Richard Dawkins vs. Harry Potter

ravdin

Illuminator
ravdin
Joined
Oct 16, 2005
Messages
4,985
I came across an article today that lowered my estimation of Richard Dawkins:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ns-Harry-Potter-negative-effect-children.html

Are the Harry Potter books causing an entire generation to grow up believing in witches and wizards? I don't buy it from the Christian fundies in the USA, and I don't buy it from Dawkins either.

I'm disappointed that he would rail against anything that would cause kids to put down their video games and read a book. Does he really think that any entertainment that doesn't incorporate his ideas about rationality and science is harmful? What's next, a book about how kids shouldn't watch Star Wars because the Force has no scientific basis?
 
He's just a bit of a grump really, no surprise. Look to the might of Sagan if you wish to inspire your children to pick up science and breath wonder.
 
The 67-year-old, who recently resigned from his position at Oxford University, says he intends to look at the effects of "bringing children up to believe in spells and wizards".

'I think it is anti-scientific – whether that has a pernicious effect, I don't know,' he told More4 News.

'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 affect on rationality, I'm not sure. Perhaps it's something for research.'
Click to expand...

Having kids read Harry Potter and "bringing children up to believe in spells and wizards" are not the same thing.
 
All hail the Science! Blessed be it's name and Sagan was his prophet.

Seriously, Dawkins is a great writer when it comes to biology but is only okay when it comes to atheism or philosophy.

I disagree with his position on this issue. I think it is silly.
 
Last edited:
ravdin said:
I came across an article today that lowered my estimation of Richard Dawkins:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ns-Harry-Potter-negative-effect-children.html

Are the Harry Potter books causing an entire generation to grow up believing in witches and wizards? I don't buy it from the Christian fundies in the USA, and I don't buy it from Dawkins either.

I'm disappointed that he would rail against anything that would cause kids to put down their video games and read a book. Does he really think that any entertainment that doesn't incorporate his ideas about rationality and science is harmful? What's next, a book about how kids shouldn't watch Star Wars because the Force has no scientific basis?
Click to expand...

I think that Dawkins is being a lot less definite than that. He's claiming to be investigating whether fantasy makes people less able to cope with reality. He isn't making a dogmatic claim.
 
ravdin said:
I came across an article today that lowered my estimation of Richard Dawkins:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ns-Harry-Potter-negative-effect-children.html
Click to expand...

Oh dear. It should instead have lowered your estimation of the Daily Mail. MY estimation of the Daily Mail can't get much lower but read the article more carefully. Take note of what is being said by Richard Dawkins and what is editorial.

ravdin said:
Are the Harry Potter books causing an entire generation to grow up believing in witches and wizards? I don't buy it from the Christian fundies in the USA, and I don't buy it from Dawkins either.
Click to expand...

Mostly because Dawkins isn't saying that people actually do believe that Harry Potter is real.

Compare the actual interview that the Mail is reporting on.

http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/society/religion/dawkins+warning+over+fairy+stories/2640487


The former Professor of the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University wants to find out if fantasy stories affect their readers' abilities to think rationally.

He said: "I haven't read Harry Potter, I have read Pullman who is the other leading children's author that one might mention and I love his books. I don't know what to think about magic and fairytales.

"I would like to know whether there is any evidence that bringing children up to believe in spells and wizards has a pernicious effect.

"So many of the stories I read allowed the possibility of frogs turning into princes and I'm not sure whether that has a sort of insidious affect on rationality. Perhaps it's something for research.
Click to expand...

Not quite the same thing is it.
 
Last edited:
ravdin said:
I came across an article today that lowered my estimation of Richard Dawkins:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ns-Harry-Potter-negative-effect-children.html

Are the Harry Potter books causing an entire generation to grow up believing in witches and wizards? I don't buy it from the Christian fundies in the USA, and I don't buy it from Dawkins either.

I'm disappointed that he would rail against anything that would cause kids to put down their video games and read a book. Does he really think that any entertainment that doesn't incorporate his ideas about rationality and science is harmful? What's next, a book about how kids shouldn't watch Star Wars because the Force has no scientific basis?
Click to expand...

I think you need to read the article a little more carefully. Particularly you need to read the actual quotes. IMO, this is a much better article on the topic:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/libby_purves/article5019221.ece

"Under the misleading headline in another newspaper of “Dawkins warns over ‘pernicious' fairy tales”, we learn that he is writing a book for children explaining how scientific thinking contrasts with myths, and that he plans to look at the effect of books and stories about spells and wizards. Look at the matter, please note: not condemn Harry Potter and Santa unheard. “I don't know what to think about magic and fairy tales,” he says thoughtfully. “It is anti-scientific - whether that has a pernicious effect, I don't know... many of the stories I read in childhood 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.”

Excellent. He wants children to “look at evidence”, but is willing to do the same himself, and accepts that reading about frog princes didn't ruin his career as a biologist by making him spend fruitless decades in the lab, pointing wands at frogs. "

Lets look at the direct quotes:

"I don't know what to think about magic and fairy tales..."
"..whether that has a pernicious effect, I don't know..."
"Whether that has a sort of insidious effect on rationality, I'm not sure."

How anyone can characterise that as railing against Harry Potter or that he is claiming that those books lead to an entire generation growing up believing in witches and wizards is beyond me.

There is one direct quote that could be spun as critical "It is anti-scientific..." but given the context I think even that is a stretch.
 
I don't think he's saying Harry Potter causes anyone to believe in witches and wizards.
He is saying those brought up to believe in the witches and wizards in the book could have a disadvantage.

I think there is a subtle difference, there. But, I could be wrong.
 
