Richard Dawkins, the evolutionary biologist and "God Delusion" polemicist, recently offered a frightening glimpse of what might be called the reverse-fundamentalist worldview.
Mr. Dawkins mused to a British television network that fairy tales and supernatural-themed books such as the "Harry Potter" series are "anti-scientific."
"Whether that has a pernicious effect, I don't know," the 67-year-old British writer said. "Looking back to my own childhood, the fact that so many of the stories I read allowed the possibility of frogs turning into princes, whether that has a sort of insidious effect on rationality, I'm not sure. Perhaps it's something for research."
It's telling that, in this case, the conclusion, provisional though it may be, reached by a hyperrationalist scientist mirrors exactly that of those who object to "Harry Potter" on religious grounds: that a mind that too frequently wanders from the realm of settled truth becomes vulnerable to poisonous falsehoods.
Mr. Dawkins' suspicion of fairy tales - of imagination - is an indication of the extremes to which philosophical materialism can lead...."
Richard Dawkins
type. He doesn't seem to have
values at all -- no sharing of personal sentiments and personally meaningful experiences, little or no concern for the personal sentiments of the people he speaks in front of (when he is discussing the idea of a godless universe), and basically an avoidance of all things personal in the context of conceptual discussions on the nature of life and the universe. Here's a decent sample:
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by Dioklecian
. But he seems to want to create an universal, watertight argument which can't be defeated on any grounds. Using metaphors etc. is useful so that they can be understood by anyone - this could be 
, but maybe he doesn't use personal experience so that he isn't open to attack? E.g. his arguments could from the mouth of Satan himself (if he exists), I would still consider them valid, but other people might not - Dawkins puts his arguments in 
statement, especially if the people hearing it are in his audience and will inevitably have their feelings hurt. Darwin, who was in a state of metaphysical limbo much of his life until accepting his own agnosticism in his later years, generally avoided saying things that could be interpreted as a rejection of religion -- not because he was religious, but because he couldn't stand the thought that people would think he was a bad person and a destroyer of morals. 
). From what I've read of his work and seen in other clips, these seem to be stable traits. I don't see any of this in Dawkins. It's like the whole point is to just get this one little fundamental concept into your head. Also, he seems relaxed and smooth in movement and speech and never seems awkward. 
). Science doesn't follow ideology, the mystification of reality - it explores the best explainations for the way things are - it is based on facts, not age-old prejudices and assumptions.
.
