Richard Dawkins's Film 'The Root Of All Evil'

Also, towards the end of the letter, the author implies that perhaps religion is a consequence of wrong traditional beliefs (Dawkins 247). He says that millions of people practice religion and believe in God only because they were told to do so when they were young and there is no evidence to support these beliefs. This bias adversely affects the credibility and effectiveness of the article. If the bias is so obviously visible, the reader will not be convinced by the arguments but instead will lose interest in the article and hesitate to believe anything the writer says. Thus, the writer should have been more professional and neutral in his writing and should have dealt with the opposition’s point of view more fairly. He should have given the opposition’s point of view some standing instead of rejecting it completely and given proper reasons for rejecting it instead of just discarding it due to bias. This would have made the article more effective in terms of getting the writer’s message across. Therefore, bias is a major flaw in this letter.

The essay “God, Science, and Imagination” by Wendell Berry discusses fundamentalists, specifically ones of science and religion, and their need to humiliate their opponents through evangelism and conversion. He also criticizes Professor Steven Weinberg’s essay and his opinion on God and religion. Weinberg is in fact a fundamentalist of science who questions the existence of God. But, Berry argues that “If in fact the fundamentalist scientists were as smart as they think they are, and if the religious fundamentalists were as secure in their belief as they claim to be, then they would leave one another in peace… these camps keep pestering each other because they need each other” (25).The same could be said for the contestants in James Fallows’

Dawkins, Richard. The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe Without Design. New York: W.W. Norton, 1986.

In this paper, I would like to explore several responses to this argument, the nature of evil, and to explain why some evils might be a necessity.

One argues that today we have a crisis of belief, not a crisis of faith. To explain this crisis, I will briefly examine the relationship between faith and belief, explain why cultural shift is important to note when trying to understand religious issues, go into detail on the three hallmarks of each of the two cultures by showing how they compare to each other, show how Tillich’s notion of correlation deals with this idea of culture and a crisis of belief, and explain how Marsh’s notion of a “theology of negotiation” (33) fits with Lonergan’s definition and allows him to argue that film can help us raise theological questions.

It is impossible to refute the reality of evil in the world, Hick argues; the Bible, for example, “faithfully reflect[s] the characteristic mixture of good and evil in human experience” (290). Yet such evidence

In the “Introduction,” Verschuuren introduces the supposed conflict that some believe exists between science and faith. He immediately questions this belief by suggesting that some atheists tried to use evolution to discredit Christianity, and in response, some Christians simply rejected

Richard Dawkins ' theory about “mind viruses” is not only wrong, it creates a dangerous divide between religiously inclined people and non-religious people, that could only serve to worsen the current tensions that are plaguing the global society today. Dawkins theory threatens to cause a schism in the relationship between religious and non-religious people, which is already in shambles in our times.

"The Root of All Evil" is a documentary shadowing Richard Dawkins, an evolutionary biologist who believes religion could potentially be, as the title states, the root of all evil. Dawkins begins his documentary by outlining his belief that religion is a malevolent virus that draws its followers to commit violent acts in order to please various gods. Dawkins claims that religious people are determined to "kill you and me, and themselves" due to faith, the idea that Dawkins sees as rather absurd. During Dawkins' documentary, terms such as "holy terror" are used to describe religion around the world. Dawkins even comes to the conclusion that faith necessitates a "suspension of critical faculties", and that faith does not emphasize the use of independent reasoning. Reason and science could be symbolized as Dawkin's religion.

When it comes to origins of the universe, Dawkins scoffs that Christians believe God created the world. But, before we can proceed, it must be recognized that Dawkins himself has faith––his faith rests in human beings. He says:

In the YouTube video by Stephen Fry entitled, “That’s Humanism!” (Fry, “That’s Humanism!”). The introduction of the video started with a question, “How do we know what is True?” “What’s true through the use of evidence and science?” (Fry, “That’s Humanism!”). In response to ‘blind faith,’ the “scientific creationists substitute a materialist definition of faith demanding that science confirm scripture and scripture confirm science, while simultaneously attacking the materialism of scientific explanation”(Aliff 2005). Faith without science is “blind” (Regier 2010). Regier stated, “There is a delicate balance between science and religion, without one the other will produce wrong answers or not produce answers at all” (2010).

Throughout many years, religion has been a support for many people; reading the bible and attending to church every Sunday, is essential if someone wants to follow God’s guidance. Even though there are many religions in America, Christianity is the most common one and for most Christian believing in the Theory of Evolution is questioning God’s Guidance which is unacceptable and disrespectful. However, analyzing Kevin Hovind’s overly emotional argument about the Reasons Why Evolution is stupid is notable the lack of logical thinking, unreliable information and offensive language which left the audience questioning about the credibility of his knowledge.

The film I Origins tells a story of Dr. Ian gray and his journey through romance religion and science. Ian is a microbiologist conducting research with his lab partner Karen to eventually be able to create an eye. Doing this challenges ethics, a well-known factor that sets many boundaries in science. Ian and Karen’s research not only test ethical but also religious boundaries in a sense that they are trying to play God. Mike Cahill's I Origins (2014) offers his audience a unique perspective on the infamous debate of science and its opposition religion, by using character Ian Grey’s transition from an atheist, relentlessly pursuing research to disprove God’s existence,

LEIBNIZ’S CONCEPTION OF THE PROBLEM OF EVIL BY OKOJIE E. PETER epo4escriva@yahoo.com MAY 2013 INTRODUCTION For many centuries, philosophers have been discussing evil, how it exists in the world, and how this relates to God. The discussion on evil and its relations to us is not an easy one though. It is commonly called the problem of evil. The problem of evil in contemporary philosophy is generally regarded as an argument for atheism. The atheist contends that God and evil are incompatible, and given that evil clearly exists, God cannot exist. The problem is generally used to disprove God’s existence by showing an inconsistency between an all-powerful, all-good, and all-knowing God; and the existence of evil. Philosophers over the centuries

"Capitalism is the root of all injustice," a past instructor would remark to me periodically thought out the semester. The past instructor was a woman who was a professor of political science and a supporter of my endeavors in environmental policy, and a feminist. I mention this because it is contrary to the ideas of Dave van Pattern who suggests in his piece that those who study sociology believe "men are the root of all evil." Pattern was a political science graduate, and I myself as a political science major understood where his earlier beliefs about men 's rights came from and I also applaud his later transition away from the previous notions of masculinity. Furthermore, my feminism was built up by largely female professors in my courses ranging from Environmental Science, Anthropology, Ethics, Political Theory, and now Communication Studies 360. However, I am troubled by the statistics stated within some of the articles and texts such as the Backlash article that presented data of how women are not equal and do not "have it all."