It would be easy to argue the point that the new atheists, who claim that religion is wrong and antiquated and that those who put their faith into religion are deluded, do not actually know much about the religions that they declaim. Indeed, it seems that they have less against religion in general and more against fanaticism. It should not be assumed that all of religion should account for the actions of a few. It is something in the pattern of sins of the father, something that I have long found objectionable. Affiliation with someone who has made bad decisions should not really affect the way that one is viewed, but it cannot be denied that it often does. If a person’s father kills someone, people will know and will talk about it, and that …show more content…
It is mentioned in his book, The God Delusion, that he once presented a documentary on religion entitled The Root of All Evil? – though thankfully Dawkins admits that that is an exaggeration, as “no one thing is the root of all anything” (Dawkins 23). A part of the advertisement was the Manhattan skyline, with the twin towers of World Trade Center still standing tall. This is a smart move on Dawkins part if his goal is to convince the readers (or, in that case, the viewers) that religion has the potential to cause large-scale violence, and has done so. 9/11 is still relatively recent, and many can recall where they were when the news broke and how they felt at the time. However, the fact of the matter is that, even if the number of atheists and agnostics in that world is growing, the majority of the world’s population is still religious, meaning that if religious is so innately deleterious, then religious crime and conflict would be a lot more widespread and common than it actually is. It is easy to see a few incidents and generalize based on those, but when the facts are actually viewed, religiously motivated crime is actually far less common than one might assume at first, something that Dawkins is more than willing to