Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Encore
Though people of my regional (New England) and ethnic (Irish/Italian) background are usually inclined towards Papism, I have, but for a brief moment, never been a 'believer.' Nor do I come from a family of pious, church-going Irish Catholics. And while greatly enjoying Christopher Hitchens' philippic God is Not Great, I've found most of the recent crop of hectoring anti-deist (and anti-fideist!) books to be either boring or needlessly sanctimonious. So after disproving the existence of god, and selling a trillion books in the process, what does one do for an encore? Richard Dawkins, author of the best-selling The God Delusion, tells the Daily Mail that it is time to investigate the potentially pernicious effects of wizardry:
The 67-year-old, who recently resigned from his position at Oxford University, says he intends to look at the effects of "bringing children up to believe in spells and wizards".
'I think it is anti-scientific - whether that has a pernicious effect, I don't know,' he told More4 News.
'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 affect on rationality, I'm not sure. Perhaps it's something for research.'
However, the outspoken atheist said he hadn't even read Harry Potter and admitted he "didn't know what to think about magic and fairytales".
(via Peter Suderman)
|10.29.08 @ 5:16PM|#
The 67-year-old, who recently resigned from his position at
Oxford University, says he intends to look at the effects of
"bringing children up to believe in spells and wizards".
Does anyone really bring up their kids to believe in spells and
wizards? I mean, c'mon, letting your kids read fantasy books about
talking animals and wizards and what-not really isn't bringing them
up to believe its all real, is it?
|10.29.08 @ 5:17PM|#
Is there any difference between this clown and evangelicals who demand that Harry Potter be banned because it endorses wichcraft?
fyodor|10.29.08 @ 5:18PM|#
'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 affect on
rationality, I'm not sure.
Look what it did to him!
Fluffy|10.29.08 @ 5:20PM|#
This is where didactic rationalism crosses the line into
spiritual Bolshevism, unfortunately.
Ms. Rand had a similar problem. Does Dawkins have kids?
Kolohe|10.29.08 @ 5:23PM|#
the potentially pernicious effects of wizardry:
She turned me into a newt!
I got better.
(Ensuring your child realizes that there is no Santa Claus by the
time they're 13 or so is good parenting. Ensuring your child
doesn't believe in Santa Claus when they're 5 or 6 is
jerkoff-y)
Ben|10.29.08 @ 5:26PM|#
Next Dawkins will be demonizing the classic Warner Bros.
cartoons for their depictions of egregious violations of the laws
of Physics.
I am no atheist, but their is difference between actual atheism
(simple non-belief in any deity)and the "militant atheism" of the
Dawkinites which is basically the anti-religious version of
Islamofascism.
Seward|10.29.08 @ 5:39PM|#
R.C. Dean,
Does anyone really bring up their kids to believe in spells and
wizards?
Some fundamentalist elements of every religion surely do. If one
thinks that the devil works through human beings and human history
then it isn't much of a stretch to believe in spells, etc.
Ben,
A certain element of atheists/skeptics need to just realize that a
significant portion of the population people will continue to
believe in ESP, horoscopes, ghosts, etc. Indeed, such ideas are
just plain downright attractive in many ways, though I myself don't
personally accept them.
Mad Max|10.29.08 @ 5:40PM|#
Novels are harmful because they contain fiction? Tell that to
Dawkins' fellow-atheists.
The *Golden Compass* is fiction with talking animals, and it was
written by one of Dawkins' fellow atheists.
Bertrand Russell wrote fiction, although it didn't sell as well as
his philosophical and (putatively) nonfictional work. Of course,
his daughter ended up as a Christian, so maybe the fiction was a
bad idea.
Nikolai Chernyshevsky, the social-revolultionary Russian atheist,
wrote a novel called *What is to be Done?* The novelists' fictional
protagonists sacrifice themselves - and others - for the sake of
revolution. This novel was an inspiration to many Russian
revolutionaries.
Why is Dawkins dissing his own peeps?
|10.29.08 @ 5:43PM|#
Paganism is on the rise. They call themselves witches (not sure
if men go by wizards or warlocks) and dance naked in the moonlight.
