Richard Dawkins vs. Harry Potter

[arthwollipot]

To set the record straight, I agree. But I did want to make the point that "OMG Dawkins thinks Harry Potter dangerz ur kidsz MINND!!!Lol" is ridiculous.

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

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 should note that while Dawkins has praised His Dark Materials, nothing in the interview includes ANY criticism of the Harry Potter books. So when you ask what about them has drawn his attention, the answer is nothing - he hasn't read them and expressed no opinion on them.

So maybe, just maybe, your implication that he is in some way singling out books that were not written by those who share his viewpoint or are his friends is unjustified?

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

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

No, I am saying that my guess is that the people reading Harry Potter, as with those reading Pullman or Adams, are well aware what they are reading is fiction.

Very young children who read / are read fairy tales. told about Santa / tooth fairy etc. may not make the distinction. If research was proposed, I would find it more interesting to focus on that age group - if nothing else it might discover something interesting about the way children learn.

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.

Agreed - there is very little in his actual words to disagree with so the Daily Hate writes a misleading article around them and sadly, even after that is pointed out, some people continue to attribute what the paper made up to the person interviewed.

 

[Jaxe]

"Won't somebody please think of the children!"

 

[bellonax]

Wow. I didn't think I could hate the Daily Mail anymore than I already did. Silly me.

 

[Travis]

Growing up I was only allowed to read non-fiction and selected so-called "classical" fiction books (pretty much anything sold by Time Life bound in leather). I now have a good command of a lot of "facts" but am generally considered a dreary sourpuss by anyone who knows me.....In short I think a little "fantasy" is probably a good thing.

 

[westprog]

I'm just confused how I'm supposed to give Dawkins more credit in his study to see if Harry Potter damages rationality than I would to a Priest who is studying whether Harry Potter damages faith.

Several people have assured me that Dawkins deserves respect for this, but the only difference I can see between the two is that I actually care about the thing that this study is mocking.

And yes, this study mocks rationality. If a rational worldview was fragile enough that a kids book destroyed or damaged it, it wouldn't be worth holding on to anyway.

It's surprising that Dawkins doesn't seem to address the obvious thought - from the point of view of an evolutionary biologist - that if human beings have a tendency to imagination, it probably has some use. The most obvious use being the ability to visualise things that haven't happened, in order to figure out how to make them happen. Being able to imagine a nut broken open by a stone, even though that hasn't happened is a good start in the process of breaking open the nut with a stone. Fiction is part of being human.

It may well be that when Dawkins writes his book, he'll address this point.

 

[ravdin]

So maybe, just maybe, your implication that he is in some way singling out books that were not written by those who share his viewpoint or are his friends is unjustified?

I learned at least one thing- the Daily Mail is a very poor newspaper. I'm not up to speed with the quality of many publications in the UK.

I'll admit that while I think that Dawkins is going down a blind alley, I don't have a good reason to question his motives. Perhaps his research will even bear useful fruit.¹ I'll rest assured that Dawkins is not waging a campaign to deprive children of books that are too "unscientific" for his liking.²
1. I doubt it, but we'll see.
2. At least until more evidence comes in. One can never be 100% sure of these things.

 

[thesyntaxera]

It's surprising that Dawkins doesn't seem to address the obvious thought - from the point of view of an evolutionary biologist - that if human beings have a tendency to imagination, it probably has some use. The most obvious use being the ability to visualise things that haven't happened, in order to figure out how to make them happen. Being able to imagine a nut broken open by a stone, even though that hasn't happened is a good start in the process of breaking open the nut with a stone. Fiction is part of being human.

It may well be that when Dawkins writes his book, he'll address this point.

Great. Another book. I really wish Dawkins would just stick with his day job...it seems to me that although he makes a few good points he gets swept away with the whole cult of personality that he has cultivated.

 

[godless dave]

I'm just confused how I'm supposed to give Dawkins more credit in his study to see if Harry Potter damages rationality than I would to a Priest who is studying whether Harry Potter damages faith.

No one is saying you should. What we're saying is that Dawkins has proposed no such study.

