Mr. Dawkins, please report to the nearest shark tank, water skis in hand
By Thoreau
Look, I get the case against religion. I get why Dawkins is against religion. I do. I get it. But there is a big difference between religion (which parents present to children as truth) and Harry Potter (which parents present to children as fiction).
What amazes me is that Dawkins claims to be a scientist yet he’s apparently unaware that some scientists actually spend weekends with friends saying things like “I’m going to cast a spell from my lightning wand” before rolling dice. Are we not sufficiently rational for him?
Comment by Travis —
October 29, 2008 @ 7:19 pm
He must have gotten tired of doing real science, or you know, being relevant.
Comment by Barbar —
October 29, 2008 @ 7:24 pm
I actually think it would be a little bit interesting to study the impact of childhood stories on adult beliefs. I’d guess that people’s expectations of the future are often shaped by the “myths” about life that they learn in childhood (I’m not talking about Harry Potter though).
The Dawkins project just seems daft though.
Comment by Derek Copold —
October 29, 2008 @ 7:29 pm
I sympathize with Dawkins.
Yes, it’s fun to read these books, but there is a growing tendency for people to let their lives revolve around fantasy novels. Is that a good thing? Is it bad? I’ve never studied it, but at first glance, it doesn’t look healthy.
If you read the story, too, you’ll see the story’s bite isn’t as bad as the headline’s bark. He admits he doesn’t know if the effect is pernicious, but wants to study it.
Comment by Noumenon —
October 29, 2008 @ 7:49 pm
he’s apparently unaware that some scientists actually spend weekends with friends saying things like “I’m going to cast a spell from my lightning wand†before rolling dice.
Hey, is this how you know Jim Henley?
Comment by Donald Johnson —
October 29, 2008 @ 7:49 pm
Has anyone done any studies on whether studies of other people’s belief systems and/or tastes in literature encourage condescension and arrogance towards people with other beliefs?
Comment by Jennifer —
October 29, 2008 @ 7:56 pm
Sounds like the flip side of those insane Christians who claim that “Bewitched” reruns promote Satanism.
Comment by Derek Copold —
October 29, 2008 @ 8:18 pm
Those Christians are ridiculous to go so far as to say the show promoted Satanism, but they had a point that it, along with a whole hell of a lot of other things, had a deleterious effect on orthodox belief. If you can picture witches as grotesque handmaidens of the devil, but next-door housewives, then the idea of taking them and the devil seriously goes out the door.
Along the same vein, Dawkins might well go overboard, but I don’t think he’s completely wrong to look into this. Should we want a kid to spend his time learning every silly thing about the nonexistent world of Hogwarts, including spells and potions, or would it be better if he was more interested in actual scientific areas: trying to find out which chemical combinations create real “magic.”
My suspicion is that, in the main, the two are not mutually exclusive, and the fantasy may even help the scientific side by making one open to this sort of thought. But I don’t know, and a study would be interesting. Even if Dawkins goes overboard, it’ll be good, because it’ll provoke a counter-study.
Comment by Derek Copold —
October 29, 2008 @ 8:19 pm
My second sentence above should read:
“If you can picture witches NOT as grotesque handmaidens of the devil, but next-door housewives, then the idea of taking them and the devil seriously goes out the door.”
My apologies.
Comment by Mona —
October 29, 2008 @ 8:48 pm
Well, the article says:
I’m not sure he is saying that kids reading fantasy fiction may be pernicious. Some parents of various religions teach their children that wizards, witches and other supernatural things are evil and usually Satanic, and quite real.
A kid raised to believe that might take the Harry Potter series seriously. But my grandsons do not. (Altho they might have thought that Blues Clues baby Paprika and the various other characters in that show were real — when they were three.)
I don’t think merely investigating the effect on kids whose background may predispose them to take Harry Potter as reality is such a bad idea.
Comment by kishnevi —
October 29, 2008 @ 8:50 pm
Dawkins’ real fault is that he reduces all religion to the level of six year old kids who really believe that witches can cast spells and that God is an old guy with a big beard up in the clouds.
