(no subject)

[blahflowers]

Richard Dawkins to write book to prove that atheists can miss the point almost as badly as the religiousi.

The prominent atheist is stepping down from his post at Oxford University to write a book aimed at youngsters in which he will warn them against believing in "anti-scientific" fairytales.

Prof Hawkins (SIC) said: "The book I write next year will be a children's book on how to think about the world, science thinking contrasted with mythical thinking.

"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."

Prof Dawkins said he wanted 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 added.

I said 'almost' because at least he's not suggesting we ban the books or burn them, but otherwise this is the same objection that the Fundies make, albeit they have their wiggle room in that when one of their side does magic it's called a miracle and so therefore it's okay. But how come the His Dark Materials series, with their magic, dimension crossing, harrowing of hell and absolving god of responsibility for the shitness of creation gets a pass? Don't misunderstand me, it's a great series but is Dawkins suggesting that it's miracles are okay because it's been embraced as an Atheistic text? I've had no luck trying to find the press statement this report is created from on Dawkins website so the Telegraph's use of a Harry Potter photo seems to be irrelevant as Dawkins says he hasn't read them.

Comments

[beebarf.livejournal.com]

Given that most of the science geeks I know/knew were huge consumers of sci-fi and fantasy, I'm not sure his argument has much in the way of legs...

[mordantcarnival.livejournal.com]

Well, quite--I was just going to say. Also a lot of popular sci-fi and fantasy is written by atheists and informed by atheistic ideas (X-ref much of Gaiman's oveur, Pratchett esp. Small Gods etc etc.)

[mordantcarnival.livejournal.com]

I'd also question whether giving your sprog Harry Potter to read automatically translates into "bringing children up to believe in spells and wizards."

[blahflowers.livejournal.com]

Well, I was brought up reading Enid Blyton so of course I look upon plumsbitch with a mixture of fear and suspicion.

[thermalsatsuma.livejournal.com]

I would say that children are smart enough to enjoy Harry Potter et al without necessarily believing it to be true. That is the main reason that the fundamentalists don't like anything that encourages imagination and critical thought.

[friend-of-tofu.livejournal.com]

So glad my dad wasn't Richard Dawkins - that would have been a fun childhood.

"No, you can't go to Bobby's party as a fairy, dear. Fairies don't exist. I would be an abusive parent if I let you wear those sparkly wings. Stay at home and read 'How Your Body Works'."

While I agree with him that it is wrong to force children into a religious identity they don't hold, I found the following quote offensive in the extreme;

"Do not ever call a child a Muslim child or a Christian child – that is a form of child abuse because a young child is too young to know what its views are about the cosmos or morality.
"It is evil to describe a child as a Muslim child or a Christian child. I think labelling children is child abuse and I think there is a very heavy issue, for example, about teaching about hell and torturing their minds with hell.
"It's a form of child abuse, even worse than physical child abuse. I wouldn't want to teach a young child, a terrifyingly young child, about hell when he dies, as it's as bad as many forms of physical abuse."

No, Dick, it's really not. I'm happy to agree that it can be abusive in the extreme, but to suggest that calling a child a 'Christian child' is worse than beating it, putting cigarettes out on it or raping it is frankly insulting to people who really HAVE experienced those traumas in their lives. Get it in perspective and hop off the hobby horse.

[elijahdprophet.livejournal.com]

No but you see, in His Dark Materials they were CALLED Angels and God, but it was all SCIENCE. The Subtle Knife was clearly made out of Bucky Paper, and the daemons weren't people's SOULS, that is moronic, they were obviously external manifestations of the psyche created in a world that had evolved to a more advanced state then ours and...

Alright, I can't do it anymore, this guy is a douche. The entire 'militant atheist' movement angers me, because yes, the best way to explain and validate your point of view is to call the people who disagree with you stupid.

[blahflowers.livejournal.com]

Well, it doesn't help that some of the people that disagree with them are stupid, often in quite evil ways, but yes, for all the good they do, quite often Dawkins and his mates are, intellectually speaking, as bad as those they battle against. They have looked into the abyss...

[fridgemagnet.livejournal.com]

That doesn't mean that HDM wasn't written with a scientific worldview, though. Quite a lot of fiction involving magic is pretty scientific, it just assumes different base parameters (and for that matter lots of "sci-fi" isn't scientific). Potter certainly is. Fairytale magic may or may not be; quite a lot of fairytales are based around specific laws existing and people using those laws to win the day, but quite a lot have deus ex machina magic which is unlimited and unpredictable.

I'm not entirely sure what Dawkins is getting at here, mind you; I expect that it's a combination of him being a bit mouthy in interviews - which he is prone to do, in contrast actually to when he's actually debating, when he's exceptionally reasonable - and the Times picking and choosing phrases for maximum controversy.

[blahflowers.livejournal.com]

Which is why I tried to find a source for that article before I linked to it, he's made the comparison between religion and child abuse before (albeit not so starkly, IIRC). However, reading his words versus the interpretation the paper puts on them he might just be saying "hey kids, magic wands are fun in stories but here's why they wouldn't work in real life".