The religious nutjobs in America now have yet another reason to hate Harry Potter: the actor who incarnates our beloved wizard in the film series has openly revealed himself as a proud, relaxed atheist. Attaboy, Daniel!
In an interview with Esquire magazine, Radcliffe risked the US box office prospects of the new Harry Potter film by declaring himself to be an atheist.In a pronouncement that will dismay America's religious Right, which has long voiced suspicions about Potter's "anti-Christian" message, the 19-year-old actor said he did not believe in God.
He also expressed his admiration for Professor Richard Dawkins, the prominent atheist and bete noir of Evangelical Christians.
Radcliffe has been reticent on the subject of religion in the past, but in an interview to promote the latest instalment in the film franchise, Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, released on July 15, he said: "I'm an atheist, but I'm very relaxed about it. I don't preach my atheism, but I have a huge amount of respect for people like Richard Dawkins who do. Anything he does on television, I will watch."
He joked: "There we go, Dan, that's half of America that's not going to see the next Harry Potter film on the back of that comment."
I don't see why anyone would worry about a drop in the box office – anyone who's offended by witchcraft and fantastical hocus-pocus will already have been boycotting the films and burning Harry Potter effigies and books for a decade now, so seriously, anyone who's still watching the films or reading the books will likely have no problem with a young atheist in lead role. (Not to mention that anyone who stops watching a series they previously enjoyed just because an actor happens not to believe in their branch of faith is a total ass, but that's a given.)
I'm surprised I haven't heard of this before – apparently he said this at the release of Half-Blood Prince, now almost four years ago.
I was sorry to read this next little bit, though:
Prof Dawkins, author of best-selling book The God Delusion, is no fan of Harry Potter, once remarking that tales of witchcraft are "anti-scientific".
Oh come on now. That's just silly. It's a fantasy novel. What the heck does he want, science-based magic? Frankly, hating on Harry Potter just because it's supposedly "anti-scientific" (which is really a stupid claim in itself) is just as pathetic as anyone who hates, say, House for being "anti-woo". Kinda disappointing coming from someone as obviously intelligent and usually dead-on accurate as Professor Dawkins, but no-one's always 100% rational, I guess.
Continued ...»




