Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
psyche101

Richard Dawkins Books for Children an Teens

474 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Michelle

I am eternally grateful my parents let me read whatever I wanted. A Wrinkle in Time, House of Stairs, anything by Alfred Hitchcock or Stephen King, Anne Frank, Daughters of Eve, The Time Machine etc,...much earlier than the recommended age. It opened my mind up to so many different possibilities. Harry Potter would have been at the top of my list.

My suggestion would be to leave a book, like the one in the OP, on the "adult" bookshelf. Their curiosity will get the better of them. Otherwise, it will only be another form an indoctrination.

If kids even read anything not on the computer these days...

I love the tactile feel of them to this day myself.

Edited by Michelle
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101
On 9/2/2018 at 7:55 AM, RabidMongoose said:

A huge problem for Dawkins is his assumption that a critical mind which is free from indoctrination wont find religion.

Whilst I agree that such would be the most likely outcome for the majority, I don't understand that to be one of Dawkins intentions. He is against brainwashing. Forcing religious indoctrination from an age before reason can be applied. I am of the understanding he feels any child should be allowed to attain the age of reason before having such concepts introduced so that anyone can choose to be atheist, Muslim, Christian or whatever they decide upon themselves. 

His aim I believe to to allow that choice to be made  nut have it made for us before we can object or agree with it. 

On 9/2/2018 at 7:55 AM, RabidMongoose said:

As an intellectual myself I dont see Dawkins as being that bright (although he likes to think he is).

To be fair, his work in evolutionary biology cannot be faulted. 

What sort of an intellectual do you claim to be? The sciences or in philosophy? 

On 9/2/2018 at 7:55 AM, RabidMongoose said:

It is quite obvious he lacks any knowledge of degree level physics, philosophy, and theology.

He is an evutionary biogist and had often stated his limitations in those areas, although I'm not seeing how you place philosophy or theology alongside physics. He has had lengthy talks with cardinals and bishops and seems to hold his own very well as far as I can see. He has read the bible, and has state that as a literary work, he likes it. 

On 9/2/2018 at 7:55 AM, RabidMongoose said:

When it comes to the religion/atheism debate there are three types of people in the world:

Low/Average IQ - These are more likely to believe in religion.

Above Average IQ - These are more likely to be atheists (I would put Dawkins in here).

Genius IQ - These are more likely to believe in religion.

That's a broad brush, I find your evaluations highly contradictory there. You have belief in religion for geniuses and morons. I don't see how that works. 

On 9/2/2018 at 7:55 AM, RabidMongoose said:

There are plenty of people in the world who are far more intelligent and knowledgable than Dawkins who believe in God and can put forward some good arguments for it.

May I ask whom you might be referring to? I've seen Dawkins in debate quite a bit, and I've not seen him lose one yet 

On 9/2/2018 at 7:55 AM, RabidMongoose said:

In fact, quite a high percentage of physicists go on to become priests and bishops (or the equivalent in various religions) because what they get taught paves the was for spirituality in them.

Can you name some?

The most intelligent people I can think of like Sean Carroll, Richard Dawkins, Lawrence Krauss, Brian Greene and the like are all atheist or teapot agnostics. 

On 9/2/2018 at 7:55 AM, RabidMongoose said:

I always find it quite remarkable the number of people claiming science means there`s no God who have quite a poor understanding of physics. Most of them never did it past high school yet will argue their views with total confidence (which I find both bizarre and funny). Around and around our society it goes and has become part of our culture which doesnt get questioned by so many people.

The only claim I know of that science means God is unlikely as science doesn't tend to work with absolutes. Most including Richard Dawkins have taken the teapot, or Toothfairy agnostic position. And according to the results and observations we do have  that indeed seems to be the case. 

On 9/2/2018 at 7:55 AM, RabidMongoose said:

Any debate on religion/atheism should be free from people with religious issues (Dawkins??) or atheism issues and the panel should be made up of a range of people who have legitimacy to engage in such a debate. Legitimacy comes from having physics, philosophy, and theology degrees. It shouldn`t be a free for all from people who dont know what they`re talking about (but who like to think that they do).

Any debate should also be unbiased which means the liberal media and political left should be prevented from doing a Trump on it. That means stopping them influencing what speakers get invited, stopping them dictating to the viewers the conclusions they should reach, and stopping them from engaging in the character assassination of those guests which dont agree with them.

