The Root Of All Evil?

[C1ay]

The root of all evil is a two part documentary by Richard Dawkins, part 1, The God Delusion http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4321574955310561251 and part 2, The Virus Of Faith http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8210522903232438954.

 

The God Delusion explores the unproven beliefs that are treated as factual by many religions and the extremes to which some followers have all taken them. Dawkins opens the programme by describing the "would-be murderers who want to kill you and me, and themselves, because they're motivated by what they think is the highest ideal." Dawkins argues that "the process of non-thinking called faith" is not a way of understanding the world, but instead stands in fundamental opposition to modern science and the scientific method, and is divisive and dangerous.

 

In The Virus of Faith, Dawkins opines that the moral framework of religions is warped, and argues against the religious indoctrination of all children. The title of this episode comes from The Selfish Gene, in which Dawkins discussed the concept of memes.

 

Both of these videos are about 45 minutes so broadband is recommended. Google video also has The God Delusion in 5 parts for slower connections.

 

Like Dawkins I wonder why people leap to conclusions on faith. I wonder why they decide that contrary possibilities to their beliefs are not possibilities at all. Is faith the virus that Dawkins claims it is?

 

P.S.

FWIW I originally thought this probably belonged under Theology but on second thought it occured to me that the issue I'm raising here is to what extent is faith an obstacle to real science and the scientific method so I've placed it in general philosophy and it is my intent that it will not be a thread that's only about God so please stay on topic.

[Turtle]

...In The Virus of Faith, Dawkins opines that the moral framework of religions is warped, and argues against the religious indoctrination of all children. The title of this episode comes from The Selfish Gene, in which Dawkins discussed the concept of memes.

...

Like Dawkins I wonder why people leap to conclusions on faith. I wonder why they decide that contrary possibilities to their beliefs are not possibilities at all. Is faith the virus that Dawkins claims it is?

 

P.S.

FWIW I originally thought this probably belonged under Theology but on second thought it occured to me that the issue I'm raising here is to what extent is faith an obstacle to real science and the scientific method so I've placed it in general philosophy and it is my intent that it will not be a thread that's only about God so please stay on topic.

 

I watched about 15 minutes of The Virus of Faith before I became sick at my stomach. I wish Dr. Dawkins the best of luck. I hold the opinion as does he, that there is no greater obstacle to science & reason extant than religious faith.

 

As to the 'why' of it, I roll with the emerging area of study called 'bio-theology'*or 'neuro-theology', which posits that blind faith had the evolutionary advantage of subjecting the fear emergent in humans as they evolved into self-awareness and the realization each individual has that they are ultimately going to die. One can only hope the structures in the brain responsible for blind faith go the way of the appendix. Suffer the children unto me indeed. :eek2: :dog:

 

* http://hypography.com/forums/theology-forum/9410-biotheology.html

[TheFaithfulStone]

Faith and science are only incompatible to the extent people misunderstand what they mean.

 

Science is a method, and a mental framework. It is how you LEARN things and how you organize your knowledge.

 

Faith is an outlook, and an attitude. It's how you assign meaning to what you've learned, and how your organize that meaning.

 

(And I'm not talking about "assign meaning" like - "this result means these two things are related," I'm talking about "meaning" in the larger philosophical sense. Science CANNOT provide that meaning, it's a question that's outside of it's purview, because it's a question that no scientific experiment can falsify an answer to. Science can never tell you what it MEANS to be human.)

 

Let us say we are hungry. We require sustenance.

 

Science tells you why a sandwhich is better for you than a ding-dong.

Philosophy tells you why you would rather not die of hunger or ding-dong overdoses.

Faith is the sense of the purpose and place of your sandwich.

Art is a symbol of why sandwiches are important.

Culture is a shared pattern of sandwich-making among people.

 

None of the answers provided by any one of those disciplines however, make any sense at all without the answers provided by all of them.

 

Furthermore, you don't need to believe that God has ordained that you should eat sandwiches for you to have "faith" that the act of eating a sandwich has purpose and meaning. You may believe that God has a place for you, and that destroying yourself by subsisting entirely on ding-dongs is a sin. You may believe that you have something to offer to human evolution, or that you should stay alive simply because you prefer it to alternative. Those are all matters of faith. There is simply no reasonable explanation for why any of us should continue to exist (or for that matter, that we should all cease to exist.) You either believe that it's some sort of supernatural plan from above, or you believe that it's better than the alternative, or you believe that the universe would be better off if we were to all die.

