Christians and Dawkins unite, almost
Christians who hate the Harry Potter books (CWHHPB) have a new friend: Richard Dawkins. Of course, CWHHPB hate them for one of three reasons: because the books are 1) full of evil and menace or 2) forgettable pop literature or 3) both. Dawkins hates them because they promote “mythical thinking.” Which actually sounds like a good thing to me, since the word mythos means story, and since the world is made of stories. But to Dawkins, it means simply “unscientific.” He says:
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.
Isn’t it also insidious to limit children to empirical data, rather than logic and reason and mystery and logos, which transcend sensory experience? Of course, this isn’t about Harry Potter at all. It’s about Christianity and theism in general.
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.
It will make Junior feel so much better to know the chasm of unfeeling blackness will envelope him upon death, and that he has no moral recourse to stop his father from abusing him with religion.




Learn it! Speak it! Live it!
Bring Christmas to a child in need!








Click to Print
Include Comments











back to top31 Comments to “Christians and Dawkins unite, almost”
These militant evangelical atheists undermine their position at every turn. And they don’t even see it.
If we’re all evolved beings, and there is no God, then my evolved belief is just as good as his evolved belief. He has no justification for his condemnation.
Report comment to moderator
His position even undermines reason, logic, and cognitive abilities.
Report comment to moderator
From my point of view, the only difference between Potter’s fans and Christians (or “Mohammedans) is that Harry’s believers don’t want to rule the world.
MiM: the key phrase in your 1st post is just as good as. Not better and therefore there is no reason to govern the world according to anyone’s bible or Potter book.
Report comment to moderator
In atheistic terms, why is mythology a bad thing? Every culture has them. Somehow we have not evolved past them. If our myths put our collective truths in some poetic context and make us stronger, what is wrong with them?
In terms of anthropological observation, man is a whole being,capabale of depth in science and the spirit. If he is merely scientific he is a sterile fraction of his faculty. If he is merely artistic he has little meaning to his expression.
Why should be damn our myths and our proverbs on the altar of science anymore than leaping over facts and figures in pursuit of light and glory?
Report comment to moderator
This brings to mind that wonderful dialogue from perhap’s December’s second-most favorite Christmas film. Gailey, the attorney tasked with defending Kris Kringle, has asked Susie’s mom the Macy’s exec why she doesnt want Susie to believe in Santa:
“Oh no Mr Gailey. If you teach a little girl about Santa Claus then the next thing you know she starts believing that somewhere there’s a handsome prince who’ll come along and carry her away and the two of them will live happily ever after. ..”
His reply then is “We were talking about Susan, not about you.”
Report comment to moderator
HSK this calls to mind the wag’s saying that some folks oppose cockfighting not so much because it causes harm to the animals but because it brings enjoymt to the onlookers/betters.
Report comment to moderator
This makes me think of some christians who do not want children to be exposed to fantasy or who think it is harmful. Such literature awakes the imagination. That can be awakened in a good way or a harmful way. I’m all for guarding our minds and for parents guarding their children’s minds, but we don’t want to make our or their minds half dead. We have both sides of the brain for a reason.
There will never be a time when there will not be mythology or fairy tales.
Report comment to moderator
“Not better and therefore there is no reason to govern the world according to anyone’s bible or Potter book.”
And his is not better and there is no reason to govern the world according to his belief either.
See where this gets us? The myth of neutrality or objectivity in humanity is… just that, a myth.
I’m not the one who needs to recognize that.
Report comment to moderator
Dawkins hates HP for the same reason he hates Christianity
(Some) Christians hate HP for the same reason they hate other religions.
Seems to me, HP is taking a lot of undeserved flack.
It’s just fiction!
Report comment to moderator
In re: 7
I couldnt watch the Smurfs or Scooby Doo when I was a kid. I would challenge the assumption that limiting exposure to fantasy or “evil” type characters at a young age, does not weaken, dull, or hamper the imagination of a child. Nor does it lead to a lack of discernment or increase in rebellion.
And there will come a time when mythology and fairy tales wont be needed. C.S. Lewis presents a picture in the Great Divorce of a painter discussing why heaven would be such a great place to paint, while the man with him counters that the only reason he painted a picture in the first place was to grasp a glimmer of true reality. Now that the reality has come (heaven) there is no more need to paint.
