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

[Mole]

Victor:

C'mon me old Perguy. You started off as an atheist. You are just afraid you will slip back - what the Protestants call, "a back-slider".

The truth is that almost everyone in the world inherits their religion. The number that convert is miniscule and insignificant.

We take in our religious belief, we take in our religious identity, with our mother's milk.

So our religion is beyond argument - we just take it for granted - just as we take our mother for granted.

But you're a kind of motherless child. Constantly querulous, constantly fretting, worried that mother will go away.

But she's been here for two thousand years and is quite likely to stay.

But what would Catholic Apologetics be without converts like you and Cardinal Newman?

 

[pure_mercury]

Why does Richard Dawkins say something totally stupid like twice a year? He seems like an otherwise-intelligent man, but he is really hung up on theism and perceived anti-scientific things.

 

[Mole]

Why does Richard Dawkins say something totally stupid like twice a year? He seems like an otherwise-intelligent man, but he is really hung up on theism and perceived anti-scientific things.

Well, he is rational and religion is irrational.

And we are born irrational and are given our religion before we reach the age of reason.

So it is an interesting problem to accommodate the irrational with the rational.

Richard is impatient with the irrational. He is impatient with the childhood of humanity.

He wants us to grow up but every generation passes through childhood.

And childhood has its charms. It is open to belief, magic and the imagination. You might say, it forms the basis of our culture.

Richard is rather a charming child who has discovered the rational world and he wants to tell us about it. Santa he tells us, breathlessly, doesn't exist.

This is sure to upset the younger children.

And in a way, it's quite naughty.

So Richard is somewhat of a naughty boy. Just look at his smile, look at the way he carries himself - he looks just like a naughty boy enjoying himself.

And when all is said and done, he is not the Messiah, just a naughty boy.

 

[TheLastMohican]

I nominate this as an addition to the MBTIc emoticon collection.

 

[Venom]

I don't know what article at Wikipedia you've been reading, but the actual maps there tell a very different story - especially in regards to Italy and Greece:
[[/img]
There's already considerable discussion about Europe moving into a "post-secular" in which religion plays a far more important part in daily life. Numerous factors are contributing to this.

I will admit the mistake in writing italy and greece.

But here is more of what I meant (and to me, agnosticism is good enough proof that the sky will not fall):

France: 32% declared themselves atheists, and an additional 32% declared themselves agnostic.
Total infidels: 64%

Britain: in the United Kingdom, a poll in 2004 by the BBC put the number of people who do not believe in a God to be 40%, while a YouGov poll in the same year put the percentage of non-believers at 35% with 21% uncertain.[15] In the YouGov poll men were less likely to believe in a god than women and younger people were less likely to believe in a god than older people.
Total infidels: 56%

Norway: A 2006 survey in the Norwegian newspaper Aftenposten (on February 17), saw 1,006 inhabitants of Norway answering the question "What do you believe in?". 29% answered "I believe in a god or deity", 23% answered "I believe in a higher power without being certain of what", 26% answered "I don't believe in God or higher powers", and 22% answered "I am in doubt". Still, some 85% of the population are members of the Norwegian state's official Lutheran Protestant church. Part of this deviance is because Norwegians are signed into this church at birth, and that signing out, if they are even aware of being signed in, is a time-consuming, bureaucratic affair yielding no immediate gains.
Total infidels: 48%

Sweden: 80% of Swedes do not believe in God

Demographics of atheism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Im sure you can find studies that disagree with me. The point is though, in a world where survey results like these are common, the sky won't fall just because a society isnt religious.

 

[ragashree]

B] I'm defending what I see as important - the ability to voice opinions in a measured way without a ton of false arguments and personal attacks getting in the way.

So, I'm defending what he said because it was a measured approach, which deserves to be respected for what it is.[/B]

Ah, so you were trying to play devil's advocate, I see.

I really don't think the foundations of human free speech and reason are going to come crashing down because certain people on this thread are for various reasons unimpressed with Dawkins, however. You seem to be viewing his statements here as being without a broader context (Dawkins has a long history of getting the partially informed masses to accept his polemical speculation as established scientific fact, as you would know if you had lived in Britain for the last ten years, where people who don't even know who Dawkins IS are parroting his conclusions every day, because they've heard them so often). You also appear to be assuming that those who are making statements critical of Dawkins are doing so because they are gullible enough to take sides with the journalist, who as I said clearly earlier, obviously had an axe to grind. I would have thought the other people posting here can see this as well as I can.

