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

[Salomé]

^I certainly do hope you get your polarity sorted out but, for the avoidance of doubt, No.
(which means NO, btw)

 

[Edgar]

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

I am happy to be of assistance.

After all, blasphemy and Arabic writing don't really mesh well.

 

[locke]

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.

People have no choice but to act out their own culture's myths.

Dawkins has found himself as one of the new high priests of our culture. He's vested in our current mythology. Harry Potter is rather benign, which is why Dawkins is arguing rhetorically against it. His concerns are probably elsewhere, but he's not going to point them out.

And sorry to bring the Christian vs. Atheist debate in here, but my bet is on Christianity. The Scientific mythology may be more accurate to the facts, but it's less culturally stable. Peguy recognizes this and this article tells me Dawkins does too.

 

[Venom]

And sorry to bring the Christian vs. Atheist debate in here, but my bet is on Christianity. The Scientific mythology may be more accurate to the facts, but it's less culturally stable. Peguy recognizes this and this article tells me Dawkins does too.

logical fallacy: appeal to consequence

However, I'll play along:
less culturally stable? what utter bullshit. in case you haven't noticed, it takes 30 seconds to go to wiki and see that most of Europe has rates of agnosticism around 40% or higher. some countries (like italy, greece etc) have pretty damn high levels of agnosticism. Their societies have not fallen. The sky will not fall without Religion

 

[ptgatsby]

People have no choice but to act out their own culture's myths.

People also have no choice but to be angry, to hurt each other, to commit violence.... Replace at will.

Progress can (has) be(en) made.

Dawkins has found himself as one of the new high priests of our culture. He's vested in our current mythology. Harry Potter is rather benign, which is why Dawkins is arguing rhetorically against it. His concerns are probably elsewhere, but he's not going to point them out.

I do not care about Dawkin's the man. His point is his point, and I don't see anyone disagreeing with it, or able to. The most that can be said is that he isn't realistic, as you did. Or saying he is out to lunch, divorced from reality, a blowhard. Both are fallacies to what he has said... especially in this article.

And sorry to bring the Christian vs. Atheist debate in here, but my bet is on Christianity. The Scientific mythology may be more accurate to the facts, but it's less culturally stable.

Given how many religions have come and gone, that would be a foolish bet. Given the trend away from religion and christianity, that would be a foolish bet.

I can't understand the worldview of science as myth. Absolutely no part of science involves "myth". 'Facts' are not historical: they must be something that can be redone to the same conclusion. That is its staying power, as a system. Maybe you can say some people treat science as religion... people's use of religion, including some people's tendency to include science in there as "hand waving", does not change the underlying nature of what science, as a system and body of knowledge, is.

Given how often I hear that from Christians (re: "that's" not really being Christian), I welcome the chance to say it back. Of course, the "rules of good science" are a lot more monolithic than religions, even with there being a lot more disagreement in "science", so it seems fair to group the concept together. Since science embraces change, the only concept of myth I can see is holding on to old conclusions made earlier in "science". Since the "system of science" is meant to prevent that... I dunno what to say.

 

[Orangey]

People also have no choice but to be angry, to hurt each other, to commit violence.... Replace at will.

Progress can (has) be(en) made.



I do not care about Dawkin's the man. His point is his point, and I don't see anyone disagreeing with it, or able to. The most that can be said is that he isn't realistic, as you did. Or saying he is out to lunch, divorced from reality, a blowhard. Both are fallacies to what he has said... especially in this article.



Given how many religions have come and gone, that would be a foolish bet. Given the trend away from religion and christianity, that would be a foolish bet.

I can't understand the worldview of science as myth. Absolutely no part of science involves "myth". 'Facts' are not historical: they must be something that can be redone to the same conclusion. That is its staying power, as a system. Maybe you can say some people treat science as religion... people's use of religion, including some people's tendency to include science in there as "hand waving", does not change the underlying nature of what science, as a system and body of knowledge, is.

Given how often I hear that from Christians (re: "that's" not really being Christian), I welcome the chance to say it back. Of course, the "rules of good science" are a lot more monolithic than religions, even with there being a lot more disagreement in "science", so it seems fair to group the concept together. Since science embraces change, the only concept of myth I can see is holding on to old conclusions made earlier in "science". Since the "system of science" is meant to prevent that... I dunno what to say.

I think that maybe the "myth of science" that they are referring to is the total dependency and authority which some lay-people place in science. I think it's called 'scientism', and the reason that it is characterized as having any "mythological" element, I presume, is because there is an element of faith that people place in the power of science and the ultimate epistemological authority of scientists. Like the populace unto the priests. Of course, this 'belief' rests upon a fundamental misunderstanding about what science is and how it is practiced...and I don't know how prevalent it really is given the general anti-scientific attitude of the U.S. lay-population at least.

 

[ptgatsby]

and I don't know how prevalent it really is given the general anti-scientific attitude of the U.S. lay-population at least.

