What's wrong with Harry Potter?

[Shrunk]

By that token Santa Claus is child abuse too. It seems that Dawkins isn't capable of drawing a distinction between "serious" anti-science indoctrination (such as the type imparted by religious fundamentalists) and simple fantasy. That is simply zealotry taken to an inane degree. Now, if you want to argue that Harry Potter is child abuse simply because it's terrible literature (even by fantasy standards), then you might have a better case. 

He wasn't saying Harry Potter is "child abuse."  He was referring to religious indoctrination where, in his (and my) view, a child is induced to believe a fantasy is real.  To call this "child abuse" is probably intemperate, to say the least, though.

[Catison]

He wasn't saying Harry Potter is "child abuse."  He was referring to religious indoctrination where, in his (and my) view, a child is induced to believe a fantasy is real.  To call this "child abuse" is probably intemperate, to say the least, though.

Dawkins is probably trying his best to save children from what he thinks is indoctrination.  However, he fails to see that by keeping religion from all children he is forming his own brand of indoctrination.  And as a good evolutionary biologist, shouldn't he just let to the best ideas win?

[Norbeone]

Dawkins is probably trying his best to save children from what he thinks is indoctrination.  However, he fails to see that by keeping religion from all children he is forming his own brand of indoctrination.  And as a good evolutionary biologist, shouldn't he just let to the best ideas win?

He's not trying to keep religion from children. He simply wants them to be allowed to get to an age at which they can make their own decisions. There are too many people on this thread and elsewhere that wrongly accuse Dawkins of things and intentionally misread things he says (probably because it's the only weapon they have against him)

[Daidalos]

Dawkins is probably trying his best to save children from what he thinks is indoctrination.  However, he fails to see that by keeping religion from all children he is forming his own brand of indoctrination.

I get it that actively espoused, evangelical atheism is indoctrination, but how can it ever be considered indoctrination to raise a child without religion? I'm not talking about keeping the fact of religion from the child - i.e. that different people believe in different things, and adhere to sets of codified religious principles - but simply refraining from pushing a belief system on the child. I do think it's excessive to call it child abuse to raise a child religiously, and even then it's a sliding scale; some forms of religious upbringings are indeed child abuse - personally I'd cite the example of parents who teach their children what amounts to ignorance of science - while other kinds of religious upbringings (most of them) definitely are not child abuse.

Regardless of the rather inflexible language Dawkins employs when talking on this issue, he does have a point. The mind of a child is malleable, and will often take after the parent. The oft-cited statistic that children generally follow the same religion as their parents is an illustrative example of this. Is it really fair to the child to raise it religiously, never really giving it a chance (statistically speaking) to make up its own mind on the matter? I would be in favour of a comprehensive education for children in the history of religion, and the philosophy of religion (and of course, of secularist philosophies as well). However, it would actually disturb me somewhat (not to the same extent as Dawkins) to see children taught to accept the tenets of any particular religion, or any other belief system. Like it or not, whether it's explicit or not in the rearing of the child, the religious upbringing will amount to an indoctrination, where the child is given the answer to a very complex question that the adults purporting to teach the child hardly have figured out for themselves.

This is applicable to much more than religion. The same goes for parents teaching their children to hate a certain ethnic group of people, for example. While it is more conspicuously hateful in such a case, by analogy the same thing is being done to a child brought up religiously. Note, I'm not equating the two scenarios, absolutely not. I'm just trying to elucidate and explain my approximation of Dawkins' point. Even here, there's a huge grey area; no one, not even Dawkins, I think, would begrudge a parent the right to raise his or her child to be conscious of its culture and its roots. Sometimes, it's almost impossible to separate one's religion from one's culture, as they are inextricably intertwined. There's no simple answer to this conundrum, you cannot solve the problem as easily as Dawkins seems to imagine by simply encouraging parents to stop "indoctrinating" their children. Instead, I would take the position that a parent should be mindful of the child's right to make up its own mind, and not force upon it any belief system, but to equip it so that perhaps in the future, the child is capable of figuring things out for itself.

And as a good evolutionary biologist, shouldn't he just let to the best ideas win?

Should the same logic be applied to the competition between individuals in a population? Only the "best" people get to procreate? What frequently is forgotten in these discussions is what constitutes the "best" organism, or the "best" idea. From an evolutionary perspective, it is simply the organism that survives and passes along its genes; its not really question of some inherent quality. That would mean that the greatest ideas are simply those that propagate themselves best. I don't know about you, but I would hope that we would hold ideas to a higher standard than we hold for example spam emails, which have the annoying tendency the spread very quickly indeed.

To get the ideas we value most, that are not simply parasitic, we seriously need to adjust our selection pressures.

[Joe_Campbell]

He's not trying to keep religion from children. He simply wants them to be allowed to get to an age at which they can make their own decisions. There are too many people on this thread and elsewhere that wrongly accuse Dawkins of things and intentionally misread things he says (probably because it's the only weapon they have against him)

And then, presumably, he can deride them with literature if they decide differently than he.