And so it will be with all else. Stories, fantasy, art, mythology, they will fall to the wayside when true reality comes.
Report comment to moderator
There will never be a time when there will not be mythology or fairy tales…
until the culmination of all our mythic longings and desires comes to pass in the presence of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, forever and ever, Amen!
Dawkins is the perfect embodiment of C.S. Lewis’s literary antagonists.
Report comment to moderator
Looks like Thorn and I are on the same page, but he was quicker.
Report comment to moderator
“Isn’t it also insidious to limit children to empirical data, rather than logic and reason and mystery and logos, which transcend sensory experience?”
This line reminded me of the description of Eustace Clarence Scrubb at the beginning of C.S. Lewis’ Voyage of the Dawn Treader, shortly before he was pulled into Narnia along with his cousins Lucy and Edmund Pevensie.
As KI and others point out, there is a place for fantasy and myth. Dawkins reminds me a bit of the dwarves in the stable in Lewis’ The Last Battle, unwilling and unable to see the banquet set before them.
Report comment to moderator
Very apt with the dwarves, MMACMURRAY!
My children weren’t old enough to read in the midst of the Potter craze, so while I was aware of how many other believing parents were wary of them, I wasn’t directly involved in that battle.
Read them myself, though, and quietly wondered what all the fuss was about. I noticed first that the early volumes function a lot like Nancy-Drew-meets-The-Hardy-Boys: two boys and a girl solve a mystery largely on their own. The books read more like whodunnits than invitations to satanism. And even later on, when (as we’ve all heard) the plots become “darker,” what really happens is that the bad guy’s plans and accomplices are gradually revealed for what they have always been, not that the worldview of the stories changes. Finally, magic functions in the stories as a plot device and little else. The magical world still functions by rules, and the characters use magic more like a helpful tool to simplify tasks than as a nefarious device by which everything we’ve always thought was truth is actually a lie, and vice versa. So, for instance, the marauder’s map shows where people are (wish I had one of those!) and not as a mind-control device nor a negation of the idea of the divine.
In short, I think they’re more of HSK’s forgettable pop lit than brim-full of evil and malice. Rowling tells a good story, and her magical world is mild fun, and not all that subversive.
Report comment to moderator
Archadia,
Your biggoted and descriminating view of Christians is showing again I see. I know of no Christians who want to rule the world – and I would know if we did I assure you. You are just a whack job with a computer. WHY ARE YOU NSUCH A ANTI RELIGIOUS PERSON AGAIN? – ARE YOU NUTS?
Report comment to moderator
Thorn, #10, I never said parents shouldn’t limit exposure to some fantasy. To not do that, is not to parent properly. I was talking about people who think they should eliminate all fantasy and fairy tales from a child’s life.
Ree, #11. Yes! For the culmination.
Report comment to moderator
This article brings back painful memories of my father, reading us Bible stories as punishment when we were defenseless children. I’d beg him to spank me with a wooden spoon instead, but he would refuse.
“No, this is for your own good,” he’d say. “Now, remember, because we are Christians, we will go to heaven to be together with Jesus for eternity when we die.”
“Stop! Stop!” I’d plead.
“We’re going to read ‘The Last Battle’ now,” he’d reply.
“But that book makes no sense!” I wailed.
“Sam,” he said coldly, “this will hurt me worse than it does you.”
Now, as I plan for my wedding and begin to understand that my kids will deserve exactly the same kind of cruel treatment, I force myself to read page after page of J.K. Rowling’s illogical “magic-filled” writing as I prepare to torture my own children.
“But people can’t fly on broomsticks!” I tell myself over and over again. “That’s unscientific claptrap!”
Still, somehow I’ve managed to make myself read all 4,224 pages of the “Harry Potter” series, and they’ve demonstrably harmed me – I frequently lost sleep as I absorbed Rowling’s nonsensical mummery into the wee hours of the morning. I also bought the books the first day they went on sale just to get it out of the way early, and locked myself into my apartment for the entirety of the following weekend, in which I did nothing but read Harry Potter. It was like a horrible, horrible disease.
Really, this sort of abuse has been going on for centuries, and not just to children. I remember when Charles Dickens visited his abominable Christian values on the world with such force that New York readers met the ship carrying the latest chapter of “The Old Curiosity Shop” at the port, asking whether Nell Campbell had died in the new installment – just the sort of irrational behavior that only a truly deranged mind could inspire.