Well, there is an element of trust. Take evolution, for example. We probably believe, and yet we are not able to perform the experiments themselves. We don't dig up fossils, or have the background to perform iterative experiments with flies and bacteria, or even the programming knowledge to build evolutionary models and run them. (Well, maybe you do, but I don't )

So, if we read it from a book, and assume it is true, what is the difference to religion?

It lies in the nature of what is being discovered. Because anyone could gain the knowledge and verify it, we assume that others are doing so. Religion has no equivalent path. At any one point, I could go and do the experiments I meant above, but I could never do all of them. It's in that gap that science as religion happens, both in perception from more religious people and from the blind belief in science.

The claim to religion I can understand, since it mirrors part of religion (as described above)... but myth does not make sense to me. To me, it is a logical impossibility to the definition of science.

 

[Orangey]

but myth does not make sense to me. To me, it is a logical impossibility to the definition of science.

Oh, well I was just giving the poster a generous reading in assuming that he meant myth = religion. If we're talking specifically about myth, then I don't understand either.

 

[Mole]

People have no choice but to act out their own culture's myths.

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.

 

[Salomé]

I do not care about Dawkin's the man. His point is his point, and I don't see anyone disagreeing with it, or able to.

You don't? Maybe you should read it again, most of the posters have in fact disagreed with his point.

 

[ptgatsby]

You don't? Maybe you should read it again, most of the posters have in fact disagreed with his point.

He didn't make a point - he was speculating. And of that speculation, people tended to agree that maybe it was possible, but maybe the cost was too high to do anything about it. It had nothing to do with what he actually said.

 

[Salomé]

Debating with you is fun:

I do not care about Dawkin's the man. His point is his point, and I don't see anyone disagreeing with it, or able to.

He didn't make a point - he was speculating. And of that speculation, people tended to agree that maybe it was possible, but maybe the cost was too high to do anything about it. It had nothing to do with what he actually said.

And no such thing was agreed. If you are going to summarize, do so accurately, please.

 

[ptgatsby]

Debating with you is fun:

Debate...?

And no such thing was agreed. If you are going to summarize, do so accurately, please.

Bleh. His "point" was his speculation - that there might be a connection. People in this thread tended to agree there could be a connection (ie: "the assumed point"). The main "disagreement" was that even if this was true, it would still be of benefit to society, which is relevent, but since Dawkins made no comment on if it was or wasn't, wasn't really directed against him.

The rest attacked him with various personal views... you know, like yours:

Dawkins is a crazy, irrational fool.

INFJ.

 

[Salomé]

^ Flattered, but you needn't quote me in your sig.

I agree, he didn't provide an argument to support his suppositions, but he still made a point - he just didn't make it well.

That happens.

 

[ragashree]

Originally Posted by ptgatsby
People in this thread tended to agree there could be a connection (ie: "the assumed point").

Not in this case:

Originally posted by ragashree
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.

I was moreover actually attempting to agree with one of your previous comments. There is an implied contradiction here with what you say afterwards:

Originally Posted by ptgatsby
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.

If you actually believe that, why on earth are you spending so much time appearing to defend Dawkins' comments? Or were you actually attempting to make a completely different point, which has escaped me

 

[ptgatsby]

If you actually believe that, why on earth are you spending so much time appearing to defend Dawkins' comments? Or were you actually attempting to make a completely different point, which has escaped me

The bottom line is... "what comments" did he make that I'm trying to defend? He didn't really make a claim at all... it was speculation, and a very measured "maybe, I could see how it might have an influence, but I won't know until research is done". 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. Being critical of his opinion is one thing, but this isn't even his opinion... And being critical of him is even farther from the possibility he did mention.

Besides which, my disagreement with his speculation is weak because he has no reason to believe it and I have no reason to disbelieve it. But my agreement on his method is strong - speculate, sure, but claim nothing until it is objectively validated.

edit: I should mention that I don't disagree strongly because I worked backwards on the probability of it happening. Give, say, all young girls only romance novels, and I'm next to positive that it will have an effect on relationships. Give all young girls books romancing war, and I'm next to positive that it will have an effect on their attitudes. Is it net negative, though? I doubt it. Only that the influence seems very likely. I simply disagree that it can carry through to irrationality to any meaningful way.

 

[Sniffles]

However, I'll play along:
less culturally stable? what utter bullshit. in case you haven't noticed, it takes 30 seconds to go to wiki and see that most of Europe has rates of agnosticism around 40% or higher. some countries (like italy, greece etc) have pretty damn high levels of agnosticism.

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:

Their societies have not fallen. The sky will not fall without Religion

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.

 

[Mole]

The problem with Richard Dawkins is that he is right.

He is rational, knowledgeable and well intentioned.

The problem is with us - we are irrational, ignorant and vulgar.

Richard comes from the Age of Literacy, Learning and Science, while we come from the Television Age.

We identify with Sarah Palin and Richard is not one of us - and just like Sarah, we don't even bother to read his books.

We instinctively know he not one of the herd - our herd.

He is not even vulgar and TV has not dumbed him down.

What's wrong with him?

 

[Sniffles]

Victor:

 

[Mondo]

Victor:

Ouch..lol