1. Comment #443634 by Friend Giskard on December 21, 2009 at 2:28 pm

Strident.

Other Comments by Friend Giskard

2. Comment #443639 by BiologicDentists.com on December 21, 2009 at 3:09 pm

Wish I could see it, will have to wait until it is posted. I'm in America.

Other Comments by BiologicDentists.com

3. Comment #443646 by InYourFaceNewYorker on December 21, 2009 at 3:50 pm

It is posted... or is this something else?

Other Comments by InYourFaceNewYorker

4. Comment #443680 by Peter Grant on December 21, 2009 at 6:09 pm

Streaming sucks on my connection. A downloadable link would be greatly appreciated.

Other Comments by Peter Grant

5. Comment #443683 by oriole on December 21, 2009 at 6:22 pm

The full interview is on youtube in 3 installments. The first installment is at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XYvZMfSdBwo
The website of the television network shows only an excerpt of the interview.

There are some interesting moments, and the interviewer is friendly, but he asks way too many of the sort of pseudo-profound questions that talk-show hosts ask of show-folk, like "how would you define 'wisdom'?", to which Richard replied that the host should look the word up in a dictionary; RD was sure he didn't have anything to add. He gave similar responses to the many other questions of that ilk.

There was one unfortunate quote-mining opportunity when Richard, as always completely honest, admitted that he didn't know enough physics to independently judge the validity of the current state of theory in the field, so he had to take it on faith - though he did hasten to add that his "faith" was based on a record of success. But the liars for Jesus will probably keep the first part of the quote and throw out the second.

Other Comments by oriole

6. Comment #443696 by AndreD on December 21, 2009 at 6:49 pm

It was a very typical Andrew Denton interview. He is primarily interested in the personal attributes of his guests, and tries to get them to reveal things they might usually not. Sometimes it works, especially when the guest is a politician (those who have seen his 'Enough Rope' show will attest to this). However, I think it's a mistake when interviewing someone about 'wisdom' and 'knowledge'.

As oriole pointed out, he asks a few silly questions with the intention of extracting some sort of personal pseudo-revelation.
I'm glad Richard steered the interview towards evidence and scientific thinking rather than answer what are quite redundant questions.

Other Comments by AndreD

7. Comment #443740 by God fearing Atheist on December 21, 2009 at 8:51 pm

ANDREW DENTON: I do have one final question, having read some of your work, having looked at a lot of your work, I'm curious, what star sign are you?

RICHARD DAWKINS: [Pause] ...You serious?

ANDREW DENTON: No, I just wanted to see your response! [Laughter] And it was worth it! Richard, thank you very much.

LOL!

It was a good interview. I liked the subtle mention of the Burka. Naughty, naughty atheist!

Other Comments by God fearing Atheist

8. Comment #443754 by free_fight49 on December 21, 2009 at 9:18 pm

The interview was ok the beginning was great then it just got worse and worse...

Other Comments by free_fight49

9. Comment #443764 by InYourFaceNewYorker on December 21, 2009 at 9:45 pm

@God Fearing Atheist, I don't think what you had in mind (re: the burka) is what Richard meant. ;)

Also cute when Richard kissed his doggy. Nice to know that there's someone besides my father and me who kisses animals. :)

I like what Richard said about how when kids stop believing in Santa Claus it would make sense if they started questioning God... because in fact as soon as I stopped believing in Santa Claus (just before turning 7) I started thinking that there might not be a god.

As for the star sign... ugh, so many people ask me that! The next person who asks me that is going to get my boot print on their butt. Someone once asked me at a job interview. Like WTF? The only reason I even know what sign I am is because I looked it up just to shut people up who were asking me about it. I was born in October, jackasses! I'm a fucking Libra. You happy now? ;)

Julie

Other Comments by InYourFaceNewYorker

10. Comment #443773 by Richard Dawkins on December 21, 2009 at 10:18 pm

The full interview is on youtube in 3 installments. The first installment is at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XYvZMfSdBwo

Is it? I can't see it. Might it be one of those region-restricted things?
Richard
PS I ask because the transcript says the following:

ANDREW DENTON: I'm guessing that the Tooth Fairy didn't have a very long life in your family.

RICHARD DAWKINS: Well no, I mean all that kind of thing you know, the Tooth Fairy and Father Christmas, we went along without all of that.

I'm almost sure that what I actually said was "We went along WITH all of that." Could somebody who has seen the whole video tell me what I actually said at this point?

Thanks
Richard

Other Comments by Richard Dawkins

11. Comment #443777 by InYourFaceNewYorker on December 21, 2009 at 10:33 pm

Yes, Richard, you did say, "We went along with all of that." That's what I heard.

Julie

Other Comments by InYourFaceNewYorker

12. Comment #443778 by oriole on December 21, 2009 at 10:36 pm

Hi Richard,

I don't think there's any regional restriction. I was able to see it in Switzerland, where I live. I just clicked on the link in your post and was able to see it again. The exact name of the youtube upload is "Richard Dawkins on Elders with Andrew Denton (Part 1/3) (12-20-09)"; the uploader is AtheistPlanetBlog. But I'll listen to it again for that quote, or misquote.

Other Comments by oriole

13. Comment #443781 by InYourFaceNewYorker on December 21, 2009 at 10:43 pm

Richard, cut and paste the link or type it in manually. When I clicked on it from your message, it turned out that the blockquote code hitched a ride in the URL, and that may be why you got the error message. Then again, the original link wasn't in a blockquote, so I don't know.

Here's the link again...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XYvZMfSdBwo

Julie

Other Comments by InYourFaceNewYorker

14. Comment #443782 by Richard Dawkins on December 21, 2009 at 10:46 pm

I'm almost sure that what I actually said was "We went along WITH all of that." Could somebody who has seen the whole video tell me what I actually said at this point?

I was right. I've now listened to the video, and that is indeed what I said, not what the transcript says I said. But of course, because I'm a strident atheist, I must really have deprived my child of the thrill of Father Christmas and the Tooth Fairy. These people hear what they expect to hear, not what is actually said. That, of course, is where the 'strident' comes from too. Could anything be less strident that this interview? Yet I am described as 'strident' in the introductory note.
Richard

Other Comments by Richard Dawkins

15. Comment #443785 by InYourFaceNewYorker on December 21, 2009 at 10:51 pm

I'm sure people would also accuse Richard of indoctrinating Juliet and telling her what she must think-- or else-- when he wrote her that letter.

Let's make a bet: Richard gives up his fortune, and starts tomorrow without a penny to his name. Every time someone calls him "strident" again, that person has to give him a penny. By the end of the week, let's see if he doesn't rebuild his fortune, and then some.

These people need an old-fashioned in-your-face New Yorking...

Julie

Other Comments by InYourFaceNewYorker

16. Comment #443790 by oriole on December 21, 2009 at 11:04 pm

Richard, I think it would be worthwhile for you to have them correct the transcript; otherwise, the Liars for Jesus will spread this misquote all over the interwebs.

Other Comments by oriole

17. Comment #443792 by Reckless Monkey on December 21, 2009 at 11:05 pm

I'd strongly recommend anyone watching or who has watched to see the extended web content on the ABC site http://www.abc.net.au/tv/elders/ it's much better, the edits are clear if you see this.

Andrew I think should have let Richards philosophy of science come out as it does when talking about science the electromagnetic spectrum etc. However, in the program they kind of cut that quite a bit and finished with the bit about the head dress which makes more sense if you saw the whole bit first.

Other Comments by Reckless Monkey

18. Comment #443793 by InYourFaceNewYorker on December 21, 2009 at 11:07 pm

Even if Richard did say that his child never believed in Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy, why would that imply that he forced her not to and browbeat her about it? My brother never believed in any of this stuff, and it had nothing to do with my parents' influence, except for maybe the fact that they didn't introduce these ideas into his mind (they basically took the "We won't encourage it but we won't forbid it either" approach, which is what it sounds like Richard did).

ADDITION:

I stepped out for a bit, and while I was out something occurred to me. When there are parents with a religion, we expect the religion to be "inherited" by the kids because it's their environment. However, when the parent is an atheist, we expect these parents (Richard Dawkins or otherwise) to raise their kids in a vacuum, so to speak. In other words, they had better not DARE let on that they're atheists otherwise the kids will pick it up and become atheists themselves. Gasp. And when that does happen, people are quick to blame the parents for influencing the kids.

The fact is, no matter what kind of household you grow up in, you're going to be influenced by your parents' views, whether it means agreeing with them or rejecting them. I grew up in a mostly secular Jewish household. My mother dragged us to services on the high holidays, and my dad just toed the line. My mother loved going to services, and my older brother constantly asked, "Why do we have to do this? What's the point?" Whether it's genetic or environmental, I agreed-- and still agree-- with my brother. Likely I was influenced by his views, but I could have just as easily been influenced by my mother's views.

There are some views that my parents have that I strongly agree with and others that I strongly disagree with, and always have. My mother always believed in masculine and feminine etiquette. Even as a child, I always thought that was ridiculous, that whatever rules apply to females should apply to males, and vice versa. My father more or less agreed with me on that, but it didn't come up in conversation with him until I went to him (I was probably about 10 or 11) to complain that my mother was telling me that, say, telling fart jokes or having belching contests with my male cousin was unladylike.