[Al Moritz]

A thoughtful post, Daidalos.

Like it or not, whether it's explicit or not in the rearing of the child, the religious upbringing will amount to an indoctrination, where the child is given the answer to a very complex question that the adults purporting to teach the child hardly have figured out for themselves.

Given his mindset, Dawkins probably is in favor of imposing on children a worldview where everything can be, or in the future will be, explained by science, and the natural world, which science studies, is all there is (the view of scientism, that is). This can be inferred from his conviction that children should be brought up to "only trust the evidence" -- where, in his mind, scientific evidence is the only valid form of evidence (that philosophical evidence and divine revelation might count as valid evidence too is a concept completely alien to Dawkins's mind). While, being a scientist myself, I am in favor of good education in science from an early age on (at every stage in an age-appropriate way of course), it is clear that you can easily re-write the above sentence:

"Like it or not, whether it's explicit or not in the rearing of the child, upbringing in the philosophy of scientism will amount to an indoctrination, where the child is given the answer to a very complex question that the adults purporting to teach the child hardly have figured out for themselves."

As to religious upbringing, it is natural that parents try to convey their own values and convictions to their children. This holds for all aspects of education, and there is no compelling reason why religious values and convictions should form an exception. As you say, extremist positions aside, in most cases this is not child abuse.

I certainly don't feel reason to complain about my religious upbringing, and further intellectual exploration with it is a foundation has allowed me to clearly and freely see the rampant intellectual weaknesses and inconsistencies of the atheistic world view -- insights that may not be as easily available to a person raised in an atheistic or religiously indifferent background, claims of "rational thinking" notwithstanding.

[Al Moritz]

He's not trying to keep religion from children. He simply wants them to be allowed to get to an age at which they can make their own decisions. There are too many people on this thread and elsewhere that wrongly accuse Dawkins of things and intentionally misread things he says (probably because it's the only weapon they have against him)

Really, the only weapon? Nonsensical wishful thinking. The God Delusion has been effectively debunked by many reviewers who otherwise admire Dawkins's, indeed excellent, writings on biological evolution.

[Florestan]

 I would be in favour of a comprehensive education for children in the history of religion, and the philosophy of religion (and of course, of secularist philosophies as well).

It would indeed be wonderful to see children studying and discussing Eliade, Dumezil, Rudolf Otto, Kant or Spinoza. Only the fact that it's a complete nonsense hinders this idea from being applied.

I would take the position that a parent should be mindful of the child's right to make up its own mind

Nonsense again. To make up one's own mind supposes not only being presented with multiple choices, but also having discernment, a thing which is conspicuously absent in children.

By the same logic you could as well propose to teach children about heterosexual, homosexual, paedophilic and zoophilic sexual practices and let them make up their own mind.

[Harry]

Well it did not hinder me in buying all the Harry Potter films in BluRay quality, and I can see even more scientific detail as before, and yes, yes, sublime indoctrination also, wow, deep stuff huh!
Harry Potter films are clean fun, for young and old, and there is nothing more to it.
I think I call Hagrid, and that he may bashing a few heads, or better rub them a little bit together, all friendly mind!

[Daidalos]

It would indeed be wonderful to see children studying and discussing Eliade, Dumezil, Rudolf Otto, Kant or Spinoza. Only the fact that it's a complete nonsense hinders this idea from being applied.

Of course, it cannot be expected that every single one is taught everything about religion, its philosophy and history. I meant to say that in school, and at home, there should a greater instance of study and critique of religion (not only one). When I went to school, we had only one paltry religion course in high school (slightly different from the US), and it was completely spineless. No real discussion of the issues and concerns common to all religions and philosophies.

Nonsense again. To make up one's own mind supposes not only being presented with multiple choices, but also having discernment, a thing which is conspicuously absent in children.

I did not suggest that the child should make up its mind when three years old, or even fifteen years old. The child should be educated, as simply as that; presented with the facts, invited to think things through. The child should be allowed to make up its own mind, with the parents and educational system equipping it with the knowledge and intellectual tools so that eventually, perhaps when it has matured, the child (or adolescent, young adult, whatever), can think some things through for itself.

I grant you, without any hint of reservation, that children lack discernment. That was my point when I wrote my post. Considering this lack of discernment on their part, is it fair for parents to exploit (too harsh a word, but apt) that quality in their children and raise them in a way that almost certainly results in the child ending up with the same belief-system as the parent?

By the same logic you could as well propose to teach children about heterosexual, homosexual, paedophilic and zoophilic sexual practices and let them make up their own mind.

Zoophilic and paedophilic practises would of course not be taught, since they are illegal, and also nonconsensual. I see nothing wrong, however, with sex education that informs children that there are people who are attracted to their own sex.

