Richard Dawkins is one of the most eloquent spokespersons for science in this age. He has a knack for explaining complex scientific concepts in ways that lay people of average intelligence can grasp, if they’re interested in taking the time to do so. Richard Dawkins is also one of the most visible spokespersons for atheism in this age. He has stated his arguments for atheism only slightly less eloquently than he has communicated his love for science, particularly evolutionary science.
Because of his high visibility as an evolutionary biologist and atheist, Richard Dawkins has become a celebrity in, for lack of a better term, popular culture. According to a recent interview in the Telegraph, Dawkins wonders whether fiction, specifically, the Harry Potter series, has a pernicious effect on children. According to the Telegraph:
“I haven’t read Harry Potter, I have read Pullman who is the other leading children’s author that one might mention and I love his books. I don’t know what to think about magic and fairy tales.”
Prof. Dawkins said he wanted 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.
If Dr. Dawkins seriously wants to investigate the effects of reading fiction, particularly fantasy, on children, I suggest that he begin by doing the following:
1. The first step of his investigation should be to read the Harry Potter books – all seven of them. He shouldn’t read anything that others say about the books until he’s read them himself. And he certainly shouldn’t try to design experiments, surveys or any other instruments to measure the books’ effects until he’s read them.
2. Give kids credit for some measure of intelligence. Unlike what happens with religious indoctrination, kids know from the start that the Harry Potter universe is fictional. They are not “being brought up to believe in spells and wizards.” The knowledge that they are dealing with make-believe gives children all the tools they need to deal with the fictional nature of the stories.
3. Resist the impulse to view the books as anti-scientific just because they engage in fantasy. The fact that the books do not teach “real science” does not make them anti-science. In fact, the books promote the importance of studying and excelling at one’s schoolwork. Such lessons should be welcome in a culture in which standardized test scores seem to fall nearly every year. Moreover, the “magic” of Potter’s world often proceeds according to scientific principles. For example, potions, notwithstanding their exotic uses in Potter’s world, have to be mixed in just the right way to bring about the desired effects. Mixing the ingredients carelessly, or combining the wrong ingredients, yields disastrous results. The same is true for the potions westerners use every day, such as aspirin, Lipitor and Viagra, to name a few. There’s clearly nothing anti-scientific about Potter’s potions lessons.
4. Remember that scientific discoveries have usually been the product of imagination, of being able to ask questions or perceive phenomena from unusual points of view. I’m astonished that the scientist who brought us the memorable analogy of the Selfish Gene apparently has forgotten this. Engaging in fantasy and imagination need not be anti-scientific. It may, in fact, be a requisite for engaging in groundbreaking science.
5. Recognize that sometimes people read for entertainment. It’s often the “entertaining” literature that enables readers to consider moral issues in a secure environment. Think of it as a way to engage in thought experiments in which readers can safely try on different points of view. The Harry Potter novels are full of important moral lessons: loyalty to friends; handling intense scrutiny and unwanted attention with dignity and grace; setting aside one’s own ambitions to help others; the costs of greed; opposing social prejudices and oppression…. Those are valuable lessons and I, for one, welcome any medium that teaches such lessons effectively without being doctrinaire.
The Harry Potter books, much like the Dark Materials trilogy that Dawkins loves, are rich with characters and life lessons that children won’t gain by reading scientific treatises. Those lessons can be taught through other means, but a captivating series of fiction books is a memorable, enjoyable way to engage thinking about important issues. Dr. Dawkins has done much great work, but, in this case, he may need to take a deep breath, lighten up and allow kids to have some fun. A life without fun is not a life worth living, no matter how scientifically correct it may be. More importantly, a life without fantasy is a sterile life that could stifle the pursuit of knowledge. So, notwithstanding Dr. Dawkins’ misgivings, I’ll continue taking my dose of science with a dash of fantasy and a generous scoop of imagination.
H/T to Digital Dame for links.
– the chaplain
Posted by The Ridger on January 4, 2009 at 9:56 pm
I agree with everything you say – the key, to me, is Dawkins’ saying “bringing children up to believe in spells and wizards”. The fact is, few (if indeed any) kids who read HP believe in the magic.