There's quite a bit of hocus pocus involved but I'm not sure what
the nature of the "spells" they think they can cast is.
Anyway it's close enough, we should be able to answer Mr. Dawkins
question in ten or fifteen years.
Dawkins like Randi, is too much of a dick to pull off all that self
righteous. I recommend Letting
Go of God. It's theater not literature. A one act monologue by
Julia Sweeney. I think she's going to put it out on DVD soon.
Seward|10.29.08 @ 5:44PM|#
Nikolai Chernyshevsky...
Positively one of the worst novels ever written. Of those
revolutionaries Lenin being the most prominent.
|10.29.08 @ 5:49PM|#
Mad Max,
Hey don't forget the hallucinogenic scribblings of Lewis Carol.
Talking rabbits, disappearing cats, it hard to imagine anything
more offensive to rationality. And yet Carol was a fine
mathematician and put Alice to good use illustrating abstract
principals encountered in set theory, rationality distilled to it's
purest form.
Chrispy|10.29.08 @ 5:49PM|#
Is there any difference between this clown and evangelicals
who demand that Harry Potter be banned because it endorses
wichcraft?
Yes, because Dawkins isn't advocating the banning of books. He's
saying that there might be negative effects associated
with teaching children that magic exists, and that it might be
worth studying. Personally I think it's a waste of time, that
nobody really believes in magic, and there's no harm in fantasy.
But he's not calling for a ban on anything, just more research. As
long as it's not publicly funded, research on anything can't do any
harm.
Naga Sadow|10.29.08 @ 5:52PM|#
Personally, I just wanna punch Dawkins in the face for being a
know it all jerk. At least I get use one of my favorite quotes two
days in a row.
"Deep in the psyche of every sophisticate is a superstitious
peasant."
|10.29.08 @ 5:55PM|#
The 67-year-old, who recently resigned from his position at
Oxford University, says he intends to look at the effects of
"bringing children up to believe in spells and wizards".
As opposed to believing in things like holy spirits, omnipotence,
omnipresence, immaculate conceptions, resurrections, raptures and
judgment days and heaven for your "soul".
What does this guy have against the Chronicles of Narnia anyway? I
thought C S Lewis was a pretty devout Christian.
|10.29.08 @ 5:57PM|#
He's saying that there might be negative effects associated
with teaching children that magic exists, and that it might be
worth studying.
Harry Houdini, Harry Blackstone, David Copperfield, Sigfried and
Roy, David Blaine and Chris Angel have been negatively affecting
our children for years. Thank FSM someone finally decided to
examine the extent of this prevasive threat.
|10.29.08 @ 6:00PM|#
Ensuring your child doesn't believe in Santa Claus when
they're 5 or 6 is jerkoff-y)
I dunno man.
I'm not real comfortable with teaching my kid that it's normal for
a husky fellow in a red velvet suit to sneak into our home during
the winter him a "present"
Naga Sadow|10.29.08 @ 6:01PM|#
ChicagoTom,
You don't know the half of it. There was a comedy/hypnotist in my
casino last month. No one wanted to serve him cuz we were terrified
he would run up a huge tab and "convince" us he had already
paid.
|10.29.08 @ 6:05PM|#
scratch my post at 5:55pm
My reading comprehension skills failed me this time.
I read it as he was a religious guy who was against belief in
wizards and such.
This guy is an athiest? Well fuck him even harder then. It's called
"fantasy" and "make believe" and there is nothing wrong with
allowing your childrens' imaginations to go free.
At least the religious types who are against wizardry are defending
their turf from competition -- this guy is just being a dick for
the sake of being a dick.
|10.29.08 @ 6:09PM|#
In parts of the world, children are turned out of their homes
because they are believed to be witches. Yeah, along with astrology
believers, UFOs, troofers, et al you are always going to have a
certain portion of the population believe this crap. I'm not going
to even try to change believers in the occult or supernatural into
thinking beings anymore.
Nobody talked me into atheism. I think it just may be something you
have to do on your own.
Naga Sadow|10.29.08 @ 6:13PM|#
ChicagoTom,
Punching him in the face is a noteworthy endeavor. Just sayin'.