Do you really think Dawkins is recieving criticism here because the other people posting are unable to think in a critical manner? If so, I would suggest that you were better off re-examining the subjective basis of your own reasoning than continuing down this path.

 

[ragashree]

Why does Richard Dawkins say something totally stupid like twice a year? He seems like an otherwise-intelligent man, but he is really hung up on theism and perceived anti-scientific things.

Maybe this will help make it clearer:

1) From Dawkins' own website

The Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science presents a DVD collection of 9 speakers from the Atheist Alliance International 2007 Convention (AtheistAlliance.org) held in Washington, D.C.

2) Dawkins' Wikipedia entry

Since 2003, the Atheist Alliance International has awarded a prize during its annual conference, honoring an outstanding atheist whose work has done most to raise public awareness of atheism during that year. It is known as the Richard Dawkins Award, in honor of Dawkins' own work.

Not that I'm saying he might have an agenda here, or anything...

 

[ptgatsby]

Do you really think Dawkins is recieving criticism here because the other people posting are unable to think in a critical manner? If so, I would suggest that you were better off re-examining the subjective basis of your own reasoning than continuing down this path.

My suggestion, in return, is to reread the article again without knowing who wrote it. The journalist did a hatchet job on what Dawkin's said in the opinion piece. The OP and the title of the thread followed this pattern. Then personal attacks where thrown at him and not what he said. I am also not playing devil's advocate, beyond saying "who knows". As far as my bias goes, I doubt it runs in the manner you are thinking. An over-bias towards this kind of work, perhaps, I'll grant you.

 

[ragashree]

My suggestion, in return, is to reread the article again without knowing who wrote it. The journalist did a hatchet job on what Dawkin's said in the opinion piece. The OP and the title of the thread followed this pattern. QUOTE]

I don't care who wrote it, as I've never heard of him. Journalists are paid to have opinions; I don't take them too seriously whether they're saying something I agree or disagree with. I am furthermore very well aware of the fact that the journalist had his own agenda, so I really don't know why you're telling me this when I have already stated so at least twice:

with the journalist, who as I said clearly earlier, obviously had an axe to grind

And in this case, it really would not matter whether or not the journalist had an axe to grind with him and used this particular statement to lead in to a full-blown attack on Dawkins.

As far as my bias goes, I doubt it runs in the manner you are thinking. An over-bias towards this kind of work, perhaps, I'll grant you

To be quite frank, that was precisely the manner I was thinking. Despite your previous denial that you were defending Dawkins. That was why I made the suggestion about the re-examining the subjective basis of your own reasoning.

 

[Nillerz]

Seems to me like he's not making any assumptions toward that theory at all and simply thinks it needs to be researched.

 

[Orangey]

My suggestion, in return, is to reread the article again without knowing who wrote it. The journalist did a hatchet job on what Dawkin's said in the opinion piece. The OP and the title of the thread followed this pattern. Then personal attacks where thrown at him and not what he said. I am also not playing devil's advocate, beyond saying "who knows". As far as my bias goes, I doubt it runs in the manner you are thinking. An over-bias towards this kind of work, perhaps, I'll grant you.

I think that he's saying that most people in the thread acknowledged that the article misrepresented Dawkins' opinion on fantasy books (or non-opinion, if you like), but that they had legitimate reasons to be critical of him and his work outside of this particular issue.

 

[ptgatsby]

I think that he's saying that most people in the thread acknowledged that the article misrepresented Dawkins' opinion on fantasy books (or non-opinion, if you like), but that they had legitimate reasons to be critical of him and his work outside of this particular issue.

Fair enough. I kept my eyes on the OP too long, I suppose. I guess I was also off put by a lot of personal attacks in close proximity. /me exits.

 

[pure_mercury]

Maybe this will help make it clearer:

1) From Dawkins' own website



2) Dawkins' Wikipedia entry



Not that I'm saying he might have an agenda here, or anything...

Those things are all fine, but he can be really obnoxious about it.

 

[Maabus1999]

Extremism in any form is detrimental to human development.

How effective can an inventor be if he does not have a wild imagination?

Exactly. If you can imagine it, most likely you can create it. Just sometimes it takes other people to make someone's dreams become reality.

