Richard Dawkins Books for Children an Teens

[danydandan]

9 hours ago, psyche101 said:

For sure, I understand that. I just see religious indoctrination as different to skip set indoctrination purely because they can be followed through. It strikes me as very different to religious indoctrination which cannot be followed through. Would you not agree there's a distinction there? 

I disagree, we are specifically discussing indoctrination. Like I said I believe indoctrination is indoctrination is indoctrination, regardless of subject.

And on a side note, Books can't indoctrinate people only people can indoctrinate people, people can even indoctrinate themselves.

[toast]

9 hours ago, psyche101 said:

I see religious indoctrination as world apart from an introductory level to skill sets. Would you agree that they have definite distinctions? 

Of course, religions have definite distinctions and they use them when of benefit to the agenda/s.

[danydandan]

16 minutes ago, toast said:

Of course, religions have definite distinctions and they use them when of benefit to the agenda/s.

As does everything and everyone.

[psyche101]

2 hours ago, Clockwork_Spirit said:

The seduction that we often fall pray to is to become satisfied to be in THIS realm when God is calling us to the next realm and we get stuck in one state, when God has something else for us and you can't get what God has until you give up what you had so Jesus says: Don't try to stay where I'm trying to get you out of.

Wut?

That's really nonsensical. How do you come to the conclusions of realms, and how do you call this existence seductive? 

You are not making any sense. 

[XenoFish]

2 hours ago, Clockwork_Spirit said:

God will take us from one realm to the next realm to the next realm to the next realm but He cannot do it if we become too attached to any particular realm.

You hard riding that dopamine ghost aren't you.

[psyche101]

1 hour ago, danydandan said:

I disagree, we are specifically discussing indoctrination. Like I said I believe indoctrination is indoctrination is indoctrination, regardless of subject.

Fair enough. It just seems strange to me that indoctrination to skill sets that can be realised would be considered the same as religious indoctrination. They seem worlds apart to me. 

I think we would have to see the book when it's finished and has a title. If Dawkins delves back to our proposal of LUCA and goes through the development of each stage of evolution in great detail, which is all backed up, and offers a full understanding of evolution, would you still consider that indoctrination? Not education? 

Quote

And on a side note, Books can't indoctrinate people only people can indoctrinate people, people can even indoctrinate themselves.

Good point. There's no specific group behind the book either. I have no idea if it will be popular or not. I just hope it is for the sake of knowledge. 

[psyche101]

1 hour ago, danydandan said:

As does everything and everyone.

That's a fair comment, but the agenda behind this seems noble to me. 

[XenoFish]

3 hours ago, Clockwork_Spirit said:

Believe that you will die in ''eternal oblivion'', since you are biological robot living in a meaningless Universe.

That's the Dawkins indoctrination pushed to children.

Life is meaningless, pointless, and purposeless by default. We exist and then we die with zero factual knowledge of any "afterlife". Other than becoming compost. So the only real choices we have is to find something to live by, drift from one thing to the next, or suicide. I find that I'm one of those drifters. I just want to live. Nothing more. I don't need God to make my life better, I have to do that. I don't need a promised afterlife in order to live this one. Which if you think about it is sorta sad. People dedicating their whole lives to living for the next one. Seems like they'd miss out on so much. Plus there has to be some level of self-hate involved. That you hate your life so much you pray for a better afterlife....even kill for it. That's messed up. 

[danydandan]

40 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

Fair enough. It just seems strange to me that indoctrination to skill sets that can be realised would be considered the same as religious indoctrination. They seem worlds apart to me. 

I think we would have to see the book when it's finished and has a title. If Dawkins delves back to our proposal of LUCA and goes through the development of each stage of evolution in great detail, which is all backed up, and offers a full understanding of evolution, would you still consider that indoctrination? Not education? 

Quote

I understand where you are coming from, one must accept that education is indoctrination to a certain degree. Weather its good, bad or indifferent.

My point is, if I as a parent asked, sorry not asked forced, my children to read a book regardless of subject and told them not to think about it critically, it's indoctrination.

Whilst I accept that Religious ideologies, education and indoctrination are baseless. I also fully understand that most accepted educational curriculums are founded upon solid Scientific truths. But you must see that regardless if I'm teaching Physics or Christianity and I inform my students that what I say in either subject is the truth and should not be questioned is the same as each other. It's all indoctrination. That's why I feel that critical thinking is more important than anything else in education.

I might buy that Skeptics Guide to the Universe book for my kids also. I think that will be better, I like Dr Novella.

48 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

That's a fair comment, but the agenda behind this seems noble to me. 

 

I think it is also, but when money is involved it's never Noble.

