Richard Dawkins Books for Children an Teens

[Golden Duck]

5 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

...

You would agree then that he would be the best person for a project like this? 

...

Dr Karl Kruzelnicki

 

[psyche101]

7 minutes ago, Golden Duck said:

Dr Karl Kruzelnicki

 

Good call. Smart man, good writer. 

Ahn Do is interviewing him on his show next week, make sure you catch that one. I know I will. 

He is more 'on the fence' though, seeing religion and science as two very different things, I'm not sure what his thoughts on things like indoctrination are. 

[Arbenol]

7 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

I personally have always admired that myself, so many evangelicals on TV, social media and then indoctrination. He is one of the few that puts the might of knowledge against religion and asks the tough questions which really put it into perspective. 

You would agree then that he would be the best person for a project like this? 

I understood that as the intent of the book. To offer a natural education as opposed to traditional indoctrination. 

I could not agree more, but find that there's still a lot of people listening to him, which is why I thought the debate was a good idea. It didn't just show that Ham is irrational, it showed the great divide between Nyes approach to the subject compared to Hams. Whilst Nye was introducing cutting edge information from the finest institutions on the planet, Ham was fumbling with power point slide shows that we'll illustrated his capacity as a 6th grade teacher. I thought we got a lot more out of that debate than just the final conclusion. 

I lost a fair bit of respect for him after the 'Dear Muslima' nonsense that he got himself involved in. He probably is the best person for an 'atheism for children' project, I would just question whether one is necessary. It does smack of indoctrination - replicating the behaviour of his philosophical opponents. Don't get me wrong, I have the utmost respect for him as a biologist. He attacks religion for non-scientific reasons and this is where I think he becomes unstuck. Dawkins greatest contribution to atheism has been in his science writing - showing that no god is necessary to explain the world. People can take the next step for themselves.

For the most part I thought 'Magic of Reality' was excellent. I just believe he's better when he tones down the atheist rhetoric and lets the science speak for itself.

[Will Due]

4 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

Hrmmz so it sounds like your father was not a rational atheist, I assume he didn't reject God on the basis of what science has to offer, but rejected it out of hand for personal reasons? 

I can see why that sort of atheism would not be embraced, its just another belief at the end of the day when approached in that manner. New atheism based on science is the only explanation with solid evidence behind it. 

I didn't get to put those stories out of my mind. The JW group my mother was with tended to focus on them as a mild fire and brimstone approach. 

 

My poor father, I think he had a really bad experience in the Catholic Church as a kid. That combined with having his homeland (Indonesia) occupied by the Japanese at the same time. He was 9 years old in 1941. My grandfather almost lost everything during the war and this no doubt had a devastating effect on my dad. It's a long story but I think he hasn't ever gotten over it. Of course, he blames God for it all. He's REALLY angry with him still. 

What do ya do. <Shrugs>

 

 

[ChrLzs]

1 hour ago, Will Due said:

With all respect, if we're gonna go down that attitude path, this thread will quickly deteriorate and end up like the others did. Let's try not to let that happen this time.  There's a lot of constructive things we can do.

That is quite hilarious*, given you posted this earlier:

3 hours ago, Will Due said:

And then there are those who will want to indoctrinate their children with atheism.

If anything, yours was the most impolite.

 

* or there's another word starting with 'H' that also applies...

[Will Due]

[Will Due]

 

I can't win.

 

 

[ChrLzs]

19 minutes ago, Golden Duck said:

Dr Karl Kruzelnicki

 

How about Tim Minchin?  Whilst most of his performances are definitely adults only, his work on things like the Matilda musical:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0v3pFE6YYDM
.. shows the extraordinary depths of his talent..

 

[ChrLzs]

7 minutes ago, Will Due said:

I can't win.

Yes, you can.  I've seen some quite pertinent and useful posts from you, so clearly you can if you try - but when you start telling others off for doing what you just did... Nope.

I know this topic well as I am guilty of it!

Edited August 31, 2018 by ChrLzs

[Will Due]

1 minute ago, ChrLzs said:

Yes, you can.  I've seen some quite pertinent and useful posts from you, so clearly you can if you try - but when you start telling others off for doing what you just did... Nope.

I know this topic well as I am guilty of it!

 

Thanks for that. 

I didn't intend the comment to be directed at anyone in this forum in particular though.

I never got good grades in creative writing. 

