• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

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

G

Ginkgo

Guest
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.

One similarity I've noticed in both sides is that they tend to be almost Puritanical about how they treat specific goods. Hardcore Fundies also advise against Harry Potter or any form of media that could possibly be interpreted as an affront against their worldview. Both tend to dismiss psychology as a means of explaining the abuse of certain things like Harry Potter because it's either not a hard enough science or because it's not explicitly mentioned in the Bible or the Q'ran.
 

Julius_Van_Der_Beak

Up the Wolves
Joined
Jul 24, 2008
Messages
19,449
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
sp/so
He does seem to be speculating about whether or not it's harmful, rather than claiming it is.


That being said, there's a big difference between enjoying a work of imagination, and believing it. I don't see any harm in imagination, at least not by itself. I don't recall being terribly traumatized when I figured out that Santa Claus isn't real, unlike some people. If I have an issue with the "Santa" thing, it's the consumerism aspect, not the "making up a story" part.

I can't help but think of this exchange from Gilliam's Baron Munchasen:

Horatio Jackson: Ah, the officer who risked his life by singlehandedly destroying...
Functionary: [whispering in his ear] Six.
Horatio Jackson: *Six* enemy cannon and rescuing...
Functionary: Ten.
Horatio Jackson: Ten of our men held captive by The Turk.
Heroic Officer: Yes, sir.
Horatio Jackson: The officer about whom we've heard so much.
Heroic Officer: I suppose so, sir.
Horatio Jackson: Always taking risks far beyond the call of duty.
Heroic Officer: I only did my best, sir.
Horatio Jackson: Have him executed at once.
Soldier: Yes, sir. Come along.
Horatio Jackson: This sort of behavior is demoralizing for the ordinary soldiers and citizens who are trying to lead normal, simple, unexceptional lives. I think things are difficult enough as it is without these emotional people rocking the boat.
 

Siúil a Rúin

when the colors fade
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
14,037
MBTI Type
ISFP
Enneagram
496
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
I can read that he is speculating over what impact fantasy has on the human mind. My impression is that he does tend to be a bit narrow, and I wouldn't expect him to understand artistic processes. Those seem quite alien to the way his mind works. No one understands everything, and I don't expect him to be right about everything. I know some rather high level scientists who disagree with his scientific positions, although I don't have the understanding to accept or reject his theories. He seems like a conscientious thinker, highly intelligent, but not someone who understands everything - just like everyone.
 

Lark

Active member
Joined
Jun 21, 2009
Messages
29,569
I can read that he is speculating over what impact fantasy has on the human mind. My impression is that he does tend to be a bit narrow, and I wouldn't expect him to understand artistic processes. Those seem quite alien to the way his mind works. No one understands everything, and I don't expect him to be right about everything. I know some rather high level scientists who disagree with his scientific positions, although I don't have the understanding to accept or reject his theories. He seems like a conscientious thinker, highly intelligent, but not someone who understands everything - just like everyone.

I'm sorry but I'm pretty sure no one would say the same thing about the individuals who venture opinions about how the Harry Potter books are ruinous because they are portraying witchcraft, ie the religious fundamentalists.

This is a good piece, well found [MENTION=4212]Peguy[/MENTION], because it shows how much Dawkins is coming to mirror his opponents.

What most interesting about this thread is the extent to which people are willing to still "go to bat" for him, ie rationalise, frame and reframe, excuse, explain away, instead of saying simply that he could've been wrong about things this time, it's not even like doing so wouldnt mean that you think he's correct in other things.

To think the left, with whom atheism is associated and most often likes to associate itself, used to pride itself, at least in some quarters, on being critical thinkers or critically reflective, at least in contrast to their opposition.

I'm actually happy because I read fairy tales and fiction for precisely the reason Dawkins thinks they're a bad idea.
 

Siúil a Rúin

when the colors fade
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
14,037
MBTI Type
ISFP
Enneagram
496
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
I'm sorry but I'm pretty sure no one would say the same thing about the individuals who venture opinions about how the Harry Potter books are ruinous because they are portraying witchcraft, ie the religious fundamentalists.
You could be right about that. I wasn't expressing my personal feeling about him because I don't care for him or his ideas, and I could be a bit more explicit about it if it seemed relevant to do so.

