• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

Richard Dawkins

Fair Enough Pietro, i still think he has a right to say it. He had an experiance, he got over it, and he made a general statement about it.

This is certainly not in the same league as pedophilia, but would you say that i would have no right to make a general statment on being attacked by a couple of drunks on the street because its a personal experiance?

Also if he had discussed this with fellow pupils (and you could probably be safe in the assumption that all the boys in the class would have talked about it), does this also not allow him some excuse in making a general assumption.
 
Perhaps, you are making too many assumptions?

Personally, I tend to be suspicious of general statements based on personal experiences.
 
Maybe i am, but i also think that sometimes Dawkins gets a harder time than most because of who he and how he acts rather than the message he's putting across (though he does have himself to blame for that as well :) )

If i can just add this though, when i was in primary school (a long time ago now) there was a teacher (A Christian Brother) who was well known amoungst the boys for carrying out various 'minor' acts of pedophilia (rubbing his erect penis on boys backs, hands down the pants etc etc).

He was regular topic of conversation back then and is still mentioned now and then when a few of us are out for pints. While nothing happened to me as i was lucky enough to have a different teacher in that year, a good friend of mine was in his class. It hasn't affected their lives by their own admission.

If they had made this statement to a paper or in a discussion on TV instead of Dawkins would you say that shouldn't be allowed to make a general statement about it?
 
You're not the first person to have mentioned the Christian Brothers in connection with allegations of abuse, of one sort, or another. I'd say that such abuse will affect some people quite differently to others. But, what it does indicate, as far as the perpetrator is concerned, is a serious abuse of power and a real betrayal of trust.

However, in Dawkins' case, such generalizations based on personal anecdotal evidence, are both very subjective and basically unscientific. I would hesitate to suggest that Dawkins' possible experiences of abuse in childhood might have had a formative effect on his rather chilly clinical and mechanical views on life and humanity as a grown up scientist.
 
I wouldn't disagree with anything you say, i guess i'm just saying that i think Dawkins is perhaps getting hammered a little more about this than if others had brought it up.
 
I think Dawkins is an ass, but I appreciate him being an ass so I don't have to be. It used to be really hard to say that you weren't a Christian because the implication was that you were immoral - afterall, fear of hell is the only thing that keeps us in line, right? :roll:

He's not the best of all atheists, but he's loud and proud.

I feel the same way about Gloria Steinem. I really appreciated her saying outlandish things, along with her truths, so she could be the biggest target in the line of fire. She had to be noticeable to be heard over the "get back in the kitchen" zeitgeist. She drew attention to inequalities that were still commonplace in the 70's and it helped us all move forward.
 
A useful, Guardian, 'digested read' précis, by John Crace, of the first volume of Richard Dawkins new autobiography, 'An Appetite for Wonder':
http://www.theguardian.com/books/2013/sep/16/appetite-wonder-richard-dawkins-digested-read


An Appetite for Wonder by Richard Dawkins – digested read

John Crace reduces the autobiography of the God-fearless evolutionary biologist to a more manageable 600 words



The Guardian, John Crace. 16 September 2013

I was christened Clinton Richard Dawkins. By a strange quirk, Charles Darwin also has the initials CRD. I often think how proud he would have been to share them with me. Although, by reductio ad absurdum, everyone must be related to one another if you go back far enough, I propose to start this memoir with my grandfather, Clinton Evelyn, the first Dawkins to go to Balliol College, Oxford. The eulogy I wrote for his funeral still brings tears to my eyes.

My father also went to Balliol. My mother, being of Cornish origin, didn't, though I have often wondered about the evolution of the Cornish dialect. Her father wrote a book, Short Wave Wireless Communication, which was legendary in our family for its incomprehensibility, but I have just read the first two pages and find myself delighted by its lucidity in comparison to my own.

I was born in Nairobi in 1941, my father having been posted to Kenya by the colonial service. By all accounts, I was a sociable child and I have a clear memory of all the friends I made by pointing out the nature of their second-order meta-pretends while we were playing together. I also had a fondness for poetry and have only recently realised that some of the early, rhythmic verses I invented for myself are highly reminiscent of Ezra Pound.

After several peripatetic years, my family returned to England where I was sent to Chafyn Grove, an unremarkable preparatory school, where I frequently pretended to know less than I actually did. This, I now see, was early evidence of my peculiar empathy towards individuals who are much stupider than me. There was, of course, life beyond Chafyn Grove and I spent many happy holidays sorting out my father's collections of coloured bailer twine and serpentine pebble pendants.

