Comments on: Richard Dawkins Hates Harry Potter (And Everything Else, Including Small Children)

By: Sarah

Sarah — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 21:40:22 +0000

I think I will reserve judgment on Dawkin’s book or what he thinks of fantasy fiction until I get to read his book. I don’t really trust the telegraph’s information enough to have an opinion either way.

As far as the christian influences in Harry Potter, I really don’t see them. Harry didn’t (spoiler alert) win in the end because of faith in god or jesus, but because of his love for his friends and family. It is a kind of vague moral lesson that can be found in all religions, and even in the moral values of the nonreligious.

By: vargas

vargas — Sat, 09 May 2009 20:06:09 +0000

Dawkins flushed his imagination along with his sense of humor and wonder down the toilet long ago. Without the imagination what sort of private intellectual life can one truly have? I feel sorry for the man.

By: Karl Mahlmann

Karl Mahlmann — Tue, 24 Feb 2009 01:05:27 +0000

I have no regard for people like Dawkins who parlay their academic status into making tons of money selling pop-philosophy books. The man is seriously deranged, as evidenced by everything he says including his believe that children need to be taught his particular view of Atheism. He has given considerable credibility to the belief that we were all made by aliens. It’s really alarming that people are listening to such a crackpot.

By: Sophie

Sophie — Fri, 14 Nov 2008 20:15:51 +0000

Wow…. I don’t think that is going to become a popular children’s book xD
I almost pity the man. Has Mr. Dawkins even _read_ the HP books? I have no problem with him believing what he believes, but when you try to push your opinions on others, no matter what those opinions are, you cross a line, whether you are a religious Laura Mallory or an atheist Richard Dawkings. To push any extreme opinion on _children_, who can’t filter other people’s thoughts from their own thoughts, is just dreadful. This guy needs to cheer up and let people be people.

By: Katie

Katie — Sun, 09 Nov 2008 19:00:08 +0000

grr… I don’t see how fairytales are bad for children! It’s not like kids going to grow up wanting … a pet like Buckbeak (I don’t know… it was the first thing that popped into my head) or anything.
I’ve read The God Delusion (well, I read the first two chapters) and I personally am not religious and I agree with him on some points, but I really don’t see how fairytales are something that children shouldn’t read. If I had a kid, I’d let them read as many fairytales as they want! I wouldn’t want a boring uncreative, unimaginative person like him for a kid…
I think it’s crazy that he thinks that children shouldn’t use their imagination because, as Greg/Penny said, too much can be a bad thing, but that’s just an extreme. Can’t there be a happy medium? Not too much imagination (which can cause a problem, a .. *delusion* even), but not too little either. But I guess as a biologist, creativity and imagination aren’t all that important…
Anyway, that just really bothered me.
And Travis made a comment about him being an atheist Laura Mallory and I think that’s true, he does sorta sound like that…

By: free

free — Sat, 08 Nov 2008 04:22:46 +0000

I’ve read dawkin’s book, it was rather dry, dull and the only use i found for it was either cannon fodder , lining one’s pet canary cage, or traiing one white little poodle dog to wee on it.

By: Rob

Rob — Thu, 30 Oct 2008 17:11:34 +0000

Richard Dawkins == Wack Job. How’s that for rational?

By: Alex

Alex — Thu, 30 Oct 2008 13:49:15 +0000

Richard Dawkins is a moron. If people were 100% rational and logical, we would be no better than a computer. Albeit, one with more processing power than any we have invented; but nevertheless the comparison stands. Imagination is what makes humans human. To say that reading fantasy stories is potentially harmful, reveals his profoundly complete ignorance. Honestly, the truth of the matter is that fantasy and science are colliding in whats known to science as quantum physics, and to others as “the secret” or “the law of attraction” or any other of its numerous names. Without using our brains, to think, to imagine, nothing we have would exist. Its just plain stupid to say that Harry Potter or any other fiction book, could have an “insidious affect on rationality.” I doubt he could even adequately define “rational.”

By: Greg

Greg — Thu, 30 Oct 2008 12:41:23 +0000

Shimon: I think you’re right, the connection to Harry Potter was either made by the author of the article, or by Dawkins, either way it was to make the story “juicier.” Hey, it got me to link to it.

He does mention Pullman, which is odd, as Pullman’s work is just as fanciful as Rowling or anyone else’s, it’s just a paean to atheism, which is what Dawkins’ books are.