Posted by Vitamin R on January 4, 2009 at 11:07 pm
His comment does seem a bit careless for *Richard Dawkins*. I know children who’ve read the series repeatedly. They might wish the magical stuff was real, but they don’t believe it is. And when they speak of the books, they start out with “the magical fight scene was so cool” and end with “and then Harry/Hermione/Ron saved the” whatever “even though they could’ve died”. Anything that teaches kids that sometimes one has to put others first–and that “potions” can be cool–can’t be all bad.
Posted by the chaplain on January 4, 2009 at 11:18 pm
Ridger:
The “bringing up children to believe…” statement struck me as unusually sloppy for Dawkins. Surely he hasn’t forgotten the joy of reading fiction with his children!
Vitamin R:
Welcome to the chapel. My sons and I have read all of the Potter books and thoroughly enjoyed them. They never had any difficulty distinguishing Harry’s world from their own. Moreover, as a parent who loves to read, I was thrilled that they were reading something for the joy of reading and not just because it had been assigned to them.
Posted by seantheblogonaut on January 4, 2009 at 11:50 pm
Not a fan of Potter, Lord of the Rings is more my thing.
Posted by Brian Larnder on January 5, 2009 at 12:09 am
I agree! This is the same issue that I have with fundamentalist Christians who want to ban Harry Potter because it teaches witchcraft to children – like real witches play Quidditch and fight Dementors. It’s fiction people!
And I guess by the same token we’ll have to stop children from reading mythology then as well.
Posted by Ed Zwart on January 5, 2009 at 1:07 am
You’re reading far too much in to his quote I fear. Of course he would agree with you about the non scientific nature of his comments, and if he were to try to make authoritative comments on literature and children, he knows he’d have to read the books! It’s silly to suggest otherwise.
That’s the problem with being smart (and famous). People think everything you say is of the same quality as the things you said that made you famous.
He merely wonders out loud if wildly successful books about magic might stunt interest in science. So what if he’s wrong? It’s hardly fair to lump that in with those who would ban books!
Posted by DB on January 5, 2009 at 1:28 am
Certainly Dawkins is misunderstanding the books theme, or is being misquoted. I am sure Dawkins would agree that imagination and fantasy are what science starts out as. “Magic” of today becomes tomorrow’s technology. Look at real world applications of science that at one time could be considered “magic”. Mention invisibility to someone 50 years ago and they would classify it as magic, or better, science fiction, but today such technology is on the horizon. I am sure we all agree on this. These books capture the imaginations of children who grow up to dream big and discover the magic of their childhood. I think they should be encouraged to read this.
And I am sure Dawkins would agree with everyone in the thread if he reads the harmless books. Though Chappy, I like the fire of this post! Keep it up!
Posted by cak on January 5, 2009 at 2:11 am
You are wrong. The books don’t teach studying hard and excelling at ones school work. The most powerful wizard in the world of harry Potter isn’t the one who studies the hardest, or is the brightest. He is the one who was born into it. There isn’t loads of studying done by him in these books.
I am sure these are great childrens books, but anyone over the age of 16 and reading them should be ashamed. Sure, they are great stories, but there are many adult books that are so much richer, and offer so much more.
Posted by seantheblogonaut on January 5, 2009 at 7:10 am
@Cak,
Why should I be ashamed If I am reading them? What perversity am I committing in thine eyes?
Posted by Sarge on January 5, 2009 at 8:09 am
When I was a kid I read “Perez and Martina”, and “The Thirteen Clocks”. I knew better than that cock-roaches and mice marry, and that it is possible for women to weep tears that turn into jewels. I will admit that the Todal gave me a few moments of anxiety after lights out and something that felt dead and had no head figured into my sweet dreams on occasion, but I loved the book. Still do, I read it about every two months.
Perhaps it is a question of context, I don’t know. But, hell, everyone needs mind candy, even kids, once in a while.
When I hit my teen years friends and relatives of my parents took my sorely tried folks aside quite often to remonstrate about the fact that they “let” me read MAD and science fiction. It was blasphemous, and no wonder I was turning out to be a wrong’un!