There are lots of such debates, most of them have been put on YouTube with Sean Carroll, Lawrence Krauss, Bill Nye, Richard DawkinsDam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, Steve Novella, how do they not meet that above criteria? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
toast
On 31.8.2018 at 3:09 AM, Will Due said:

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

There are at least two things here you dont understand. First is the meaning of the word indoctrination and 2nd, the aim of Dawkins book.

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101
1 hour ago, Michelle said:

I am eternally grateful my parents let me read whatever I wanted. A Wrinkle in Time, House of Stairs, anything by Alfred Hitchcock or Stephen King, Anne Frank, Daughters of Eve, The Time Machine etc,...much earlier than the recommended age. It opened my mind up to so many different possibilities. Harry Potter would have been at the top of my list.

My suggestion would be to leave a book, like the one in the OP, on the "adult" bookshelf. Their curiosity will get the better of them. Otherwise, it will only be another form an indoctrination.

If kids even read anything not on the computer these days...

I love the tactile feel of them to this day myself.

Good call, I would say you are right, that would get the kids reading it, just tell them they are not allowed to. 

I thinks it's more an experiment to Dawkins, he has already stated that "your kids won't be bugging you to buy this for them for Christmas" :)

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danydandan
46 minutes ago, toast said:

There are at least two things here you dont understand. First is the meaning of the word indoctrination and 2nd, the aim of Dawkins book.

 

It seems everyone here is not understanding the word indoctrination. All it means is to influence someone to accept something uncritically. That's regardless of the subject.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danydandan
4 hours ago, psyche101 said:

I really don't know to be honest. It's horrendous how people allow the most awful crimes but are excused by religion. I notice the courts are starting to get involved, and a JW boy was forced to undergo a blood transfusion and parents charged with murder for adhering to faith over life saving techniques. 

There's just so many nasty little dark avenues in religion like this that just don't get to see the light of day. Now we are starting to, and I feel it's more than overdue. I guess I'm glad someone else is doing that. I really don't know if it's overstepping boundaries, it seems more just like doing the right thing to me. 

Judge allows blood transfusion for Jehovah’s Witness boy, against parents’ wishes

The child (17) then appealed that decision and lost as well. 

Jehovah's Witness teen loses appeal over life-saving transfusion

And cases where the legal system didn't act in time. 

Baby died of malnutrition after parents ‘refused to get help for religious reasons’, court hears

2-Year-Old Girl Dies After Faith-Healing Parents Refuse Medical Treatment

 

I do hope the next step would be to see children removed from fundamental family's like the Westboro pickets or Radical Muslim teachings. 

Its great that should a person drown a baby in a bathtub these days that one would go to jail or a mental institution and the will of God isn't taken into consideration at all. 

So your saying you'd happily sit in judgement of people regarding their right to have children or not. Eugenics?

 I can't accept you'd actually think that way.

Regarding fundamentalist, I don't know. I'm a firm believer in a proper education, I know in the US this changes from state to state, hence home schooling and other schools that don't necessarily follow orthodox curriculum. I think not educating your children is a form of child abuse, so I think I'd advocate removal of children in these cases. However most fundamentalist still educate their kids as far as I know, we don't have this issue here in Ireland.

Regarding letting your kid die due to stupid beliefs, I think these parents should be jailed, it's a kin to murder as it's premeditated.

Can you jail parents for stupidity? I don't know, there is a famous TV show called House where this was explored.

Still none of this gives anyone the right to impose whom can have children or how one can raise their children.

4 hours ago, psyche101 said:

As I understand the description though, this is very much introducing critical thinking. That's why introduces creation myths in perspective. To illustrate the difference between what is possible and what is not.

The book is self described as a book that shows your kid that Science is better than Religion. While I agree with it. I do not agree with it's approach.

4 hours ago, psyche101 said:

But do you not see a huge difference in teaching genuine knowledge and indoctrinating cultural superstitions? I was taught Pythagoras' theorem and ohms law in high school, and no joke I honestly remember being cheeky and sating to my math teacher  how on earth is this required learning? When am I ever going to get asked this in real life? He even said probably never, well imagine my surprise when doing theory at TAFE (like trade college here) for my electrical apprenticeship came up and it turned out I needed both equations. Quite humbled me, but I had the tools and skills to deal with the situation. So I guess I never saw that as indoctrination at all, but genuine teaching. 

I've had to use math but religious instruction has never offered me anything of value in that respect, and its information has only ever let me down. 