I'll have to read through everything again because if he is saying that the Harry Potter books are ruinous for certain and not just wondering about their effect, then the two cases you give would be equivalent. If Dawkins is saying fiction "might" be harmful and a religious leader also says fiction "might" be harmful, then both positions should be treated at the same level as well.

I think developing the imagination is very important and metaphor is a way to understand those things which move beyond our experience. They can be a way to exercise even a type of empathy and reasoned speculation without which it is difficult to gain new knowledge.
 

pinkgraffiti

New member
Joined
Mar 20, 2011
Messages
1,482
MBTI Type
ENFP
Enneagram
748
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
From an evolutionary biologist's point of view, I find Richard Dawkins too close minded, not only regarding religion, but also on the other side, regarding other evolutionists. His 'selfish gene' theory is interesting and true in a way, but he won't open up to the other 'side', ie the theory of cooperation and symbiosis proposed by Margulis. He's also stuck in a tree-like pattern for the evolution of life on earth, and doesn't accept, consider or even begin to understand the newer vision (which has been around since at least 1995) that there isn't a tree but a web of life. He's just a sad old fart in my eyes.
 

Lark

Active member
Joined
Jun 21, 2009
Messages
29,569
You could be right about that. I wasn't expressing my personal feeling about him because I don't care for him or his ideas, and I could be a bit more explicit about it if it seemed relevant to do so.

I'll have to read through everything again because if he is saying that the Harry Potter books are ruinous for certain and not just wondering about their effect, then the two cases you give would be equivalent. If Dawkins is saying fiction "might" be harmful and a religious leader also says fiction "might" be harmful, then both positions should be treated at the same level as well.

I think developing the imagination is very important and metaphor is a way to understand those things which move beyond our experience. They can be a way to exercise even a type of empathy and reasoned speculation without which it is difficult to gain new knowledge.

In Adam Smith and other enlightenment influenced rationalists imagination is highly significant and important, the metaphor of the invisible hand is meaningless for instance if you can not "imagine" it, but in a greater sense Smith's System of Moral Sentiments explains how sentimentality, ie sympathy with others, is impossible without imagination.

All that stands in direct opposition to the sort of rationalism or reason which Dawkins is exemplifying here but there's something awful about the idea that if you can repress or prevent young peoples exposure to imaginative reading or flights of fancy they'll be more susceptible to your own thinking about metaphysics, I dont see how that differs at all from religious authorities and their maxims about give me the boy until seven and I will give you the man and stuff of that kind which secularists and atheists do their nut about and panick about.

It impresses upon me that no matter how much its moderated as "musing" or "wondering" or "speculating" that the idea is about preventing any deviation from a particular way of thinking in the name of "open mindedness", there's something totally wrong with that.

Sorry, I wasnt singling your post out, I replied to it but I was also making a stand alone response to the thread too.
 

Julius_Van_Der_Beak

Up the Wolves
Joined
Jul 24, 2008
Messages
19,449
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
sp/so
I think developing the imagination is very important and metaphor is a way to understand those things which move beyond our experience. They can be a way to exercise even a type of empathy and reasoned speculation without which it is difficult to gain new knowledge.

I hadn't even considered it from that angle. I was coming at it more from the angle that it is extremely absurd to propose that it may be a good idea for people to only engage in activities that reflect an empirically verifiable reality.


  1. We don't always have all the facts in life.
  2. Facts can sometimes be changed.
  3. Creativity and imagination can be an intense source of pleasure, and I don't see why that should be denied to people for the sake of molding them to some bullshit political agenda.

Regardless of what Dawkins was actually saying, this quote is another reason why, despite my atheistic leanings, I prefer apatheism and secularism to Dawkin's antitheism.
 