If somewhere, somehow, the spark of “what if” or “can I, maybe” hadn’t appeared most of us would still be winding up as hyena shit on some grassy Savannah somewhere.
Posted by Ubi Dubium on January 5, 2009 at 8:59 am
@cak
I think you are missing part of the point of the books. Harry’s not the best student; his strengths are courage, determination and leadership. But he could not have succeeded without a scholar at his side. I think the books do a good job of balancing the importance of studying and hard work with the importance of finding your talents and using them well.
The series starts out as great children’s books, but they mature with their protagonist. The last few are by no means children’s books, they are far too complex. I would recommend that Dawkins read them. You too, cak.
Posted by the chaplain on January 5, 2009 at 10:44 am
@ cak:
Harry is not a very good scholar, but his friend Hermione is an intelligent girl who studies very hard. She’s a critical character in the series and a good scholarly example.
@Ed:
With regard to reading too much into Dawkins’ words, I agree with him that “bringing children up to believe in spells and wizards” would, indeed, be “anti-scientific.” I highly doubt, though, that parents are bringing up their children in this way (apart from religion). Therefore, this particular line of speculation from Dawkins seems silly to me.
Posted by Spanish Inquisitor on January 5, 2009 at 1:10 pm
I’m sure I’ve read or heard Dawkins say that criticizing the Harry Potter books for its magic is not what an atheist does, nor should an atheist care. I can see his point that if we teach children to think in terms of the possibility of magic, then we’ve set them on a path of non-critical thinking. But only if we do it in a vacuum. I can understand that a dose of Harry Potter, coupled with religion, might reinforce one another. The former is clearly fiction, as is the latter, but the latter is treated as fact. Talk about mixed signals!
If we allow children’s lit to embrace fantasy, while at the same time reinforcing critical, scientific thinking, there is no harm, because a properly trained critical thinker will know the difference. It’s when we take away the tools for critical thinking (read religious indoctrination) that we run the risk of our children growing up believing in magic.
Posted by PhillyChief on January 5, 2009 at 1:57 pm
It seems a shame that everything must be black or white, that allowing or encouraging a belief in magic means a child will become an anti-science religious dolt. It’s sad really that for fear of religious crap gaining a foothold, we atheists have to purge all endeavors lacking in critical thinking.
This seems very narrow-minded, and no different than the religious who react the same way, only their fears are for kids being lead astray to become Satanists or something.
Posted by 23five23 on January 5, 2009 at 3:27 pm
It does seem that Dawkins has put his foot in his mouth with this one.
I don’t think it ever meant that books of the sort should be banned, he’s simply stating a hypothesis which has yet to be tested, and I think most would agree it would be proven to be false. That doesn’t negate the worthiness of study in whatever scientific form it is being done.
That said, I thought the Harry Potter books were fun and easy reads. I don’t think children will believe it unless parents are telling them it’s real. Like when parents lie about Santa. Now, I wonder if the propensity to believe in Santa shows a similar propensity to believe in God/Dog.
I never believed in Santa, and I don’t believe in God/Dog.
The Harry Potter thing seems like a real stretch though. Magic is nothing new in fiction. Hell, Tolkien was doing it much earlier (and far better) then Rowling.
Posted by Lorena on January 5, 2009 at 4:49 pm
“Give kids credit for some measure of intelligence. Unlike what happens with religious indoctrination”
Brilliantly said! Besides, how are fantasy books more mythological than romantic novels where a man is able to provide favours 4-or-5 times a night? Though if this is actually possible, I would love to hear of it.
And yeah! People read for ENTERTAINMENT. Must everything be scientific? If I wanted to completely give my life to something to the exception of everything else, I would have remained religious.
BTW, I still think Dawkins rocks.
Posted by athinkingman on January 6, 2009 at 5:59 am
You make your points very powerfully. I suspect that the last thing Dawkins would want to be seen as is a fundamentalist, but it is easy to see how the above comments could be taken to lean in that direction.
Posted by DB on January 6, 2009 at 9:35 am
“how are fantasy books more mythological than romantic novels where a man is able to provide favours 4-or-5 times a night? Though if this is actually possible, I would love to hear of it.”