Chrispy|10.29.08 @ 6:15PM|#
It's called "fantasy" and "make believe" and there is
nothing wrong with allowing your childrens' imaginations to go
free.
What are you basing that statement on? I agree that it's probably
true, but what if, for example, a scientific study were to show
that reading fantasy books as a child causes your adult IQ to drop,
on average, 10 points from what it otherwise would have been? For
me that would be a strong incentive to encourage children not to
read those types of books.
Dawkins isn't saying that children shouldn't read fantasy, he's
saying he wants to study the effects of children reading fantasy. I
don't see how anyone can be against that.
|10.29.08 @ 6:23PM|#
Dawkins really has become a worthless fuck.
By the way I claim first dibs on pointing this out 3 or more years
ago.
Lets hope Hitchens does not follow this path. His book is worthless
as well....and it is only Nick's literary back ground that clouds
his judgment towards Hitchens book.
economist|10.29.08 @ 6:31PM|#
Well, that's one place that sanctimonious Christians and sanctimonious atheists agree. They both Harry Potter is evil.
Elemenope|10.29.08 @ 6:36PM|#
As long as it's not publicly funded, research on anything
can't do any harm.
Wait, are you saying the truth can't be harmful? Because that's
easily demonstrated to be *not always true*.
Chrispy|10.29.08 @ 6:39PM|#
Yes, I'm saying it's always better to know the truth about something than to not know the truth. If you have a counter example to this, I'd be glad to hear it.
Famous Mortimer|10.29.08 @ 6:48PM|#
Dawkins is an important figure. We need someone to throw a
monkey wrench into mindless religious indoctrination that seems to
be so popular in America.
Personally, I find debating the existance of God to be like
shooting fish in a barrel. The argument's over for me, and it's
been over for me since my teens. We will always have weak minded
people who hold irrational beliefs.
Just look at this forum.
Anyway, Dawkins seems to be exhibiting a degree of senility. He's
not advocating anything outright, but the fact that it's even on
his mind means that he might need to regain some of the gray matter
that's slowly being lost.
Famous Mortimer|10.29.08 @ 6:54PM|#
"adult IQ to drop, on average, 10 points from what it otherwise
would have been? For me that would be a strong incentive to
encourage children not to read those types of books."
I would say that you should let go of your irrational belief in the
validity of IQ tests.
Elemenope|10.29.08 @ 6:55PM|#
Yes, I'm saying it's always better to know the truth about
something than to not know the truth. If you have a counter example
to this, I'd be glad to hear it.
Suppose you were a conscientious European during WWII, and you
sheltered a Jewish family in your home.
A Nazi stormtrooper knocks on your door.
"Are there any Jews here?", he asks.
Is it better for him to know, or not to know, the truth?
--------
H. P. Lovecraft based almost the entirety of his fiction on the
notion that the truth is so bizarre that it is actually hostile to
human sanity.
Sometimes it's best not to know.
|10.29.08 @ 7:01PM|#
The kids should all read more science fiction.
I've long argued that "fantasy" is a subset of SF, either because
those initials can stand for the much broader "speculative
fiction," or because, since parallel worlds are a perfectly
cromulent SF device, and it is perfectly scientifictional to assume
for the sake of the story that the laws of physics as we suppose
them to be in our corner of this spiral arm of the Milky Way, may
be a local phenomenon. Things may be a bit different in the
universes where Middle Earth, Narnia, Oz, etc. "exist." Various
authors, from L. Sprague de Camp and Fletcher Pratt, to Bob
Heinlein, to Rick Cook to Randall Garrett have had fun with this
idea, and/or that of treating the "laws of magic"
scientifically.
I had no problem, as a kid, enjoying a Gardner Fox story, whether
it was about the magical Dr. Fate or the supersciencefictional
Justice League. There's this thing in fiction called "suspension of
disbelief." It's kinda necessary when an athist, like myself, reads
fantasy, horror, space opera....
Kevin
Fluffy|10.29.08 @ 7:01PM|#
Just to clarify -
I don't think Dawkins believes that kids will literally believe in
witches and spells if they read fantasy. He seems to be talking
about the effect on "rationality" in general.