My father had intended me to follow him to Marlborough, but his application on my behalf was too late and I was rejected – a sleight from which he never fully recovered, as I explained so movingly in my speech at his funeral. Instead, I went to Oundle boarding school and I shall never forget the shame I felt on my first day as a fag, after ringing the five-minute bell five minutes too late. For my many thousands of American readers, I should point out that fag in this context does not mean homosexual. Of course, some boys did make advances towards me, but I firmly believe there was nothing sexual about that. Likewise, Mr GF Bankerton-Banks whose preferred method of teaching was with his hands in a boy's pockets. No doubt in these more suspicious times, he would have been dismissed as a paedophile.

Some years ago, I was invited to give the inaugural Oundle lecture, in which I playfully invoked the ghost of a long-dead headmaster. I would like to make clear that this was just creative use of poetic imagery and in no way implies a belief in the supernatural. I may have once, shortly after my confirmation, been foolish enough to believe in the possibility of an intelligent designer, but I have long since exposed the pathetic fallacy of that belief.

Having taken up my anointed position at Balliol, I quickly became one of the most remarkable zoologists of my generation, and it was a surprise to find my work on chickens pecking at eggshells and crickets reacting to light sources didn't receive greater international acclaim. Not that Balliol was all work and no play. I did achieve my first sexual congress with a cellist and it was most gratifying to discover how biomechanically efficient my penis was.

I married my first wife Marian in 1967, though that's the last time I propose to mention her. Far more interesting are the two computer languages I invented to determine hierarchical embedment. Who would have guessed that P=2(P+P-P*P)-1?! In the early 1970s, I started work on The Selfish Gene. I had no idea when I was writing the first chapter just how remarkable the book would be, as it had seemed self-evident for more than a decade to me that panglossian theories were erroneous and that natural selection took place at the genetic level. What I hadn't then realised was my remarkable ability to be right about absolutely everything: the consequences of that realisation will follow in a later volume. Though you may be hoping a process of natural literary selection prevents that.

Digested read, digested: Me me meme.
In light of recent statements from the great man, worth quoting in full. :lol:
 
Jeremy Vine
- Richard Dawkins answers the question: what makes us human?


Jeremy Vine explores the most fundamental question of all: 'what makes us human?' with evolutionary biologist and atheist, Professor Richard Dawkins, in a major BBC Radio 2 series featuring some of the leading thinkers and writers of our time. This week Richard Dawkins will deliver his thoughts on the very essence of human existence.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b0 ... _us_human/

Duration 120 minutes Available until 2:02PM Wed, 4 Dec 2013

NB: The RD segment of this program starts at about 1h 09m in, and runs for about 26 minutes.
 
Richard Dawkins claims fairy tales are harmful to children

Fairy tales are harmful to children because they “inculcate a view of the world which includes supernaturalism”, according to Professor Richard Dawkins.

The evolutionary biologist, a leading atheist and author of books including The Selfish Gene and The God Delusion, told an audience at the Cheltenham Science Festival that he stopped believing in religion when he was about eight after having seen through Santa Claus when he was just 21 months old.

He suggested children should be taught scientific rigour from an early age.

“Is it a good thing to go along with the fantasies of childhood, magical as they are? Or should we be fostering a spirit of scepticism?” he said, according to The Daily Telegraph.

“I think it's rather pernicious to inculcate into a child a view of the world which includes supernaturalism – we get enough of that anyway.

“Even fairy tales, the ones we all love, with wizards or princesses turning into frogs or whatever it was. There’s a very interesting reason why a prince could not turn into a frog – it's statistically too improbable.

Tut! That's why it's magic. Sheesh!

Professor Dawkins said his mother had written down an early encounter with Santa.

“There was a man called Sam who came as Father Christmas, all 'ho ho ho'. All the children were enthralled by this. Then he left, I piped up much to the consternation of the adults, 'Sam's gone,’” he said.

His religious belief lasted a bit longer. “I think I did believe it up to the age of eight or nine, when preachers said if you really, really pray for something it can happen. Even moving mountains, I believed it could really happen,” he said. “I grew up. I put away childish things.”

He said it would be “a bit strong” to say parents who raised their children to believe in God were guilty of child abuse.

But he added: “When you tell a child to mind their Ps and Qs otherwise they'll roast in hell, then that is tantamount to child abuse.”

Professor Dawkins also talked about being sexually abused at his prep school in Salisbury. He has previously played down an incident in which a teacher “put his hand inside my shorts”.

“I got quite a bit of stick for saying that it did not have a big impact but to say that it did would be an indecency to those people whose lives have been ruined by experiences that have been much worse,” he said.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/p...ry-tales-are-harmful-to-children-9489287.html

Human minds have to develop. I don't think the mind that has been conditioned to think only a certain way has the value of a mind that has grown and tried other ways of thinking. However, I have to agree, a little early training in scientific thinking would probably benefit us as we go through life.
 