Ah, magic. So many immature comments I can make but will let them slide for more civilized responses. Though tempting.
Posted by Ric on January 6, 2009 at 11:35 am
Despite being sixty-something and an intelligent, rational man, I’ve read the Potter books at least four times. I’ve noticed a definite improvement in my potions skills, as evidenced by the tasteful improvements in my morning libation of coffee and my ability to precisely heat Progresso lentil soup. My wand work is nowhere near as accurate and precise as, say, Hermione’s, but it is at least as passionate as Harry’s. I did make one of the cats disappear, and while I can hear him, I can’t see him to get a bead on him to re-apparate him (if anyone has any suggestions on this matter, perhaps something I overlooked in the Potter books, I would appreciate hearing about it).
In keeping with Harry’s world, I maintain a solid faith of atheism and never, emulating the Potter anthology, mention god.
I just wish I could find the damn cat. He keeps sneaking food off my plate.
@ Lorena -
Call me.
Posted by bitchspot on January 6, 2009 at 3:45 pm
I agree, Dawkins falls into the same trap that a lot of fundamentalist Christians have, claiming that the Harry Potter series is teaching kids to cast spells and do witchcraft when it does nothing of the sort. It’s a fantasy series and like all fantasy series, it contains fantastic elements. Anyone who takes those elements seriously or believe they exist needs serious psychological help. Kids, at least those for whom Harry Potter is intended, know enough not to take those elements seriously, just as someone who might read Anne McCaffrey’s Dragonrider series isn’t going to be looking up for dragons.
At least it isn’t like the Bible, where people read it and suddenly think that there are invisible gods watching over them.
Posted by The Ridger on January 6, 2009 at 9:16 pm
What I meant was, Dawkins isn’t actually saying – not in this quote, anyway – that children who read HP are confused, he’s saying that bringing them up to believe fairy tales are true isn’t good.
Posted by The Exterminator on January 6, 2009 at 10:15 pm
Dawkins is beginning to sound like the imagination-deficient prigs that haunt the Atheosphere. Too bad, when some of the world’s greatest literary, artistic, and musical works have been created by faithfreeists or, at very least, doubters.
Posted by C. L. Hanson on January 7, 2009 at 1:13 am
Very good points.
As seen from the comments here, the Harry Potter books can lend themselves to a lot of different interpretations. My first reaction was to see them as a very skeptic-friendly fantasy, partially because the magic is presented as something that can be studied in a scientific way, and partially because the books show accepting the finality of death is better than seeking immortality. I talked about this in Harry Potter vs. Jesus.
Posted by C. L. Hanson on January 7, 2009 at 1:26 am
p.s. Exterminator may have a point about Dawkins becoming a carmudgen. I could have sworn I read an article recently about how Dawkins celebrates Christmas and likes Christmas music — just not those modern, secular Christmas songs, which he thinks have terrible tunes and terrible lyrics. I expect that next he’ll be quoted as telling those damn kids to stay off his lawn.
Posted by Sarge on January 8, 2009 at 8:12 am
Rutter does a mean christmas carol…I damn well BETTER like carols, I play them almost to the exclusion of everything else for about a month. Glad it’s over for a year…
Personally, Harry Potter and Pratchetts Disc World stories are sort of in the same park with the magic. No one I know, kid or adult, uses either of these as a recipe for doing things. Turtledove wrote a very interesting story called, “The Case of the Toxic Spell Dump” which I would recommend. A world where everything is powered by magic, but, spells leave a residue, a waste product which can be toxic. Actions and reactions, consequenses for what you do. I found it a good read.
Remember, we’re dealing with opinions here. When I was much younger, I was told that opinions are like ass holes. They are necessary, but they often stink and most folks experience some distress when they are exposed in public.
Posted by heather on January 8, 2009 at 7:32 pm
As ever, you are so right here.
The world of the imagination isn’t antithetical to scientific thought. It’s one of th greatest pleasures of being human.