To me I think there is much greater value if you do apply indoctrination that can be supported as critical thinking skills are developed. And because one is indoctrinated to a base set of skills, they can and will be built upon, allowing that knowledge to come to complete fruition. I'd call that real teaching. 

Like I said I believe in a proper education. But people keep using the term indoctrination when describing Religious zealots but refuse to accept your still indoctrinated in any subject in school. Up until a certain age. Basically indoctrination is indoctrination is indoctrination regardless of the subject.

Critical thinking is the base from which your education should be formed, however it's not. Let's me elaborate on the this a small bit. In Ireland, Britain, US etcetera, you are taught an accepted curriculum in school, you must accept what the teacher is saying if you want to pass exam's. Simple as that, wether you agree with what the teacher is saying or not. You have to regurgitate what you have learned in exams. Thus, that is why education is indoctrination. Just like Religion. It isn't really till you get to college when you can speculate with your own opinion, provided you have evidence.

I'm not going to discuss Dawkins, my feelings regarding him are quite clear. Maybe they would improve if he gave the book away for free?

Like I said the opportunity to think for ones self is essential here. Regardless of topic. Like for example if you were given the Bible and read Genesis one and two and didn't see they are condrictory then your probably unable to think critically.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
toast
51 minutes ago, danydandan said:

It seems everyone here is not understanding the word indoctrination. All it means is to influence someone to accept something uncritically. That's regardless of the subject.

Exactly. Believe or die, thats the real indoctrination.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101
1 hour ago, danydandan said:

It seems everyone here is not understanding the word indoctrination. All it means is to influence someone to accept something uncritically. That's regardless of the subject.

 I don't believe that's established here though, Dawkins has specifically stated that he's rationalising creation stories, not religion as a whole. And if he is offering the intracasies that remove the need for belief without evidence, how is it indoctrination exactly? 

He has repeatedly stated he does not wish to indoctrinate and is therefore approaching the subject cautiously. 

He has stated so far:

Perhaps I can help parents arm them against indoctrination by schools, grandparents and religious books – and against taunting by religious schoolmates. Help them think on evidence, e.g. for evolution. ‘What do you think?’ is my continual refrain.’

 

And on Twitter, he asked the public:

 

'Are there parents who'll want to buy it for their children anyway? Do you anticipate a demand? 

Would you like to see a 'children's God Delusion' by me published? I really want to not indoctrinate.'

 

The more I think about it, the harder I find to see offering the entire picture, factually, as indoctrination. It's guarding against creationist indoctrination by offering real factual knowledge. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101
1 hour ago, danydandan said:

So your saying you'd happily sit in judgement of people regarding their right to have children or not. 

No, not me  but I'd vote on a panel of people. 

22 minutes ago, danydandan said:

Eugenics?

No, nothing like that, protection of life, not prevention. 

22 minutes ago, danydandan said:

 I can't accept you'd actually think that way.

I know it's got a bad history, like the stolen generation. But I think it's criminal for people to act like that, I feel its a violation of the children's rights. I mean, kids bearing plaquards that say God hates fags? How is it child services don't step in and remove them already? 

22 minutes ago, danydandan said:

Regarding fundamentalist, I don't know. I'm a firm believer in a proper education, I know in the US this changes from state to state, hence home schooling and other schools that don't necessarily follow orthodox curriculum. I think not educating your children is a form of child abuse, so I think I'd advocate removal of children in these cases. However most fundamentalist still educate their kids as far as I know, we don't have this issue here in Ireland.

Its more the private religious schools Dawkins is referring to I think. I agree with him in that children should not be 'branded' with their parents faith, but allow them to attain an age where they can reason and allow them that choice. I just can't see how that's not the fairest option. Parents consider it a right, but in retrospect I feel its an abuse of the child's right to choose. 

22 minutes ago, danydandan said:

Regarding letting your kid die due to stupid beliefs, I think these parents should be jailed, it's a kin to murder as it's premeditated.

And yet we are only just starting to put these cases through the courts. Although at the same time I must admit some concern that all that will do is increase the popularity of "Dr. Google." 

22 minutes ago, danydandan said:

Can you jail parents for stupidity? I don't know, there is a famous TV show called House where this was explored.

I understand that people make mistakes, but I don't think that's the same as getting your child to wear hate slogans or die for what's really you're cause, that is a choice the parent took from them. That 17 year old in the above link appealed the decision! I really doubt he would have don't that without intense indoctrination. 