How can people properly appreciate the sucking blackness of entropy when they’re distracted by the anti-rational evils of narrative driven by coincidence, the absurd spectacle of nobility in the face of likely death, and the triumph of love?
There’s only one way to stop this wickedness, of course: read “The Extended Phenotype” to your kids every evening, and promise them that when you die – which might happen at any time, possibly tomorrow – there will be nothing, not even a tiny smear of consciousness left to care about them or welcome them into the afterlife.
Then kiss them goodnight, and tell them that you love them, even though you want them to know that “love” is a poorly-understood psychobiological cocktail of hormones and physical stimuli that doesn’t actually exist.
Report comment to moderator
Adios: In atheistic terms, why is mythology a bad thing? Every culture has them. Somehow we have not evolved past them. If our myths put our collective truths in some poetic context and make us stronger, what is wrong with them?
In terms of anthropological observation, man is a whole being,capabale of depth in science and the spirit. If he is merely scientific he is a sterile fraction of his faculty. If he is merely artistic he has little meaning to his expression.
Why should be damn our myths and our proverbs on the altar of science anymore than leaping over facts and figures in pursuit of light and glory?
The problems with this syllogism are that 1)many of those myths have been repeatedly proved wrong, and 2) when they are allowed to control our behavior, people die.
We, collectively, used to believe that disease was caused by demons, witches and other mythical creatures. Lots of people died of that belief and many still do, mostly in other parts of the world.
We used to believe that menstruating women were unclean and dangerous and that even touching them or talking to them was a dangerous thing to do.
We used to believe that god(s) send thunderstorms, hurricanes and floods and that if we were devout enough we would be spared. Millions of us have died of that belief. Many still use such beliefs to attempt to control the behavior of others.
We used to believe that some men lived for many hundreds of years;now many believe that a select few have come back from the dead.
We used to believe that the earth was set upon a firmament and that the stars were just lights in the sky.
Many still believe that their god(s) are the only correct ones, and, more dangerously, that their gods have somehow instructed them to forcibly convert or kill believers in other gods.
And perhaps most dangerously, some believe that some supernatural being is going to destroy the planet some time soon and that the only important thing to do is believe in and appease that being.
At the same time I have no question that imagination and mystery and even some forms of spirituality are valuable and likely somehow hard-wired into our brains. They are generally fun and generally make us feel better.
But we cannot let those things overwhelm our principal duty to ourselves and others to live peacefully, care for others, improve our societies, and allow the scientists to help us understand ourselves, others, and the real world.
My belief is that:
I am here.
The only certainty is death.
While I am here, I alone am responsible.
The best I can do is to try to leave the world and my fellow humans in better condition than when I arrived.
And to have some fun along the way is alright.
I have no destiny, no fate, and no excuses.
There is no help available, save that of my fellow humans.
I have many questions. Much of life is inexplicable.
To seek the answers is natural. To be ignorant of the answers is okay. To be wrong is dangerous.
Report comment to moderator
“The best I can do is to try to leave the world and my fellow humans in better condition than when I arrived.’
This is an admirable goal, and I commend you on it. However (and you knew that was coming) does this include tearing down the beliefs and goals of others, even though, admittedly, you have no basis upon which to consider your view better (or worse) than any others?
Report comment to moderator
Dawkins doesn’t speak for atheists any more than Fred Phelps (or James Dobson, for that matter) speaks for Christians. I find his argument here incredibly depressing, and I’m an atheist—possibly even an “evangelical” one—who frequently agrees with him on other topics.
His position is nothing new, anyway—people have been throwing fits about the demoralizing effects of fiction since Socrates banished the poets from his Republic.
My personal opinion is that the Judeo-Christian approach to story-telling is one of the great gifts of religion to the world. The fact that I find religion pernicious in general doesn’t make me unable or unwilling to acknowledge that.
Report comment to moderator
Acradia,
Blaming the ignorance of man is an excuse, and it does not bring any comfort. What makes a man less ignorant to simply label him a scientist? What makes him godlike that we should listen?
Over history scientists are at just as much at fault for an unwillingness to look past what is presently available. Man always likes to think he has it all figured out, when reality is always reminding us, that we dont.
I say that because your conclusions are wrong. The ignorance and pride of man doesnt refute the reality of God. Its just more excuses.
