6 0

Richard Dawkins. Too much or bang on?

ledgersquad 4 Aug 19

Enjoy being online again!

Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.

Create your free account


Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.


Good to hear and read at first, but after that it's preaching to the choir.


Being a Biologist puts him out of my scope of interest. However, his stance on religion is quite extraordinary. He is passionate and measured in a delicate balance. You can look him up in YouTube, plenty of interesting footage on several topics. His credit is well deserved

I do not know any scholar who has done research on the topic of religion and who gives credit to Dawkins (or to any other of the "New atheists". ) -- On the contrary.
"The scientific ignorance and tomfoolery of many of the new atheists with regard to religion, and history, makes me almost embarrassed to be an atheist" (anthropologist Scott Atran, author of "In Gods we trust" ). - - Pascal BOYER, author of "Religion explained" has voiced similar criticism on several occasions.

@Matias ok if you don't know then what do I have to do with it?


I have only read his book for science. Can someone tell me where he is appearing in popular culture?

You can do a google search.

Within the evolution debate he is considered a leading Neo-Darwinist. They say that we are all products of our genes selfish need to survive. On the other end of the evolution debate are the intelligent designers, In between these two there are at least 10 other less popular theories. Some point out that sometimes genes are not just selfish but often cooperate in order to evolve. I just finished studying all these theories in my New Thought Seminary class, but I have to admit, I'm out of my depth.

@Seminarian Dawkins says about his book, "The Cooperative Gene would have been an equally appropriate title for this book, and the book itself would not have changed at all. I suspect that a whole lot of mistaken criticisms could have been avoided."


@Seminarian I have learned on my own and I learned of his thinking through evolutionary biology and ecology of biology in undergrad. The best example the professor gave was a computer game of cooperation, bio-models and stats. I think under 10 people participated. It was based on the scenario of prairie dogs that risk their own lives to save their biologically-related extended families. Once in a while, the group would explode in population when there were cooperators. Humans, I think have the same thing going on, but they also have complex thinking and some will be extremely altruistic at their own personal expense (choose not to have children in hopes of saving overpopulation and survivability for future generations), that may not be related to them. I did not understand why he was such a threat as "The Selfish Gene" has been around for thirty years. Thanks for your help.

@AlPastor Thanks in the articles they assigned to us Dawkins was described as a proponent of non-cooperative genes. If that is not true than he doesn't belong at the far end of the spectrum.

@Seminarian In "The Selfish Gene" Dawkins even went beyond the selfish and cooperative to suggest in a thought experiment that there may even be an altruism gene that he coined as a "green-beard gene,"


@AlPastor Wow, it is good to know that if I was another slime mold, the other slime molds might cooperate with me. Thanks for the link.


There is only so much I can listen to. You can get overload with him...small doses are enough. I am already convinced, I don’t need regular top ups.

You'll make a very poor fanboy (fangirl, fanwoman) with that attitude! Maybe girls don't do the worship thing. I've never heard of a fangirl.

@brentan I will leave the worship to my friends, who both Catholic and Protestant alike go like good little lambs to be reindoctrinated every Sunday, whether they need it or not!

@brentan want an example of fangirls, go see a boy band.


The Dawk is a brilliant scientist but in my opinion his social comments don't reflect that same brilliance

cava Level 7 Aug 19, 2018

He was all fired up. How could he have bashed his way through the world of religious stupidity if he was not 'too much'? Newer atheists have an easier time than he did, because he did it first. I think he should never have lowered himself to engage with Twitter but overall (having read two of his books as well as the usual), I think he has contributed a huge body of knowledge to the world of genetics and helped cut the feet out from under an arrogant and often criminal clergy.

Write Comment
You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:159124
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.