"A little nonsense now and then, is cherished by the wisest men."

ETA: It seems pretty clear to me that the one thing in common that most fundamentalists lack is imagination- they are made extraordinarily uncomfortable by that which does not conform to their particular narrow world view. I'd say then that fantsay and the excercise of imagination is therefore essential to the healthy development of an intelligent human being.

If you can't imagine anything except what you already know, where does that leave science but mired in rote dogmatism?
 
Last edited:
Thanks for the alternate article. It puts Dawkins' position into perspective much better than my original link, but I still think he's being absurd. Why stop at Harry Potter- let's examine the effects of The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy on our critical thinking faculties! Are fanciful stories about Vogons and Infinite Improbability Drives harmful to children? I don't have the answer at this time, so I'll have to get back to you when I've carefully examined the evidence.
 
ravdin said:
Thanks for the alternate article. It puts Dawkins' position into perspective much better than my original link, but I still think he's being absurd. Why stop at Harry Potter- let's examine the effects of The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy on our critical thinking faculties! Are fanciful stories about Vogons and Infinite Improbability Drives harmful to children? I don't have the answer at this time, so I'll have to get back to you when I've carefully examined the evidence.
Click to expand...

I think the potential difference is that by the time people read Hitchhiker's Guide or watch Star Wars, they know that what they are reading/watching is fiction. Whether or not that is the case with children and fairy tales / Santa / Tooth fairy is open to debate, but I think you can make a case that some proportion of those children do not see them as fiction. Not having read Harry Potter, my guess would be that it is in the former rather than the latter category.

Of course what he is actually doing is promoting his own book, and the media are spinning it to try and generate an eye-catching headline.
 
'I think it is anti-scientific – whether that has a pernicious effect, I don't know,' he told More4 News.
Click to expand...

I see Harry Potter as "non-scientific", not "anti-scientific". I think that the kids for whom it is written are well aware of the difference between fiction and reality. My daughter is 9 (well below the general age range for those books) and she's in the middle of book 2, and she's dressing up as Hermione for Halloween, but she doesn't for a moment believe she can cast spells with a flick of her wrist and a few words in pseudo-Latin.

Despite enjoying Harry Potter, she still understands heliocentric theory and climates and evolution.
 
In fact, now that I think of it, the whole backlash to Harry Potter (the religious backlash, not Dawkins) reminds me a lot of the demon-possessed, suicidal, Satanist D&D players of the 1970's and 80's....among whom, I count myself a proud member.
 
paximperium said:
All hail the Science! Blessed be it's name and Sagan was his prophet.

Seriously, Dawkins is a great writer when it comes to biology but is only okay when it comes to atheism or philosophy.

I disagree with his position on this issue. I think it is silly.
Click to expand...


Dawkins certainly comes off like Mr Gradgrind in Dickens "Hard Times" in this matter.
I think the celebrity is beginning to have an impact on Dawkins...and it is not good, as it seldom is in these cases.
 
My dad read the hobbit to me as bedtime story.
I still had a clear understanding of the differrence between fairytale and reality.

Dawkins admit that he don´t know if fairytales makes people more supersticius, fair enough.
 
dudalb said:
Dawkins certainly comes off like Mr Gradgrind in Dickens "Hard Times" in this matter.
I think the celebrity is beginning to have an impact on Dawkins...and it is not good, as it seldom is in these cases.
Click to expand...

No.

You just need to read the article rather than the extremely misleading headline.
 
Jaggy Bunnet said:
I think the potential difference is that by the time people read Hitchhiker's Guide or watch Star Wars, they know that what they are reading/watching is fiction.
Click to expand...

I'm unconvinced there's any meaningful difference. THGTTG has themes of creationism and extraterrestrial visitors to our planet, which many people do not think are fictional. I'm also unconvinced that Harry Potter is less realistic than, say, His Dark Materials, which Dawkins has praised.

It makes me wonder what in particular about Harry Potter has drawn Dawkins' attention, as opposed to other, equally unrealistic works that have very coincidentally been written by outspoken atheists and personal friends of his?
 
You know, a few months ago I got torn across the coals when I said that I thought some of Dawkins' positions were a little extremist and that the man wandered into some weird territory. Certain people here seemed to disagree with me.

I'll reiterate what I said then - the man is certainly far from wrong on very many things. But he's on his own personal crusade, and I don't agree with everything he says and does. And the best part of being an atheist (or a fake atheist, a theistic apologist in disguise here to infiltrate the JREF and poison your minds) is that you don't have any prophets you have to believe! They're just human beings - smart, silly, a lot irrational most of the time.

Oh yeah - and one of my fundamentalist atheist positions is that no written word, critically evaluated, can possibly be bad, even if it is 100% lies. There are no 'dangerous concepts' there are no 'dangerous ideas' there is no such thing as a 'damaging book.'
 
Last edited:
ravdin said:
I'm unconvinced there's any meaningful difference. THGTTG has themes of creationism and extraterrestrial visitors to our planet, which many people do not think are fictional. I'm also unconvinced that Harry Potter is less realistic than, say, His Dark Materials, which Dawkins has praised.
Click to expand...

I think what Jaggy is saying is that HHGTTG and His Dark Materials are written for an older audience than Harry Potter.

ravdin said:
It makes me wonder what in particular about Harry Potter has drawn Dawkins' attention, as opposed to other, equally unrealistic works that have very coincidentally been written by outspoken atheists and personal friends of his?
Click to expand...

If you read the article, you find that the answer is nothing. It's just a misleading article with an even more misleading headline from the Daily Mail. No surprise there.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom