The Enemies of Reason
This is actually a reply to a post on a forum I'm a member of (albeit not a loved member, lol) but I thought I'd post it here too.
It's in relation to Richard Dawkins' latest infliction on humanity - Enemies of Reason.
Dawkins quite clearly sees two distinct groups of people;
1. Those who believe only in scientific facts.
2. Those who believe in more.
As for irrationality - we're humans, not machines.
I think Dawkins took on far too many subjects for what boils down to approximately 90 minutes of television. Derren Brown did a far better job in his show Messiah. Dawkins picked incredibly easy targets. He wasn't exactly original in his approach.
My problem with Dawkins himself is the negative way in which he presents his arguments. In the show he (briefly) raised the issue of future generations not studying science subjects - he then went off on another tirade about how stupid people were. He missed his chance!
Other leaders in their respective fields make shows about their specialist subject; Bettany Hughes showing us how fascinating the history of Ancient Greece can be, Adam Hart-Davis and his holistic approach to history and science, Robert Winston taking us through the wonders of the human body, to mention a few. I know girls at university who want to be Bettany Hughes, not Paris Hilton or Lindsey whateverhernameis - this is what the media can do when used wisely! So why, for the past few years, has Dawkins concentrated his attention on telling the majority of the world's population that they're stupid or irrational instead of concentrating on his own field?
Oh, and one more thing. Science is not the only subject worth studying! Do history, politics, anthropology (cultural), sociology, art, music, etc not come into the human equation at all? If you listened to or read Dawkins you may be excused for thinking not.
Powered by ScribeFire.
It's in relation to Richard Dawkins' latest infliction on humanity - Enemies of Reason.
Dawkins quite clearly sees two distinct groups of people;
1. Those who believe only in scientific facts.
2. Those who believe in more.
As for irrationality - we're humans, not machines.
I think Dawkins took on far too many subjects for what boils down to approximately 90 minutes of television. Derren Brown did a far better job in his show Messiah. Dawkins picked incredibly easy targets. He wasn't exactly original in his approach.
My problem with Dawkins himself is the negative way in which he presents his arguments. In the show he (briefly) raised the issue of future generations not studying science subjects - he then went off on another tirade about how stupid people were. He missed his chance!
Other leaders in their respective fields make shows about their specialist subject; Bettany Hughes showing us how fascinating the history of Ancient Greece can be, Adam Hart-Davis and his holistic approach to history and science, Robert Winston taking us through the wonders of the human body, to mention a few. I know girls at university who want to be Bettany Hughes, not Paris Hilton or Lindsey whateverhernameis - this is what the media can do when used wisely! So why, for the past few years, has Dawkins concentrated his attention on telling the majority of the world's population that they're stupid or irrational instead of concentrating on his own field?
Oh, and one more thing. Science is not the only subject worth studying! Do history, politics, anthropology (cultural), sociology, art, music, etc not come into the human equation at all? If you listened to or read Dawkins you may be excused for thinking not.
Powered by ScribeFire.