Richard Dawkins disapproves of "anti-scientific" literature, like "Harry Potter"

[Within]

Richard Dawkins disapproves of "anti-scientific" literature, like "Harry Potter"

How 'bout that.

 

[KDude]

Look at who started the thread...a butt-hurt creationist. I don't think I need to explain why he would be motivated to start a thread like this.

Is Peguy really a creationist..? I'll let him speak for himself, but I know that he's Catholic.. I'm not Catholic myself, but I know they don't have an elaborate cosmological system, like evangelicals do. Just to point that out. Those kind of details are always up for debate in Catholic/Orthodox circles (and liberal Protestants). Not every Christian reads or is even commanded to read the bible literally.

That said, I don't dislike Dawkins. He brings up some important questions - and not just the stuff about the "god delusion", but whether religion is beneficial or detrimental or not. I don't agree with his vilification at all, but I think it's important to debate that. I know where his sense of frustration and anger is coming from to a point (there is a lot of nasty shit done in the name of God or Gods), but I also think it's too uncompromising and misdirected.

The one thing I don't like about him is a general complaint that goes for both religious and atheists individuals: I don't like when people think they KNOW the truth about God. That's ridiculous and arrogant. Stuff like that is always going to come down to faith or will imho. And nothing to do with "objective" truth per se. It comes to a point where you make your own truth, as unsatisfying and bad as that sounds to some rationalists. Even some of the most famous atheists would agree with me though (Nietzsche, being one).

 

[GZA]

This has been done before, it was called Don Quixote.

 

[Mole]

Songlines

This has been done before, it was called Don Quixote.

Yes, it's the re-enchantment of the literal world.

The literal world burst upon us in 1440 with the invention of the printing press. But it was not until 1605 that the first novel, Don Quixote, was published.

Don Quixote is plagued by the literal minded, just as we are plagued here, who, when they look at a windmill, see a windmill. Who here would be game to mount Rosinante and charge full tilt at a windmill to the laughter of all around them? Who can bear the laughter of the literal minded while they respond to their deep inner self?

So the deep inner self dries up and the world loses its enchantment.

But to re-enchant the world all we need to do is chant. We need to abandon the literal eye and listen to the chant of the world.

Hunter-Gathers enchanted the world with Songlines and the deep chant of the corroberee in the dark night around the flickering fire. Even monks enchanted the world with Gregorian Chant.

But today we believe what we see, not what we hear. We believe the literal truth of the Bible and the Koran. These sacred texts now reach us through the eye rather than the ear.

But the telephone changed everything - lend me your ear, it says, the day of the printing press is over, hear the whisper of my warm muzzle over the Songlines once again.

 

[figsfiggyfigs]

How 'bout that.

Harry potter is scientific as shit, bitches!!! *turns into lark*

 

[Thisica]

This has an awful lot of truth in it.

And I would add that we are inclined to act out our own cultural myths because they are unconscious.

So our myths work directly on us and bypass the critical mind.

Of course if we start to understand our own cultural myths, we are bringing them into our conscious mind.

And with our myths in our conscious mind, we are able to critique them.

We are able to decide which are good and which are bad; which are helpful and which hinder us; and even which one's we like.

But perhaps it is most dangerous to think that myths are simply untrue.

In fact myths are neither true nor false, rather they provide a context for a whole culture.

So it is wise to learn which myths are driving us, lest they drive us over a cliff.

So if myths are neither true nor false, how are we to judge them?

 

[Thisica]

Even after all of this apparent in-fighting about Dawkins' opinions...I would like to point out the obvious:

1) An opinion is just that, an opinion.
2) Dawkins is like any one of us, a finite human being with weaknesses like we all do.
3) There's no need to stew over opinions. We can disagree, but need not have to shout them down. Refer to point 1 for the reason

 

[onemoretime]

So if myths are neither true nor false, how are we to judge them?

Are they useful, or harmful?

 

[Beargryllz]

Are they useful, or harmful?

How would a myth be harmful? If we say it is not helpful, does it have to become harmful? Or is it possible to be neither harmful nor helpful?

 

[onemoretime]

How would a myth be harmful? If we say it is not helpful, does it have to become harmful? Or is it possible to be neither harmful nor helpful?

Example of a harmful myth: "Jews are traitorous shysters who only care about money, and use the blood of Christian children to make their matzoh"

If it is neither helpful nor harmful, is there any need for judging in the first place?

 

[Mole]

Right and Wrong and the Mytho-Poetic

Are they useful, or harmful?