When in fact Christian theology (at the intellectual level at least, as opposed to popular belief and superstition) moved well beyond that since at least the incorporation of the Corpus Areopaticum into medieval theology. There are avenues of attack against that, but Dawkins doesn’t pursue them, even though they’ve been well trod, especially by those who have argued the topic of the philosophy of religion from both the atheist and theist side throughout the 20th century.
Come to think of it, Dawkins does not really seem to be aware of anything involving the philosophy of religion, especially during the last century. You would think a scientist before tackling a new subject would at least survey the published literature. Apparently, Dawkins didn’t bother. In his eyes, it seems Jimmy Swaggart and Thomas Merton think exactly alike.
Comment by kishnevi —
October 29, 2008 @ 8:53 pm
Should have been Corpus Areopagiticum (=PseudoDionysius) in the above comment, not Corpus Areopaticum.
Comment by Derek Copold —
October 29, 2008 @ 8:59 pm
Actually, Dawkins does deal with a number of well-read theists in his book, like Alistair McGrath. It is true he doesn’t get in deep Thomistic arguments. He deals with Tommy A’s proofs of God, very poorly in one case, but that’s the most he does. As far as the more abstruse stuff goes, he cites P.Z. Myer’s “The Courtier’s Reply.”
Still, Dawkins does argue at the level of an intelligent lay believer. It’s certainly not at some kind of Jimmy Swaggart sort of level, as kishnevi mainatins.
Comment by Derek Copold —
October 29, 2008 @ 9:01 pm
Should have been Corpus Areopagiticum (=PseudoDionysius) in the above comment, not Corpus Areopaticum.
It’s kind of embarassing, though, when you’re theology is based on a conscious fraud, and I use the word “fraud” most intentionally. Psuedo-Dionysius purposely invented a story to make it seem as if his theology came straight from the converted Athenian philosopher mentioned in Acts.
Comment by Jon Hendry —
October 29, 2008 @ 9:03 pm
His next book will propose that children be raised in a Skinner Box.
Comment by Justin Slotman —
October 29, 2008 @ 9:35 pm
I’m sure he won’t go after comic books next. I mean the science behind Superman is fairly well-established.
Comment by Jay Robinson —
October 29, 2008 @ 10:22 pm
It’s a matter of presentation. Reading fairy stories to your child is not the same thing as presenting them as truth. I worried with my daughter that Santa, Easter Bunny et al. could flip a switch that might make her more susceptible to more insidious mythologies later in life. Hopefully Dawkins’ research could address this.
Or am I overthinking this, too?
Darn it.
Comment by Timothy —
October 29, 2008 @ 10:37 pm
To be fair to Mr. Dawkins, a lot of fundies do a pretty good job of that themselves. I mean, in order to think magic is evil you have to think that magic is REAL and would work if you tried it…and that makes you a fucking moron.
Comment by Jeff —
October 29, 2008 @ 10:44 pm
If you take Dawkins’ quotes without the rest of the article, the tone seems a bit different, thus.
Comment by Thoreau —
October 29, 2008 @ 11:54 pm
Derek-
Like you, I don’t think there’s any danger that being into fantasy stories impedes learning of science. Indeed, I’d dare say that there’s a strong correlation between the ability to do complex integrals and the ability to explain the minutiae of the Silmarillion.
Comment by Thoreau —
October 29, 2008 @ 11:57 pm
BTW, in the interview, he refers to “bringing children up to believe in spells” but fairy tales aren’t told for the purpose of getting children to “believe” anything.
Moreover, he says “Looking back to my own childhood, the fact that so many of the stories I read allowed the possibility of frogs turning into princes…” He’s conflating childhood stories (which are no generally offered in order to propagate a belief) with, say, being raised in a pagan household to actually believes in spells and whatnot.
Comment by Gene Callahan —
October 30, 2008 @ 2:40 am
“What amazes me is that Dawkins claims to be a scientist yet he’s apparently unaware that…” every single society in human history has followed some religion? As an “evolutionary biologist,” that ought to make him say, “Gee, religion must serve some good purpose!” But those logical, scientific conclusions are not necessary for acting in the role of “ideological nitwit.”
