![[tmbchr]™](/journal/popocculture-blog-logo.jpg){kind=logo}
Richard Dawkins vs. Ted Haggard
I just watched an interesting clip (.mov) of evolutionist Richard Dawkins interviewing Ted Haggard. Haggard is the super-popular evangelical pastor of New Life Church in Colorado Springs.
Earlier this month, Britain’s Channel 4 aired The Root of All Evil?, a two-part exploration of religious faith hosted and narrated by Richard Dawkins, the eminent Oxford ethologist and author who is one of the world’s most outspoken proponents of the theory of evolution. He’s also an aggressive critic of religion. The Root of All Evil? follows Dawkins as he travels to some of the world’s religious centers—among them Jerusalem, Lourdes, and Colorado Springs—to observe services and to interview leaders and followers of various faiths.
The whole thing is only a few minutes long, but I found it exceptionally painful to sit through. Both men are completely in their element: Dawkins acts like an intellectual dickhead, comparing (perhaps appropriately) Haggard’s sermon to a Nazi rally, while Haggard dumbly defends his flock with lips puckered against Dawkins’ intellectual arrogance. Honestly, I’m surprised that this interview didn’t devolve into a lot of slapping and hair-pulling. Both men act in such annoying detestable ways that I find both of their viewpoints to be simply abhorrent.
It really disappoints me that the battle-lines between science and religion are again and again drawn according to the same simplistic design, which nearly forces this kind of encounter to happen again and again without any kind of resolution. Both sides merely reinforce their own beliefs and end up distancing themselves from one another by their attitudes. Both men are exactl 100% as fundamentalist and literalist as one another. Both men are caught in the same kind of game while simultaneously believing themselves above it. It all just feels like such a set-up to keep people ensnared in a simple binary system of thinking. What I want to know is - who’s doing the setting up and for what purpose? Why is this same story played out again and again ad nauseum in the media? Who is paying for this campaign waged upon the world media? What is it they want to have happen?
- Ted Haggard Resigns Over Gay Scandal
- Ted Haggard, Meth Hero!
- Ted Haggard on YouTube
- TMBCHR Google Search Results
- Chinese Crystal Meth Explosion
- Prev: W. Signs My Mitt
- Next: Branding the “Long War”
March 5th, 2006 at 8:01 pm
What is science for? What is religion for? If we can answer these two questions, that may give us a way to answer your questions above.
March 6th, 2006 at 1:26 am
To loosely quote Isreal Regardie, these two men are mixing (and I would say confusing) the planes. But I have to admit I am definitely in Dawkins camp at least when it comes to evolution vs. creationism, I.D. Dawkins would have had a better interview (I think) if he had been a little less aggressive but hey that’s Dawkins for you.
March 6th, 2006 at 1:50 am
I actually kind of found myself siding with Haggard, although neither came off especially well. Dawkins just came off as a pushy intellectualized English Michael Moore without any kind of humor.
March 6th, 2006 at 2:27 am
Really? Why?
March 6th, 2006 at 2:47 am
It seems to me that being in one or the other’s camp is practically irrelevant. They’re so blinded to the possibility of their own error that one or the other being “right” is rendered invalid.
The search for truth should not be a quest to extinguish other viewpoints, and certainly if you believe that something is True in the sense that it is an underlying principle of the universe, then why the need to attack opposition so viciously? Won’t the truth eventually become self-evident? Cf. heliocentrism, germ theory, etc.
The point of the interaction of science and religion should not be offering opposing answers, but that they realize that they cannot answer the same questions. Their answers instead should seek to complement each other. Creation myths such as the one in Genesis offer answers of meaning and relevance, and tell a story of God’s relationship to man and creation, while maps of genomes guide us to the specifics of how things (whether God’s plan or not) are accomplished.
Certainly the current science supports the idea that species are evolving and have evolved biologically from simpler lifeforms, but it’s ignorant to imply that the genetic and fossil evidence we have can paint a complete picture of complexities like speciation. Our knowledge is incomplete, and both religion and science need to acknowledge that, instead of pretending that they each possess a full answer while the other has none.
Say, for instance, that some natural principle exists that guides speciation. A seed holds the form of the tree inside it, but the tree’s formation is guided by location, climate, hydration, etc. Who is to say that the basic genetic material of life on earth doesn’t hold the same kind of information that would account for the diversity of forms on earth?