I have some sympathy for that argument. Maybe teaching kids that
Santa Claus brings them presents magically makes them more likely
to believe in the Santa Claus State when they grow up, who
knows.
The problem is that even if it's true, you have to leave it alone
anyway and just decide that you can't do anything about it. Because
trying to do something about it makes you, at best, a miserable
shrew like Maureen O'Sullivan at the start of Miracle on 34th
Street, and at worst it makes you a Bolshevik or Robespierre.
Ya just gotta let it go and hope for the best.
Seward|10.29.08 @ 7:04PM|#
Elemenope,
You asked for this...
You can't handle the truth!
That being said, the bigger problem seems to me that a lot of
issues are only resovable in a probablistic fashion.
anarch|10.29.08 @ 7:08PM|#
In my training to become a Waldorf teacher, I was asked to consider that parallel to mythology's historical transformation into philosophy, imaginative narratives may prepare children for the reception of intellectual and moral truths addressed to their powers of abstraction at a later age. Stories metamorphose into arguments, images develop into principles, the ability to respond with strong feelings early in life can evolve into a mature fidelity to ideals. It may even be that some adults' susceptibility to magical thinking in the spells cast by politicians and (other) cult leaders are signs of an arrested and deprived appetite for magic that a mythically rich pedagogy might fruitfully have served.
Elemenope|10.29.08 @ 7:12PM|#
The problem is that even if it's true, you have to leave it
alone anyway and just decide that you can't do anything about it.
Because trying to do something about it makes you, at best, a
miserable shrew like Maureen O'Sullivan at the start of Miracle on
34th Street, and at worst it makes you a Bolshevik or Robespierre.
Ya just gotta let it go and hope for the best.
That's kind of the crux of my more general point. Knowing (in this
particular case) won't really help anyone, since it is an enjoyable
activity that people will want to indulge regardless of whether it
is marginally helpful or harmful. And, beyond that, it hands
ammunition to those who *do* want to *do something* about it;
anything that keeps empirical ammo out of prohibitionist hands
can't be entirely bad.
You asked for this...
You can't handle the truth!
LOL.
That being said, the bigger problem seems to me that a lot of
issues are only resovable in a probablistic fashion.
And the problem is that humans are notoriously bad at judging
probabilities, delayed costs, and risks. So, tell people that an
activity has a 5% chance of causing cancer and they'll be all about
banning it, regardless of incidental factors, such as the value of
that activity (economically, aesthetically, emotionally, etc.).
|10.29.08 @ 7:35PM|#
Suppose you were a conscientious European during WWII, and
you sheltered a Jewish family in your home.
A Nazi stormtrooper knocks on your door.
"Are there any Jews here?", he asks.
Is it better for him to know, or not to know, the truth?
If your the stormtrooper, yes.
That wasn't the question, and you needn't have gone Godwin to make
the lame point that it is sometimes better for you that
others don't know the truth.
The question is when is it better for an individual to be wrong or
ignorant about reality.
Ned Flanders|10.29.08 @ 7:40PM|#
"Science is like a blabbermouth who ruins a movie by telling you how it ends! Well I say there are some things we don't want to know! Important things!"
Chrispy|10.29.08 @ 7:56PM|#
I would say that you should let go of your irrational belief
in the validity of IQ tests.
Fair enough, but what if you changed it to 10% less income earned
over their lifetime? By whatever metric you care to use, isn't it
at least worth knowing the result?
Is it better for [the Nazi stormtrooper] to know, or not to
know, the truth?
Well from the point of the stormtrooper, it is better for
him to know the truth! But I'll take that as a decent
counterexample for the general case. In this particular instance
(whether fantasy can have a negative effect on children) it would
cause no harm for society to know the truth, and could possibly
provide some slight benefit.
Knowing (in this particular case) won't really help anyone,
since it is an enjoyable activity that people will want to indulge
regardless of whether it is marginally helpful or
harmful.
I disagree. If it could be demonstrated that reading non-fiction,
or historical fiction, or westerns or whatever, had an overall
positive effect on children, but reading fantasy novels had a
negative effect, it would help parents decide what sort of books to
have around the house.
