Christian thoughts and apologetics class - Essay Example

Critical Response to “The Root of All Evil” by Richard Dawkins Describe in 2-3 paragraphs the basic plotline/structure/argument of the film. On substantiating his documentary of “The Root of All Evil”, atheist and scientist Richard Dawkins explored some of the prominent centers of religious faith in England, America, and Israel. Dawkins argues that faith, as a non-thinking process, is divisive and dangerous in the sense that it lacks exhibition of physical evidence which he believes is necessary if such faith must claim to exist out of truth in its foundation.

It is 21st century yet the scientist is quite startled to find that most people remain steadfast to the delusion of God and related superstitions guided by what he considers as irrational, militant ‘faith’ rather than reason. The structure of the documentary consists of a plot in which Dawkins supports his propositions through dynamic visuals which apparently coincide in favour of his statements. As part of his persuasive demonstration to convince the audience of the validity of his arguments, he initiates with a view of terror, depicting in brief that murderous acts originate from a religious motivation to satisfy man’s highest ideal.

Dawkins conducts interviews with pilgrims and ministers as well as present a comparative analysis of science and faith in which the scientist ascertains that, whether the faith is Christian or non-Christian in nature, it is impossible for both to be put or directed towards reconciliation as they are severely opposed to each other. a) Looking at the film objectively, where does it appear to be saying correct or useful things? Expound these aspects of the film, analyzing how the Christian church can learn from them.

For one, the film occurs to have a sensible point at the stage in which Dawkins acknowledges group solidarity, being a wonderful reinforcement to the faith among believers. As evidenced by his presence in one of the major festive events of the Catholic church, a parade of Catholics carrying a cross with lit candles and singing a song of worship in a solemn manner as though one that preserves the tradition of a medieval ritual is such an illustrative presentation of truth on account of how a common belief manages to gather people whose thoughts at the moment can become unified into a single hope of achieving the fruits of faith.

Moreover, it seems reasonable to understand the non-believer perspective of Dawkins considering that of the 80,000 men and women under different ages who attend the annual pilgrimage to a shrine known for its miraculous work, only 66 were officially documented miracles. By statistical assessment, this too negligible figure may then be found to project a weak level of confidence s it attempts to represent some millions of visit count over the years. Eventually, it should be a ground for the Christian church to take an action that would enable non-believers to discern the real essence of faith despite insufficient concrete instances of spiritual outcomes. b) Where is the film weakest in argumentation?

Be thorough in your discussion here. Use the apologetics tools as a way of engaging incorrect or illogical points made by the film. At the early portion of “The Root of All Evil”, Dawkins expresses “I think the idea of a divine creator belittles the elegant reality of the universe.” Dawkins readily dismisses the notion of God as he proceeds to explicate Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection. Allegorically, he utilizes the fictitious ‘Mountain Probable’ to illustrate the logic behind Darwin’s concept that man’s evolution from ‘primeval simplicity to ultimate complexity’ transpired with steady yet slow progress, similar to mountain climbing where the foot of the slope is a metaphor of bacterial beginnings.

Alongside this statement, however, the supposition that, based on the Bible, God created human beings on the 6th day of creation is juxtaposed for contrast and to Dawkins’ understanding, 6 days had literally passed before man came into being. In the study of the biblical narrative of creation in the Book of Genesis, of course, the days in which the Divine Creator formed everything that constitutes the Earth are not be interpreted on the basis of man’s value of time for a day could amount to a billion years for God.

It appears this is where the scientist misses the point regarding the purpose of theology which, like scientific method, is systematic in its approach of analysing the existence of God and faith though such means includes spiritual revelation instead of hypothesis testing in yielding the substance of truth. In the film, Dawkins may be observed ‘biased’ in judgment, neglecting to place a balanced consideration between science and faith. Thus, on a viewpoint of someone with adequate knowledge of the early manuscripts which serve as the Holy Scriptures’ factual historical basis, his argumentation fails for its deficiency of theological focus which seems replaced with an appeal to a premise stated in a fashion too general as to mislead impressions. c) What was especially impactful to you about the film? Why? The contradictions which Dawkins brought across to convey distaste toward faith are not at all impactful yet I find it equivalently interesting that he is a scientist in incessant quest of truth.

Somewhere, that attitude would be met by strange or deep curiosity to unravel unexplored mysteries of the universe and this could put Dawkins to an ordeal which might shake his unbelief, for God the True Maker is ever at work to execute wonders capable of changing difficult people, heart and mind, for non-believers like him see faith merely at the surface. They only need a bit of a turning point in life to be more flexible and discover that man’s capacities and potentials, no matter how genius, have their own limitations so that while science could explain everything in our living world, it has yet to gauge the outskirts of the universe and examine each cosmic body, then try to reveal thereafter not what is in it but why it is beautiful or marvelous in the first place.

In search of truth which no man’s religion can properly answer, Dawkins himself must take science to the level of responding not to queries of existence or composition but most significantly, to queries of beauty in the perfect order and symmetry of things to which we are inexplicably awestruck.