The Age of Misinformation strikes again:
http://www.theguardian.com/books/2014/j ... ot-harmful

The controversial evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins has denied condemning fairy stories as harmful to children and claims he has been unfairly portrayed as killjoy...

"I did not, and will not, condemn fairy tales," he said. "My whole life has been given over to stimulating the imagination, and in childhood years, fairy stories can do that."

Where do these stories come from? The Michael Gove banning US books in schools was entirely false, too, and Clive James hasn't been sacked either.
 
I don't have any opinion on this until Henry Brubaker from the Institute for Studies gives me one.
 
I mean, there were substantial quotes in that Dawkins article that someone had just made up out of thin air. Maliciously. And the denials from Dawkins, not to mention all those other victims of made up news, get nowhere near the same publicity as the lies.
 
Unfortunately, there seems to be no quality control in journalism now.
This is why items that are complete tosh can get equal column space with items that are completely factual, and we (as the consumers of such information) have no way of trusting any of it to be an unbiased, unembellished account.
 
Dawkins' latest:

Richard Dawkins: 'immoral' not to abort if foetus has Down's syndromeScientist says a mother has a responsibility to ‘abort it and try again’ if she knows her baby would have the disorder

Full story:

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2014 ... ome-foetus

I was following the exchange on Twitter last night and I was pretty appalled by it. It's one thing to say that women should have the right to terminate a pregnancy if the foetus has Down's. It's quite another to say that it would be "immoral" not to do so. The fact that Dawkins appears unable to distinguish between the two suggests that he really is an intelligent fool.
 
It's quite another to say that it would be "immoral" not to do so

In a world of overpopulation and Eugenics, where we can pick a childs' hair/skin/eye colour, is it so strange that genetic anomalies should be eradicated?

Once again, Dawkins is being castigated for talking sense.
 
I'm not expressing a judgment either way here but I'd like to point out that Down's syndrome isn't the sort of genetic anomaly that you can eradicate. It's not inherited like say haemophilia or cystic fibrosis.

A society could abort all its Down's affected foetuses for thirty years so that not a single Down's baby was born, and after that time babies would still be born with Down's syndrome. The condition doesn't run in families.
 
I suspect he knows that, and is simply suggesting that Down's syndrome people shouldn't be brought into the world on an individual level.

He really is such a little tosspot. :lol:
 
I think the issue here is that Dawkins feels it's immoral to bring into the world a person not able to experience the full benefits of human experience, in spite of the vast expanse of non-human species he has studied. I get what he's saying, and I have no problem with abortion. We all die, and it doesn't much matter to the individual human whether they die before they really know they are even alive, but it's not 'immoral' to bring a being into the world that can't live as a modern, healthy human would. If it were, most of life on Earth would be immoral. That kind of immorality, that has no meaning outside of dogma, is the sort of thing Dawkins attacked in The God Delusion.
 
Perhaps he's bringing 'morality' into it because (so his thinking goes) it would be wrong to inflict a miserable existence on the child - i.e. more wrong to allow that than abort the foetus?
He's approaching it also from a purely evolutionary perspective - in a true 'survival of the fittest' scenario, that child would either not be born or would not be able to survive.
By the use of medical science these days, we are now allowing people who would not normally survive to become part of the gene pool and even reproduce. Thus in Dawkins' eyes, human evolution will go off at a tangent...etc.
 
Mythopoeika said:
Perhaps he's bringing 'morality' into it because (so his thinking goes) it would be wrong to inflict a miserable existence on the child - i.e. more wrong to allow that than abort the foetus?

I understand that, but we all have suffering, and we are all at different levels of comfort and suffering in this world. My cat is part of my family, as far as I'm concerned, but he doesn't have the same level of intelligent interaction with us as humans, and he may experience no end of suffering before the end of his life that he can't convey to us intelligibly. An existence different from a normal human existence is not automatically more miserable.

Mythopoeika said:
He's approaching it also from a purely evolutionary perspective - in a true 'survival of the fittest' scenario, that child would either not be born or would not be able to survive.

Many social animals provide for their sick and poorly developed for as long as they can. Stopping doing that is not part of some devotion to evolutionary moral dogma. Besides, for crying out loud, when civilisation collapses, we'll discover many of us won't be able to carry a pregnancy to term. Half the mothers I've known have only given birth through c-section. How can evolution be used to justify anything under those circumstances? Anyway, evolution doesn't need second guessing. A life-form survives because it's environment doesn't destroy it. If we have created an environment that provides for the sick, elderly and confused, then it also provides for those with down's. There's no evolutionary case to answer, because evolution makes those decisions for itself.

Mythopoeika said:
By the use of medical science these days, we are now allowing people who would not normally survive to become part of the gene pool and even reproduce. Thus in Dawkins' eyes, human evolution will go off at a tangent...etc.