[freetoroam]

3 hours ago, Clockwork_Spirit said:

God will take us from one realm to the next realm to the next realm to the next realm but He cannot do it if we become too attached to any particular realm.

Try attaching yourself to reality.

[freetoroam]

1 hour ago, psyche101 said:

Wut?

That's really nonsensical. How do you come to the conclusions of realms, and how do you call this existence seductive? 

You are not making any sense. 

What does not make sense is why they do not spent this energy and thought on the real world they are in.

Its happening now, today and if you play your cards right...until you are old enough to go 6 foot under with the rest of our ancestors.

[Habitat]

1 hour ago, freetoroam said:

What does not make sense is why they do not spent this energy and thought on the real world they are in.

Its happening now, today and if you play your cards right...until you are old enough to go 6 foot under with the rest of our ancestors.

I fully understand this outlook, it really does appear, on the face of it, to fit the situation, very well indeed. Until, perchance, you find out it is wrong. There really is, this "afterworld" or "beyond". Not that I can tell you all that much  about it. What then ? How to look at the sensible world, then ? You just can't engage with it, in the same way, again.

[Only_]

9 hours ago, XenoFish said:

Life is meaningless, pointless, and purposeless by default. We exist and then we die with zero factual knowledge of any "afterlife". Other than becoming compost. So the only real choices we have is to find something to live by, drift from one thing to the next, or suicide. I find that I'm one of those drifters. I just want to live. Nothing more. I don't need God to make my life better, I have to do that. I don't need a promised afterlife in order to live this one. Which if you think about it is sorta sad. People dedicating their whole lives to living for the next one. Seems like they'd miss out on so much. Plus there has to be some level of self-hate involved. That you hate your life so much you pray for a better afterlife....even kill for it. That's messed up. 

Thanks for sharing your beliefs and worldview.

Edited September 4, 2018 by Clockwork_Spirit

[+Liquid Gardens]

16 hours ago, Clockwork_Spirit said:

Believe that you will die in ''eternal oblivion'', since you are biological robot living in a meaningless Universe.

That's the Dawkins indoctrination pushed to children.

That's an opinion, not indoctrination.  For whatever his faults, he to my knowledge has never urged anyone to not think critically about anything, including his opinions.

[danydandan]

13 minutes ago, Liquid Gardens said:

That's an opinion, not indoctrination.  For whatever his faults, he to my knowledge has never urged anyone to not think critically about anything, including his opinions.

I'm pretty sure he goes out of his way to say that too.

[psyche101]

12 hours ago, danydandan said:

I understand where you are coming from, one must accept that education is indoctrination to a certain degree. Weather its good, bad or indifferent.

But in that case I'm all for valuable indoctrination into skill sets that will reap rewards later in life. Much like the aforementioned indoctrination of math that lead to a greater understanding of theory as an electrician. I guess I always just considered that to be education, but your right, definitions are definitions. 

Quote

My point is, if I as a parent asked, sorry not asked forced, my children to read a book regardless of subject and told them not to think about it critically, it's indoctrination.

Whilst I accept that Religious ideologies, education and indoctrination are baseless. I also fully understand that most accepted educational curriculums are founded upon solid Scientific truths. But you must see that regardless if I'm teaching Physics or Christianity and I inform my students that what I say in either subject is the truth and should not be questioned is the same as each other. It's all indoctrination. That's why I feel that critical thinking is more important than anything else in education.

Of course, but I can't see this book being applied as such as there is no formal group pushing for anything like that. As I understand the concept, and what I gather from Dawkins comments, it's very much a choice. 

Considering that, and that I am expecting the book to delve deeply into the intracasies of evolution, I'm not sure I could consider this indoctrination. Even if a parent opts to take that approach, wouldn't the fine detail on the steps of evolution exclude the work as indoctrination? 

Ham commented that Dawkins will omit any so called 'problems' with evolution, but should any controversies arise, I have little doubt that Dawkins would include and explore any such option. 

Quote

I might buy that Skeptics Guide to the Universe book for my kids also. I think that will be better, I like Dr Novella.

I have not read that one, I must put it on a list. I like Dr Novella too. He did a fascinating debate where he partnered up with Sean Carroll to debate Raymond Moody and Eben Alexander on the subject of life after death. I don't suppose you have heard it? 

Quote

I think it is also, but when money is involved it's never Noble.

To a point, it depends on if the book costs $20.00 or $100.00. One must acknowledge publishing and printing costs. 

[psyche101]

12 hours ago, freetoroam said:

What does not make sense is why they do not spent this energy and thought on the real world they are in.

Could not agree more, I have asked several zealous posters this very question, but to date I have not ever received an answer. One of those questions these people dodge duck and weave around. 