Comment by Gene Callahan —
October 30, 2008 @ 2:45 am
“Come to think of it, Dawkins does not really seem to be aware of anything involving the philosophy of religion, especially during the last century.”
Yes, he’s a semi-literate fool, who, knowing something about one subject, proceeds to act as if that makes him the master of all human knowledge.
Comment by Gene Callahan —
October 30, 2008 @ 2:55 am
“‘Dawkins’ real fault is that he reduces all religion to the level of six year old kids who really believe that witches can cast spells and that God is an old guy with a big beard up in the clouds.’
“To be fair to Mr. Dawkins, a lot of fundies do a pretty good job of that themselves.”
Yeah, Timothy, and arguing against religion by arguing against them is just like arguing against evolutionary biology based on the understanding of it possessed by third-grade science teachersw.
Comment by Gene Callahan —
October 30, 2008 @ 3:01 am
Look, folks, Dawkins was raised by abusively religious parents, and then had what he himself describes as a “conversion experience” — some scientific term, hey? — and now attempts to ladle out the religious abuse he received as a child upon his parent surrogates in the form of “anti-religious abuse.”
That is ALL that is of substance in his writings on the topic.
Comment by Ian —
October 30, 2008 @ 3:02 am
He said the book will be “science thinking contrasted with mythical thinking.”
So wait, let me get this straight — he’s against all myth? I hope he’s somehow been catastrophically misquoted.
Apparently, he is publicly condemning books which he has not read (some of which a bright 10 year old could polish off in an afternoon) because their content does not meet his literalist standards. No irony there.
Comment by Neel Krishnaswami —
October 30, 2008 @ 3:19 am
No, this is wrong. Peacocks don’t exactly have tails for any good purpose.
Evolution is a local hill-climbing search through a very complex phase space. It can (and does) easily end up in local maxima that are not, in any sense, globally optimal solutions — so a priori you cannot conclude that any evolved feature serves “a good purpose”. You need to look at the actual historical circumstances and try to see what the causal story leading up to that feature is before you can say that it’s that way for a reason.
Comment by ajay —
October 30, 2008 @ 7:33 am
“What amazes me is that Dawkins claims to be a scientist yet he’s apparently unaware that…†every single society in human history has followed some religion? As an “evolutionary biologist,†that ought to make him say, “Gee, religion must serve some good purpose!â€
Other features shared by pretty well every society in human history: belief in magic; slavery; xenophobia; forced marriage; judicial torture; duelling; inheritance of political authority; aggressive war; legalised rape; genocide.
Your argument has a slight flaw.
Comment by ajay —
October 30, 2008 @ 7:34 am
And, Thoreau, will you please stop citing the Daily Mail as though it were a serious news source? It really isn’t. Would you take a British blogger seriously if he kept quoting Rush Limbaugh as an authoritative source of information on the US?
Comment by rm —
October 30, 2008 @ 9:02 am
I think, at Dawkins’s very own university, there is an entire division of departments that investigate questions like that. I think they are called “the humanities.” He might want to start by taking a few intro courses over there.
Comment by Picador —
October 30, 2008 @ 9:50 am
I second Ajay above. Dawkins’ actual statements, minus the yellow journalism, are quite mild and reasonable. He expresses some highly speculative and qualified concern that children might be fed a little too much fantastic escapism and not enough curiosity about the world as it is. Which is absolutely right, and is a valid criticism of children’s (and adult) literature. He doesn’t express any desire to launch some kind of crusade against Harry Potter.
Comment by Thoreau —
October 30, 2008 @ 11:19 am
My ignorance is exposed: I don’t know squat about British news sources, except that most of them have nice pictures on page 3.
I’ll be more careful in the future.
