Harry Potter, the Wizard of Hogwarts is being challenged by Prof. Richard Dawkins, The Wizard of Biomorph Land.
Just as New Atheism is nothing particularly new, Prof Richard Dawkins’ latest crusade is merely a public expression of his virtual lifelong goal.
Atheism’s ultimate goal is of self-deification, replacing God centered theism with human centered anthro-theism.1 Prof. Richard Dawkins’ latest campaign will consist of a long term goal of his, replacing fantasy based fairytales with atheism based fairytales.
Prof. Richard Dawkins announced,
“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.”
He voices his concerns thusly,
“I think it is anti-scientific – whether that has a pernicious effect, I don’t know_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.”
I wonder why he loves the books of Philip Pullman? Are not these they very sorts of books which are “anti-scientific”? One should keep in mind that Philip Pullman has clearly admitted that his books are specifically anti-Christian and about “killing God”-what is there not to like? (see Atheism’s Sales Pitch to Children).Note that Prof. Richard Dawkins’ concern is that fairytales are “anti-scientific” which is a window, or so it seems, into his own worldview which shows us that based upon his atheism “science” is the only proper epistemic mode.
Moreover, note that he does, in fact, believe, even today as an adult, that frogs turned into princes. The only difference is that he believes that it took millions of years.
Prof. Richard Dawkins further explained his latest literary endeavor thusly:
“I plan to look at mythical accounts of various things and also the scientific account of the same thing. And the mythical account that I look at will be several different myths, of which the Judeo-Christian one will just be one of many.
And the scientific one will be substantiated, but appeal to children to think for themselves; to look at the evidence. Always look at the evidence.”2
I certainly look forward to the results although I am forced based on awareness of his modus operandi to expect his tactic: I think that by “scientific account” he means his privilege of weaving fairytales of his own in a mixture of scientific observation and worldview adherence.
If you read The God Delusion you surely noted that if the personal anecdotes were removed from it all that would be left is about a leaflet’s worth of writing.
Alan Jacobs (in Sir Richard rides forth to slay another dragon) pointed out, “It seems to be a rule with Dawkins that when he disapproves of something, he makes sure not to read people who know anything about it before making his own pronouncements.”
Thus, I think that he will not deal with the actual Judeo-Christian account but will cite the personal opinions which he considers to be most off base: I imagine that he will mention the biblically based flat-earth (which is actually an atheist myth), Galileo’s persecution by the church and surely Bishop Usher will get a mention with his calculations as to the earth being created 6,000 years ago, to the very hour of day.
Of course, Prof. Richard Dawkins could not complete a statement which included the term “children” without his traditional declaration bout the labeling of children according to their parent’s religion as “child abuse,” “It is evil,” “worse than physical child abuse.” He is apparently not aware that parents and society generally do this due to cultural and not religious consideration.
At least Prof. Richard Dawkins has solidified his stance on evil.He told “byFaith Magazine”,”What’s to prevent us from saying Hitler wasn’t right? I mean, that is a genuinely difficult question.”
But now we see that he draws the line, somewhere.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This seems to be a good time to begin a series of posts on Prof. Richard Dawkins’ very own abuse of children in what I will entitle, “Children in the Atheist’s Den” which is a review of his lecture to children known as “Royal Institution Christmas Lectures” aka “The Royal Institution Lectures for Children” Episode 1, “Waking up in the Universe.”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby. If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help. Here is my donate/paypal page.
Due to robo-spaming, I had to close the comment sections. However, you can comment on my Facebook page and/or on my Google+ page. You can also use the “Share / Save” button below this post.