Skip to main content

No More Unicorns

Richard Dawkins must be pleased with the emerging revelations that Michael Jackson appears to have been a cocktail-drunk drug addict, hopped up on numerous meds to keep the anxiety and despair at bay. After all - that's another myth gone - a genuine hero that people could love. Or maybe, Jackson was tarnished as long ago as 1995, anyway, and had no more to lose. Still, it rankles that Britain's top atheist has set up a summer camp for kids, where - I kid you not - there will be a prize for the best proof of the non-existence of unicorns. No doubt, they will also be taught (incorrectly) that there is no Father Christmas, too.

Now, it may be okay for Dawkins to peddle his sad and empty sophistry to adults, but surely he should resist the urge to hang with the kids, and steal what little wonder and innocence they have left. When adults do that to children, we have a name for it. Now, some may think taking a child's imagination is not a sin, so long as their parents have granted permission, but I wonder - isn't that frail and tentative thing called hope and wonder - that key aspect of being young - too-soon taken from us anyway?

Why encourage the young to kill their dreams, their beasts, their magic and their monsters, before 18? The adult world will tax them, will send them to war, and will subject them to mindless work - the least it can do is leave them alone until then. I have nothing against education, but there's that, then there's indoctrination. Dawkins is increasingly becoming a pest. When will Britain stop believing in him?

Comments

Unknown said…
Christopher Hitchens provides a good antidote to Dawkins' type of atheism.

I love Hitchen's style and passion. His God is Not Great is a pleasure to read. Orwell and Spinoza truly are better traditions to build on than the various religious nightmares that today are dogging us.
Ms Baroque said…
Fabulous, Todd. Seems a bit much to kill the unicorns all over again, for pleasure.

None of my kids are allowed to say there's no such thing as Father Christmas. Life's just too short for that. Anyway, there's a French picture book called Father Christmas - the Truth - and FC himself gave that book to my eldest when he was 13 and started going around tellign his sister there was no such thing! That soon shut him up I can tell you.

You're right about Dawkins - he's a pest, peddling a particularly obnoxious form of born-again intolerance.
Mark Granier said…
Yes, Dawkins is a bit of a dullard, a Gradgrind, though probably a relatively harmless one. His campaign to rename atheists "brights" never caught on (thank goodness).

However, forgive me but I find the idea of M. Jackson as "a genuine hero that people could love" about as credible (or useful) as M.J. the important cultural icon/musician/"artist". That's not to say that people can't love him or stick him on a pedestal as high as that rather sinister and totalitarian looking sky-scraping statue in one of his soppier music videos. People can and do "love" (or scream themselves hoarse at) anyone/thing they want to; they loved Gary Glitter (for awhile anyway); they loved the Spice Girls and Sarah Palin.

M.J. was a good mover (even if he repeated those moves endlessly) who put out a few pleasurably catchy pop numbers, the kind that are hard to get out of one's head and keep rattling around in there like spare change. His music had about as much soul as an ad jingle; Tom Paulin had it about right when he expressed puzzlement that anyone could get excited about about M.J's sound, which he described as "non-stick, Teflon music". Put one of the real icons (Armstrong/Ella/Billie Holliday) beside M.J. and he quickly fades, like an unwatered potted plant in a strong sun.

But plenty of people will still love him, to distraction, for just as long as they want. As with Madonna, he had some talent, and cut a figure for awhile, then he got that hyper-unreal machinery behind him (which hastened his pitiable self-destruction) and exploded into Christ/Father Christmas for anyone who needed such a pop-up dream in their living room (Lady Di fulfilled a similar function across the pond). Whatever about his loving fans, I suspect the poor guy is far better off now; anyone who can treat their own body that way (bleaching his skin, shaving his nose to a nib...) can't really love himself a whole lot, can he?
As far as I know, the camps are designed to engage children with the wonders of the natural world. It annoys me when I constantly hear such hollow claims that the naturalistic worlview is "empty". As Douglas Adams said, isn't it enough to appreciate the beauty of the garden without having to believe that fairies live at the bottom of it?

The Camp Quest project actually came about in America, where many summer camps have a fundamentalist Christian agenda. If you want to see a truly disgusting example of an ideology being forced upon impressionable children I recommend the documentary Jesus Camp. The sad fact is that camps such as Pastor Betty Fischer's are legion and doing far more damage to children's innocence than the four camps in the world that encourage a naturalistic viewpoint.

As for the unicorn gripe, I find that most children know that unicorns dont exist, they have no real problem telling make believe and fairy tale from reality in that respect. But then again, children aren't taught that Unicorns are patriarchal authority figures that would punish them eternally for not believing in them.

I suppose I would like Dawkins less if every book he wrote was The God Delusion. It's my least favourite work of his, I guess we all have a chip on our shoulder about something, eh Todd? Luckily, Dawkins has written some of the most breathtaking science books in print, I recommend that one day you might actually get round to reading one of them.
Mark Granier said…
Excellent points Niall, especially regarding the unicorns and Jesus camps. My dismissal of Dawkins as a dullard/Gradgrind was far too narrow-minded, based entirely on the combative and self-congratulatory stance he takes in his articles on religion vs. atheism. I confess I haven't read much of his science writing, but enough to realise that he is capable of some beautiful and intelligent flights of thought (rather than fancy).

Popular posts from this blog

CLIVE WILMER'S THOM GUNN SELECTED POEMS IS A MUST-READ

THAT HANDSOME MAN  A PERSONAL BRIEF REVIEW BY TODD SWIFT I could lie and claim Larkin, Yeats , or Dylan Thomas most excited me as a young poet, or even Pound or FT Prince - but the truth be told, it was Thom Gunn I first and most loved when I was young. Precisely, I fell in love with his first two collections, written under a formalist, Elizabethan ( Fulke Greville mainly), Yvor Winters triad of influences - uniquely fused with an interest in homerotica, pop culture ( Brando, Elvis , motorcycles). His best poem 'On The Move' is oddly presented here without the quote that began it usually - Man, you gotta go - which I loved. Gunn was - and remains - so thrilling, to me at least, because so odd. His elegance, poise, and intelligence is all about display, about surface - but the surface of a panther, who ripples with strength beneath the skin. With Gunn, you dressed to have sex. Or so I thought.  Because I was queer (I maintain the right to lay claim to that

IQ AND THE POETS - ARE YOU SMART?

When you open your mouth to speak, are you smart?  A funny question from a great song, but also, a good one, when it comes to poets, and poetry. We tend to have a very ambiguous view of intelligence in poetry, one that I'd say is dysfunctional.  Basically, it goes like this: once you are safely dead, it no longer matters how smart you were.  For instance, Auden was smarter than Yeats , but most would still say Yeats is the finer poet; Eliot is clearly highly intelligent, but how much of Larkin 's work required a high IQ?  Meanwhile, poets while alive tend to be celebrated if they are deemed intelligent: Anne Carson, Geoffrey Hill , and Jorie Graham , are all, clearly, very intelligent people, aside from their work as poets.  But who reads Marianne Moore now, or Robert Lowell , smart poets? Or, Pound ?  How smart could Pound be with his madcap views? Less intelligent poets are often more popular.  John Betjeman was not a very smart poet, per se.  What do I mean by smart?

"I have crossed oceans of time to find you..."

In terms of great films about, and of, love, we have Vertigo, In The Mood for Love , and Casablanca , Doctor Zhivago , An Officer and a Gentleman , at the apex; as well as odder, more troubling versions, such as Sophie's Choice and  Silence of the Lambs .  I think my favourite remains Bram Stoker's Dracula , with the great immortal line "I have crossed oceans of time to find you...".