 

I'm pretty sure that if you ask "Why is that?" enough times to any person you end up with "Just Because." eventually. Where is the point where aggressive atheists like Dawkins end up with some non-answer like that? Where is the point where aggressive religious jerks end up with a non-answer? That's the interesting question about people's belief.

 

TFS

[C1ay]

I hold the opinion as does he, that there is no greater obstacle to science & reason extant than religious faith.

 

Anymore it is not just religious faith that bothers me but faith in general. Look at the recent Duke Lacross case where the prosecuter had faith that they were in fact guilty to the point that he obstructed his own investigation. His faith obstructed the search for truth. I wonder how many individuals have been coerced into a confession because of an officers faith of their guilt only to find themselves in the death chamber. Throughout law faith obstructs justice.

 

Everywhere you find faith it obstructs the objective search for truth. Where does it come from? Why don't we do a better job of teaching skepticism?

[Turtle]

Anymore it is not just religious faith that bothers me but faith in general. Look at the recent Duke Lacross case where the prosecuter had faith that they were in fact guilty to the point that he obstructed his own investigation. His faith obstructed the search for truth. I wonder how many individuals have been coerced into a confession because of an officers faith of their guilt only to find themselves in the death chamber. Throughout law faith obstructs justice.

 

Everywhere you find faith it obstructs the objective search for truth. Where does it come from? Why don't we do a better job of teaching skepticism?

 

Makes sense to me that we accept first a common agreement on what faith means. No better start than the dictionary.

faith - definition of faith by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

faith

n.

1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.

2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See Synonyms at belief, trust.

3. Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one's supporters.

4. often Faith Christianity The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will.

5. The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith.

6. A set of principles or beliefs.

 

I think the prosecutor you mention- if indeed he had faith at all- took actions of faith as in #3 above.

 

Your question of 'where does faith come from' however seems a best fit with definition #1, and so the 'origin' of faith(confidence) depends on each individual's experiences and their ability to logically fit them into a paradigm. As with the thread 'what is religion', I suggest the confidence is a matter of attributing authority to elements experienced without further questioning that authority once it is established, per the experiments of Stanley Milgram.

 

The reason 'we' don't do a better job teaching skepticism is perhaps that it is counter to most teachers' purposes to give the learners reasons to doubt the teacher. In this vein, I agree with Dawkin's use of the term 'virus' inasmuch as the teachers' germ is to infect the learners with the idea that they themselves(the teacher) are the authority.

 

One might do much worse determining what 'justice' is, than to read Plato. At least I'm confident that is the case. :shrug: :doh:

[C1ay]

I think the prosecutor you mention- if indeed he had faith at all- took actions of faith as in #3 above.

 

I think it was probably #2. He had a firm belief that they were guilty with no proof or material evidence. #2 actually describes religious faith, belief without proof or evidence. This is the obstacle to truth that I think Dawkins is referring to as a virus.

[Zythryn]

I think it was probably #2. He had a firm belief that they were guilty with no proof or material evidence. #2 actually describes religious faith, belief without proof or evidence. This is the obstacle to truth that I think Dawkins is referring to as a virus.

 

I don't think you can equate his 'faith' in the guilt of the Duke players with religious faith.

It appears more that he was grandstanding for his upcoming election. He had an eye witness report (from the alleged victim), saw the opportunity to make headlines just before an election, and ran with it.

If it was religious faith, he would still be arguing that the Duke players should go to jail:eek:

 

As for WHY people feel they need faith, I think it is a combination of two things.

A. Most people fear the unknown. Even those that seek out the unknown, I suspect, get an adrenaline rush out of the pursuit.

B. An evolutionary trait of wanting to belong to a group or society.

 

The ancient greek gods came about because they explained things. Death, weather, lightning, seasons, etc. Humanity feels better about things they can pin a cause to. Even if the cause is beyond our control, at least we 'know' why it is happening.

[Turtle]

I think the prosecutor you mention- if indeed he had faith at all- took actions of faith as in #3 above.

I think it was probably #2. He had a firm belief that they were guilty with no proof or material evidence. #2 actually describes religious faith, belief without proof or evidence. This is the obstacle to truth that I think Dawkins is referring to as a virus.

 

My first impulse was to choose #2, but I went with #3 on reasoning similar to Zythryn's

...It appears more that he was grandstanding for his upcoming election....