22 minutes ago, danydandan said:

Still none of this gives anyone the right to impose whom can have children or how one can raise their children.

But logically, is that assisting the parents or the child? 

22 minutes ago, danydandan said:

The book is self described as a book that shows your kid that Science is better than Religion. While I agree with it. I do not agree with it's approach.

It might be the link I offered. The only other one I could find was The Daily Mail. Probably should have put both as that one is a bit biased. 

Do you have a problem with it focusing on evolution and why its supported over creation stories? Not as an attack on religion, if it specifically focuses on evolution would you still be opposed to it? 

22 minutes ago, danydandan said:

Like I said I believe in a proper education. But people keep using the term indoctrination when describing Religious zealots but refuse to accept your still indoctrinated in any subject in school. Up until a certain age. Basically indoctrination is indoctrination is indoctrination regardless of the subject.

But as with your math example, I didnt understand why these laws appllied, but when applied to electrical theory, things like Ohms law and electron flow take on a whole new meaning. Schooling is offering insights into many avenues. When they come to completion as they did for me (did you not find the same experience yourself regarding the electrical field? I take it you did a full field apprenticeship?) those insights become knowledge. For me it was years of epiphany after epiphany as I saw how the theory applied to the field. 

That's a useful indoctrination into the ways of the world, I just feel that's a different thing to religious indoctrination which can't be brought to a real understanding like you or I understand how a high rise building or shopping centre can be powered up through the heart of a, step-down transformer to the major arteries of the consumers main's and distribution boards down through veins of submains to capillaries of subcircuits. We get the start and the end and what size and lengths everything has to be and can be. It mars sense  and it works. Religion will never move past faith. It doesn't make sense and it works differently for everyone. 

22 minutes ago, danydandan said:

Critical thinking is the base from which your education should be formed, however it's not. Let's me elaborate on the this a small bit. In Ireland, Britain, US etcetera, you are taught an accepted curriculum in school, you must accept what the teacher is saying if you want to pass exam's. Simple as that, wether you agree with what the teacher is saying or not. You have to regurgitate what you have learned in exams. Thus, that is why education is indoctrination. Just like Religion. It isn't really till you get to college when you can speculate with your own opinion, provided you have evidence.

As you cannot ever have evidence of the supernatural, why wouldn't the types of indoctrination be seen as different on that basis? 

22 minutes ago, danydandan said:

I'm not going to discuss Dawkins, my feelings regarding him are quite clear. Maybe they would improve if he gave the book away for free?

I don't know, apologies, I wasn't pushing for more on Dawkins, just mentioning that I see his approach differently. You're not the only one who sees him in that light, so there's obviously something I overlook, or just see differently, not a problem, I respect your opinion. 

22 minutes ago, danydandan said:

Like I said the opportunity to think for ones self is essential here. Regardless of topic. Like for example if you were given the Bible and read Genesis one and two and didn't see they are condrictory then your probably unable to think critically.

I was indoctrinated and I can say that you are just given illogical answers like Lions used to eat grass in the Garden of Eden and they are just a part of every part of life. As a little kid, you trust your parents so when they talk about it like daily life, you don't give it a second thought eventually. Your ability to think critically is shaped how a belief shapes it. That's the sort of thing Dawkins is attempting to curb from what I gather, and as someone who lived through something like that, I heartily approve. I personally was brought up on Paradise Lost Paradise Regained. I sure wish I had something like this instead, I remember being fascinated by the family Encyclopedia, World Book, pretty sure it was the 1972 edition. Still, I was told it was all part of God's plan and I blindly believed it. 

 

 51q1n92ZlVL._SX133_.jpg

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danydandan

@psyche101 

I'm not making an argument for or against indoctrination, nor I'm I trying to say it's good or bad. I'm just voicing my opinion on what is indoctrination.

For what's it's worth, I'm utterly against it, regardless of subject. 

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
eight bits
1 hour ago, psyche101 said:

No, nothing like that, protection of life, not prevention.

Mmm, kinda like that. In my mind's ear, I could hear you saying "Three generations of imbeciles are enough." (searchable)

 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101
11 hours ago, danydandan said:

@psyche101 

I'm not making an argument for or against indoctrination, nor I'm I trying to say it's good or bad. I'm just voicing my opinion on what is indoctrination.

For what's it's worth, I'm utterly against it, regardless of subject. 