I actually agree with this. If civilisation actually does crumble, it will be those who have been giving birth in deserts and jungles for millions of years who will fair the best. Is that what we should be preparing for? Should we stop caesareans and just let struggling infants take their chances? I don't know the answer to that, but I think it has to do with our evolved sense of society and not any kind of scientifically conceived morality.

Time and again I find Dawkins suspicious, potentially disingenuous, and hypocritical. It's not him I worry about, but the atheism based on his twisted pragmatism.
 
Perhaps he's bringing 'morality' into it because (so his thinking goes) it would be wrong to inflict a miserable existence on the child - i.e. more wrong to allow that than abort the foetus?

If I can bring a personal anecdote into this: I had a severaly disabled relative who died a couple of years ago having outlived the original prognosis by several decades. He needed 24 hour care and the whole situation put enormous strain on my family, particularly my grandparents who acted as his primary carers well into their 70s.

At his funeral the vicar gave a very moving elegy, saying that no one should think his life had been a waste because he had touched the lives of many people and no one's life should be seen in that way. Love is never wasted. Everyone was in floods of tears because the truth was that we had all wondered from time to time whether it might not have been better for everyone, including my relative, if he had died at the time of the accident which caused the disability.

But the vicar was right. It is not for us to say that a human life is worthless because we see that person as inferior to us or because caring for that person can be inconvenient for others. Dawkins would say this was typical religion, sentimentality and emotion being substituted for logic. But it is that sentimentality and emotion which makes us human.

I'm the first to criticise the excesses of religion but I wouldn't want to live in Dawkins-world either. I expect such a place would be a eugenic hell devoid of compassion or any of the finer feelings.
 
Given Dawkin's regular bizarre outbursts of late I would hazard a guess that he's developing frontal lobe dementia. In that vein, perhaps he could put his money where his mouth is and remove himself from the gene pool.
 
Given the world over-population, haves/havenot imbalance, energy crises and so forth, it seems insane to me for people to bring more unproductive mouths to feed into this world. Now that may sound harsh but it's true.

I'm no monster, one of the most moving tales i ever heard was from an ex white supremacist who had swallowed all the drivel about a master race...........until His own son was born with Downs and they told him He should kill his own child, awful.

But it seems to me that Dawkins is getting all the stick as the "public face" of atheism.
 
Quake42 said:
But the vicar was right. It is not for us to say that a human life is worthless because we see that person as inferior to us or because caring for that person can be inconvenient for others. Dawkins would say this was typical religion, sentimentality and emotion being substituted for logic. But it is that sentimentality and emotion which makes us human.

I'm the first to criticise the excesses of religion but I wouldn't want to live in Dawkins-world either. I expect such a place would be a eugenic hell devoid of compassion or any of the finer feelings.

Well said.

There was a boy with Down's Syndrome in my scout troop. He smiled, was happy and had fun. That's all I need to know to judge his life worth living.

Let's also not pretend that quality of life is the only reason that women abort mentally-disabled children (foetus here is obfuscation); a number of parents opt to do so because it doesn't fit their life plan and the idea of giving the child up for adoption would be too strong a evidence of their having put their own concerns ahead of that of their child. It isn't palatable but it's true.

If Dawkins had said 'preferable' or 'sensible' to abort the child, I may have still been listening. To say it is 'moral' is just wrong - and what's more in all depends on whether one takes a deontological or consequentialist view of such things.
 
If Dawkins had said 'preferable' or 'sensible' to abort the child, I may have still been listening. To say it is 'moral' is just wrong - and what's more in all depends on whether one takes a deontological or consequentialist view of such things.

Semantics.
 
On the contrary.
'Moral' implies an imperative; the alternatives are merely preferences.
 
Stu73 said:
Given the world over-population, haves/havenot imbalance, energy crises and so forth, it seems insane to me for people to bring more unproductive mouths to feed into this world. Now that may sound harsh but it's true.

This is a more clear, morally sound argument for abortion, any form of birth control, than anything The Dawk has said. I don't necessarily think we should abide by it, but I recognise it as valid.
 
When a child is born with Downs, it gets a few illnesses in addition:
Heart defects, Vision problems, Hearing loss, Infections, Hypothyroidism, Blood disorders, Hypotonia (poor muscle tone), Problems with the upper part of the spine, Disrupted sleep patterns and sleep disorders, Gum disease and dental problems, Epilepsy, Digestive problems, Celiac disease, Mental health and emotional problems.

http://www.nichd.nih.gov/health/topics/down/conditioninfo/Pages/associated.aspx

People who defends giving birth to children with Downs usually refer to some children with Down who is doing well in the society, for example by finishing school or working, but that does not go for everyone.
 
Back
Top