Posted by bitchspot on January 9, 2009 at 7:04 pm
My biggest problem, and this is probably a tad off topic, is that Dawkins is rapidly approaching folk-hero status and frankly, he’s not worth it. Oh, I like him well enough, but like Darwin, a lot of people treat Dawkins like an atheistic saint, that everything he says is right and he speaks authoritatively for atheism. He does nothing of the sort, he, like Darwin, is just a man. Some things he says are right, some things he says are wrong, just like anyone else. The only thing that matters in either case are the facts, not the fawning followers.
Really, who gives a damn what Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens or any of the rest of them have to say? It’s right because it agrees with the evidence, not because they say it.
Posted by the chaplain on January 9, 2009 at 7:38 pm
Bitchspot:
I agree with you about the adulation of the so-called Four Horsemen. A lot of what they say is right, but they also come out with some strange stuff sometimes. We need to look at them as critically as we look at theists.
Posted by seantheblogonaut on January 9, 2009 at 11:43 pm
BLASPHEEMERS!!!!
ehem..
Some people like to follow uncritically because thinking critically, skeptically about others and more so about our own thoughts and beliefs takes discipline and practise.
So I can excuse the fanboys and girls a little.
Posted by bitchspot on January 10, 2009 at 3:04 pm
No, we need to realize that it isn’t who they are that matters, it’s what they say. I don’t value scientists because they’re scientists, but because they do good science. It’s not the people who matter, even the ones who become celebrities, it’s the message that they have and that message has to validated by objective reality.
Posted by the chaplain on January 10, 2009 at 4:36 pm
Bitchspot:
I agree that what people say is what matters most. That’s why, regardless of who they are, we need to look at what they say just as critically as we look at what theists say.
Posted by Greta Christina on January 10, 2009 at 5:00 pm
I was also puzzled by Dawkins’s comments. I mean, does he also think kids shouldn’t read Greek myths? Fairy tales? Legends from other cultures? Stories with talking animals? You discard magic, and you discard a huge amount of the greatest children’s literature ever written.
No, we shouldn’t be “bringing children up to believe in spells and wizards”. Who, exactly, is doing that? Who is reading Harry Potter to their kids as if it were fact?
I like the Harry Potter books a lot. They work as both escapism and a way to explore serious matters. And in fact, they encourage skepticism. For instance: There’s a whole running theme about people (Luna Lovegood and her father) who credulously believe in magical beings for which there is no evidence (as opposed to the magical beings who, in the universe of the books, clearly do exist). And running with that theme is good skeptical thinking about how “you can’t prove it isn’t true” isn’t sufficient evidence to believe something.
And to bitchspot (#27): Actually, one of the things I like about the atheist community is that we *don’t* treat our leaders as infallible. When an atheist writer/ leader/ organization puts their foot in it, they get called on it. As demonstrated right here, in this very blog post. (And nobody slams Hitchens more vociferously than other atheists.)
Posted by C. L. Hanson on January 11, 2009 at 11:38 am
Re: And in fact, they encourage skepticism. For instance: There’s a whole running theme about people (Luna Lovegood and her father) who credulously believe in magical beings for which there is no evidence (as opposed to the magical beings who, in the universe of the books, clearly do exist).
Exactly, and this is a really intriguing point about the Harry Potter series in particular because I don’t think I’ve seen anything like it in other fantasy.
Posted by cl on January 11, 2009 at 7:15 pm
I expect nothing less from Dawkins. He’ll stoop to almost any level to state his case it seems, including unabashed quote-mining of the founding fathers as per TGD. IMO, he’s your Ted Haggard.
Posted by PhillyChief on January 11, 2009 at 9:46 pm
Off the meds again, CL?
Posted by cl on January 11, 2009 at 11:07 pm
Philly,
It doesn’t surprise me that you resort to sandbox jabs and don’t have an actual argument against anything I’ve said.
Omission and selective de-emphasis of facts which present hurdles to one’s argument are clearly the signs of either an honest amateur, an intentional deceiver, or an old-fashioned ignoramus. They are not the earmarks of good scholarship. Dawkins lists a half-dozen quotes on p.43 in his lame efforts to imply various founding fathers held beliefs compatible with atheism. I’d like to focus particularly on what he says about John Adams.