And, beyond that, it hands ammunition to those who *do* want to
*do something* about it; anything that keeps empirical ammo out of
prohibitionist hands can't be entirely bad.
I'm opposed to this on principle. I don't think it's right to
suppress an actual, empirical fact, just because it can be used for
an argument whose results you don't agree with. Prohibition or
censorship is wrong on its face; there's no need to discourage
research about books, alcohol, drugs, or anything else.
cunnivore|10.29.08 @ 8:01PM|#
There's a difference between encouraging children to read
fiction and fantasy that is presented as such, and telling them
outright lies that you know to be lies, with the intention that
they believe them. Harry Potter falls into the first category,
Santa Claus into the latter.
My kids will never hear of Santa Claus from me. Unfortunately, our
society seems to have a disconnect when it comes to Mr. Kringle, so
they'll probably hear it from other sources. We insist on teaching
first graders about copulation in graphic detail in the interest of
truth, but at the same time we tell them fibs about the Tooth Fairy
and the Easter Bunny et cetera, because that's part of being a kid
or some similarly facile rationalization.
|10.29.08 @ 8:02PM|#
If your the stormtrooper, yes.
You're, for christs sake! What else do you do, shelter Jews in your
home?
Elemenope|10.29.08 @ 8:02PM|#
J sub D --
No, it was not a Godwin, and it *was* the question. The question
was not "given any individual, is it better for that individual to
know 'x'?". The question was, in the specific context of *research*
(which is a form of general knowing), is it better for *us* to know
or not to know 'x'?
I would argue, concomitantly, that it is better both for the Jewish
family and for the stormtrooper to not know the truth in the above
situation. After all, it is reasonable to argue that at all times
it is better than not that a person not be in a position where they
are likely to kill someone, or have them killed? It is certainly
better for the family and the people who hid them for the
stormtrooper not to know. So even if the question was as you
assert, it still holds true; there are cases in which it is better
for all parties for at least one party to not know something.
If you wish, you can generalize to *everyone* and assert fairly
confidently that is better that nobody knows that a particular
European family is hiding Jews. That lack of information is,
likewise, better for everyone.
cunnivore|10.29.08 @ 8:05PM|#
Chrispy,
The relationships you are positing are totally implausible. That's
like saying, if a study came out saying childhood masturbation
decreases IQ by 20%, shouldn't parents force their children to wear
chastity belts? The premise is totally out of left field, so
there's no point addressing any conclusions that follow from
it.
HP Lovecraft|10.29.08 @ 8:07PM|#
The most merciful thing in the world, I think, is the inability of the human mind to correlate all its contents. We live on a placid island of ignorance in the midst of black seas of infinity, and it was not meant that we should voyage far. The sciences, each straining in its own direction, have hitherto harmed us little; but some day the piecing together of dissociated knowledge will open up such terrifying vistas of reality, and of our frightful position therein, that we shall either go mad from the revelation or flee from the deadly light into the peace and safety of a new dark age.
Nemo|10.29.08 @ 8:08PM|#
Here's a crazy and unconventional idea. How about we leave
people alone and let them believe what they want to believe?
What? No takers?
Chrispy|10.29.08 @ 8:29PM|#
The relationships you are positing are totally
implausible.
Yes, I exaggerated for effect in my hypothetical example.
Personally, I suspect that reading any kind of book will in the
long run be good for children. But that's pure speculation on my
part, and I have to allow for the possibility that I'm wrong.
In your example, I'm not really interested in the chastity belt
part, I'm interested in the study. If someone came out with a press
release and had a story in the Daily Mail that said "I'm going to
do a research project investigating the relationship between
childhood masturbation and IQ," I would be mildly interested in the
result, if only because it would be an interesting bit of trivia. I
don't think it would be appropriate to call the researcher
a "clown," "jerk," "dick," to say "fuck him," or try to prevent or
discourage him from doing the research in the first place.
I'm mostly responding to the people taking that position. Feel free
to ignore Dawkins, don't buy the book, do you own reasearch, etc.
But to try to prevent or discourage the research to me is a kind of
censorship, it's anti-science, it's bad for society and it's
wrong.
