The next Dawkins Jihad: Harry Potter

[eckadimmock]

Now everyone's favourite scientist is taking aim at Harry Potter! Or any other books about magic or are unscientific.

Honestly, where does it end? Beatrix Potter? Talking animals are unscientific! Star Trek? Involves unverified quantum phenomena!

Heresy everywhere you look!

Oh, and by the way, you can't give your children religious names because they're not old enough to understand the basis. I presume young people should only have identification numbers until they pass their A-levels.

[bjorn]

This is a hoot!

When will he stop being a parody of himself?

Or is this just a logical consequence of his version of a materialistic world view - not to mention humour?

[Mike D]

That is seriously weird. Let me see now, he hasn't read any Rowling but thinks that they may be bad for children because of the magic and non-scientificy-ness of it, but has read Pullman, and it's all right. Despite having magic, supernatural entities, talking ice bears and a knife that can cut between worlds.

It almost makes sense, in a bizarre non-sensible fashion... ;D

[humphreyclarke]

I agree, this is just getting silly now.

I think the real low point was his show on Evolution where it cut to a shot of him on the Serengeti at night watching the animals tear lumps out of each other. His commentary was 'out here there is no divine Marshall guiding things, no surveillance keeping things in control'. I mean, what does he think God is exactly?. Some kind of zookeeper who should be running around the African savannah yelling 'stop eating each other ye varmints'.

[bvgdez]

To be fair to Prof. Dawkins I don't think he said Harry Potter was definitely a bad influence but that the influence of such books should be investigated. He said he enjoyed the Pullman books but didn't claim that they were therefore "OK", did he?

Where did he claim that it is wrong to giving religious names to children? I can imagine he would say something like that but it wasn't in this article, was it? I'm an agnostic myself but I deliberately gave my sons Biblical names. My son Daniel, aged 15, obviously doesn't care much for the meaning of his name, as he is an atheist.

I can't quite understand why Dawkins keeps calling things evil or wicked. To me atheism, if it's going to be really rational, has no place for such terms. I'm sure 99% of atheists would disagree with that though.

Off topic: This is my first post here. I don't think I have much to contribute myself but I really enjoy the blog and the discussion forum. I used to read Comment is Free in the Guardian a lot but that wasn't good for my blood pressure. Keep up the good work, all you bloggers and forum members!

[eckadimmock]

Hi Bvgdez,

Just to clarify the names thing, in the article I referenced:

"Speaking recently at a conference of the Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain, a group of Britons who have renounced Islam, Prof Dawkins said: "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."

Regards,

Colin

[James Hannam]

Hi bvgdez,

First welcome and thank you for your kind words.

I agree with what you say about Dawkins' not actually stating Harry Potter is harmful, but isn't the subtext fishy? I mean only a rascist could say "I'm not saying Jews do run the world, but I think it should be investigated." Dawkins' comments on fairy tales strike as a similar kind of doublespeak.

Best wishes

James

[bvgdez]

Hi Colin and James,

Thanks very much for your replies. It's only a very minor point but, to me, calling a child a Christian child isn't exactly the same thing as giving the child an explicitly Christian name.

I wonder what the next step will be once they discover that fairy tales and fantasy stories really are pernicious. Will they want to restrict such literature to adults, ban it all together or just rewrite everything (like Humphrey Clarke's scientifically correct Snow White)?

Bruno Bettelheim's theory, if I remember correctly, was that real age-old fairy tales play a very important role in the psychological development of a child whereas modern ones, such as H.C. Andersen's, are more likely to retard that development.

By the way, wasn't it Christian fundamentalists who objected to Harry Potter long before Dawkins came up with this?

[humphreyclarke]

I think some conservative and fundamentalist Christians object to the Harry Potter books on the basis that they promote witchcraft, and are being used to draw children into dangerous practices. All this is a bit ridiculous because J K Rowling is a Christian and a member of the Church of Scotland so I doubt that is her intention.

I used to be involved (when I was supposed to be studying hard at law school) in combating Holocaust denial on the internet which has a pretty massive web presence thanks to White Supremacist Groups. They objected to Harry Potter on the grounds that it promotes race mixing, how they worked that one out I don't know.

Clearly there is something to offend everyone.

[Sootys Wand]

Oct 31, 2008 13:39:41 GMT humphreyclarke said:

I think some conservative and fundamentalist Christians object to the Harry Potter books on the basis that they promote witchcraft, and are being used to draw children into dangerous practices. All this is a bit ridiculous because J K Rowling is a Christian and a member of the Church of Scotland so I doubt that is her intention.

I used to be involved (when I was supposed to be studying hard at law school) in combating Holocaust denial on the internet which has a pretty massive web presence thanks to White Supremacist Groups. They objected to Harry Potter on the grounds that it promotes race mixing, how they worked that one out I don't know.

Clearly there is something to offend everyone.

That's probably to do with muggles and pureblood wizards. Hermione is a Muggle - that is, one of her parents was not a pureblood wizard. Malfoy taunts her with this in one of the books, (Malfoy of course is a pureblood). This them of Muggles and Pure bloods plays a signifcant plot role in "Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix" .

[eckadimmock]

Oops, you're right. I misread that names thing. I did read that somewhere else and got the sources confused.