As for Richard's letter to his daughter, I am sure that there are people out there who are going to accuse him of browbeating his daughter into believing like him. I did not get that impression from his letter at all. In fact, I thought it was a lovely letter. From the context in which I read it in "The Devil's Chaplain," I got the impression that this was a frightened parent who was watching helplessly as his child was being indoctrinated into Catholicism and was afraid for her emotional health, afraid that she would go through life with a constant fear of going to hell. What else can one do in a situation like that when one has minimal control? I think the letter was the right thing to do-- inform her of his worldview without ramming it down her throat.

Madelyn Murray O'Hare, on the other hand, browbeat her child into being an atheist. She didn't say, "I don't believe in God." She said, "There is no god." Surprise, surprise, her son grew up to be a fundamentalist Christian. Just like when children have religion rammed down their throats and grow up to be atheists, Madelyn's son rebelled. It's a very common reaction to an extremist home life, I think.

At any rate, let's say for the sake of argument that Richard had made some bad mistakes in raising his child. Well, I'm sure he has. EVERY parent does, and no parents are perfect. My parents made a lot of mistakes with me, but their hearts were in the right place and they did the best they could. The problem is, with atheist parents, every mistake they make is chalked up against them and chalked up to their atheism.

What a sad state of affairs.

Julie

Other Comments by InYourFaceNewYorker

19. Comment #443807 by God fearing Atheist on December 22, 2009 at 12:06 am

12. Comment #443778 by oriole

I'm trying to view part 1 in the UK and getting this:

"Richard Dawkins on Elders with Andrew Denton (Part 1/3) (12-20-09)"

This video contains content from Channel 4, who has decided to block it in your country.

Parts 2 & 3 are fine.

Other Comments by God fearing Atheist

20. Comment #443824 by Net on December 22, 2009 at 12:58 am

a very disappointing performance from andrew denton :(

Other Comments by Net

21. Comment #443826 by blitz442 on December 22, 2009 at 1:09 am

14. Comment #443782 by Richard Dawkins

Of course the religious are engaging in distortion and name-calling.

What else are they going to do, argue the merits of their position?

Other Comments by blitz442

22. Comment #443834 by zeroangel on December 22, 2009 at 1:57 am

Speaking of Santa, I must have mentioned before on this website that my brothers and I would set elaborate traps for Santa including falling blocks, tripwires, and bells. All this was to alert us of his arrival.

Dammit all if we always caught our father.

It's a good thing the, "spike the milk and cookies with a strong sedative" idea never got off the ground (if for no other reason, a lack of access to strong sedatives being as how we were children).

OT, I know, I just thought some people might get a kick out of it.

I'm still not quite sure how I am going to deal with the whole Santa / Tooth Fairy bit with junior (6 mos. old now). I remember feeling a bit upset when I found out I was lied to and played for the fool by my parents WRT Santa, but then, I guess I wasn't a "normal" child.

Other Comments by zeroangel

23. Comment #443835 by InYourFaceNewYorker on December 22, 2009 at 2:03 am

What's WRT?

I remember when I stopped believing, I felt grown-up... so I told everybody who would listen that there was no Santa Claus. ;)

Other Comments by InYourFaceNewYorker

24. Comment #443836 by Reckless Monkey on December 22, 2009 at 2:04 am

Re:Comment #443826 by blitz442

"Of course the religious are engaging in distortion and name-calling.

What else are they going to do, argue the merits of their position? "

Actually Denton is an atheist. Which is why I was hoping for a better cut. Look at the extended web extra stuff on ABC it should of been cut differently http://www.abc.net.au/tv/elders/ unless ABC has blocked content for outside regions.

Other Comments by Reckless Monkey

25. Comment #443838 by zeroangel on December 22, 2009 at 2:06 am

With
Respect
To

Other Comments by zeroangel

26. Comment #443846 by Inferno on December 22, 2009 at 3:20 am

Disappointing interview from Denton.

Some interesting points were touched on - Dawkins' letter to his 10 year daughter about belief and evidence, for example - that could had lead to an interesting discussion of how to raise children without religion. But alas Denton missed it (or it ended up on the cutting room floor).

The "how do you define.." questions were tedious. He asked about 3 or 4 of these style questions. And even when Dawkins said he had nothing to add to the dictionary definition, Denton didn't try to rephrase the question, eg "how do you define achievement" to "What have been your greatest achivements£"

Denton has done his own movie about religious extremists, so it is disappointing he didn't have much new to ask here. At one point I almost thought he was going to bring up the Stalin was an atheist line.

Other Comments by Inferno

27. Comment #443849 by Enlightenme.. on December 22, 2009 at 3:46 am

I actually quite enjoyed this, it's a pleasant change to see Richard squirming under a personal interrogation to which he has no prepared answers.