Report comment to moderator
Thorn,
Nobody (at least nobody reasonable) is claiming that scientists have some kind of special access to truth. What science provides is a methodology with a track record, and that methodology is founded on the principle that reality is constantly reminding us that we don’t have things figured out.
Report comment to moderator
“What science provides is a methodology with a track record, and that methodology is founded on the principle that reality is constantly reminding us that we don’t have things figured out.”
A track record that has continually shown that it fails to adhere to its own methodology. Which is my point, it is no more dependable than any other because it is still misused by man.
Report comment to moderator
Thorn,
People sometimes make silly claims in the name of science (e.g. Dawkins in this case), just like people sometimes make silly claims in the name of religion (e.g. Phelps). Sometimes the claims (in both cases) are much worse than just silly.
I think it’s a fair principle not to judge any ideology on the basis of claims made by its fringe adherents. Of course it’s not always easy to draw lines marking off the extremists, but it’s possible to make a good faith effort.
On that principle, the work of thousands of scientists who do adhere to the scientific method—not only atheists and agnostics, but also Christians, Muslims, etc.—isn’t vitiated by occasional cranky remarks like these from Dawkins. It’s simply not the case that the scientific method is “no more dependable” than any other methodology.
Report comment to moderator
The scientific method is more dependable when it comes to getting information on the natural world and how it works. It has nothing to say (good or bad) on topics such as ethics, beauty, or the supernatural, which are major concerns in stories, fantasy, myth, etc.
Report comment to moderator
“It has nothing to say (good or bad) on topics such as ethics, beauty, or the supernatural, which are major concerns in stories, fantasy, myth, etc.”
I’d add meaning or purpose to that list.
Report comment to moderator
Cheers, Pauline.
Let me know when you’ve convinced the intelligent design folks that science has nothing to say about the supernatural.
Report comment to moderator
MiM: Only when they come knocking on my or millions of other peoples’ door with the cops or an army behind them. And that, like it or not, is what the evangelical/Republican nexus is all about.
Report comment to moderator
“Only when they come knocking on my or millions of other peoples’ door with the cops or an army behind them.”
And what, pray tell, gives you even the slightest indication that is about to happen?
Report comment to moderator
But don’t shift the subject. What makes you think that if you had the cops and the army behind you, that it makes whatever you believe to be right?
Report comment to moderator
This is a serious message. Many will find it condescending. It defines some of my differences with most people who participate here and will be rejected out of hand.
Science can save lives (through medicine and agriculture, for example) or can end lives (though creating weapons or by creating diseases as weapons). It does not provide reasons why we should do one or the other.
We are creatures with imaginations. We imagine scientific solutions; we imagine ways to live (religions, political systems, moral systems etc.); we imagine art (literature, music, pictures, etc.).
Myth includes all these aspects of our imagination and capabilities In our evolution (being a secular person I believe we evolved) myth met a variety of needs and served a lot of purposes. To the extent that myth tried to answer scientific questions in the time before science developed it is now obsolete, though if we understand it as a myth it can serve a purpose as entertainment.
Myth also tries to answer questions of meaning, value, and purpose. Science can’t answer these questions, so myth is still a valid part of our lives, though once people begin to realize that myths are myths, like chewing gum left on the bedpost overnight, it loses a lot of its flavor.
Santa Claus at the North Pole delivering presents to children who are good is a childish myth. Most children are ready to be done with it by the time they are five or six.
Myths can be good or evil. In the book on genocide I’ve been summarizing Blood and Soil, there are many examples of myths that have been used to support genocidal activities for hundreds of years.
As a non-believer, I think the stories of the Bible (Old and New Testaments) are myths. If so, these myths did and do much good. Almost everyone here believes that the Garden of Eden story is literally true. As an explanation of why humans are so flawed and so often act in evil ways, it is a brilliant myth, perhaps the most brilliant one of all human history.
I find many of the assumptions underlying it unattractive. It presents a God who is a bully, who condemns all humans to suffering because one man and one woman messed up (with a deck stacked against them). Christianity is having resurgence in America and this web site seems to be a major center of that resurgence. I doubt that it will help us that much in solving the problems and dilemmas that face us as we develop more and more ways to destroy ourselves. In the end, all that will be left will be our myths. Perhaps if the cockroaches evolve intelligence, they will read our myths and cluck their mandibles.
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDonTheWeb.com to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!