In that case, perhaps the creationists would point to it and say “God made this,” and scientists would say “this is a natural phenomenon and part of life.” Those statements are not illuminating of each other, yet neither are they by needs mutually exclusive.
Science and religion each represent different branches of human knowledge. But neither depends on the other being wrong in order to contribute to the overall body of what we know of ourselves and the universe. For Jesus Christ to be the Messiah, it is not necessary that the Genesis story be literally true. That natural selection is responsible for human development does not require that there be a Godless universe.
I think that most people recognize this. Despite the clash that’s often portrayed, I would submit that most people — certainly in the way they interact with the world — do not treat them as opposing forces. It’s only the fundamentalists (who represent a small population) who really believe that science and religion separate. Unfortunately, it’s these folks who are the most passionate and thus garner the most attention.
March 6th, 2006 at 2:58 am
I will admit that the Nuremberg comparision might have been out of line to say to Haggard’s face. But have you been to a Baptist church in the south. I grew up going to a Baptist church. It was mesmerizing and frightening. And Haggards statement about the evolutionists that he knows, ya know come on. I will give Dawkins this even though he is in your face he is at least honest. And I have a very big problem with Haggard’s brand of mixing Relegion and Politics.
March 6th, 2006 at 3:19 am
And what if you don’t believe in a savior or a diety? How do science and religion come together then?
March 6th, 2006 at 4:02 am
Seen out of context. I found the series to be very good. Overall it highlighted that we are scared to criticise beliefs even though those beliefs may be poisonous, and that was the point. It’s worth watching the whole thing. I’m not totally like Dawkins, but I can’t argue with his incredulous reaction to the sheer biggotted hate esposed by some of the people he spoke to. The world would be better offf if monotheastic religion had never taken hold.
March 6th, 2006 at 10:01 am
Throughout human history, religion has been one of the primary — if not the primary — acculturating forces on the planet. From its influence have arisen countless laws, social conventions, arts, and sciences. You don’t need to believe that religion is true (or that a religion other than yours is true) in order to appreciate its contribution to human culture, just like I don’t need to be able to understand biochemistry in order to take medicine to aid my headaches.
Science (i.e. reason and systematic study) and religion (i.e. attempts to reach a transcendent experience through facilities other than reason) are each ways that humanity seeks to understand itself and the world, and you can’t ignore that has been the reality of our existence since beginning of recorded history.
March 6th, 2006 at 12:33 pm
Personally I don’t agree with your defition of religion at all. What you are calling religion I would call spirituality. And yes there is a difference. Rolling up to your local megachurch on Sunday morning is not attempt to reach a transcendent experience through facilities other than reason. Most people do not want a transcendent experience they want a nice house, with nice children. People don’t want to wander 40 years in the wilderness or die on a cross they want a nice quiet life.
And as for not understanding biochemistry, sure I don’t need to either but I do want my doctor, pharmacist, nurse, etc…to understand it whether they are religious or not. But I’m not going to Ted Haggard to remove a tumor that I may have.
March 6th, 2006 at 1:12 pm
They are both tools of industry. Whether Dawkins or Haggard, they are both in agreement about the tiny, “stupid” masses of people needing to depend on (believe) the thought systems of the “authorities”–and to live accordingly. Whether that’s to “trust” and “rely” on the authority of Haggard’s so-called Baptist Church or the particular, arrogant “scientific” establishment that Dawkins’ represents. “Our” God or Science (really, Scientism). Either way, the “authorities” win. If the view of the Haggards wins out societally, people like Dawkins’ win out as well–how? why? because you can bet that there will still be zillion dollar black budgets for countless scientific researches and projects, especially ones aimed at controlling the “stupid” masses (be it through manipulation of genetics, via improved persuasion techniques in our media and the increasingly prison-like educational system)–so the priests of scientism will still be able to work their wonders, totally beholden to industry grants and funds and their results will be passed off as miracles or, conversely, works of the devil, with the “simple” majority unable to access or focus long enough on the information required to realize what’s actually going on.
