-capitalist, political movement,……

13. Noell:
    February 25th, 2006 @ 8:25 am

    A self-existing god is just as unfathomable as self-existing elements. More so, in my opinion. You get to make up whatever you want about why your god can exist unto itself. It doesn’t make it any more likely.

14. BigHeathenMike:
    February 25th, 2006 @ 9:18 am

    JazzyCat: First of all, is it a coincidence that your nickname initials are “JC”? Secondly, there is some debate amongst the scientific community regarding evolution, but it’s about how evolution happened, not whether it happened. And thirdly, if you go to a list of scientists who are skeptical of evolution, it’ll only take you to the third person to reveal Phil Skell who PZ Myers takes to school on his blog.

    Does this make evolution a rock solid fact? No; evolution is a rock solid fact because of the literal Mt. Everest of evidence. Anyone who doubts that evolution happened is either blinded by religious flummery in their heads, or has an incentive to stay away from the research that goes against their paycheque.

15. Jazzy Cat:
    February 25th, 2006 @ 9:42 am

    Noell,
    Not really. The key words are intelligence and power. Elements have neither. A supreme being has both including the power of self-existence. If we rule out all possibilities, then there would be nothing. There is something, therefore, something has the power of self-existence.

16. Jen:
    February 25th, 2006 @ 10:14 am

    I just watched the clip and can’t wait to see the whole thing. Wow!

    It’s interesting to me that there seem to be two schools of Christian thought on the subject. Plenty of progressive Christians and even some who wouldn’t subscribe to that title have no problem with evolution — they just think that God designed and kicked-off the process. I also remember reading that when the Big Bang theory was first developed, the Pope at the time welcomed it as proof that God existed because it showed that the universe came into being at some point (as described in Genesis) rather than having always existed.

    Evolution and the Big Bang are a problem only for literal-Bible Christians. If you’re wondering how people can ignore the overwhelming evidence — one once told me that dinosaur bones were planted by the Devil and therefore were not proof that the Earth is older than 4000 years (or whatever the number is). It’s a whole mind-set — the Bible is inerrant therefore all physical evidence to the contrary is either being misinterpreted or is a tool of Satan. Magical thinking … an omnipotent being can do anything so if I accept such a being, I don’t have to reconcile my beliefs with logic or science?

17. TXatheist:
    February 25th, 2006 @ 1:05 pm

    Jazzycat,
    Macroevolution is not something scientists argue over. There is a push by certain christians to say macroevolution isn’t true. They realize that macroevolution takes millions of years and it’s true that we can’t actually observe it happen but that’s because we only live 80 years so of course we can’t watch transitional species occur, we must use fossils and every fossil to date falls in line with evolutionary theory. Macroevolution is a term creationists use as part of the wedge strategy to make evolution appear to have holes.

    Global warming….if you don’t think cars are a big problem why can’t someone go into their garage, turn on the car and hang out in there with the garage door closed? Please don’t try it but you will die from the fumes, how can that be good for our atmosphere if it’s bad for us?

18. Stephanie:
    February 25th, 2006 @ 3:19 pm

    First of all, I am sorry that I made it sound like science and Christianity have to be against one another. I don’t think they do. I get frustrated when people deny evidence because it conflicts with their religion. I would not expect anyone to believe something without sufficient evidence. But, I would expect someone to acknowledge evidence when it is presented to them instead of denying it based on their religion instead of facts.

    A person cannot claim something to be false because they have not been educated about it. I do not understand the ideas behind Quantum Physics, but that doesn’t mean that they are false just because I do not understand them. My son does not understand multiplication, but that does not mean it is false. Ignorance is not good evidence against something.

    If people choose not to accept a theory with large amounts of evidence, that is up to them. But, it is not alright for them to try to push their beliefs onto the children of America. The fact is that evolution has plenty of evidence to back it up and there is no reason that it should not be taught to our children. The only conflict it has is with religious people who do not want to become educated about it because they are scared that they might find it to be true.

19. Gregg100:
    February 25th, 2006 @ 4:26 pm

    Let me first state that I have studied and restudied all of Dawkin’s books, good (“The Blind Watchmaker”) and bad (“River Out of Eden”) and all in between. Frankly I was disappointed in the videos and felt Dawkins could do so much better. Each interview is conducted in an argumentative format that can never come to a resolution given the background of the two people involved. Finally in the end of the second video we start to see a glimmer of an intelligent discourse when he speaks about a genetic basis for human actions and ethical behavior but even then he wanders off into an almost faith-like statement that he “believes there is an evolutionary reason for acting (in beneficial ways) because it enhances survival”.

