MovieChat Forums > The Enemies of Reason (2007) Discussion > Here we go again.

Here we go again.

posted 12 years ago by daryl-b-t
3 replies | jump to latest

If you didn't yet get where Richard Dawkins is coming from here it is all over again. Only this time the volume is all the way up, the condescension is all the way up, and the target audience obviously needs to be shown what to think because they are obviously stupid.

You may or may not like this rather cheap shot at the 'deluded' from the 'scientific formalists' camp ('brights' I think Richard wants to call them?).

Richard Dawkins has his charms but it will get a bit tiring after a while.

[–] superhet 11 years ago

Can you please cite evidence of Dawkins's "condescension" in this film? He clearly fears religion and thinks it's wrong, witness his exposure of astrology and spiritualism as fraudulent. He also shows examples of the arrogance of religious leaders--Ted Haggard and that Islamo-fascist who insisted that western men should assert control over "their" women, for instance. But why on earth do you think this documentary is a "cheap shot"?

I've noticed that when person "A" calls person "B" arrogant and condescending, and provides absolutely no evidence, person "A" is usually acting out his own feelings of intellectual inadequacy. I don't know your mind, but in fact Dawkins does nothing in this film except support concrete arguments with concrete evidence, and you seem to take that approach personally. What am I missing, daryl?

[–] daryl-b-t 11 years ago

For a start Richard equates religion with believing in some half backed, literal, fundamentalist interpretation of God, that of an external being in the sky with super natural powers. Most moderate Christians don't believe in that kind of a God. What right does he have to claim that is the norm of religion?

Labeling yourself as a "bright" is making a clear statement about what you think the mental capacities of the other side consist.

What I always find missing in these anti religion documentaries is the vast body of philosophical information that exists. It's not dealt with at all. Instead they go after the worst excesses, the most outlandish views, the most ignorant exponents. That's a cheap shot, they're not likely to run up against any serious philosophical challenges to their world views, or the scientific prestige they hold. It's implied there are no flaws in their own position, which is really scientism. Ask Raymond Tallis what he thinks of their position, and he's an atheist.

Also missing is any serious attempt to understand or describe how religion really functions in the lives of ordinary people. It's not just a belief system by any means, it's not just open to one interpretation. Dawkins could easily bring on board the work of people like Joseph Campbell, or some noted theologians to discuss fundamentalist belief vs traditional religious belief.

This last documentary was his most biased. Richard is on some kind of a crusade.

[–] Platypuschow 7 years ago

Well you are correct in your assertion that he is on some sort of crusade. This is something which is well documented that he is what would be considered a militant atheist and seeks to reverse indoctrination and bring facts to peoples lives over superstition.

Religion as a whole is detrimental to society and has been since it's inception and this is a subject I could go into gratuitous detail on (However I'm at work so will resist the urge to rant)

What I will however say is the burden of proof is on the person making the crazy claims, since no religion can manage this I will remain a rationalist. Also until these beliefs are substantiated if folks could stop killing each other, forcing their beliefs on others and generally causing a global *beep* that'd be great.

"Be the change you wish to see in the world"