Nevermind that Dawkins doesn’t cite his source, and takes only the part of the quote that supports his point, which is all the more deplorable after bashing creationists for quote-mining Darwin from Origin in Chapter 1.
While I do not wish to embark upon the difficult path of discerning the religious beliefs of a man centuries dead, like many, many atheists, Dawkins quotes John Adams severely out-of-context on p.43. BTW, the pertinent quote is from Letter to Thomas Jefferson, April 19, 1817:
“Twenty times in the course of my late reading have I been on the point of breaking out, ‘This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion at all!!!’”
And of course that’s where most quote-mining atheists stop.
However, the passage continues, “But in this exclamation I would have been as fanatical as Bryant or Cleverly. Without religion, this world would be something not fit to be mentioned in polite company, I mean hell.”
Further note this quote-mine was retracted from subsequent editions of TGD.
And yet, I’m supposed to take the man seriously when his anti-religious bent clearly compromises the integrity of his scholarship? Please.
Posted by PhillyChief on January 12, 2009 at 1:10 am
Oh come on now, you love jumping in the sandbox, don’t ya?
Your appearances on atheist blogs I frequent CL is spotty. Out of the blue you appear, fire some shots to provoke some debate, get all frothy then sort of mellow out then disappear again. Now maybe it’s moon cycles or something else. I took a stab at maybe you were off your meds. Hell, maybe you just occasionally need a fix and you show up in the atheosphere full of beans. Whatever, it’s cool. Besides, your comment was so out of left field I just assumed you were off your meds again, CL. That’s all. What argument am I going to form against comparing Dawkins and Ted Haggard? It’s simply crazy talk, which prompted my inquiry.
Since I never read TGD, I unfortunately can’t address your points against Dawkins in that respect. Was that the sole basis of the Ted Haggard comment?
Posted by cl on January 12, 2009 at 2:11 am
When I have something to say that I think relates to something I read, I say it.
Incidentally, Haggard and his ilk misrepresent their opponents as deplorably as Dawkins and his ilk misrepresent theirs.
No further comment, and more out of respect for the chaplain than for lack of an argument. I consider myself on probation here, and that’s another part of the reason I pop in so sporadically. I’ve offended the chaplain in the past, for which I’ve apologized to her, and I don’t want to go down that road again.
Posted by seantheblogonaut on January 12, 2009 at 2:17 am
Cl,
I was intrigued by what you said and took the time to look it up. You are correct that Dawkins appears to sell Adams short on that quote.
On reading the rest of the passage however, Dawkins was suggesting that some of the founding fathers displayed ideals, and spoke in terms compatible with deism and perhaps eve ateism.
Dawkins lists other Adams quotes which I assume are not in dispute? So while it is dissapointing that Adams was misqouted Dawkins claim still holds.
That he has removed that quote, rather than perpetuate an error is a bad idea? Is disengenuous?
Adams was very critical of Christianity and while, from my reading at least, he still maintained the label Christian, his Christianity could be considered very liberal, he speech deistic.
Dawkins claim: that some of what Adams said was compatable with Deism and atheism.
Dawkins lists two other Adams quotes which support his claim, that are compatible with deistic, atheist thought.
I think you draw too long a bow.
Posted by cl on January 12, 2009 at 1:01 pm
*Note – “No further comment…” above was intended to mean that I’m done arguing with PhillyChief in this thread, which continually proves fruitless. And I realize this is off-topic, but some valid points have been raised:
Sean,
Exactly my point. Dawkins does so in omission of quotes that would seem to contradict his point, and while deism and theism are compatible, I object to your juxtaposition of deistic thought with atheistic thought. The two fundamentally differ. And remember, Dawkins is promoting atheism, not deism. Deism is opposed to atheism.
And the first commandment is?
Adams purportedly rejected trinitarian doctrine and was a Unitarian Protestant. I’m by no means arguing that Adams would have sided with Evangelicals or Fundies when in fact quite the opposite is correct and the name Jesus Christ is notably absent in his writings. I meant only to show Dawkins was grasping for straws here, and that in his crusade the man will quote-mine to prove his point, mere sentences after harshly criticizing his opponents for the very same offense. And this from such a championed ’scholar’ makes me wonder.