    The science to back up that concept is only starting to be investigated and is very tenuously understood in limited cases. The recently published book “Are We Hardwired” by William R. Clark and Michael Grunstein presents a view of the state of the art in this arena. Much of the research has been conducted using simple organisms such as fruit flies and worms for which genetic information (a genome) is available. Some interesting studies involving twins is discussed but again, the research is just beginning. The studies identified in the book relate to very identifiable traits such as agression, over consumption (obesity) and sexual preferences.

    A second book “The Survival Game” by David P. Barish presents a research approach using game theory to explain why some organisms/species act to enhance survival of the species. The acts may involve cooperation or altruism or any of a number of social strategies and these acts MAY have a genetic basis or a cultural basis or both.

    Dawkins is a brilliant person but I lament the fact that he seems to want to waste his time arguing with unreachable people as opposed to spelling out a solid secular basis for how we should act and why. I think offering a clear, tangible alternative with solid rationale would be much more effective.

    For what it is worth, Stephen Gould, another great evolutionist and Dawkins never agreed on much at the detail level but they did agree that evolution was a fact, not a theory.

20. Noell:
    February 25th, 2006 @ 7:44 pm

    Speaking of Stephen Gould, I am surprised by Dawkin’s statement that he never heard of a scientist explain evolution as an “accident.” I understand Stephen Gould to regard the paths of evolution as entirely accidental. I would be surprised if Dawkins didn’t know that.

    But Greg, I have a different opinion about the video. I don’t think Dawkin’s point was to engage in conversations that might actually convince his interviewee’s. I think the point was to engage the interviewee’s just enough to show their ignorance, their prejudices, and their isolation from the rest of the world, and their conflicts with science. To have given more time to the newer science of gentic and biological explanations of behavior would be a tangent or a completely different show (although a show I would very much enjoy). I liked the format, personally.

    I’m going to go out on a limb and state something that a lot of people here will won’t agree with: I disagree with the theme of the documentary, which is the implication that religion is the root of all evil. While I like to focus on the positive aspects of human nature, there’s no denying its negative evils. Humans created religion and transit their need to control others using fear and manipulation through religion. Humans have also used religion to cause wars. But ultimately, religion is just a tool. Probably the best tool. But humans commit these same acts of evil through other non-religious institutions. The difference is just the level of power and pervasiveness that religion provides. But maybe that’s just semantics again.

21. Terry S:
    February 26th, 2006 @ 9:16 am

    Without having seen the entire program, I would still essentially agree with Noell. In this scenario one can be too confrontational and run the risk being perceived as the aggressor which could be counter to the goal. Dawkins allows Haggard to boil in his own holy water as it were. Perhaps Dawkins lays out his own beliefs more completely in his written work.

    It is apparent that you (Noell) take a less harsh view of the role of religion in our history than many of your readers, myself included. In observing the positive aspects of religion, there obviously have been a number of good things. Religion spawned some of the world’s greatest art and architecture, much of the greatest music in the western world, and many humane efforts to aid and/or educate people in need, have come from the church.

    However, I contend that most, if not all, of the above could just as well have been accomplished without the church. All of those things were accomplished by people. God didn’t turn a finger. While much good has come under the auspices of various religious organizations, it was and is the people within those organizations who accomplished it. Perhaps to a lesser degree, good things have come out of non-religious groups as well such as civic organizations, fraternal orders, etc. (Of course I understand that virtually all such entities begin their activities with a prayer.)

    One should certainly recognize the postive accomplishments of religious organizations, but I can’t bring myself to be an apologist for them given all of the pain and suffering they have engendered throughout history, all in the name of god.

    TLS

22. Gregg100:
    February 26th, 2006 @ 10:22 am

    I think Noell and I will have to agree to disagree on the first part of her comment. My impression is that all or at least most (I am aware of one possible exception) of the contributors to this blog and anyone that would be interested to listen to Richard are far beyond the point of needing someone of Dawkins’ stature to point out the irrational view and beliefs and the “Nuremberg Rally” tactics of the religious evangelicals as well as the cultural acceptance of the assult on the blank slates of children’s minds.