He's gonna have to tell us where he gets his morals sooner or later! Does he shove the fat man off the bridge?

When's he gonna get the call up to do 'This is your life' or 'Desert island discs' I wonder.

Other Comments by Enlightenme..

28. Comment #443853 by Fuller on December 22, 2009 at 5:01 am

Denton can be a very good interviewer, but I think he was a little out of his depth here - his usual tricks didn't work. Which isn't very surprising.

As has been said above, he goes for personal angles and tries to surprise his subjects, this works best on actors/standard celebrities who are used to the typical narrow range of questions. If they don't know him they're not expecting it, and he can get some very interesting conversations going that way.

But not this time.

Other Comments by Fuller

29. Comment #443855 by Skeptic Pete on December 22, 2009 at 5:36 am

There is a discussion about this interview on the Australian ABC science website...


http://www2b.abc.net.au/science/k2/stn/newposts/4470/topic4470457.shtm

Other Comments by Skeptic Pete

30. Comment #443868 by caradoc on December 22, 2009 at 7:43 am

I watched the last part of the interview, and wish the line of interview had been better. Tackle Dawkins on the difficulties he has faced, ask him about why he arrived at his opinions etc. Shame. Both the interviewer and interviewee are far more interesting than this episode demonstrates.

Cheers,

Giles.

Other Comments by caradoc

31. Comment #443905 by Kliwon on December 22, 2009 at 10:04 am

Richard, I wouldn't be too worried about being described as strident. They have heard it used elsewhere (in the religious blog in 'The Age' newspaper, you are normally described as 'strident' or 'shrill' by detractors) and have just repeated it. It piques peoples' interest. Hopefully, it got more people to watch and find out what you are actually like.

It could be worse, we refer to the Leader of the Opposition, an ex-seminarian named Abott, as 'the Mad Monk'. And, his deputy's name is Bishop.

Cheers,

Frank

Other Comments by Kliwon

32. Comment #443911 by Glen Coulton on December 22, 2009 at 10:47 am

I was so angry with the way that Andrew Denton conducted the interview that I submitted this letter to two newspapers, neither of which is likely to print it:
"If Diddums Watson's petulant performance on taking Chris Gayle's wicket hadn't shamed Australia enough, Andrew Denton's interview of Richard Dawkins (Elders, ABC TV December 21) finished the job. You would not invite the world's greatest ballerina to be interviewed and spend the entire time trying to embarrass her for not knowing the finer points of ping pong; neither should you spend virtually an entire interview trying to confuse one of the world's leading evolutionary biologists and atheists with trick questions unrelated to his area of expertise. Dawkins is famous for his views on Darwinian evolution and for arguing that those who believe in gods are deluded. Denton ensured that Dawkins was afforded no opportunity to state his views, let alone defend them. Instead of getting what most of us would have tuned in for, we got a full 30 minutes of Denton's, look-at-me-I'm-cleverer-than-he cuteness, all delivered with a self-satisfied expression that would have made Peter Costello's smirk look like a smile."
For non-Aussies, Watson is an Australian cricketer who carried on like a spoilt three year old on uppers when he managed to dismiss Chris Gayle, the captain of the West Indies cricket team, a couple of days before the Elders interview, and Peter Costello was a long term Treasurer in the previous government famous for his smug smirk.

I think that Australia owes Richard Dawkins an apology for this interview.

Other Comments by Glen Coulton

33. Comment #443926 by AtheistJon on December 22, 2009 at 12:56 pm

Richard, I really appreciated what you said about the pernicious effect of fairy tales, and how it must affect children's discipline with reality.

RICHARD DAWKINS: ...I do wonder sometimes whether magical fiction- where you have spells and princes turning into frogs and things like that- whether that actually might have a pernicious effect upon the child mind.

ANDREW DENTON: In what way?

RICHARD DAWKINS: By giving the child the idea that anything goes, that there's no discipline to reality. I'm only kind of asking the question. Is it possible that teaching children about fairies with magic wands and sleeping beauties and frogs turning into princes, that that actually does set up a kind of counter reality view of the world, which might pre-dispose them to religion, which is also magical in the same sense, but also might undermine the tendency to a sceptical take on reality, which I think is important, and actually wonderful. Because the world, the real world, the real universe is wonderful. You don't need the cheap and tawdry magic of frogs turning into princes, you've got a much better magical in a better sense- reality out there.

I've been recently trying to explain to my son (11 years old) why I prefer (now that I'm no longer a child, myself) non-fiction over fiction. Explaining how reality based writing has a special bonus for me simply because it's real.