. I think his firm belief was that he had a slam dunk and that his authority of reference for that belief was himself which he set above the standard for evidence.

 

I also agree with you that religious faith is hinged on no logical proof or material evidence. I think religious faith swings on common brain structures that give the appearence of personalities unseeable and the perceived authority of people who claim to receive instructions/information from said unseen personalities.

 

I am fond of the idea that greed is the root of all evil. In terms of Dawkin's virus then, greed is the motivation for using germ warfare. :shrug: :doh:

[TheFaithfulStone]

Everywhere you find faith it obstructs the objective search for truth. Where does it come from? Why don't we do a better job of teaching skepticism?

 

The assumption here is that objective truth always exists and that searching for it is a good thing.

 

Why is that? :doh:

 

TFS

[not that I disagree mind you, but some people might...]

[Turtle]

The assumption here is that objective truth always exists and that searching for it is a good thing.

 

Why is that? :hihi:

 

TFS

[not that I disagree mind you, but some people might...]

 

The assumption there is that good is well defined and that objective truth is gained only as a result of searching. Objectively I find that good is relative and truth is found serendipitously as often as not. This is not so much a disagreement as a qualification. ;)

 

C1ay's quote deserves no less eh?

Everywhere you find faith it obstructs the objective search for truth. Where does it come from? Why don't we do a better job of teaching skepticism?

 

Under our definitions I believe the boldened faith refers to definitions #2 through #5, and that #1 & #6 safely & secularly accomodate science, specifically as the idea of the scientific method. The more I have thunk about the poor job teeching skepticism, the more Coberst's please to teach critical thinking comes to mind. :doh:

 

Even should we peeps on rock #3 set all aright & hunky-dory and banishing ignorant dogma and religious faith, the slightest little piss in the wind is more than enough by my observations to throw the whole works down the flusher. :D Nonetheless, I agree I would prefer tryin' to dyin'. :shrug: ;)

[TheFaithfulStone]

The assumption there is that good is well defined and that objective truth is gained only as a result of searching. Objectively I find that good is relative and truth is found serendipitously as often as not. This is not so much a disagreement as a qualification.

 

Touché! I agree here - the point being that eventually you need to have faith by definitions #1 & #6. It is not incompatible to have both religious faith and a belief in the power and virtue of science and skepticism.

 

I would also argue that everyone has certain things that they believe without logical evidence. I believe that I love my dog. You cannot prove that I do NOT love my dog, and you cannot prove that I DO love my dog. But, believing things without proof is distinct from believing things contrary to proof. The latter is just stupidity, not faith.

 

I think that the "disease" that Richard Dawkins needs to be worried about is not "faith" or religion, but rather the tendency of people to follow authority blindly. It's fine for people to have "faith" - I'm not sure it's possible to really live without some level of assumption - but when people start claiming to believe things contrary to evidence, and then getting pissed off that there is evidence - THAT'S dangerous. "Faith" isn't dangerous - dogmatic adherence is.

 

Why should it be a sin to use your brain?

 

TFS

[Turtle]

Touché! I agree here - the point being that eventually you need to have faith by definitions #1 & #6. It is not incompatible to have both religious faith and a belief in the power and virtue of science and skepticism.

 

I would also argue that everyone has certain things that they believe without logical evidence. I believe that I love my dog. You cannot prove that I do NOT love my dog, and you cannot prove that I DO love my dog. But, believing things without proof is distinct from believing things contrary to proof. The latter is just stupidity, not faith.

 

I think that the "disease" that Richard Dawkins needs to be worried about is not "faith" or religion, but rather the tendency of people to follow authority blindly. It's fine for people to have "faith" - I'm not sure it's possible to really live without some level of assumption - but when people start claiming to believe things contrary to evidence, and then getting pissed off that there is evidence - THAT'S dangerous. "Faith" isn't dangerous - dogmatic adherence is.

 

Why should it be a sin to use your brain?

 

TFS

 

Well writ. I can't even further qualify it. I ran across this article this morning & it ties the 'obedience to authority' idea to neuro-theology without specifically mentioning theology. Hook us up Scotty. :hyper: ;)

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/31/health/psychology/31subl.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1

 

The brain appears to use the very same neural circuits to execute an unconscious act as it does a conscious one.

...

Scientists have spent years trying to pinpoint the exact neural regions that support conscious awareness, so far in vain. But there’s little doubt it involves the prefrontal cortex, the thin outer layer of brain tissue behind the forehead, and experiments like this one show that it can be one of the last neural areas to know when a decision is made.