    The secular movement needs to get past the “I don’t believe in God” stage and start articulating what we do believe in, why and how to communicate it to a skeptical and even hostile population and then establish guidelines to implement it in such a manner to achieve beneficial results. My enthusiasm for the “Agnostic Mom” blog is based on the premise that here is a person who is going to write something different on the “blank slates” of her children’s minds and has a chance to show it can be done in a beneficial, effect way. I don’t think that Dawkins is contributing to her very pragmatic, day-to-day task. Maybe it is not possible but I think it is.

    Where is the secular equivalent of the Bible, the Koran, the Vedas of Hinduism or the Analects, the Confucian Bible? Is seems we could be formulating the finest form of “Genesis” (for example) to teach our children. Dawkins could write a masterful chapter on evolution. Our heros (surely not saints) could be described in the stories of Newton, Kepler, Curie, Einstein, etc etc. Many of them struggled in unbelievably horrible conditions to produce truth. I can easily see an equivalent to a child’s study bible with similar illustrations and stories with all the associated moral lessons/fables.

    Sorry, I do tend to get on a soap box!! I just feel there is so much good that can be done.

    By the way, if I understand the second part of her comment regarding the beneficial accomplishments of some religious functions, I quite agree.

23. dudley:
    February 26th, 2006 @ 10:50 am

    Noell – thanks for the interesting and informative blog.

    In regards to your ‘out on a limb’ comment, the following might be of interest to you, especially the last line quoted.

    At around 17min 20sec into the Point of Inquiry 2/10 podcast:

    Host: In it you argue, religion is a serious contender as the root of all evil. … But I should ask you — aren’t those evil things, what people might do, tend to do, whether or not they are religious?

    Dawkins: First of all, I should say that the title Root of All Evil was not mine, and I actually fought vigorously against it, against the television company, and they insisted on it. I managed to get them to insert a question mark at the end, which was a sole concession
    to my misgivings about this, what I regard, and still do regard as an indefensible title. Religion is certainly not the root of all evil. No single thing is the root of all anything. But…

24. Justin Kissel:
    February 26th, 2006 @ 11:35 am

    Dawkins is like the naturalistic version of Jerry Falwell. He sounds persausive when preaching to the choir, but doesn’t make much of a dent when you see that he is not really speaking with any substance (e.g., his evidence is arbitrary or distorted, he routinely sets up and knocks down straw men–which confuses me, since there are lots of REAL religious positions to take issue with, etc.)

25. Terry S:
    February 26th, 2006 @ 11:40 am

    As I was not, prior to this, aware of Dawkin’s work (I’m somewhat of a newbie to all this,) and owing to the fact that I saw only the short clip concerning Haggard, I can’t make a definitive assessment of the program. I’m not sure what his target audience was. As you indicate, he may well be preaching to the choir. I would say that considering that something like 90% of the world’s population profess a belief in a god of some kind and the concomitant afterlife, there remains a large potential audience of those who aren’t even aware that there IS a choice.

    I am not altogether comfortable with over-doing early indoctrination of children as I believe that what most organized religions do is tantamount to brainwashing their children almost from the their emergence from the womb.

    I feel that there is no more personal issue for us than our belief or non-belief in a god or higher power. I feel that the best situation is having young people enter adulthood with an open mind. As I have stated, I don’t believe in the existence of a god, or any life hereafter, but, ultimately, I don’t KNOW it, and at this juncture, can’t prove it.

    But, certainly some kind of well thought out and properly presented teaching tools focussing on evolution and the sciences, could at least have the effect of leveling the playing field.

    No apologies necessary. More of us need to mount the soap box and say our piece.

    TLS

26. fran:
    February 26th, 2006 @ 12:07 pm

    Sometimes we just curl our foreheads , squish our eyes , and just hope beyond anything fathomable that we don’t have to give up what we have now for something different. I mean after all . Who wants to even consider lying in a pine box for eternity until it is proven you were rotten to the core just like moms said you were when she was mad at ya . Fantasy is so deceptive . To think they fooled you all along and made up stories about Gods and spirits to keep you from hearing the truth about death. They , your parents, aren’t entirely at fault. They didn’t have the benefits of science like we have today. We are fortunate ! We get to lead a new generation forward so that we can realistically dream of what things can be based on scientific truths . Science is exciting and full of promise . Someday , because of science our offspring may live to be 200 or more . We have just cracked the surface. Imagine what could happen in the future . I sure can. We are part of a new frontier like the folks that traveled west in the old days . Don’t let them take that freedom from us with their supernatural hocus pocus , resist it for your children’s and their children’s sake.