12 hours ago, freetoroam said:

Its happening now, today and if you play your cards right...until you are old enough to go 6 foot under with the rest of our ancestors.

And new knowledge is fascinating. I won't ever understand why some insist on wallowing in 11th century thinking. 

Books like this would be great introductory level information for people like that as well, who really don't understand what they eschew for faith. 

[psyche101]

10 hours ago, Habitat said:

I fully understand this outlook, it really does appear, on the face of it, to fit the situation, very well indeed. Until, perchance, you find out it is wrong. There really is, this "afterworld" or "beyond". Not that I can tell you all that much  about it. What then ? How to look at the sensible world, then ? You just can't engage with it, in the same way, again.

You just sound like any other crackpot proclaiming esoteric knowledge, only your belligerent approach to highly educated people just makes you look petty and uniformed. Your no better than Ken Ham or Deepak Chopra. Your information is personal, and therefore useless to the rest of the planet.

[Only_]

7 hours ago, Liquid Gardens said:

That's an opinion, not indoctrination.  For whatever his faults, he to my knowledge has never urged anyone to not think critically about anything, including his opinions.

Richard Dawkins continues to see belief in God as a threat to humanity and his latest effort to counter it is more books about atheism.

That's definitly a form of 'secular indoctrination', especially when targeting children.

[psyche101]

15 minutes ago, Clockwork_Spirit said:

Richard Dawkins continues to see belief in God as a threat to humanity

Belief in God has been a threat to humanity. In the past and present. Wars, acts of terrorism, fundamental beliefs resulting in death. Your airy fairy view of religion just turns a blind eye to all that. 

15 minutes ago, Clockwork_Spirit said:

and his latest effort to counter it is more books about atheism.

Its about evolution and critical thinking. If your faith feels threatened by that, it doesn't deserve to survive. 

15 minutes ago, Clockwork_Spirit said:

That's definitly a form of 'secular indoctrination', especially when targeting children.

Its not being forced on anyone blindly and its unlikely IMO that it will just offer end results with no explanation like religion. If I know Dawkins method, every step will he supported with detail and evidence. So I really don't think it falls under the definition of indoctrination. Its not a blind conclusion, it's a detailed description of the journey through evolution to intelligence. 

Do you feel it is a threat to belief? 

[Habitat]

No reason at all why you can't credit both Darwinian evolution and the "beyond", no mental gymnastics required.

[psyche101]

5 minutes ago, Habitat said:

No reason at all why you can't credit both Darwinian evolution and the "beyond", no mental gymnastics required.

Evolution denies the biblical creation story of mankind. That's what Dawkins is rationalising. I have not read anywhere if he will be rationalising life after death myths and superstitions. 

Physics denies the life after death myth. That's the mental gymnastics you have to perform to believe that superstition, mental gymnastics to avoid physics. 

[Habitat]

5 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

Evolution denies the biblical creation story of mankind. That's what Dawkins is rationalising. I have not read anywhere if he will be rationalising life after death myths and superstitions. 

Physics denies the life after death myth. That's the mental gymnastics you have to perform to believe that superstition, mental gymnastics to avoid physics. 

There is no scientific rigour, in much of what you say, unfortunately. Dawkins called God a "delusion" which is not a scientific statement at all. There is no physics that can rule out an afterlife.

[psyche101]

8 minutes ago, Habitat said:

There is no scientific rigour, in much of what you say, unfortunately.

Yes there is, and I have shown you the top physicist at Caltech explaining it in layman's terms. It offends you preconceptions so you dismiss it with deliberate ignorance. 

Not much I can do about that. But it still proves you wrong no matter how much you don't want it to. 

8 minutes ago, Habitat said:

Dawkins called God a "delusion" which is not a scientific statement at all.

He didn't say it was, in fact he said it was inspired by Robert Pirsig's statement in Lila (1991) that "when one person suffers from a delusion it is called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion it is called religion."

 

8 minutes ago, Habitat said:

There is no physics that can rule out an afterlife.

Yes there are, our knowledge of atoms, our understanding of the brain and thermodynamics all render the idea an impossibility. 

Deliberate ignorance is only something you can hide behind yourself, you can't hide facts with it to anyone but yourself. 

[danydandan]

18 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

Yes there are, our knowledge of atoms, our understanding of the brain and thermodynamics all render the idea an impossibility. 

Actually using quantum mechanics, it mathematically could be a probability, just a very very very ...............very slim probability. It's the reason why I think QM is incomplete, ie if you go with the maths it's possible for entropy to be reversed, or that if you leave your coffee on the table long enough it will get hotter.