 

This bottom-up order makes sense from an evolutionary perspective. The subcortical areas of the brain evolved first and would have had to help individuals fight, flee and scavenge well before conscious, distinctly human layers were added later in evolutionary history. In this sense, Dr. Bargh argues, unconscious goals can be seen as open-ended, adaptive agents acting on behalf of the broad, genetically encoded aims — automatic survival systems.

[TheFaithfulStone]

Nice article.

 

tfs

[REASON]

Excellent documentaries C1ay! Thank you for presenting them. I watched both of them in their entirety and they were music to my ears. The concepts presented by Dawkins are ones that I have thought much about in my life, and have discussed on occasion with friends, family members, co-workers, and on other threads relating to religion and evolution in these forums.

 

I thought Dawkins' pieces were very concise, even as their focus was primarily on the negative aspects of faith and religion on human perception and belief systems. In my mind, he is right on track in his assertion that this type of fervent faith undermines the legitamacy of science and science education not only in our modern world, but has throughout history.

 

But I also found the discussion posted by TFS, Turtle, and Zythryn to be accurate as well. There are many areas in our lives where faith is reasonable and beneficial and can provide a sense of balance and security in situations where we might find ourselves unsure. For instance, I have faith in my family and friends. Why? Because they've earned it. In this sense, faith is synonymous with trust, and in my moral fabric, trust is a critical element of any positive and successful relationship. But a distinction should be made between faith as trust and faith in fantasy.

 

I think Dawkins has done a thorough job of identifying the primary reasons why religious faith is in conflict with scientific objectivity. Here are some of my notions as to why people tend to choose religious faith over reality.

 

1. Simple lack of exposure to alternative information. How can someone form beliefs around something for which they have no knowledge? Dawkins explores this problem with the controlled religious indoctrination of children. This type of indoctrination discourages seeking out alternative theories for fear of abandoning one's principles, and thus for fear of abandoning God.

 

2. Social acceptance. We have a basic need to find acceptance among others, and we tend to develop common belief systems in the process. Most people are religious and share a common belief in some form of higher power. I believe the need for social acceptance is connected to our basic survival instinct.

 

3. Egotism. It seems to be important for the fervently faithful to be resistant to the notion that we human beings are of the same making as the rest of the animal kingdom. To believe as such makes us no more important, even as our superior intelect sets us apart, particularly in the eyes of God. To me, this reveals a deep insecurity. Non-believers are not concerned with stroking their egos in this mannor.

 

4. Security and hope. I've heard many faithful people describe the value of being in God's hands, and having a feeling of knowing that someone is always by their side, particularly in times of despair. For them this generates feelings of hope and happiness. They believe that this will be provided for them if they are in favor with God, and this requires faith in him. I've always felt that my life was in my own hands and that I must take responsibility for my decisions if I am to find hope and happiness.

 

5. Immortality. I've always felt that this is one of the primary reasons people choose faith and religion....the fear of death. This is where the survival instinct really kicks in. It is patently unpleasant to consider ceasing to exist. We have invented an afterlife to stave off those unpleasant thoughts. All life strives for survival, but we are likely the only species that can actually ponder the inevitability of death, and we don't like it. So, we blanket ourselves in the notion of eternal life in heaven. Religion capitalizes on this desire by placing a restriction on how to achieve it. It's amazing how the non-faithful will suddenly find religious faith in their dying days. I've had people wonder why I don't become a believer, just in case, which to me seems utterly hypocritical.

 

I believe we are a long way in our evolution from being able to cope as a species without this type of mental medication, and begin to peacfully co-exist within the realistic framework of the natural universe. In order to do so, I believe we are going to have to place a greater emphasis on our understanding of psychology, sociology, and causality as it relates to our interactions with our environment, and one another. Science is the key to this type of understanding.

[Rade]

The root of all evil is the act of using another human being as a means to an end without their consent in such a way as a negate their freedom to pursue their own happiness.

[chilehed]

Dawkins work may have been worth listening to, if he hadn't started off the entire thing by proving that he hasn't got the slightest idea what "faith" is.

 

Why listen any further?

[TheFaithfulStone]

The root of all evil is the act of using another human being as a means to an end without their consent in such a way as a negate their freedom to pursue their own happiness.

 

Thank you, Immanuel Kant.

 

TFS