Comment by Gene Callahan —
October 30, 2008 @ 11:43 am
Sure, Neel, I know about the appendix and all that. But religion is not just pervasive, but hugely costly (in terms of the amount of effort that goes into it). And we KNOW that it’s possible for there to be non-religious humans. So, if it’s all as dumb as Dawkins contends, there should be plenty of societies around with no religions.
Instead we find 0 such societies. So, at the least, Dawkins OUGHT to be thinking, “There’s a pretty darned good chance this stuff is important.”
Comment by velveeta —
October 30, 2008 @ 11:45 am
Gene Callahan, who admits to supporting Bush over Gore, needs to try actually reading what Dawkins writes instead of making shit up.
Comment by Jaybird —
October 30, 2008 @ 1:28 pm
Religious people have children. Many, many, many children.
Atheists do not… or they keep it to one, maybe two.
Religious folk can afford to lose a kid or two to the dark side… but then so what? It’s not like s/he’ll breed much.
Atheists folk, however, have a lot fewer proverbial eggs.
Comment by dhex —
October 30, 2008 @ 3:10 pm
“Dawkins’ actual statements, minus the yellow journalism, are quite mild and reasonable.”
mild, yeah. reasonable? ehhh. on this topic he’s not really a reasonable guy. i tend to agree with him, and i still think he’s largely acting like a jerkoff.
now i realize, as many have told me, that his jerkoffness is necessary because everyone else is an even bigger jerkoff, but i may have a lower tolerance for the grand guginol known as kultur war.
Comment by buermann —
October 30, 2008 @ 3:36 pm
I would think “lies they are told are lies” would be an important test case in whatever attempt was made to tease out something interestingly predictive about telling some children nothing but lies about the truth and other children our best approximation of the truth about truth.
Dawkin’s strongest claims about religion – that it destroys the rational faculties of the next generation and so forth – is about where his argument runs out of evidence to present altogether. At least every version of that argument I’ve heard him make.
Comment by mr.fun —
October 30, 2008 @ 3:52 pm
obviously Dawkins’ is not a golfer.
Comment by hellblazer —
October 30, 2008 @ 4:44 pm
Just putting my head round the door to follow up on comment 28 above (the Mail is noticeably poor when it comes to reporting on science, scientists or medicine):
see this story on the BadScience blog
Which isn’t to say anything pro or contra whatever Dawkins is actually working on, of course.
Comment by passedyne —
October 30, 2008 @ 5:53 pm
Dawkins = dullest Dad ever
Comment by Derek Copold —
October 30, 2008 @ 7:06 pm
Thoreau,
Getting to the point you made about the Silmarillion. The thing about fantasy worlds is that they do parallel a lot of beginning science. Look at starting physics: not only do we assume a newtonian world, but one that often neglects friction and other non-conservative forces.
If he does carry through, I’d advise him to delineate between fantasy worlds where magic carries a price, and those where it doesn’t (as its seems not to in Harry Potter), and those worlds that abide by the rules on which they were established.
Really, if you look at the frog prince story, it doesn’t look good. The point of the story is not judge on looks alone, so the girl is rewarded with a prince after she makes an effort to get past physical appearance. Of course, it’s silly–it’s a fairy tale!–but there’s a serious core to it as well.
Comment by dhex —
October 30, 2008 @ 10:53 pm
it’s almost like people use metaphors and other storytelling devices to convey meaning in a variety of contexts.
Comment by ajay —
November 3, 2008 @ 7:49 am
My ignorance is exposed: I don’t know squat about British news sources, except that most of them have nice pictures on page 3. I’ll be more careful in the future.
Thoreau, sorry if I was a bit peremptory – as a rule, British news sources fall into four categories:
Gold (trustworthy)
The Financial Times
The BBC
Reuters
Silver (trust but verify)
The Guardian/Observer
The Independent
The Daily Telegraph
The Herald
Bronze (dodgy but generally correct)
The Sunday Times
The Times
Lead (untrustworthy on everything except the TV listings)
The Daily Mail
The Daily Express
The Sun
The Daily Mirror
The News of the World
The Daily Star
The Sunday Sport
The Daily Sport