27. Noell:
    February 26th, 2006 @ 12:08 pm

    Greg100- Our “disagreement” on Dawkins sits fine with me, especially since we are in such strong agreement regarding the second and third paragraph of your comment, a much more important area!

    Dudley- Thank you so much for that information!!!!!

    Justin Kissel- I’d love it if you got more specific about the “straw men” and what you would take to task instead.

28. fran:
    February 26th, 2006 @ 7:15 pm

    Justin…………….” BRING IT ” Besides , Richard Dawkins isn’t totally inaccessable.

29. Stephanie:
    February 26th, 2006 @ 7:45 pm

    I was finally able to watch the video after spending a full day downloading it and then waiting for a time when I could actually sit down and watch it! I really enjoyed it. I’m not sure if Richard Dawkins was trying to preach to the choir because I had the impression that he may be trying to reach the “fencesitters” and point out the problems with religion to them. Even though I needed no persuasion to come to his conclusion, I enjoyed it because I haven’t seen a program like it before and it reinforced what I have felt to be true. Also, in one of the radio interviews with Richard Dawkins, he said that he is writing a book due out in the fall and it will deal with some of these same issues, but expand on them. I am looking forward to that because it would be nice if he expanded on some of his ideas at the end of the video.

    As for Gregg100′s suggestion of a secular version of the Bible or Koran, I am not sure how comfortable I would be with that. The idea had not occurred to me because I find books and information for my kids through my own research. I guess maybe I’m uncomfortable with the idea of people looking to that book for absolute truths as they do with the Bible. When my children have questions about something, I have fun doing research with them to find the answers. I would rather do this than just tell them to go to the book….to me it is reminiscent of when I was a child and all of the answers were supposed to be in the Bible.

    However, I do wish there were more resources available for atheists. I usually have to order the books I am interested in because they are unavailable in my local bookstores and libraries. I have also found that there are so few books published that have to do with the ideas of morals without gods or that teach sciences to young children. I was thankful to find Noell’s review on “The Tree of Life” because I had been searching for a book about evolution for my young children. So, I do agree that we need more resources available to us to aid in teaching our children as well as other people who do not understand our nonbelief. I’m glad we have the internet because it is so much easier to do research and find suggestions about good books from other atheists

30. fran:
    February 27th, 2006 @ 6:49 am

    Stephanie, Try Amazon.com . They have many titles and the used books are really cheap sometimes . I have all of Dawkins’ published works to date and many of them cost less than $10 including shipping. When I’m done with them I take them to a liberal coffee shop here and leave them there . Someone is reading them cause they seem to disappear.

31. Stephanie:
    February 27th, 2006 @ 5:57 pm

    Thanks for the info fran…I really appreciate it

32. Agnostic Mom » Spirituality At Your Favorite Alcohol Distributing Venue:
    March 5th, 2006 @ 9:26 am

    [...] It was days later that I watched the video with Richard Dawkins. I witnessed the scene at the evangelical, “rock concert” worship service. I watched the young men jumping up and down, heard the beat that drove them to elation and joy. And I related. I didn’t relate to the message. I related to the experience. Here they were, a group of strangers, joined together with a common goal, and getting high on music, the most powerful drug I know. [...]

33. Ed Darrell:
    March 9th, 2006 @ 11:53 pm

    Noell,

    Dawkins and Gould carried on a famous feud over their views of evolution. But while Gould noted the fact of accident in the history of the Earth and life upon it, he always referred to “evolution by natural selection and sexual selection.” “Selection” is the opposite of “accident.”

    It’s not difficult to understand evolution, but it is a whit more complex than simply an accident.

34. Noell:
    March 10th, 2006 @ 6:31 am

    After Ben left the comment about our existence being “chance,” which is inaccurate because it was environmentally driven, I realized Gould must have a different idea in mind when he uses the word “accident.” Did he just mean “unplanned”, as in, “by a designer?”

    Thanks for your clarification. I’ve been thinking about that and figured there must be a logical explanation. I’ve been meaning to go back and respond to Ben also, but it’s been so busy. I probably will do that today. I’m glad that you did already.

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a comment

Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>