The Root of All Evil II

Buergbrennen. Photo by Luxpim

I wasn’t optimistic about the second programme in Dawkins’ series Root of All Evil? I’ve mentioned earlier the concerns I have over religion as a virus, and this programme was billed as an exploration of that idea. The opening of the programme didn’t help, it was as if it had been lifted straight from Brasseye.

Yet I found this programme much more convincing than the earlier programme. He started with visiting a couple of faith schools in the UK. This is more persuasive because it shows how the issue is a problem for me. I think many of the interviewees were much more sympathetically portrayed. An example was the interview with Adrian Hawkes of the Phoenix Academy. It brought out his concerns that God is central to morality. You could have said about Youssef al-Khattab but he went off on one about topless women fornicating in the street. Hawkes on the other hand explained that Christianity isn’t just about what was, but also an approach to how we should behave towards fellow humans. Respect could only come via divine sanction. I don’t agree with that, but at least it showed some thinking behind the motive. I also felt that Dawkins was hitting unrepresentative targets in the first programme. His interviewees didn’t seem to anything like the elderly vicar who cycled round my home village. My impression changed when I read in the Times Higher Education Supplement this week that the Archobishops of Canterbury and Westminster and the Chief Rabbi in the UK had all declined to be interviewed. Nevertheless he interviewed the Bishop of Oxford who also seemed to be thoughtful and considerate. Dawkins argued that the Bishop was inconsistent in only choosing to believe the good bits of the Bible. The Bishop in turn said that what mattered from the Bible was the message of the whole. Times change and interpretation of the Bible must change with them.

One thing that came through well was that there is the question “Does it matter?” Is the origin of the world a modern version of asking how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

[FLASH]http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/provenancedesign/christian.swf, 350, 294[/FLASH]Is the origin of the world a truth that matters?

I think it does. The world was scarred by the Industrial Revolution. Progress comes at a price, but without a grounding in science and the scientific method how can you judge whether it’s worth paying? How can you have an informed opinion on the ethics of a technology if you don’t understand how it works? So far it seems the 21st century will herald a Biological revolution. I’d rather my children were participants in it, rather than victims of it. But I think the clip above shows that there needs to be discussion about why this things matter. I think something about that might have been more useful than the section on beliefs about hell and abortion.

On other side, I think people are wrong to criticise Dawkins for moving outside of science. Not simply because ignorance is no bar to a religious figure speaking with authority, but also because I’m not sure Dawkins does not go far from science. An example early in the programme was a rabbi explaining how there’s a matter of communal identity and of knowing ones roots. I’d also add some people suffering with personal problems are comforted by their local faith leader. You could argue the faith is groundless, but faith can be accompanied with practical help, support and advice. I may be revealing my yokel roots, but the church can be a centre of contemporary social activity, whether it’s a harvest festival or Christmas service. I certainly wouldn’t dream of banning religion, not simply because I wouldn’t want to police thought, but also because it would fail due to this rôle of community support. But that relies on participation being optional. An urban theist has a lot more choice in what they faith community they join than a rural theist. Dawkins isn’t anti-tradition or anti-minority, merely anti-superstition.

With the position being framed as anti-this and anti-that it’s easy to see how atheism could seem to be a very bleak view. I thought Dawkins also did well with the ending of the programme. If you are an atheist then life ceases to be a burden or a trial and instead comes a precious fleeting moment. Rather than accepting fate it encourages action and seizing opportunity.

The second programme I thought was a big improvement on the first. Parts of the first programme sounded like they could have been lifted from the Daily Mail’s Guide to Rhetoric. There’s a forthcoming book, The God Delusion. If it’s like the first programme then it’ll be entertaining but dismissible. If it’s like the second, then it’ll be a best-seller, if only for the fundamentalists buy copies to burn. —–