If the Dawkin’s types win out, you can rest assured that, in the face of the emptyness of the “solutions” and “answers” given by the Scientist priesthood, there will be a reaction away from the way of life and view point that it promotes. And the alterative promoted will, surprise, surprise, be precisely the kind of narrow-minded authoritarian conception of spirituality offered by the Haggards of the world (which, mythologically, will be made to mirror, more and more the political and economic authoritarianism of the so-called nation as a whole): one that promotes militarism, blood-lust, the deification of money (as has happened at least since the prosperity theology of the Reagan era) and acceptance of all the shit the folks at the top of military and industry pull–”God has given us these leaders and if there’s a cops boot on my face, then it is the will of god that I suffer for my (perceived) sins.”
In fact, both results are occuring, to a limited extent, as we type, in m’eye opinion. Whichever view wins, the free and non-authoritiarian, living spirit that is our source, our birthright, and our potential to fulfill, loses. It’s a bullshit sideshow–Dems versus Republicans; Coke vs. Pepsi; authoritarian Christian/Capitalist Society versus authoritarian Islamic/Feudalist Society. Pass this trap by and keep working on gettin’ free.
Skidoo.
March 6th, 2006 at 2:15 pm
It’s fine to have definitions for “religion” and “spirituality” that do not overlap.
But I think it’s telling that the example you give of “religion” is an extremely limited one. I’ve never attended a megachurch (nor am I a Christian, for that matter), but I hardly think that they are indicative of all religious worship, or even of all Christian worship.
Even so, they still provide people with something that science does not and cannot. Their function is both spiritual and social. They provide community; they provide reassurance of purpose; they provide a context for living. All of these things are happening outside of the bounds of logic or reasoning — people attend churches not because of some calculation about how it will improve their lives; regardless of whether you think it’s acutally helping or harming them, they go there because it makes them feel good.
Despite your certainty that these people aren’t searching for transcendence, I think it’s awfully smug of you to discount the religious experience of another person simply because they worship in a way you don’t approve of or find satisfying. Should they be seeking sacrifice instead of comfort? Maybe they should, but you can’t invalidate their experience of religion simply because you think they’re wrong.
What you’re saying here doesn’t contradict or even respond to anything I said. My point was not that no one needs to understand biochemistry, and it certainly wasn’t that you should rely on religionists for healing. It was that each sphere has its place — that belief does not invalidate reason, and vice versa. A person can believe in God and still rely on medicine and technology whose source is the same as whatever scientific conclusion that they so vehemently oppose. There are theistic and atheistic scientists, just like there are theists and atheists who are superstitious Luddites.
The point is that the schism between science and religion is false. The illusion that they are opposite poles of existence instead of complementary forces is maintained only by the people who stand the furthest at each end and, as hebrides points out, these are the people who stand to gain by fomenting the dichotomy and making it seem as though you need to choose between one or the other.
March 6th, 2006 at 2:39 pm
Er, and you know this how? I’m seriously asking, here– why is’t someone attending a megachurch seeking to reach a transcendent experience via something other than reason? Can you give a reason other than “I don’t like megachurches”? I know you’ve mentioned your own past as a Baptist, but how does that apply to this sweeping dismissal of the spirituality of a large part of the world’s population for whom this form of religious existence is just fine?
Who are these “most people”? I’m assuming you’ve met them all, having dismissed them all with such a sweeping generalization . . . .
As for Dawkins v. Haggard, I think hebrides is spot-on: two different sides, same evil coin. I wouldn’t trust either of them with educating a child.
March 6th, 2006 at 10:07 pm
religion, science, politics, sport, porn, news, etc. all hypnotise. they are media and by thier very nature hypnotise. the trance induced is one of needing more of the media it`s self more than the actual content. any meaningful debate is over the media it`s self and not the content. the mechanisms of the media and the people who control them are the key to what`s going on.
who does control the masses?
ted turner will say the news does.
billy graham will say that religion does.
shaq says basketball.
howard stern says tits.
g.w.b. says shock and awe………..
March 7th, 2006 at 12:22 pm
Word to Anonymous, jp and alistair. eye would say that ted turner and billy and shaq and howard and g.w.b. are all players uv the same game and on complimentary teams, but they don’t control the entire board.
eye honestly believe that folks need to learn about history of religion, of politics, learn about trance states and hypnosis and how to use it and to recognize when others are doing so–and we all need to be honest about our hypnotizable nature and choose as much as possible why the big hypnotizers uv control want to induce certain trances and beliefs and gno when and how to avoid them in favor uv those beneficial trances that will aid the sustenance uv true community (for regular folks, as well as plants, animals and, yes, even the big hypnotizers for they seem to function under a pretty heavy and negative trance themselves).
p.s. eye’m a limited-luddite, as for superstitious, depends where you’re lookin’ from!