Why being stuck in a fantasy world may be detrimental but it is great for a healthy imagination in the long run, especially if it gets people to read.

 

[Simplexity]

Exactly. If you can imagine it, most likely you can create it. Just sometimes it takes other people to make someone's dreams become reality.

Why being stuck in a fantasy world may be detrimental but it is great for a healthy imagination in the long run, especially if it gets people to read.

Especially if its complex and challenging. I actually was just reading a book called "how to read critically" or something, and they mentioned the fact that while it is alright to encourage reading it should be focused towards actually coherent, well written books.

Comic book's were kind of discouraged, but elaborate fantasies like the lord of the rings and the like where there is a lot to be learned implicitly by reading it are great. I used to be a reading fanatic and I learned A TON by it, not the least of which was vocabulary and complex grammar and sentence structure. Envisioning a complex dynamic world with the help of an author was definitely also something I relished.

 

[Mycroft]

Peguy, I can't help but note that everything you post on this message board is nothing more than an elaborate take on the "atheists are just as crazy as the religious hardliners, therefore the truth must lie somewhere in the middle" fallacy.

 

[Tamske]

I've read the first and the last post (it's a pretty long thread)
But that's than one thing I disagree with Mr. Dawkins. Why not? There's a place in the world for fantasy, and that place is in the book shelf and on paintings and all sorts of art!
In scientific viewpoint, Harry Potter is actually quite modern. There is an increase in knowledge, eg. Dumbledore discovered some uses for dragon blood. Compare that with the Lord of the Rings, where there is a decrease in everything - knowledge, power, greatness... Harry Potters world is an evolving one, getting more complex and great as time increases; while LOTR has been shapen perfectly and is decaying since. Mr. Dawkins should at least approve of that I can understand him criticizing other aspects of HP's magic, though.(*)
BUT - and here comes a big great but - even if the thing is unscientific, why toss it in the bin? It's fantasy! It's fiction! It should, of course, be clear that it's made up and not real, but I guess it IS quite clear :-D

(*) I don't like some aspects in it, either. This didn't stop me from enjoying the books. It only made me pay attention when *I* started to make up *my* fantasy worlds.

 

[Lark]

I think Dawkins has steadily gotten more and more onary and screwy to be honest, I can detect the same sort of thing in Bertrand Russell's writing too.

I remember when I first discovered or heard about Dawkins, I didnt agree with his perspective as I understood it but couldnt say that I had any dislike for him, I thought he was getting the raw deal from the massed ranks of his opposition and it was also a time when the US was pretty much portrayed as an imposingly southern baptist Jesusland (I cant say how closely it conformed to that notion).

As time has gone on I'm less inclined to think of him as the beligered school teacher in that black and white movie with Jimmy Stewart where a town tries to prohibit teaching Darwin's conclusions and more inclined to think of him as a toxic mirror of his equally toxic opposition.

I hate his meme theory and I hate the pseudo-science memetics, its about as valid in my mind as Soviet psychology which branded doubters of dialectical materialism's producing Stalinism as insane. Pretty much what Dawkins hates is a contaminant prejudicial to human welfare and everything else isnt.

You could as easily turn the argument on its head or give credience to the mad utterings which suggest that any and all ideas producing doubt in God or an afterlife are the work of the devil.

It doesnt surprise me that Harry Potter is being condemned now because despite the early hostility (in some cases continued hostility) from US evangelists because of the superficial featuring of magic and witchcraft (please the same people condemn Star Wars and its only by a sumersault of logic that they dont condemn Narnia and Tolkein too) its now favourite reading matter among religious and Christians, treated like allegory.

 

[Oberon]

Hmm. This seems to me very much akin to disliking a piece of writing because it does not support Islam.

 

[Lightyear]

I can't take much of what Dawkins says seriously since I am too repelled by his arrogance to be properly able to consider what he has to say. I have two friends who've met him in person and who have no intention of meeting him again. The first friend is a Christian who interviewed him for the BBC and found it hard to have a proper conversation with him, the second friend is an atheist who was very excited to win a meeting with Richard Dawkins since he is one of his personal heros. During the meeting Dawkins ignored my friend and instead typed on his mobile phone and when my friend asked him to sign a copy of Darwin's "On the origin of species" Dawkins refused because he hadn't written the introduction to this particular edition. I mean seriously, behave less like an asshole and it might actually help you to get your message across.