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

[Jack Flak]

Guess I never noticed since all my friends are above average...

"Above average" is a commonly used concept to persuade in relation to authority. I think people of "above average" intelligence are the most dangerous of all, to be frank. People of nearly undefinably high intelligence aren't usually dangerous to reason and how it relates to society. Nor are the "below average."

 

[edcoaching]

"Above average" is a commonly used concept to persuade in relation to authority. I think people of "above average" intelligence are the most dangerous of all, to be frank. People of nearly undefinably high intelligence aren't usually dangerous to reason and how it relates to society. Nor are the "below average."

Guess I should have said that MENSA sent limos for us...

 

[ragashree]

Then religious belief lacks direction, and force, and is less dangerous to the atheist.

All I can say is that Dawkins's threat perception must be on overdrive if he considers a force as spent as the Church of England enough of a threat to his liberty or personal integrity that he needs to spew out the constant stream of invenctive against religion or in general. Maybe he has some unresolved childhood issues, perhaps with a particular representative of the clergy...

 

[Jack Flak]

Guess I should have said that MENSA sent limos for us...

Mensa claims to let in the top 2%. The divergence in the top 2%...I don't know the IQ figures, but isn't it close to equal to standard deviation?

All I can say is that Dawkins's threat perception must be on overdrive if he considers a force as spent as the Church of England enough of a threat to his liberty or personal integrity that he needs to spew out the constant stream of invenctive against religion or in general. Maybe he has some unresolved childhood issues, perhaps with a particular representative of the clergy...

He does see it as a threat, whether justified or not. He's not prejudiced though, he sees Islam as a serious threat as well, and a more direct one if my perception is correct.

 

[ragashree]

"Above average" is a commonly used concept to persuade in relation to authority. I think people of "above average" intelligence are the most dangerous of all, to be frank. People of nearly undefinably high intelligence aren't usually dangerous to reason and how it relates to society. Nor are the "below average."

I concurr

 

[ptgatsby]

Maybe, though I think saying something that makes him look like a prize idiot and reduces his credibility to almost everyone except diehard followers is nevertheless a bigger one.

Yah. It sucks when reporters generate such sensationalist stuff out of an anthill. *shrug*

That'll teach him to make a reasoned opinion on the possibility of something that might maybe have an effect. He'll definitely never again claim that the possibility is there but would require research to validate it.

 

[ragashree]

Yah. It sucks when reporters generate such sensationalist stuff out of an anthill. *shrug*

That'll teach him to make a reasoned opinion on the possibility of something that might maybe have an effect. He'll definitely never again claim that the possibility is there but would require research to validate it.

Well, it might just be worth considering, purely hypothetically, that perhaps, just perhaps, Dawkins made a statement that might potentially indicate that he had the mindset of an overly pedantic, out of touch, presumptuous buffoon. 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. Whether or not a person is being wise or foolish when they choose to criticise fairy stories on the basis of their rationality and logic is a matter that should perhaps be judged separately from whether someone else has a problem with that person. I think perhaps it might be worth researching why myth and fantasy exist and are still an important component of human consciousness.

 

[ptgatsby]

Well, it might just be worth considering, purely hypothetically, that perhaps, just perhaps, Dawkins made a statement that might potentially indicate that he had the mindset of an overly pedantic, out of touch, presumptuous buffoon. 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. Whether or not a person is being wise or foolish when they choose to criticise fairy stories on the basis of their rationality and logic is a matter that should perhaps be judged separately from whether someone else has a problem with that person. I think perhaps it might be worth researching why myth and fantasy exist and are still an important component of human consciousness.

I didn't realise that it was wise to judge people on hypothetical opinions of what they might have meant over depending on a biased article that self-contradicts his quotes with the journalist's opinion.

Of course, I think he does believe that the general use of fantasy and myth is negative, if it encourages people to not be critical with what they read. Kind of like people should be with the article. The article is a knee-jerk reaction to an overstatement made by the journalist to him expanding on the concept that fantasy and encouraging myth causes people to be non-critical of myths that they would act on. Not exactly a stretch by any means, yet he measures his words carefully because he doesn't actually know. You know, a reasoned response.

I don't think it relates strongly, personally. But I have no valid reason to disagree or agree. If there is an effect, there is an effect... but given that most of humanity is non-critical no matter what, it seems silly to think that additional reading, no matter what the topic, would be the root cause. IOW, it's people inability to be critical (such as mentioned earlier, like Dawkin's view of religion and myth) period, and not surprisingly, those people can read. But at the same time, I fail to see how encouraging people to read 'myth' simply couldn't lead to people acting out based on myth.