This is a very good question which should be asked of anything mytho-poetic.

This question has been asked of the Bible for more than 150 years, leading to a benign form of Chrisianity. However this question has not been asked of the Koran, and we can see the violent results every day in our newspapers.

And just as each one of us is subject to questions of right and wrong, so the mytho-poetic is also suject to questions of right and wrong. And it is right to ask these questions and wrong not to.

 

[Coriolis]

Example of a harmful myth: "Jews are traitorous shysters who only care about money, and use the blood of Christian children to make their matzoh"

If it is neither helpful nor harmful, is there any need for judging in the first place?

I agree with using utility as a yardstick. Myths are a bit like fables: stories with a moral, or a lesson to teach. Does that lesson lead to prejudice, hatred, and fear; or to understanding, tolerance, and compassion?

 

[Blackmail!]

Has somebody here already noticed the question of common mythology and how they possibly affect our unconscious side was a central theme of Jung's works?

 

[CzeCze]

I kinda think imagination and science aren't exclusive. I can see the author's point, what I'm gathering is there is an undercurrent or movement in society to 'keep kids stupid' which is true if you look at how marketing and branding and have taken over the media and the world. Companies want to sell things to you and prime you into easy acceptance of fads and 5 second clips.

At the end of the day though, anything that inspires you or lights up your imagination creates a potential for learning and self-improvement.

 

[Hera]

I didn't catch on to him really disapproving, just pondering the idea. As an atheist Harry Potter fan (I grew up with Harry Potter) I can't find a problem.

 

[mrconfusion87]

but Dawkins has a go at everybody!! He comes across as overwhelmingly arrogant. It is nothing to do with him being an atheist - I share most of his views on religion - but he absolutely refuses to accept anybody else's different view of the world. He is also patronising and frequently rude - not the attributes Id suggest are ideal for a
Professor of the Public Understanding of Science - a few social graces would go down well as would the ability to listen to others, and develop balance, rather than shout your views from every platform you can get onto.

Science cannot answer all of the world's problems - it has created many of these problems - something Dawkins never mentions - I would have a great deal more respect for him if he did.

Humility is a powerful quality as an educator.

Nice job with your statement on Richard Dawkins! I treat him (and any other militant atheist) with as much disdain as I would Osama Bin Laden, Jerry Falwell, and all the other militantly religious folks! He's NO DIFFERENT from the Pharisees of Jesus' days, even though he's pushing for a different worldview! God forbid he become UK Prime Minister - he might start a pogrom against all religious people like Hitler did the Jews given the resources!

I think we need more people calling this guy out and giving him a taste of his own medicine! Claiming God doesn't exist is (logically speaking) as much an extra-ordinary claim as proving that God exists and any objective observer knows that the existence/non-existence of God can NEVER be scientifically proven, even though (IMO) the burden of proof IS with both camps! If he claims religious people are "delusional", he should also look at the mirror because he's also delusional if he claims he can "scientifically prove" God doesn't exist!

Besides, I don't believe for one bit there is such thing as cold, unbiased rationality/reasoning - never existed, doesn't exist, and NEVER WILL exist! Hence my refusal to take this attention-whore "militant atheist" seriously!

 

[Nicodemus]

Nice job with your statement on Richard Dawkins! I treat him (and any other militant atheist) with as much disdain as I would Osama Bin Laden, Jerry Falwell, and all the other militantly religious folks! He's NO DIFFERENT from the Pharisees of Jesus' days, even though he's pushing for a different worldview! God forbid he become UK Prime Minister - he might start a pogrom against all religious people like Hitler did the Jews given the resources!

Are you serious?

 

[Randomnity]

God forbid he become UK Prime Minister - he might start a pogrom against all religious people like Hitler did the Jews given the resources!

I really hope a nutritionist never becomes president - what with all their deriding of fast food, they might start a pogrom against fat people like Hitler if they were given the resources!

 

[ChocolateMoose123]

All I see on either end of this atheist/fundamentalist spectrum nowadays is intolerance on both sides.

Pretentious superiority complexes from atheists and dogmatic self-righteousness from fundamentalists. It's really terrible that each party doesn't realize that most people of either belief system fall somewhere in the middle ground where they understand the others perspective and respect it as their right to believe what they want.

Personally, it would be awesome if everyone went back to that old rule of politics and religion being off-limit topics for strangers to discuss.

 

[WALMART]

Wow. I am quite displeased someone could read those statements and extrapolate such a firm opinion of his intent.