500 Words Per Day

Monday, October 02, 2006

VIFF: The Root of All Evil?

dawkins The Vancouver International Film Festival is rolling along now until October 13th. I am watching a small batch of features this year, perhaps a third of my usual movie binge from years past. There just don't seem to be a lot of films that are grabbing me this year and I have compulsively flipped through the program guide for the past 10 days looking for those hidden gems.

I am watching mostly documentaries since there seems to be no shortage of interesting topics, ranging from insomniacs and life-long hermaprodites, to the obligatory investigations into the current affairs in the Middle East and America's role in foreign affairs, war in Iraq, yadda yadda yadda.

The Root of All Evil? screened last night and stars famed evolutionary scientist, Richard Dawkins. The root of all evil, according to Dawkins, is organized religion... or religion period. It is a relic of primitive times, bereft of rational ideas, based on the transmission of faith-based truths and outmoded traditions. Dawkins argues that religion discourages curiosity and critical thinking and in the process reinforces base prejudices and irrational discrimation. In short, religion is bad for humanity and it is taking us backwards not forwards.

My review: well, duh.

First of all, the documentary is excellent and I will just come right out and say I am biased. Ever since I survived my (failed) indoctrination into Christianity by my elder cousins, I've always been flummoxed at the power and prevalence of religion in people's lives. Religion: what is it good for? In the past, I've had fairly intelligent, articulate religious devotees attempt to browbeat me with non-arguments on the validity of religion, and their religion specifically. Well, it usually amounts to something like, "Oh, if you only studied Religion X, then you'd know there is so much more to it than you think". And I'm sure there is. But what about Religion Y and Religion Z? They are quite different from Religion X and they all contradict each other in various ways. Which one is the truth?

I bought my ticket for The Root... feeling so glad an academic like Dawkins had the ballsacks to take the boots to religions of all stripes. The film's agenda is clear as day: religion is hurting the world and it is stronger than ever in the 21st century. Not surprisingly, Dawkins takes aim at the fundamentalists and that's where we get some of the heated, awkward and quite frankly terrifying interviews between Dawkins and various religious leaders.

Let it be said that Dawkins is an esteemed scientist and British, so he is predictably arrogant and condescending through out the movie, from his narration to his clinical probing of his interview subjects. Dawkins takes a few lumps of his own during these theological/rational debates but not a one of these rabbis, pastors, evangelists or cleric can mount a convincing argument in the face of logical reasoning. Dawkins even takes aim at moderate believers, like those progressive priests that support gay marriage, for cherry picking the Bible and being fence sitters on essential issues between faith and reason.

Again, I really enjoyed this movie. It was almost pointless for me to even be at the theater, as it was another case of the movie preaching to the converted. Far better for someone who is actually experiencing confusion in their own faith or someone who is considering taking on a religion, to view this movie. I feel that the message is very important. Yet through it all, I also felt quite compassionate and sad for religion and its followers. The documentary conveniently ignores all the good that comes from organized religion. The many forms of charity and community support offered by religion are not often things you see coming out of laboratories, universities or corporate think tanks. And for the people featured in the movie, religion IS THEIR LIFE. Their entire lives have been constructed around their faith and many of them hold authority positions, which means they also depend on it to feed and clothe themselves. Who is this crusty, arrogant Brit to trivialize their life's work, their passion?

And that's the sad part. Religion is reason proof, which means you cannot convince someone out of it. You can do as Dawkins did and argue until you're blue in the face, but people will hold onto their beliefs. The belief in science, la dee da, is a form of religion if you really look at how knowledge has been udpated over the centuries. But at least science refreshes and updates and changes with the times. Religion? Just a teeny bit more resistant to changes, I'd say. Just a bit...

5 Comments:

Blogger Sameer Vasta said...

My word of VIFF advice: go see ANYTHIING that is screening that was made by Jamie Travis. That man is an absolute genius.

3:31 AM  
Blogger Clinton said...

Thanks Graham, for your insightful comments. And welcome to the blog!

I would love to console you but I think you may be on to something. The fundamental question from an evolutionary standpoint is What will help man survive. What are the behaviours and tendencies that will enable us to remain dominant and what are our weak characteristics that will be selected out.

Perhaps scientific reason is not what will save us in the end. Religion is divise but it also unififes. Strength in numbers. Unified in mind and spirit. Get enough people under the banner of the most "effective" religion and it will dominate all others, become more powerfule, grow and propagate. Scary? Yes. Then again, that's just natural selection at work, right?

But how about this. Dawkins came up with the idea of the meme, cultural ideas that spread from person to person, like a virus. You could say that religions are just very succesful memes that have, through the passage of time and rapid spread, have survived into our modern, so-called enlightened times. For better or for worse.

Here's an excerpt from the Wikipedia entry on memes:

"Meme-theorists contend that memes most beneficial to their hosts will not necessarily survive; rather, those memes which replicate the most effectively spread best; which allows for the possibility that successful memes might prove detrimental to their hosts."

11:54 AM  
Blogger meezly said...

Great review Clint! you should post the link on the Wordsmiths movie section ;-)

I totally share the same views as Dawkins. hopefully this documentary will help those who are on the fence between science and religion.

As a fellow evolutionist, I do have consolation for Graham. You are missing the point when you wrote that the prevalence of creationism is "a sign that evolution cannot be true otherwise we would continue to evolve forward."

Many people misunderstand that evolution means progress, or change for the better. That is a complete fallacy. Evolution is basically about how a living being can survive and successfully pass on their genes.

And if you are doubting the veracity of evolution, the proof is plenty and out there. Here is a truly excellent article by David Barash outlining the case for evolution right here:

http://chronicle.com/temp/reprint.php?id=vtyvygf5tkn1lqp3s3d6wcysmz4w42zz

Further, many scientists have argued that there could be a gene for religiosity:

http://www.americanscientist.org/template/BookReviewTypeDetail/assetid/53121

If you think about it, in early human societies, religion could be regarded as an excellent survival mechanism that binds a community, explains the inexplicable, imposes order and moral values, etc. So if there is such a gene that has survived into our current generation, it explains the rise of creationism and provides the proof for the existence of evolution right there ;-).

7:50 PM  
Blogger meezly said...

Here's a comment for clinton:
science can help us understand ourselves, way better than religion ever can. don't even go there, bro!religion helps ease our greatest fears, but it also exaggerates our tendencies toward self-denial and puts a bandage over our eyes.
if we can get over our deepest darkest fears: that we are just complex animals, that we bear close genetic relations to apes, that there is no life after death, etc.; we can start to understand ourselves better instead of believing we're the centre of the goddam universe.

8:06 PM  
Blogger Clinton said...

Sinner! :p
That was nicely said, bee. Don't worry, I was playing devil's advocate.

9:29 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home