 

 

[psyche101]

3 minutes ago, Arbenol said:

I lost a fair bit of respect for him after the 'Dear Muslima' nonsense that he got himself involved in.

I was, and still am rather torn on  ElevatorGate, I honestly feel it was heavily over exaggerated I mean the poor bloke just asked for a coffee and got treated like a stalker, and Skepchick, Rebecca Watson, is a nuisance and likes to create noise, chasing down Lawrence Krauss recently as well. At least Dawkins offered a public apology I guess. 

3 minutes ago, Arbenol said:

He probably is the best person for an 'atheism for children' project, I would just question whether one is necessary. It does smack of indoctrination - replicating the behaviour of his philosophical opponents.

I would think its highly necessary considering the choice of belief or non belief is widely refused by indoctrination. I honestly don't see how it has any indoctrination aspects at all, as its entirely factual about the natural world. His philosophical opponents don't use facts in nature. Nobody is forced to refuse a god by learning about a natural works, and if one wishes to add God to the mix for whatever reason, I can't see how introduction into natural understanding would affect that. It would just allow children to reason better rather than swallow religious tradition whole. Effectively giving them a choice to religion as opposed to not having that opportunity until later in life when the damage is done. 

3 minutes ago, Arbenol said:

Don't get me wrong, I have the utmost respect for him as a biologist. He attacks religion for non-scientific reasons and this is where I think he becomes unstuck.

The only reasons I know of that are non scientific are human rights, what are you specifically referring to? 

3 minutes ago, Arbenol said:

Dawkins greatest contribution to atheism has been in his science writing - showing that no god is necessary to explain the world. People can take the next step for themselves.

I think that's the problem though, stepping from belief to natural sciences, would you not agree that should run the other way around? 

3 minutes ago, Arbenol said:

For the most part I thought 'Magic of Reality' was excellent. I just believe he's better when he tones down the atheist rhetoric and lets the science speak for itself.

I've watched a lot of his debates and TV appearances as well as reading and listening to books and audio books, and for the most he seems fairly mild mannered to me. He has got hot under the collar, but this subject tends to provoke such from any angle, but personally, I really enjoy listening to him speak. I've seen him have calm and interesting discussions with top orders of churches and he doesn't get overly pushy at all in those instances. I think it's more the crowd and who is in it to be honest. 

[psyche101]

27 minutes ago, Will Due said:

My poor father, I think he had a really bad experience in the Catholic Church as a kid. That combined with having his homeland (Indonesia) occupied by the Japanese at the same time. He was 9 years old in 1941. My grandfather almost lost everything during the war and this no doubt had a devastating effect on my dad. It's a long story but I think he hasn't ever gotten over it. Of course, he blames God for it all. He's REALLY angry with him still. 

What do ya do. <Shrugs>

I dunno on that one. 

I know people who have acted certain ways over a fathers treatment their entire lives, even decades after the passing. I guess only the individual can face that, and often they cannot. I'm not sure what that answer would be if there is one. 

My father came out of the war differently, very religious after claiming to have seen Mary on a battlefield. 

[psyche101]

19 minutes ago, ChrLzs said:

How about Tim Minchin?  Whilst most of his performances are definitely adults only, his work on things like the Matilda musical:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0v3pFE6YYDM
.. shows the extraordinary depths of his talent..

 

Indeed, an extraordinary talent, but his familiarity with profanities might not be appropriate for a children's book

I can just imagine a free CD with his song Come Home Cardinal Pell as an introductory offer

 

 

Edited August 31, 2018 by psyche101

[Golden Duck]

37 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

Good call. Smart man, good writer. 

Ahn Do is interviewing him on his show next week, make sure you catch that one. I know I will. 

He is more 'on the fence' though, seeing religion and science as two very different things, I'm not sure what his thoughts on things like indoctrination are. 

Honestly, I don't think indoctrinations is the big problem it's made out to be.  I'm not sure that I've ever met a creationist.

That said, today is my last day working with a JW as a colleague.  I've managed to avoid ever talking to her about anything spiritual.

 

[Arbenol]

6 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

I was, and still am rather torn on  ElevatorGate, I honestly feel it was heavily over exaggerated I mean the poor bloke just asked for a coffee and got treated like a stalker, and Skepchick, Rebecca Watson, is a nuisance and likes to create noise, chasing down Lawrence Krauss recently as well. At least Dawkins offered a public apology I guess. 