[Daidalos]

A thoughtful post, Daidalos.

Given his mindset, Dawkins probably is in favor of imposing on children a worldview where everything can be, or in the future will be, explained by science, and the natural world, which science studies, is all there is (the view of scientism, that is). This can be inferred from his conviction that children should be brought up to "only trust the evidence" -- where, in his mind, scientific evidence is the only valid form of evidence (that philosophical evidence and divine revelation might count as valid evidence too is a concept completely alien to Dawkins's mind). While, being a scientist myself, I am in favor of good education in science from an early age on (at every stage in an age-appropriate way of course), it is clear that you can easily re-write the above sentence:

"Like it or not, whether it's explicit or not in the rearing of the child, upbringing in the philosophy of scientism will amount to an indoctrination, where the child is given the answer to a very complex question that the adults purporting to teach the child hardly have figured out for themselves."

Of course, I agree with you, the position can be reversed.

As to religious upbringing, it is natural that parents try to convey their own values and convictions to their children. This holds for all aspects of education, and there is no compelling reason why religious values and convictions should form an exception. As you say, extremist positions aside, in most cases this is not child abuse.

I certainly don't feel reason to complain about my religious upbringing, and further intellectual exploration with it is a foundation has allowed me to clearly and freely see the rampant intellectual weaknesses and inconsistencies of the atheistic world view -- insights that may not be as easily available to a person raised in an atheistic or religiously indifferent background, claims of "rational thinking" notwithstanding.

Can't really comment much on this. Since I grew up irreligiously (but not atheistically), I lack the perspective that you mention.

[karlhenning]

He wasn't saying Harry Potter is "child abuse."  He was referring to religious indoctrination where, in his (and my) view, a child is induced to believe a fantasy is real.  To call this "child abuse" is probably intemperate, to say the least, though.

Most people on the planet would also consider it intemperate, to consider calling the child of a Christian family "a Christian child" indoctrination.

To write a children's book with the aim of instructing children how to think scientifically, and to instill a bias against myth (a word which does not mean falsehood, by the way) — that is indoctrination.

[karlhenning]

And, I should have guessed that Brett would get here first!

Dawkins is probably trying his best to save children from what he thinks is indoctrination.  However, he fails to see that by keeping religion from all children he is forming his own brand of indoctrination.  And as a good evolutionary biologist, shouldn't he just let to the best ideas win?

[karlhenning]

There are too many people on this thread and elsewhere that wrongly accuse Dawkins of things and intentionally misread things he says (probably because it's the only weapon they have against him)

I am not sure why you are so keen to put the entire blame on everybody else.  It is entirely likely that, even if we are perfectly fair to Dawkins, he is fundamentally mistaken on a variety of points.

He isn't right about everything, just because he's an atheist who teaches at Oxford.

[karlhenning]

I get it that actively espoused, evangelical atheism is indoctrination, but how can it ever be considered indoctrination to raise a child without religion?

If he's raising his own children that way, that isn't indoctrination;  that's family values.

Trying to push his niche values on the children through the rest of the world, that can easily map onto indoctrination.

[karlhenning]

I would take the position that a parent should be mindful of the child's right to make up its own mind

Nonsense again. To make up one's own mind supposes not only being presented with multiple choices, but also having discernment, a thing which is conspicuously absent in children.

I'm afraid Andrei has made an excellent point, Bjorn.  Perhaps a mother shouldn't feed her infant until the infant can make a decision about what it wants to eat, eh?  It's absurd (not that you are taking it to quite this degree, but your objection is somewhere on this sliding scale) to treat the family, which is the natural (to use the adjective advisedly) environment in which the young learn (among other things) values — it's absurd to treat the family as The Enemy, and Dawkins (e.g.) as The Savior.  At the very least, one has to leave it to the parents' judgement when their child is capable of making his own decisions about things.  It is the family who teach the child a framework for decision-making.

[karlhenning]

I misspoke, Andrei; I am never afraid (other than rhetorically) when you make an excellent point 

[karlhenning]

Can't really comment much on this. Since I grew up irreligiously (but not atheistically), I lack the perspective that you mention.

I think your parents did a fine job, and you are a credt to them.

[mn dave]

Dawkins is probably trying his best to save children from what he thinks is indoctrination.  However, he fails to see that by keeping religion from all children he is forming his own brand of indoctrination.  And as a good evolutionary biologist, shouldn't he just let to the best ideas win?

The best ideas hardly ever win. Look at classical music vs. pop.

[mn dave]

I did not suggest that the child should make up its mind when three years old, or even fifteen years old. The child should be educated, as simply as that; presented with the facts, invited to think things through. The child should be allowed to make up its own mind, with the parents and educational system equipping it with the knowledge and intellectual tools so that eventually, perhaps when it has matured, the child (or adolescent, young adult, whatever), can think some things through for itself.

This.