Posted by PhillyChief on January 12, 2009 at 1:21 pm
Yet you always try, and can never completely get over not scoring a point, or a pineapple, or some kind of fruit, and that’s what makes you so entertaining.
Posted by seantheblogonaut on January 12, 2009 at 4:16 pm
They do not differ in rejecting some aspects of the Christian religion. Which is what I read Dawkins to be getting at here.
What I think Adams meant when he talks about the 10 commandments is that he follows the moral code on the commandments and the charitable aspects of the Sermon on the mount.
You compared Dawkins to Ted Haggard and with that you lost quite a bit of credibility with me.
Posted by cl on January 12, 2009 at 7:59 pm
Sean,
So I share a subjective opinion and lose “quite a bit of credibility?” Interesting that you’d place so much emphasis on one man’s mere opinion. I thought skeptics formed the crux of their judgments off of facts. And you yourself said I was factually correct, at least as far as the quote-mine in question. At any rate, that’s understandable, because I’m guessing you admire Dawkins quite a bit and Haggard not so much so. Yet, as reasonable skeptics simply do not take Haggard and his ilk seriously, reasonable believers simply do not take Dawkins seriously. Further, many reasonable believers do not take Haggard seriously, and believe he actually undermines their causes, and many reasonable skeptics do not take Dawkins seriously, and believe he actually undermines their causes.
That’s fine. I strongly feel Adams believed in a personal God, which is certainly compatible with deism, but not atheism. If I recall right, the chapter in question contains Dawkins’ rants about how the founding fathers weren’t Christians, but by definition, Adams was Unitarian Protestant, which is a type of Christian.
Posted by PhillyChief on January 12, 2009 at 8:46 pm
Gosh, so since Jefferson and W both won two terms of office as President, I guess I’d be “factually correct” to say they’re comparable Presidents.
Posted by cl on January 12, 2009 at 9:08 pm
Well, alright Philly, I’ll give in, even though I said I was done arguing with you, but only because you provide such an easy target. If you recall, I stated that my comparison of Dawkins and Haggard was subjective opinion, not factually correct. What was factually correct was my allegation of the quote-mine in question. But I can easily see how in your earnestness to discredit somebody who believes differently than you, you’d miss that and strawman my argument.
Posted by PhillyChief on January 12, 2009 at 9:53 pm
Did you get a Logical Fallacies calendar for X-mas? Is January Strawman?
I was “factually correct” though, they both won two terms, so you owe me at least a kumquat or maybe a kiwi.
Anyway, your subjective opinions are quite sufficient for you to lose credibility in most people’s eyes, but this Haggard/Dawkins one is quite exceptional, even for you. Why? Because the extreme subjectivity casts doubt on your ability to ever be objective, therefore, your credibility just nose dived. Of course Sean’s new to you, so he still thinks you have some credibility. The rest of us know better, because, as you said, we form the crux of our judgments off of facts, like past experiences.
Posted by cl on January 12, 2009 at 10:08 pm
Philly,
Like Dawkins, you demonstrate that you’ll stoop to a fallacious level to belittle your opponent, as strawman comment #44 demonstrates. Retort with your little taunts and jokes all you want, but such pegs you as the amateur, not me.
Sorry chaplain if I’m overstepping any bounds here, but the guy simply will not let it be, and I guess I just have a certain level of pride. And there’s the first stone, for whomever would like to cast it.
Posted by the chaplain on January 12, 2009 at 11:31 pm
CL – You and Philly can both take care of yourselves. I’ll let you two slug it out until you grow bored with each other.
Posted by cl on January 12, 2009 at 11:37 pm
chaplain,
Thanks, that’s how my dad approached personal fights when we were little. I’m already bored, and only keep responding because, well, who likes to have false charges persist? So, just drop me a line if you ever feel I’ve disrespected your space. I’m quite open to correction.
Posted by PhillyChief on January 12, 2009 at 11:40 pm
I think you have straw in your eyes CL, since you keep seeing it where it doesn’t exist, or maybe that’s a beam.