I would think its highly necessary considering the choice of belief or non belief is widely refused by indoctrination. I honestly don't see how it has any indoctrination aspects at all, as its entirely factual about the natural world. His philosophical opponents don't use facts in nature. Nobody is forced to refuse a god by learning about a natural works, and if one wishes to add God to the mix for whatever reason, I can't see how introduction into natural understanding would affect that. It would just allow children to reason better rather than swallow religious tradition whole. Effectively giving them a choice to religion as opposed to not having that opportunity until later in life when the damage is done. 

The only reasons I know of that are non scientific are human rights, what are you specifically referring to? 

I think that's the problem though, stepping from belief to natural sciences, would you not agree that should run the other way around? 

I've watched a lot of his debates and TV appearances as well as reading and listening to books and audio books, and for the most he seems fairly mild mannered to me. He has got hot under the collar, but this subject tends to provoke such from any angle, but personally, I really enjoy listening to him speak. I've seen him have calm and interesting discussions with top orders of churches and he doesn't get overly pushy at all in those instances. I think it's more the crowd and who is in it to be honest. 

It's interesting. If I lived in America I would probably feel as you do. But in Australia, NZ, Europe, etc, I feel that creationism is not an issue. Most people I know who are religious are not Biblical literalists or people who reject science. They're simply not a threat to rational thought. Despite Ken Ham being a compatriot of yours, I believe creationism is far more an American disease.

He doesn't stay in the realm of the scientific. A quick look at his Foundation website will show he's got plenty to say about American politics, for example. I guess his book would be aimed at the American market. It's probably needed more there. I don't begrudge him that  - he can write about anything he likes. I just think he's better when he sticks to what he knows most about. There are any number of commentators that can do that. Not that many who can write as eloquently as he on biological topics.

 

 

[ChrLzs]

14 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

Indeed, an extraordinary talent, but his familiarity with profanities might not be appropriate for a children's book

I can just imagine...

Surprise!!!!:
https://books.google.com.au/books/about/When_I_Grow_Up.html?id=pjY0DwAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=kp_read_button&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false

 

[psyche101]

20 minutes ago, ChrLzs said:

Surprise!!!!:
https://books.google.com.au/books/about/When_I_Grow_Up.html?id=pjY0DwAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=kp_read_button&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false

 

That is awesome I had no idea. 

I wouldn't mind reading it myself  just because Tim Minchin wrote it. 

[Habitat]

Tim Munchkin won't grow-up, you can back that in.

[psyche101]

25 minutes ago, Arbenol said:

It's interesting. If I lived in America I would probably feel as you do. But in Australia, NZ, Europe, etc, I feel that creationism is not an issue. Most people I know who are religious are not Biblical literalists or people who reject science. They're simply not a threat to rational thought. Despite Ken Ham being a compatriot of yours, I believe creationism is far more an American disease.

Well see, thats the rub, Ken Ham went to the US, and made it big. If we can export religion to one of the most religiously orientated countries on the planet, it might be somthing to be concerned about. We are a laid back country for sure, but when these issues do raise their ugly head, it tends to be loud and messy. 

25 minutes ago, Arbenol said:

He doesn't stay in the realm of the scientific. A quick look at his Foundation website will show he's got plenty to say about American politics, for example. I guess his book would be aimed at the American market. It's probably needed more there. I don't begrudge him that  - he can write about anything he likes. I just think he's better when he sticks to what he knows most about. There are any number of commentators that can do that. Not that many who can write as eloquently as he on biological topics.

Are you sure they are Dawkins articles though? I visit the website myself reasonably often, and many of the articles are written by others at the foundation.

I suspect America is a target, many because of the population count and the influence it has on the world  sort of killing 2 birds with one stone there and all that. 

[psyche101]

39 minutes ago, Golden Duck said:

Honestly, I don't think indoctrinations is the big problem it's made out to be.  I'm not sure that I've ever met a creationist.

Surely it wouldn't hurt either way? 

I know I grew up here very much indoctrinated. And it wouldn't be embraced in communities like Lakemba but they could really use it. 

39 minutes ago, Golden Duck said:

That said, today is my last day working with a JW as a colleague.  I've managed to avoid ever talking to her about anything spiritual.

Smart move. You know I spent a large part of my childhood surrounded by that mob hey. I don't remember them fondly. 