By: Brent

Brent — Thu, 30 Oct 2008 01:38:52 +0000

Travis, “the atheist Laura Mallory”…scary thought

By: Jess

Jess — Thu, 30 Oct 2008 01:38:28 +0000

Can they find no enjoyment in life other than what they can shoot down?

By: Jess

Jess — Thu, 30 Oct 2008 01:37:58 +0000

He should watch The Flight of Dragons. Why do I feel like so many atheists are absolutely ridiculous on their belief systems? I have met reasonable atheists out there but most hate things just to hate them it seems like.

By: revgeorge

revgeorge — Thu, 30 Oct 2008 00:56:02 +0000

Travis, you beat me to the recommendation of McGrath! McGrath is also or was a colleague of Dawkins at Oxford, so he has had personal interactions with Dawkins. Dawkins is one of the so called New Atheists, who as Travis mentioned, seem to be Atheist fundamentalist evangelists.

By: Travis Prinzi

Travis Prinzi — Thu, 30 Oct 2008 00:10:54 +0000

I think Dawkins has rightly been called by Alister E. McGrath an “atheist fundamentalist.” It’s no surprise he’s against Potter; he’s potentially the atheist Laura Mallory.

McGrath’s book, The Dawkins Delusion is a short (though heavy), helpful response to Dawkins, at least on the issue of atheism.

By: Shimon

Shimon — Wed, 29 Oct 2008 22:40:03 +0000

I think you should interview him on your podcast

I am a bit skeptical about how in-context some of the quotes taken may have been. He could have indeed 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.” (which is debatable whether it really must be either or, but nevertheless a contrast worth looking into)

Then the reported asks him if he is against Harry Potter and he doesn’t deny it saying he hasn’t read it and in order to spice up the article it gets titled “Harry Potter fails to cast spell over Professor Richard Dawkins”

one thing he does get right in the following link is that he says people always confuse him with Prof Hawking which is also true in the above article where he is called at one point Hawkins
http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/76821/october-17-2006/richard-dawkins

By: Arka

Arka — Wed, 29 Oct 2008 21:07:49 +0000

Well, I’m actually quite surprised. I am yet to read The God Delusion (though it’s on my list), but I thought Dawkins would be a fairly intelligent guy. However, he seems to desire a perfect, rational world where we think in terms of Phi or Science, and shun the creative mind and the artistic soul. While I do not believe in god, I acknowledge the greatness of human beings as a species, for their minds and thinking and imagination. I’d read Sphere, by Michael Crichton, which said something along the lines of “Imagination separates humans from animals.” While science may be facts and solid truths of the world, our beliefs and our morality, as well as our ability to think outside the box, are huge factors in how far we’ve progressed.

That being said, it’s just stupid of him to call Harry Potter “anti-scientific” or encouraging of irrational and “mythical” thinking. Only someone that narrow-minded would see the books so. They are books, with a story that reflects real life a lot better than some others; give us human readers some credit.

By: Brent

Brent — Wed, 29 Oct 2008 20:57:01 +0000

I don’t know much about Dawkins other than he’s a huge atheist. I think it’s kind of odd to leave a post at Oxford to write a book. Tenured professors usually have so little accountability (that’s a good and bad), they can do whatever they want. It just sounds odd.

But based on this article, I don’t think I’d like him at all. Both as a Christian and a trained scientist (I have graduate degrees in biology), I have always had some diverse perspectives to converge in my mind that many people deal with in science and religion.

Although I think it bothers me more that he’s indicting an entire genre of literature. I think part of his attack might be the christian content of the books, because he seems to like Phillip Pullman and I would call his books fantasy (I’ve been meaning to read them to see what all of the fuss is about, should’ve when you guys did your podcast).

It probably should be even more alarming though that Dawkins is going to write a children’s book to fight the messages of the Harry Potter books without ever having read them! I’ve read this post over a couple of times and looks good to me, but I’m tired, so sorry if it’s incoherent.

By: Jacki

Jacki — Wed, 29 Oct 2008 13:40:09 +0000

Wow. I don’t see how fantasy, when you clearly recognize it as fantasy, can be bad for children (and adults).

You are also right that invention (and even science) would essentially be at a standstill if no one were allowed to use their imagination to think outside the box and look at things with a new perspective. Those “what ifs” often breed new ideas.