Lark

Active member
Joined
Jun 21, 2009
Messages
29,569
From an evolutionary biologist's point of view, I find Richard Dawkins too close minded, not only regarding religion, but also on the other side, regarding other evolutionists. His 'selfish gene' theory is interesting and true in a way, but he won't open up to the other 'side', ie the theory of cooperation and symbiosis proposed by Margulis. He's also stuck in a tree-like pattern for the evolution of life on earth, and doesn't accept, consider or even begin to understand the newer vision (which has been around since at least 1995) that there isn't a tree but a web of life. He's just a sad old fart in my eyes.

I'm actually really glad to see this because its the reason I dislike Dawkins, I knew he was an arch atheist but I dont really worry about that sort of thing, its a tired debate kept alive for the sake of some of its proponents at this point I think, but because of the selfish gene theories.

There are theist and atheist evolution theorists who reject him altogether as a sort of classical charles darwin fanboy who takes up a lot of the already done to death diatribes and debates reviving them for new audiences. In the process he's not really advancing knowledge but feeding an audience who want to appear in the know instead. I dont think that's a good thing or a service to anyone, least of all knowledge.

The web theories of the upward, evolution growth of life is more credible than the tree but there are systems and reciprocity models which make much more sense than competition, things beyond simple tit for tat or co-operative game theory models (you might have been talking about these though). The thing about Dawkins is that I kind of think he has a little knowledge of something and a lot of pride in being an intellectual, whatever unfair and unwarranted savaging he got from ignoramuses back in the day has left its mark on him and effected everything he has produced since, not simply in his interaction between them and himself either but himself and everyone.
 

Lark

Active member
Joined
Jun 21, 2009
Messages
29,569
I hadn't even considered it from that angle. I was coming at it more from the angle that it is extremely absurd to propose that people should only engage in activities that reflect an empirically verifiable reality.


  1. We don't always have all the facts in life.
  2. Facts can sometimes be changed.
  3. Creativity and imagination can be an intense source of pleasure, and I don't see why that should be denied to people for the sake of molding them to some bullshit political agenda.

Regardless of what Dawkins was actually saying, this quote is another reason why, despite my atheistic leanings, I prefer apatheism and secularism to Dawkin's antitheism.

There's atheism and atheism, I'd recommend you consider Erich Fromm, he doesnt like the atheist label much from what I can tell though, prefering non-theist, and I'm not actually clear as to what he thinks about belief systems which posit after lives or reincarnation but dont believe in eternity or Gods, he definitely doesnt believe in the later. He has said that for those who believe in an afterlife that it must be so different from this life as to provide compelling reasons that this life and questions about it, ie ethics, sociology, psychology, be prioritised while living it.

I have never heard of this apatheism, is that a typo or a real thing? Were you going to right pantheism or something like that? Or was it a reference to apathy?

One of the things which I find mildly amusing is the fact that I heard AC Grayling recently say, in relation to Einstein, that naturalism, pantheism, all sorts of seperate creedos were all fine so long as they werent theism, I was sort of amused by how it didnt appear how mistaken you were so long as you werent mistaken about the existence of a deity.
 

/DG/

silentigata ano (profile)
Joined
Mar 19, 2009
Messages
4,602
That's disappointing.
Not really. If you read the article, he doesn't actually say he disproves of anti-scientific literature. Rather, he is simply wondering how it affects people. They are putting words in his mouth.

I have never heard of this apatheism, is that a typo or a real thing? Were you going to right pantheism or something like that? Or was it a reference to apathy?
An apatheist simply doesn't care whether or not a deity exists.
 

Lark

Active member
Joined
Jun 21, 2009
Messages
29,569
Not really. If you read the article, he doesn't actually say he disproves of anti-scientific literature. Rather, he is simply wondering how it affects people. They are putting words in his mouth.


An apatheist simply doesn't care whether or not a deity exists.

Yeah, I figured, I think this is likely the oldest religion there is and God is probably used to it by now.
 

Julius_Van_Der_Beak

Up the Wolves
Joined
Jul 24, 2008
Messages
19,449
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
sp/so
That description of apatheism is spot on.

I look at apatheism as an umbrella term. An apatheist could also be a pantheist (like me) or an atheist or a theist.

Mostly, the term apatheist is relevant in opposition to an antitheist. An antitheist is someone who is against religion in every instance, and believes the world would be a better place if religion didn't exist. This is someone like Dawkins or Hitchens (who are atheists, but also antitheists).