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? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101
9 hours ago, eight bits said:

Mmm, kinda like that. In my mind's ear, I could hear you saying "Three generations of imbeciles are enough." (searchable)

 

I'm just not seeing it like that though, for instance  in the case of Carrie Bell I'd consider the only one in line for castration would be the uncle who raped her. She is a victim. I think there's too many victims white fundamental religions are prevalent. In the case of people like Westboro, I honestly think the children should be removed from that environment. It's just indoctrination a child into a hate group. I honestly don't understand why a child services group cannot act and have not already in situations like that. Or do you remember the father who proudly posted a photo of his young child holding a severed head? More proactive measurements in situations like that. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101
13 hours ago, toast said:

Exactly. Believe or die, thats the real indoctrination.

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Only_
21 hours ago, toast said:

Exactly. Believe or die, thats the real indoctrination.

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.

Edited by Clockwork_Spirit
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
freetoroam
29 minutes 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.

It is only meaningless if that is how you see your life. 

That is quite sad. 

Even sadder is when alive, people are thinking about where they will go when they will die. 

You are on this fine planet in this amazing Universe once..that is what people should be looking at.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Only_
20 minutes ago, freetoroam said:

 

You are on this fine planet in this amazing Universe once..that is what people should be looking at.

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.

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101
54 minutes ago, Clockwork_Spirit said:

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

There's no use getting all emotional about the data. It is what it is. You can cry a river and the data is still the data. 

54 minutes ago, Clockwork_Spirit said:

That's the Dawkins indoctrination pushed to children.

No, that's the data. I am not convinced that this book is indoctrination, care to support your misplaced and rather hysterical and fundamental statements? 

  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101
24 minutes ago, freetoroam said:

It is only meaningless if that is how you see your life. 

That is quite sad. 

Even sadder is when alive, people are thinking about where they will go when they will die. 

You are on this fine planet in this amazing Universe once..that is what people should be looking at.

It is a real privilege to be able to understand the universe as we are able to in such a short time span. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101
2 minutes 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.

That makes even less sense than ever. Your really losing it IMHO. 

Realm after realm of the afterlife now. I honestly wonder how you mange to become so distanced from reality. 

  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ChrLzs

Jeez, some folks weren't born with a sense of wonder, were they....  To quoth Tim Minchin (as I am often want to do..):

Quote

Does the notion that there may not be a supernatural so blow your hippy noodle
..that you'd rather just stand in the fog of your inability to Google?
Isn't this enough?  Just this world?
Just this beautiful, complex, wonderfully unfathomable, natural world?
How does it so fail to hold our attention that we have to diminish it
with the invention of cheap, man-made myths and monsters?

 

  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Only_
5 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

That makes even less sense than ever. Your really losing it IMHO. 

Realm after realm of the afterlife now. I honestly wonder how you mange to become so distanced from reality. 

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.

Edited by Clockwork_Spirit

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Only_
11 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

There's no use getting all emotional about the data. It is what it is. You can cry a river and the data is still the data

No, that's the data. I am not convinced that this book is indoctrination, care to support your misplaced and rather hysterical and fundamental statements? 

35hn783.png

Edited by Clockwork_Spirit

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
D.O'N
39 minutes 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.

So do you have to die in the next realm to get to the realm after that?

Edited by Baldylocks
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
toast
1 hour ago, Clockwork_Spirit said:

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

I havent read Dawkins`s book so I dont know if that has been said by him but I will give it a try anyway. I think we are not at a level of insight yet to be able to finally judge if the universe is meaningless or not, to us humans. But we are on the way somehow to find answers to that question, at least they are asked, but maybe the question itself might be irrelevant in general (42). All the knowledge we have today about life, and the universe as well, is based on observations and the logical analysis of these observations, its called science. Science took us to todays level of knowledge, not belief. Until today, science did not observed any kind of god or any kind of event/s triggered and/or driven by such a being and/or model. But belief, and the related religious agendas, has too often suppressed human creativity in the past and still in the present. Look at the RCC for example, which still is a criminal association that can look back on two millennia of success, by indoctrination.

Quote

That's the Dawkins indoctrination pushed to children.

If the universe is meaningless, children need to know that in the same fashion as they need to know that grandpa will die during their lifetime. It might be of benefit for little kids to tell them that grandpa is now in heaven, but to tell that to teenagers and adults is what it is: indoctrination.

Edited by toast
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.