[Arbenol]

16 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

Well see, thats the rub, Ken Ham went to the US, and made it big. If we can export religion to one of the most religiously orientated countries on the planet, it might be somthing to be concerned about. We are a laid back country for sure, but when these issues do raise their ugly head, it tends to be loud and messy. 

Are you sure they are Dawkins articles though? I visit the website myself reasonably often, and many of the articles are written by others at the foundation.

I suspect America is a target, many because of the population count and the influence it has on the world  sort of killing 2 birds with one stone there and all that. 

Ken Ham can't make headway in Australia. As Ray Comfort can't in NZ. That's why they head to America.

We didn't need atheist books and propaganda to become less religious. I suspect America will become less religious as time goes on. They're just a bit late to the party.

Ham and Dawkins simply preach to the choir. 

But ultimately I doubt religion will ever go away. I'll settle for non-pathological versions of it. We've more or less achieved that.

[Habitat]

I'm sure we all cross paths with creationists, they don't spruik it 24/7. I recall one bloke "explaining" to me, that fossils were put in deep rock strata to test your faith. Right, is that the time ? Gotta go. 

[psyche101]

23 minutes ago, Arbenol said:

Ken Ham can't make headway in Australia. As Ray Comfort can't in NZ. That's why they head to America.

I don't know about that, half of us Aussies are still very much religious:

Some of those count themselves as Christian and are scattered through all denominations. Their number is probably growing. The more conventional Christians, those who believe in - and occasionally worship - a personal God, make up a neat 50 per cent of the nation.

They are convinced (94 per cent) that Christ was a historical figure; fairly confident (91 per cent) that He was the Son of God; increasingly sceptical (72 per cent) about the virgin birth; and oddly - considering its key importance to the faith - uncertain (85 per cent) that He rose from the dead. These beliefs are held very confidently. The Nielsen poll found almost nine out of 10 Australian Christians were absolutely or fairly certain of their beliefs.

https://www.google.com.au/amp/s/amp.smh.com.au/national/faith-what-australians-believe-in-20091218-l5qy.html

But we haven't gone as far as creation Museums so I guess you have a good point there. 

23 minutes ago, Arbenol said:

We didn't need atheist books and propaganda to become less religious. I suspect America will become less religious as time goes on. They're just a bit late to the party.

I just don't think it would hurt, I don't think it's specifically atheist, more along the lines of nature I thought. 

That's true we didn't need the push to take down the religious affiliations a notch, I wonder if that lifestyle or multiculturalism? 

23 minutes ago, Arbenol said:

Ham and Dawkins simply preach to the choir. 

Maybe, Dawkins was instrumental in my own atheist epiphanies in my early 40s so I guess I see him in a different light. I find what he has to say refreshing and interesting. He has also done great work challenging all areas of superstition and I think in a mild mannered way, in the last few days I have posted videos of him testing astrology and water divining and I thought his approach was mild, and the participants seemed to get a chuckle out of the results themselves. He has a reputation as a red faced angry atheist, but the more I see if his work and lectures, the less of that sort of thing I see. Like with anything I feel that a very small portion of his good work gets past the sensationalism of the angry atheist title.

23 minutes ago, Arbenol said:

But ultimately I doubt religion will ever go away. I'll settle for non-pathological versions of it. We've more or less achieved that.

I honestly think it will. Be it 50, 100 or 200 years but we've seen a great decline in my lifetime alone  especially attitude wise moreso than affiliations.

I honestly believe there will be a tipping point when the Globe reaches a certain level of education that will put God into the same perspective as Nessie. I think we are there now, just that most of the Globe is yet to catch up. 

[danydandan]

People don't generally like when they are told how to raise their children. The fact is as a parent your going to do whatever is best for children, whether your Agnostic, Religious or Atheist.

My point of view, what ever it's worth is, parents are going to indoctrinated their kids regardless if they know it or not. Culturally, Religiously etcetera. Making your kid read that Dawkins book is still the same as making then read a Bible or Qu'ran.

I personally don't like Dawkins, he too often mirrors the people he is 'fighting' against and too often offers his opinion as fact and leaves Science behind. He gets as if not more preachy than the preachers of Religion. But his biological science is excellent.

In my opinion, kids should be free to explore what ever they want to explore.

[eight bits]

8 hours ago, psyche101 said:

What are peoples reactions to an atheist book for children, and one for teens and young adults?

Philip Pullman's His Dark Materials? Fantastic stuff, and not just for young readers.