Apatheism says, "Woah guys, maybe religion didn't cause every problem humanity is facing right now, and maybe there are some issues that might be more important than metaphysics."

I am not an antitheist, because I think if you got rid of religion, you wouldn't be getting rid of fundamentalism (and not all religious people are fundamentalists, anyway). There would just be another kind of fundamentalism to replace religious fundamentalism, like Marxist fundamentlism or Dawkiniist fundamentalism.

Perhaps it's possible to create a society free from fundamentalist, but you're going to need to get there through an understanding of human psycholgy.

And, unfortunately, by and large, antitheists seem uninterested in human psychology, and seem to have given little thought as to what religion is going to be replaced with. Ask an antitheist why people believe in religion, and they will almost never go any deeper than "it's a delusion for fools."

That answer isn't good enough for me. All that tells me is that the speaker believes themselves more intelligent than people that believe in religion, and I'd prefer some other measure of intelligence other than self-assessment. Obviously, religion is attractive to a lot of people, or it wouldn't still be around. It seems to me that it might be beneficial for opponents of religious fundamentalism to investigate that, but all I get from the antitheists is: "It's a mental illness."
 

ChocolateMoose123

New member
Joined
Oct 4, 2008
Messages
5,278
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
One similarity I've noticed in both sides is that they tend to be almost Puritanical about how they treat specific goods. Hardcore Fundies also advise against Harry Potter or any form of media that could possibly be interpreted as an affront against their worldview. Both tend to dismiss psychology as a means of explaining the abuse of certain things like Harry Potter because it's either not a hard enough science or because it's not explicitly mentioned in the Bible or the Q'ran.

Yeah. I've always rolled my eyes at the "witchcraft" comments from churches and now I'm doing the same with the Dawkins supporters.

Very telling.
 

INTP

Active member
Joined
Jul 31, 2009
Messages
7,803
MBTI Type
intp
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx
that guy is a retard.

and about this quote; "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.".

personally i think this sort of stories are very important to people, this exact story teaches people that looks arent what really matters and that often its the not so pretty people who more often are the "princes" and thus its not good to judge potential mates just purely on their looks. but ofc that idiot doesent understand metaphors and the importance of telling this sort of metaphors to children when their brains are still developing. ofc he sees a possibility of this effecting kids, but since the guy is obviously afraid of the world(thus tries to over rationalize it), he can only see the possibility that if this sort of stories has effects on kids, it has to be a negative effect.

imo someone should go shoot that idiot so that he would stop talking this sort of shit
 

Magic Poriferan

^He pronks, too!
Joined
Nov 4, 2007
Messages
14,081
MBTI Type
Yin
Enneagram
One
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
From an evolutionary biologist's point of view, I find Richard Dawkins too close minded, not only regarding religion, but also on the other side, regarding other evolutionists. His 'selfish gene' theory is interesting and true in a way, but he won't open up to the other 'side', ie the theory of cooperation and symbiosis proposed by Margulis. He's also stuck in a tree-like pattern for the evolution of life on earth, and doesn't accept, consider or even begin to understand the newer vision (which has been around since at least 1995) that there isn't a tree but a web of life. He's just a sad old fart in my eyes.

From a sociologist's point of view, I'm fed up with memetics, troubled by some of the evolutionary psychology positions he takes, and a bit irritated by his flat refusal to consider group selection.

There have been other things he has said here and there, like saying philosophers were essentially not useful, that tend to make me think that his mind is like a blunt instrument.
 

RaptorWizard

Permabanned
Joined
Mar 19, 2012
Messages
5,895
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
Well Richard Dawkins is a Te douche, who's like, "lolol you iz gotz none imperical evadensez yous aint scientifical!"
 

Typh0n

clever fool
Joined
Feb 13, 2013
Messages
3,497
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
I am one to beleive that people who think reason alone is the only path to progress hold retrograde viewpoints.
 

RaptorWizard

Permabanned
Joined
Mar 19, 2012
Messages
5,895
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
The "sorcery" of today will be the science of tomorrow!
 
Top