 

[Lonewulf]

Sigh. Kool-aid for everyone!

 

[Gregory]

Okay, so what does Dawkins say? Summarizing the news articles I've been able to find (no sound on this computer, so I can't listen to the interview):

"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 fairy tales."

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

So...
1. He hasn't ready Harry Potter. But he enjoyed Pullman, which is also a fantasy book.
2. Bringing up children to believe in spells and wizards is unscientific. But he doesn't know if it actually has any negative effect. [Does he think that reading children fairy tales and fantasy stories is th same as "bringing them up to believe" in that stuff? This is what I would like to know.)
3. He himself was brought up with fairy-tails. But he doesn't know whether it had a bad effect on him.
4. Maybe it should be studied. Oh, and he's writing a book.

It must be a slow news-day when Richard Dawkins refusing to take a firm stance one way or the other on fairy tales is worth a headline.

 

[Sandy M]

Might not one also interpret the statements as implying that the Fundamentalist types who attack the Harry Potter books are the ones "believing in witchcraft" or teaching their children that sorcery and witchcraft exist by their fervent attacks on the Potter book?

 

[Dunstan]

It must be a slow news-day when Richard Dawkins refusing to take a firm stance one way or the other on fairy tales is worth a headline.

Well, there's an interesting lesson here about expressing doubt and certainty:

If asked "is there a god," answering "no" gets you labelled a dogmatic militant atheist who fails to acknowledge his limited knowledge and the possibility that he might be wrong.

If asked "are fairy tales bad for children," anything other than an absolute "no" gets you labelled a nut who obviously has concluded they are bad for children.

 

[westprog]

Okay, so what does Dawkins say?
...
"I think it is anti-scientific"
...
It must be a slow news-day when Richard Dawkins refusing to take a firm stance one way or the other on fairy tales is worth a headline.

I think that phrase is quite telling. It shows a worldview where things are either for science, or against - which I think is not how people actually live their lives.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I'm just confused how I'm supposed to give Dawkins more credit in his study to see if Harry Potter damages rationality than I would to a Priest who is studying whether Harry Potter damages faith.

Several people have assured me that Dawkins deserves respect for this, but the only difference I can see between the two is that I actually care about the thing that this study is mocking.

And yes, this study mocks rationality. If a rational worldview was fragile enough that a kids book destroyed or damaged it, it wouldn't be worth holding on to anyway.

From my perspective, we as skeptics have identified a problem, many people are not rational thinkers. If we are to ever change that fact we need to do a better job of assessing the root causes.

I am not familiar with where Dawkins was going with this. I am familiar with how reporters get it wrong. If I were to speculate, I'd say Dawkins was correctly looking at potential beginnings of irrational thinking. That in turn might lead to means of changing the irrational thinkers to rational thinkers.

Unless I see more evidence Dawkins was on to something else, that is where the evidence leads me in this case. And that is a reasonable line of investigation for Dawkins to be interested in.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Growing up I was only allowed to read non-fiction and selected so-called "classical" fiction books (pretty much anything sold by Time Life bound in leather). I now have a good command of a lot of "facts" but am generally considered a dreary sourpuss by anyone who knows me.....In short I think a little "fantasy" is probably a good thing.

I can't imagine limiting any reading a child chose to engage in. The Harry Potter series is one of my favorites.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Sigh. Kool-aid for everyone!

[side track]Apparently we should be referring to "Flavor Aid" rather than "Kool-aid".[/sidetrack]

 

[Lonewulf]

[side track]Apparently we should be referring to "Flavor Aid" rather than "Kool-aid".[/sidetrack]

Kool-aid sounds kooler.

Flavor Aid is for little girls.

And everyone still understands the context.








(Also, Kool-aid pays me to randomly bring them up in threads on the Tubes. It's true!)

 

[Damien Evans]

Great. Another book. I really wish Dawkins would just stick with his day job...it seems to me that although he makes a few good points he gets swept away with the whole cult of personality that he has cultivated.

Dawkins is retired. Writing books is his day job.