My son countered that fiction is great for the imagination, and though I had to agree with his point, something in my conscience bothers me a bit about this... Of course I do get a spark of the imagination with stories like Lord of the Rings, Robinson Crusoe, and Star Wars and other classic lit. He's right about that. But, still I wonder if it would be better for my son if I would start him off reading something reality based. Problem is that often times science books are too hard for him to understand, without the background. Same for history books, at least in many examples, unless you have a background already. They can also be too dry for a child's taste. And finally, biographies are often too adult in nature to really expose to a young child. This being said, I do have some non-fiction in mind that might work with him.

For my daughter, who is only 7, I have a much harder time. Together we like to watch movies... and I got her interested in movies with real people in them, not just cartoons. I think that this has made a positive impact on her... but her mother doesn't always appreciate that we watch such "mature" movies... eg. Titanic is one of her favorites. Alas, after we first watched it, we noticed that on the next day she had (completely on her own) taken her pens and pencils out and drawn a picture of a naked woman (Rose), and that mildly bothered me. Also, sort of amusing...

One of the things I used to like to do with her, though, is when reading a book in which real animals and fantasy are combined, I quiz her to see if she can distinguish the real animals from the pretend ones. i.e. Are unicorns and dragons real? I also agree with her saying "yes" to dragons as long as she can point out what a real Komodo dragon is like ;-)

Anyway, just wanted to laud your comments in this interview. I completely agree with you on the subject of fairy tale perniciousness.

Other Comments by AtheistJon

34. Comment #443938 by root2squared on December 22, 2009 at 2:07 pm

RICHARD DAWKINS: By giving the child the idea that anything goes, that there's no discipline to reality. I'm only kind of asking the question. Is it possible that teaching children about fairies with magic wands and sleeping beauties and frogs turning into princes, that that actually does set up a kind of counter reality view of the world, which might pre-dispose them to religion, which is also magical in the same sense, but also might undermine the tendency to a sceptical take on reality, which I think is important, and actually wonderful. Because the world, the real world, the real universe is wonderful. You don't need the cheap and tawdry magic of frogs turning into princes, you've got a much better magical in a better sense- reality out there.

The solution is to inject science and reason into fiction

Edited.

Other Comments by root2squared

35. Comment #443940 by MrHatken on December 22, 2009 at 2:13 pm

It certainly wasn’t the best interview Andrew Denton has done, but it obviously takes two to interview. Andrew usually interviews people to find out interesting things about them, he's very much focussed on the interviewee.

The interview was meant to be about RD, which of course includes his work, but also his personal beliefs, opinions, thoughts, ... thoughts on "success" etc. There are, of course, many interviews of RD on evolution and science and religion.

Of course, RD has every right not to answer any question, but I don't think Andrew was looking for any ultimate truth. The important thing was the "you" in the questions, as Andrew pointed out, not that there are dictionary answers.

I don't think Andrew is strident or would "hear what he wants to hear." The error in transcription was surely just an error. His final "joke" didn't work too well either. I think it was just an unfortunate outcome - these things happen.

Cheers,
Ashley.

Other Comments by MrHatken

36. Comment #443943 by blitz442 on December 22, 2009 at 2:18 pm

24. Comment #443836 by Reckless Monkey

Well then that is slightly embarrassing on my part. I shouldn't comment if I don't have time to read the document at the top of the thread.

Just reapply my comment for the next time a theist reviews one of Richard's books.

Other Comments by blitz442

37. Comment #443953 by Sciros on December 22, 2009 at 3:33 pm

My son countered that fiction is great for the imagination, and though I had to agree with his point, something in my conscience bothers me a bit about this... Of course I do get a spark of the imagination with stories like Lord of the Rings, Robinson Crusoe, and Star Wars and other classic lit. He's right about that. But, still I wonder if it would be better for my son if I would start him off reading something reality based. Problem is that often times science books are too hard for him to understand, without the background. Same for history books, at least in many examples, unless you have a background already. They can also be too dry for a child's taste. And finally, biographies are often too adult in nature to really expose to a young child. This being said, I do have some non-fiction in mind that might work with him.

If a child has an active imagination then nurture it. Don't stunt it. Our brains have an immense capacity for imaginative thought, for visualizing concepts that don't exist in the world around us. Why on Earth would you fight that?

This is the one thing that I think Richard is dead wrong on. Make that way past dead wrong. Super ultra mega wrong. Earth-is-6000-years-old wrong. (I am exaggerating here to encourage you to keep reading.)

Guess how many children in the world living today have grown up atheist? Over a billion! China, Japan, Russia, much of the rest of the former USSR, much of Europe. Add it all up, you end up with a whole lot of people.

These people all read fairy tales, fantasy books, they watch movies, they play video games. They engage their imagination by consuming the products of others' imagination. If you want to know whether it "has a pernicious effect upon the child mind" there's a shit ton of people out there to look at. I submit it does not.

We need and want people who have a developed imagination. (And we want developed imaginations ourselves!) Who do you think draws your fucking dinosaurs for you that you see on TV eating 3-D leaves? Who creates "artists' renderings" of black holes, gamma ray bursts, and all the cool space shit you see?

Who makes movies, who writes poetry, who writes novels, who designs games, advertisements, the pattern on your clothing, the shape of your car?

Ferraris are not just built for aerodynamics. That's why they don't look like Lamborghinis, which don't look like a BMW 750. Actually maybe a BMW 750 is what someone with no imagination thought up.

Richard may be on the right track in that if you sufficiently stunt the development of a child's imagination, you may prevent that child from acquiring certain particularly "imaginative" religious beliefs. But here's a newsflash: religion's not all that imaginative (oil seeping from a wall is a miracle in Australia), and far more based on the real human condition than what you'll find our imagination is producing today.

I grew up reading all sorts of fiction and non-fiction. I read the Three Musketeers when I was three, and all the Greek myths I could get my hands on when I was four. When I was six I turned my interests to dinosaurs (of course), thanks to artists' imaginative depictions (as opposed to, you know, nothing but illustrations of incomplete skeletons) of creatures that lived in a time that we could really only imagine. I did not grow up in a religious household. Reading fiction did not make my me at all confused about what is real and what isn't real. If I wanted to know whether dragons existed, I asked my parents, and they said 'no.' If I wanted to know whether rhinoceroses existed, I asked my parents, and they said 'yes.' I wonder, had I grown up having only been exposed to non-fiction and not having learned to filter what is real and what is not, what would happen when I did chance upon fiction for the first time as an older child or adult.

Ever seen The Invention of Lying? It's a silly movie, but it might give you a hint.

Well, I think I've made my stance clear enough. I understand that someone with a lot of time on their hands will say "but you're just making unsupported assertions that have not been scientifically verified." If you want to run a long-term experiment on the effects of denying children exposure to any fiction and see the effect it has on them, from religiosity to their own imagination and creativity and social function, that is your prerogative. But my hypothesis is that the children who aren't sheltered from fiction will be far better off.

Other Comments by Sciros

38. Comment #443961 by Vaal on December 22, 2009 at 3:47 pm

37. Comment #443953 by Sciros

grew up reading all sorts of fiction and non-fiction. I read the Three Musketeers when I was three, and all the Greek myths I could get my hands on when I was four

Wow, Sciros. I had trouble with Paddington Bear at that age :)

Yep, totally agree. I love fiction as well. If it wasn't for science fiction, how would we have the dreams and imagination to walk on the moon, to explore the solar system, to reach the stars.

Other Comments by Vaal

39. Comment #443962 by AtheistJon on December 22, 2009 at 3:49 pm

But my hypothesis is that the children who aren't sheltered from fiction will be far better off.

Just a quick retort to Sciros. Notice that I didn't say "shelter them from fiction". What my goal is, is to help encourage the idea that reality can be way more interesting than fiction, for my kids. In no way does it mean I would want to limit their imagination.

My one question to you, though, is why is it that you connect non-fiction with no imagination?

One of my favorite genre's are historical novels. For example, Mika Waltari's book Sinuhe the Egyptian or Wilbur Smith's novels about Africa and Egypt. Also, the Rome series by HBO. Do you consider this genre as a realm devoid of creativity and imagination?

I do like fiction, but I just think there's way too much emphasis on it, as compared to imaginitive but reality-based stories.

Other Comments by AtheistJon

40. Comment #443965 by Sciros on December 22, 2009 at 4:01 pm

AtheistJon,

Notice that I didn't say "shelter them from fiction".

I did notice that, and I do notice that you make no attempt to shelter your children. I quoted you instead of quoting Richard but that's because I think you and others who I consider my "peers" (as far as this forum is concerned at least) are more likely to pay attention to my posts, heh.

What my goal is, is to help encourage the idea that reality can be way more interesting than fiction, for my kids.

I think you can run the idea by them, but of course they will decide that for themselves so it's probably unnecessary. I find reality quite interesting of course, but we should note that many of the most "awe-inspiring" things about reality, the bleeding edge of our knowledge, that stuff is interesting because it challenges our imagination! A supermassive black hole at the center of a galaxy -- that's reality. And as you just read that last sentence, you had to imagine what that might look like, or pictured an image someone else imagined and drew. I think it should be stressed that reality is interesting, especially in case you fear that your kids may become avoidant or something based on their personality, but I don't think that really needs to be stressed "at the expense of" fictional works.

In no way does it mean I would want to limit their imagination.

Fair enough. My response was really more aimed at Richard's proposal than yours, even though I quoted you so as to spark further discussion.

why is it that you connect non-fiction with no imagination?