Yo...|10.29.08 @ 8:32PM|#
Nemo, how 'bout just you do that if you want to, and why don't
you just leave the rest of us alone to not let people
believe what we don't want them to believe?
Jeez, what a control-freak!
MJ|10.29.08 @ 8:53PM|#
Well, Dawkins just shows that being an atheist does not mean you are not a joyless, puritanical busybody.
Ironic|10.29.08 @ 9:04PM|#
"I've long argued that "fantasy" is a subset of SF, either
because those initials can stand for the much broader "speculative
fiction," or because, since parallel worlds are a perfectly
cromulent SF device, and ..."
Fantasy may be a subset of "speculative fiction" but it is NOT a
subset of science fiction. Science Fiction requires some sort of
scientific (or at least logical) explanation for the unusual
actions taking place. There are some stories that merge the two
genres such as Start Wars. But the one is not a subset of the
other.
Elemenope|10.29.08 @ 9:16PM|#
Ironic, an nth dimensional Venn Diagram is called for in this
situation and you seem to be the one best equipped to construct
it.
Good luck!
wage slave|10.29.08 @ 9:46PM|#
Fluffy asked "Does Dawkins have kids?"
He has a daughter - there's a beautiful passage in one of his books
about taking her out as a baby to watch Halley's Comet, and hoping
he can teach her to look in wonder at the natural world.
Of course, that was before he turned into a monumental bore.
|10.29.08 @ 9:52PM|#
I'm an avid fan of fantasy and science-fiction, but I don't see
the harm in looking into this as long as it's privately
funded.
Dawkins is not:
making judgments
advocating force or
telling people what they have to believe
In fact, I find most of Richard Dawkins' work to be in response to
the effects of religion when backed up by force. Dawkins is
essentially fighting the influence of religion on politics,
something most of us here would find a worthy endeavor.
The Wise One|10.29.08 @ 9:54PM|#
Well perhaps the great Dawkins wasn't so wise. Oh, he was intelligent, but, some of the most intelligent otters I've ever known were completely lacking in common sense. Maybe, some otters do need to believe in something. Who knows? Maybe, just believing in God makes God exist.
Medic|10.29.08 @ 9:56PM|#
Yes. Long ago we realized isms are great for those who are rational, but in the hands of irrational people, isms always lead to violence.
|10.29.08 @ 10:07PM|#
However, the outspoken atheist said he hadn't even read
Harry Potter and admitted he "didn't know what to think about magic
and fairytales".
...although he frequently alludes to them while discussing the
topic of religion.
Ironic|10.29.08 @ 10:19PM|#
"Ironic, an nth dimensional Venn Diagram is called for in this
situation and you seem to be the one best equipped to construct
it."
Speculative fiction can include fantasy, science fiction,
alternative history and any fictional stories with an ethical
politician. Some consider Lovecraftian horror separate from
fantasy, but in any case, it is still a subset of speculative
fiction.
Jack|10.29.08 @ 10:55PM|#
However, the outspoken atheist said he hadn't even read
Harry Potter and admitted he "didn't know what to think about magic
and fairytales".
...although he frequently alludes to them while discussing the
topic of religion.
Usually when he's alluding to them it's in a different context.
It's talking about the Douglas Adams "fairies at the bottom of the
garden" idea.
DannyK|10.29.08 @ 11:10PM|#
Though people of my regional (New England) and ethnic
(Irish/Italian) background are usually inclined towards
Papism...
I read this as "inclined towards Priapism," and it made me think of
the Kennedy clan. Funny!
Justen|10.30.08 @ 2:32AM|#
"Now Billy, when I read you this story about the little engine, I don't want it to have any adverse impact on your rational mind, so I need you to understand that steam engines on trains don't really talk. You see, this is called anthropomorphism and it's really all part of a metaphor about hard work and persistence. Don't ever let anyone tell you that machines can talk in real life, though, okay? Do you understand?"
|10.30.08 @ 5:13AM|#
Did anyone bother to RTFA? Dawkins himself didn't bring up the modern SF or fantasy genre. He's going to write a book about "'science thinking contrasted with mythical thinking' and will talk about the 'Judeo-Christian myth'." This is exactly about those fundie types that bring up their kids to believe in witchcraft and ESP and the like. The Harry Potter angle was inserted by the Daily Mail, possibly to make the article "sexy" (or maybe just to make Dawkins look silly).