 

[Siúil a Rúin]

"Whether that has a pernicious effect, I don't know," the 67-year-old British writer said. "Looking back to my own childhood, the fact that so many of the stories I read allowed the possibility of frogs turning into princes, whether that has a sort of insidious effect on rationality, I'm not sure. Perhaps it's something for research." Dawkins

It's worth noting that Dawkins does not draw a conclusion on the matter, although his comments imply that he doesn't have an immediate appreciation or understanding of the role that non-scientific thought processes might play.

The underlying issue here is one of context. If you are doing scientific research, collecting data, and attempting to measure accurately, then it's not such a great idea to to let your imagination go wild. On the other hand, the development of imagination and creativity allows the mind to explore the world in metaphor and abstraction. When it comes to different cognitive processes it comes down to a question of using the best tool for the particular task. Rationality is not harmed if there remains the ability to understand the distinction between abstractions of subjective experience and methods for exploring objective, concrete reality.

 

[ragashree]

but given that most of humanity is non-critical no matter what, it seems silly to think that additional reading, no matter what the topic, would be the root cause.

I tend to agree. I don't see how reading something that is not explicitly connected with the use of logic can have much effect either way, unless it actively promotes the use of actual illogic and the reader internalises this viewpoint.

But at the same time, I fail to see how encouraging people to read 'myth' simply couldn't lead to people acting out based on myth.

I wasn't sure what this means. Do you mean that the reading of myths is very likely to cause people to behave in a similar way to the characters contained therein?

 

[ragashree]

Rationality is not harmed if there remains the ability to understand the distinction between abstractions of subjective experience and methods for exploring objective, concrete reality.

Indeed. I do wonder whether Dawkins is not committing a common mistake of those who have allowed their egos to grow too large, and underestimating the intelligence and discriminatory powers of other people.

 

[ptgatsby]

I wasn't sure what this means. Do you mean that the reading of myths is very likely to cause people to behave in a similar way to the characters contained therein?

Or simply accept myth as a form of reality, such as it does in religion and other superstitions. I would imagine that it would have an effect. To a meaningful degree, though? I doubt it. I imagine it is the human state that would cause such things to emerge, not training in particular.

 

[Edgar]

So my dear Edgar, how would you type me.

Do take your time and type me

I haven't followed enough of your posts to make a conclusive guess of your type, but from the little that I've read you don't seem to be an INTP.

INTPs are the most logical types (including other NTs). Logic is their religion and they think they can solve everything with it, including feelings. For an INTP to say what you have said -- that logic should not be applied to the treatment of persons because it degenerates them into things... is frankly, a blasphemous thing for an INTP to say. Usually, I tend to avoid making a statement based on a single observation, but this an unusual case.

So I'm leaning toward NF of sorts. Perhaps INFP? That seems to be the likeliest.

 

[Sniffles]

I think Victor is his own mutated type.

 

[Salomé]

I applied logos to getting a date. I explained all the advantages of dating me. And all the disadvantages of not dating me. I explained it was perfectly logical for her to date me. And we would have a perfectly logical date.

She kinda looked embarrassed, and twisted her handkerchief, she cast her eyes down and said, "It's not you personally, its just that I never date engineers".

Perhaps INFP? That seems to be the likeliest.

Fail. Victor's type = BI(TTER) TR(OLL).

 

[Mole]

I haven't followed enough of your posts to make a conclusive guess of your type, but from the little that I've read you don't seem to be an INTP.

INTPs are the most logical types (including other NTs). Logic is their religion and they think they can solve everything with it, including feelings. For an INTP to say what you have said -- that logic should not be applied to the treatment of persons because it degenerates them into things... is frankly, a blasphemous thing for an INTP to say. Usually, I tend to avoid making a statement based on a single observation, but this an unusual case.

So I'm leaning toward NF of sorts. Perhaps INFP? That seems to be the likeliest.

The last thing I want to be is blasphemous so I will take your suggestion and become an INFP.

It is, as you say, based on an individual observation, so I would be pleased if you would keep on eye on me and my posts in case you would like to revise your suggestion.

I am highly suggestible and I am grateful for any suggestion.

And I am grateful to you, Edgar, for giving me a new type.

 

[Mole]

Fail. Victor's type = BI(TTER) TR(OLL).

I would like to think you loved me, Bluemonday. But I can't fly in the face of the evidence.

But who knows what the future may hold.

 

[Mole]

I think Victor is his own mutated type.

It's true, Peguy, I am a mongrel.

 

[Salomé]

O RLY? I thought flying in the face of evidence/reason was your specialty.

You know what they say: "Live in hope, die in despair".

 

[Mole]

O RLY? I thought flying in the face of evidence/reason was your specialty.

You know what they say: "Live in hope, die in despair".

OK, let's face reality. We do have an emotional relationship. It's true it consists of negative emotions. But it is highly charged.

And just as the Earth herself reverses her polarities every now and then, who knows, we may follow suit.

I think that would be most suitable.