From a literary or artistic standpoint, I would say they are mutually exclusive. One can say that "imagining" a transitional form is staying within non-fiction, and I would be inclined to agree, but I find that to be, for obvious reasons, a very constrained imagination. As it needs to be in order to be scientifically plausible and, indeed, non-fiction.

One of my favorite genre's are historical novels. For example, Mika Waltari's book Sinuhe the Egyptian. Also, the Rome series by HBO. Do you consider this genre as a realm devoid of creativity and imagination?

Do you consider this genre non-fiction? Because it's fiction. Historical fiction. :-)

I do like fiction, but I just think there's way too much emphasis on it, as compared to imaginitive but reality-based stories.

Well, everything is "reality-based" to a degree. Would there necessarily be a point at which the degree is so small as to be problematic? Probably not (well, if you stray too far from reality I'd presume you start to lose coherence which is a different problem). Really the only problem that fiction can have is if it starts being treated as non-fiction! And I submit that the best way to avoid that confusion is to expose a child to both so that they can learn to make the distinction and appreciate both without worry.

Other Comments by Sciros

41. Comment #444048 by The Truth, the light on December 22, 2009 at 8:15 pm

oriole wrote:

Richard, I think it would be worthwhile for you to have them correct the transcript; otherwise, the Liars for Jesus will spread this misquote all over the interwebs.

Not sure if the cretinists have got hold of that line yet, but I did see the misquote used in the ABC Science online forum

From: Bubblecar ® 22/12/2009 12:49:55 PM
Subject: re: Richard Dawkins on Elders post id: 4470579
>IIRC he said he had gone along with all the usual myths with his own child(ren?).


No, he says (in the transcript, linked above):

>Well no, I mean all that kind of thing you know, the Tooth Fairy and Father Christmas, we went along without all of that.

Other Comments by The Truth, the light

42. Comment #444085 by InYourFaceNewYorker on December 22, 2009 at 9:38 pm

I really would like to see some kind of study done re: fairy tales and reading them leading to being more likely to believe in religion. I am puzzled as to why Richard would think that children believe in the stories in fairy tales (or maybe I'm misunderstanding). I know I didn't, but maybe some children do. At any rate, it sounds like he's just questioning-- much in the way I might question if stories about princesses looking for Prince Charming adversely affect little girls' minds-- not automatically saying that it is true. What about you guys here? Did any of you believe in the fairy tales you read as a child?

I think Richard is advocating imagination, but tapping imagination via different routes. I sort of agree with him on that and sort of don't. One thing I will say about fantasies that I think was valuable to me: "TaleSpin" was one of my favorite cartoons as a kid, and one of the reasons that I liked it so much was because of Kit Cloudkicker and his airfoil (a collapsible board for sky surfing-- or cloudsurfing as the show called it). I remember noticing that Kit's airfoil had no straps on it, and that it should fall out from underneath him... and it was precisely BECAUSE of this impossibility that I was so intrigued. I remember fantasizing and even having dreams at night about surfing through the sky on the airfoil and enjoying the thrill of violating the laws of physics. It was a bit of an escape for me. :)

The stories that resonate with me the most these days are ones that I can relate to in some way, whether or not they are fairy tale is incidental. "Edward Scissorhands" I think is a great movie about social isolation (and it comes across as an allegory about Asperger's Syndrome) told in the form of a fairy tale.

At any rate, it doesn't sound like he meant that Richard banned such stories in his house (and he said in TGD that he read "His Dark Materials" which is fantasy). That would be low, I think. I remember volunteering at a day care center in high school, and one of the teachers there told me she hadn't been allowed to read Dr. Seuss books as a child because they weren't educational. When I hear stories like that...ugh...

Julie

Other Comments by InYourFaceNewYorker

43. Comment #444092 by The Duke on December 22, 2009 at 9:56 pm

I think Denton was entitled to ask Richard about his personality and how he views/defines concepts like success and wisdom. That's what 'Elders' is all about - it's not a science or 'theology' program. It's clear that Richard didn't do his homework on what to expect.

Take wisdom. I'm pretty sure that Richard has a different definition of that concept, than say Ken Ham or Ray Comfort. A simple definition of wisdom - the ability to make sensible decisions and judgments based on personal knowledge and experience (taken from Encarta) - would suit both Richard and those crazies, but perhaps RD would also add something about making sure that you go beyond your immediate personal knowledge and do your best to listen to all views, no matter how antithetical they may be to your personal knowledge. I don't know if that's what he'd say, because he didn't answer the question.

That said, once it was clear to Denton that Richard had no insightful answers to such questions, he should not have continued to ask questions of that nature.

Finally, I was surprised at how Richard behaved when the interview was over. It was a cracking joke from Denton and I'd like to think that Richard would appreciate it. It may have even been one of those occasions when he could have laughed at himself.