Skidoo.
March 8th, 2006 at 1:17 am
Boy a guy goes out of town for a day and what does he find:
Misrepresentation by CA McGee/Anonymous. This page is discussing Dawkins and Haggard (Head Of A Mega-Church) so there is nothing telling. Nowhere in any of my statements did I say that Mega-Churches are indicative of all religious worship, or even of all Christian worship. And as for
I wasn’t trying to contradict or even respond to anything you said. I was pretty much saying the same thing you are. It’s not war I wasn’t attacking you or anyone else for that matter. I was writing off the cuff from my personal experience. So, ya know it ain’t all about you.
hebrides: Hmm…Control is in control of contolling control. Is that you Gen-man.
And Jeremy have you even been to a Mega-Church once, much less on a constant basis for week or month or year or ten years, I doubt it. And I didn’t say that everyone that goes to these Mega-Churches isn’t looking for a T.E. but most. How do I know this once again from personal experience. My family travelled quite a bit and my mother and father would seek these places out. I have a lot of experience with these kind of place and the people who attend.
I actually agree with most of what guys have to say even hebrides. That’s all I have to say about that.
March 8th, 2006 at 10:35 am
Both sides are falling for (or pretending to - methinks the lady protesteth too much, on both sides and Dawkins sacrifices goats at a literalist gnostic cult while Haggard attends paleontology conferences in drag) the illusion of The One Truth. I wrote a bit about it.
In case it isn’t clear in my article, I think there probably is a real One Truth, but it is too big to fit in a mind. The fake ones are toxic.
March 8th, 2006 at 12:47 pm
Hey, Arj: who’s Gen-man?
thanx for agreeing with “even” kmee on most points!, but eye was making a point about Dawkins and Haggard and authorities of the same mind-set (Dawkins’ and Haggard types–have eye met them? a few…) and as Error 404 indicates, that’s the One Truth mindset, which is authoritarian in m’eye view and most people (including kmee) are infected by it in our “civil” ization.
and eye also agree with the notion that there is a real One Truth that is too big to fit in one mind, or at least will never be containable by even the biggest map or representational system (words, symbols, models). That’s the ultimate insight of quite a few mystics (The Tao that can be told is not the true Tao…)
Skidoo.
March 8th, 2006 at 1:06 pm
consciousness isn`t in a head………..that`s newtonian boundary type thinking. dawkins and haggard are defending thier franchises, which is entirely understandable. the one truth that is in discussion here is a construct of the intellect. it doesn`t really matter. we won`t even find out when we die. it`s all a bit frightening….this great unknown thingy. making up word maps to describe what the one truth could be is a bit like the fervent discussions about who will win the world series. it`s opinion, but if you disagree with the wrong bloke you could get dead.
here again are the main points of the news;
you can`t win, you can`t lose and nobody gets out alive.
March 9th, 2006 at 11:12 am
Dawkins is a fundamentalist scientist in the same sense that one can be a fundamentalist multiculturalist or fundamentalist nice guy. Fundamentalism is, in the sense that it can be applied to Dawkins, simply choosing to follow principles instead of doing and believing whatever you feel.
A “fundamentalist” scientist must be simply someone who is committed to the fundamentalist principles of learning from experiment and evidence, changing one’s mind when proven wrong and not holding on to beliefs just because one prefers to keep them. This kind of fundamentalism isn’t bad. Fundamentalism is only a bad thing when it requires strict adherence to principles that are founded in myth or irrational thinking. The deciding factor is clearly related to how we choose what to believe.
November 15th, 2006 at 2:08 am
[…] Mark Frauenfelder: Pastor Ted Haggard, the leader of the gigantic evangelical Christian New Life Church in Colorado Springs and president of the National Association of Evangelicals, resigned after being accused of having an affair with another man. Haggard is the guy who kicked famous atheist Richard Dawkins out of his church in the documentary The Root of All Evil. Mike Jones, 49, of Denver told The Associated Press he decided to go public with his allegations because of the political fight. Jones, who said he is gay, said he was upset when he discovered Haggard and the New Life Church had publicly opposed same-sex marriage. […]