The Root of all Evil

I wasn't expecting a theme to surface on this blog, but it appears that the plight of science is of increasing annoyance to me. As I write this I'm watching Richard Dawkins' two-part series the Root of all Evil, a reasoned attack against religion. I wanted to work on my novel, but I couldn't turn this off. It's infuriating me, but I still watch it. Why? I guess to ignore counter-arguments is a little narrow minded - however much counter-argument one can find in this almost propagandist program remains to be seen.

It's quite refreshing to see religion berated for being the cause of the world's evil. I guess to some extent I agree with this; evil is defined by religion, without religion we may not know what is evil. But religion only categorises it, gives it a name (The Devil?) - Evil exists outside religion.

Dawkins continues to claim that science has disproved many of religion's "superstitions", but this is just a logical position overriding a contemporary-culture influenced interpretation, the "superstitions" mean different things to different people. Also, this makes the assumption that science is correct, which even scientists cannot proclaim, the paradox of causality denies that. Furthermore, this just amounts to logic and reason disproving faith. A non-starter, it's like equating fish with spanners; it can't be done. Science, where it believes it has disproved religion, has done so only in the boundaries of its own knowledge.

His use of children to support his argument is sickening; it's sinking low to help prove his reasoning. Religion has it's problems, and I'm in agreement that children need to find their own way, but if you have faith, how can you not wish that on your children; you'd wish to instill morality on them, but faith holds a deeper grip. Throughout the program, Dawkins relies on exterme (or rather eccentric) views on religion, in almost the same way racists support attacks on muslims. His choice of religious representation is narrow and chosen for shock factor.

There is also Dawkins' hollistic view of religion, which cannot be sustained. Religions vary widely, and the atrocities caused by religion frequently amount to fanaticism and extremism, and never can be attributed to the religious whole. It's like grouping all muslims as being in agreement with Bin Laden, which we know to be ludicrous.

Religion may have caused the wars, but science has exploded them. WWII, forged through idealism, globalised through technology. War is a human trait, religion and science are the medium via which it is manifest. If one believes that God, to some extent, controls the world through war, the above still holds true, as it is humanity's darker side that is manipulated.

Again, like I mentioned previously, I don't want a common theme here, but once again Dawkins has shown that sometimes science won't think outside the box; past it's own rules. I don't want to create this theme, because it's not a theme, it's an anti-theme, it doesn't really give me much. Belief by the negation of contrasting views doesn't really strengthen one's views, it just gives the effect of power. Comparing the requirements of man to the requirements of God is again bringing oneself to the same level as God. Religion may always have a catch-all - that God is not man, and that God and His will cannot be judged - but there's little you can do about that.

Religion is not the root of all evil, mankind is. It's mankind's weakness in the face of choice the creates evil.

Omnipotence

I was reading an article the other day, which poised an age old paradox about omnipotence.

"Could an omnipotent being create a rock too heavy for the omnipotent being to lift?"

The implication is that the above paradox disproves omnipotence. This is of course logically sound. And therein lies the key. Omnipotence transcends logic, indeed transcends any kind of rules.

I looked a little deeper into this subject, and it would seem two opposing groups exist (a logic rules all group and a logic rules man group); the Cartesian view was that logic is not an issue to an omnipotent being. The converse of this is that it is a human issue, which got me thinking.

1. Logic is a mechanism by which mankind legitimises itself and its position in the universe.
2. Mankind cannot transcend logic, and thus for all the trying in the world cannot find absolute truths.

Now this may seem a little grim, but there is a light at the end of the tunnel; a pathway to personal emancipation; a mechanism that doesn't allow mankind to transcend logic, rather it is an instance of a mechanism that allows mankind a single opportunity to gain the results that logic transcended allows. It is of course faith.

I'm not preaching here, rather faith is mechanism that anybody can use for a number of purposes - not just a belief in an omnipotent being*, in one swoop it accomplishes everything that logic never could. But it's only one way, a single-use. If logic overpowers faith, then it's not faith; it's still logic.

Think about how useful faith can be.

*I choose this phrase carefully and leave it open to interpretation, but there is only one possible option if you think about.