Other Comments by The Duke

44. Comment #444097 by InYourFaceNewYorker on December 22, 2009 at 10:01 pm

But Richard did laugh after Denton revealed that he was kidding.

Other Comments by InYourFaceNewYorker

45. Comment #444184 by secondsoprano on December 23, 2009 at 6:12 am

I remember thinking when I heard it that I disagree with Richard's comment about the fairy tales.

I think reading lots of fairy tales, mythology and fantasy - including the Jesus fairy tale - is essential for helping children distinguish between fantasy & reality. As they mature, they gradually come to understand that some things are real and some are made-up, and how to tell the difference.

This can only be helpful in rearing the next generation of rational thinkers.

Whereas if you only expose them to "reality", they might not be well equipped to know when they are presented with something which someone tells them is real, but isn't (eg religion, politics).

We Australians call this a "bullshit detector", and most of us have a well-tuned one...

Other Comments by secondsoprano

46. Comment #444219 by SaintStephen on December 23, 2009 at 11:20 am

The interview format was essentially adversarial. I thought Denton's questions were inane, and clearly Richard was on his guard the entire time. One could see the tension in Richard's brow, because he was trying so hard not to say something that could be taken out of context. Denton gave away his hand anyway by saying "I'm not trying to trap you, or anything." Sure, Andrew.

In retrospect however, and despite the fact that it was merely a happy accident, this interview turned out to be mesmerizing from a psychological perspective. Denton betrayed himself as a man content with the vapidity of religious faith, and the delusional comfort it brings. I'm quite certain Andrew Denton also considers himself to be modest, when exactly the opposite demeanor was written all over his smug, simple face. Richard, on the other hand, continually displayed true modesty, the modesty of a man who lives in a perpetual state of doubt and scientific curiosity; an intellectual who constantly questions himself and his own motives, in a never-ending search for truth and clarity.

Denton's face was was emotionless and ovine, and his vague, open-ended questions betrayed his shallowness and mental laziness. Richard's face, conversely, was animated and alive with sensitivity and complex, roiling emotions -- a brilliant kaleidoscope of cognition juxtaposed against Denton's beige blandness and acceptance of things he feels are beyond his understanding.

I mean, to ask someone straight out "What is your moral code?" without any qualification or context is clear evidence that Denton's personal answer would have fit easily onto two primitive stone tablets. Richard was polite to give him something he could chew on, namely his statement regarding the Golden Rule and how much he despises the intrusion of religious "morality" into areas of human sexuality. Instead of developing this provocative subject further, Denton chose to play an IQ-challenged Sigmund Freud and proceeded to ask Richard how he would "deal with" his feeling of despisement, a question Richard then slapped down like a wayward red-headed stepchild. Strike three on Andrew Denton.

If a handheld meter existed that could measure brain activity, and I was allowed to shut off all the lights in the studio where this interview took place, I'm quite certain I could locate Richard with the greatest of ease, while locating Denton would require a couple of twists clockwise on the Gain Knob.

Well done, Richard. You did very well in a faux-friendly setting which actually seethed with ignorance and contempt for your (our) views.

Other Comments by SaintStephen

47. Comment #444221 by borsalino on December 23, 2009 at 11:23 am

That really pissed me off when the promo described Richard as strident. Denton should know better than that. He's a clever interviewer but he really stuffed this one up.

Other Comments by borsalino

48. Comment #444232 by aussieatheist_111 on December 23, 2009 at 12:49 pm

Shame about this - Denton is a top quality interviewer, certainly one of Australia's best, and it disheartens me that so many people were disappointed.

Other Comments by aussieatheist_111

49. Comment #444302 by PERSON on December 23, 2009 at 7:55 pm

I can think of several ways that fiction is useful in kids' development:
1. for examining situations for which there is not and cannot be sufficient information to describe events both with full qualification and in terms that relate somewhat directly, naturally and intuitively to readers' own experiences.
2. for considering alternative possibilities as a way of fleshing out the parameter-space of reality. The core of SF. It seems to me that in some disciplines, e.g. politics, this doesn't happen enough. A question being hypothetical (rather than improbable, since there is no method save consensus-- often within groups or coalitions-- for determining probability in political thought, it seems to me) is sufficient grounds to dismiss it.
3. as a way of making an argument about the nature of the world, e.g. how minds and personalities tend to interact. This requires a degree of insight on the part of the reader, and the expectation of that insight can help it to develop

This is all opinion, though. More interesting would be consideration of how to develop these such that they can be broken down into testable assertions.

Other Comments by PERSON

50. Comment #444357 by InYourFaceNewYorker on December 24, 2009 at 2:41 am

I agree, PERSON.

Other Comments by InYourFaceNewYorker