Abdul|10.30.08 @ 7:38AM|#
There was a book about a child prodigy published a few years
ago, and I can't remember the title. Anyway, the kid's father was
an eastern european immigrant who was convinced that he had the
perfect education system. One of the central ideas in the father's
system was that the child never be allowed to read any fiction or
religious works because he thought it clouded the child's
mind.
His kid did turn out to be a math and language genius, but as an
adult the kid became a hermit and his greatest work was publishing
a book about trolley schedules or something like that.
Otter in Crowd|10.30.08 @ 9:31AM|#
Well perhaps the great Dawkins wasn't so wise. Oh, he was
intelligent, but, some of the most intelligent otters I've ever
known were completely lacking in common sense. Maybe, some otters
do need to believe in something. Who knows? Maybe, just believing
in God makes God exist.
Kill the Wise One!
dhex|10.30.08 @ 10:14AM|#
i want to be sympathetic to dawkins' aims, but he's just such a ridiculous guy sometimes.
|10.30.08 @ 10:33AM|#
Remember, kids, the word "might" is semantically equivalent to
the phrase "might or might not." Its amazing how bringing this to
light sucks the life out of bullshit artists like Dawkins.
He's saying that there might or might not be
negative effects associated with teaching children that magic
exists, and that it might or might not be worth
studying.
economist|10.30.08 @ 10:57AM|#
Gee, FM stopped in last night to be an unholy butthole again. Nice seein ya' Morty!
economist|10.30.08 @ 10:57AM|#
Agnosticism is the most rational outlook on religion that I can think of.
fyodor|10.30.08 @ 11:28AM|#
Agnosticism is the most rational outlook on religion that I
can think of.
Let me guess: YOU'RE AGNOSTIC!
I know, I know, I'm just good at these things.
(BTW, I'm agnostic as well.)
fyodor|10.30.08 @ 11:30AM|#
humans are notoriously bad at judging probabilities, delayed
costs, and risks
Humans...as opposed to...YOU?
|10.30.08 @ 1:56PM|#
Science H. Logic, you need to spend less time on this nonsense,
Richard Dawkins, and more on settling the Great Question: what
should we atheists call our movement?
And it better be Allied Atheist Allegiance or by All-Mighty Science
I will crush your skull like a clam on my tummy!
Famous Mortimer|10.31.08 @ 12:46AM|#
"Agnosticism is the most rational outlook on religion that I can
think of."
Jesus, not this shit again.
Atheists, by default are Agnostic as well, in the original sense of
the term. Agnosticism, and Atheism are not mutually
exclusive.
Atheism addresses belief. If you're an Agnostic because you're
holding out on believing whether or not a God exists, then
Agnosticism is just another level of faith. It's not some
intellectually secure position that is impenetrable.
It reminds of the Libertarians who claim that they don't have an
opinion on abortion. How can you not have an opinion on abortion,
or whether or not you believe in Creationism?
Is the evidence really that compelling, or absent that it would
make the decision that difficult?
Is there anyway we can tie this discussion into taxation to arouse
some conviction?
Help me out here.
|10.31.08 @ 11:24AM|#
Is there any difference between this clown and evangelicals
who demand that Harry Potter be banned because it endorses
wichcraft?
Umm...yeah. Dawkins said "I don't know." and suggested that the
topic is a good one for research. It's the antithesis of what
fundamentalists do and say.
|10.31.08 @ 11:31AM|#
I am no atheist, but their is difference between actual
atheism (simple non-belief in any deity)and the "militant atheism"
of the Dawkinites which is basically the anti-religious version of
Islamofascism.
Riiiiiight... Osama bin Dawkins is leading a world-wide atheist
conspiracy that plans to fly planes into skyscrapers in New York,
destroy the Pentagon, plant bombs on public transportation in
London, and attack US troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245