A while ago I've watched video segments of The Root of All Evil?, hosted by Richard Dawkins. In it Mr. Dawkins takes left and right stabs at religion while championing the scientific approach. As much as I enjoyed watching Mr. Dawkins intellectually and verbally dueling with religious fundamentalists, I couldn't help but be saddened by what Mr. Dawkins was trying to accomplish: thrash religion and faith altogether as "the root of all evil" and elevate the scientific rationality as the only antidote to religious fundamentalism. [Note: According this Wikipedia entry, "Dawkins said that the title "The Root of All Evil?" was not his prefered choice, but that Channel 4 had insisted on it to create controversy." So there.]
Well, I do agree with Mr. Dawkins for the most part. Religious fundamentalism is indeed dangerous and is one of the root-causes of countless wars and terrorisms on the planet. But where Mr. Dawkins and I part ways is his approach of salvation by science without really defining what kind of religion he's attacking (whether esoteric and/or exoteric) and what kind of scientific thinking he's championing (interior science and/or exterior science). Mr. Dawkins has apparently forgotten (or temporarily ignored) the stages of moral development.
Case in point: Just watch the video(s) and see how Mr. Dawkins argue with religious fundamentalists. It's really painfully entertaining to watch.
Serendipitously, this week's feature on Integral Naked is Steve Paulson's interview with Ken Wilber, Part 1: Toward an Integral Understanding of Science and Religion.Now this is very fluffy! KDub's approach doesn't deny the exterior in favor of the interior, and vice-versa. I also like the way Steve Paulson did the interview. He really drilled into Ken's scientific background and played devil's advocate in favor of the scientific domain. Can't wait to listen to Part 2 of this interview.
In the meantime, I'd like to give Mr. Dawkins the benefit of the doubt. I've only seen parts 1-1, 1-2, and 1-3, of The Root of All Evil documentary because they are the only ones available on YouTube. However, from what I've seen so far, I stand by my original analysis of the partialness displayed by Mr. Dawkins:
"Dawkins proudly declares that he's an Atheist. Cool. I've got no problems with that. But he's doing a performative contradiction by championing the idea that there is no such thing as a "God." IMHO, Atheism is a step up on the developmental ladder from theistic religious fundamentalism. But even Atheism is not immune from fundamentalism. There are ideas beyond science and there are philosophies beyond Atheism. "There are more things on heaven and earth, than are dreamed of in your philosophy.""