I don't think Richard Dawkins is half as clever as he think he is, do you?

Question

Quote: "We are going to die, and that makes us the lucky ones. Most people are never going to die because they are never going to be born"

This is a word for word quote:
Read it again , Utter nonsense isn't it , it implies there are some people who aren't born!?. (this actually sounds like something a Buddhist or Daoist might say, implying that there are actually a whole host of people waiting to be born!?)

And i bet those who defend it will say it has to be read 'in context' , well NO actually, sentences (written by a scientist in particular) should be fully intelligable by themselves.
Agree?
And no i am not a religious person in any way , i am a rational agnostic looking for intelligent insights into our existence. Dawkins needs to cut back on his attempt to make sensationalist bestsellers and get back to proper observation.He exagerates the threat from religions massively, the west is more secular than ever

Answer 1

Anyone who's smart enough to see through religions' lies is above average in my book.

Answer 2

There are plenty more astute scientists and thinkers who do not subscribe to Dawkins to wit...sheldrake einstein capra kant ouspensky webber plato newton wilber shah castenada jung chardin lessing ghandi brunton wilson gurdieff ingalese scot sebilius the list is endless.......but firedance by odysee of noises has just come on the stereo. listen to this and you know that there is more to life than polemic. I want it played at my funeral! For an agnostic you're quite open minded. Carry on the search, but avoid all so called religious books as I'm sure you will from what you have already said. I'm on a personal mission to throw a spanner in the works of those who dismiss a purposeful universe; the only thing i hate more is those who believe religion must equate to ancient fairy stories and is unscientific.

Answer 3

No, of course a reasonable person couldn't agree that a sentence alone has to be able to be intelligible by itself, if taken from a paragraph that explains it. Here, Dawkins was referring to possibilities inherent in the massive amount of DNA each partner brings to a child. The fact that only certain genetic information out of this potential gets passed on in that new individual is what makes all of those people who aren't born. The people who aren't born are the people who could have had traits that didn't get passed on to the individual who did come into existence. My parents both have brown eyes, but I have blue. A person could have just as easily (More so, probably) been born who had brown eyes. But that person wasn't born. There is a huge amount of genetic material from my parents that wasn't passed on to me. If you consider ever child ever born, then you realize how many more potential people were never born. Get it?

The fact that you posted this without understanding it demonstrates just how clever you really are, as compared to how clever you must think you are.

Answer 4

I think he is twice as clever as he thinks he is
and at least 10 times more intelligent than you (no offence).

1) The passage you quoted is explained very well in the book. Read it again, but the book is written for people with some elementary knowledge of science.

2) The West may be more secular than ever as you say, but the religious lobby in the US has tremendous influence. The bible belt has 80 million votes, Both Bush and Blair are very religious, and Islam is spreading like wild fire.

3)You better educate yourself a little more, before you find elementary mistakes in Nobel prize winners and making a fool of your self in public.

Answer 5

BlessingSeer -

Perhaps, like me, Richard Dawkins is just plain fed up with nonsense being spouted by people and the rest of us having to respect this nonsense.

Do you think it is acceptable to teach a child that 1+1=3 ?
- Yes or no

Do you think it is acceptable to teach a child that thought is spelt thawt
- Yes or no

Do you think it is acceptable to teach a child their illness is caused by them being a naughty child?
- Yes or no

If you regard no is the correct answer to all the above, why is it acceptable for children to be indoctrinated with their parents superstitious beliefs?

Believers in Islam, Christianity, Judaism, etc. want to be 'respected' by people for their beliefs. Would you respect my belief that King Arthur will resurrect and save Britain at her hour of need?

No? Why not? Many books have been written about this ancient myth so it must be true.

Just the same as the healing powers of stones has been written about by many people - the amethyst apparently channels 'psychic energy'. - much is written about that which is not true.

Answer 6

Having read a couple of his books, although I haven't read The God Delusion yet, I know that he's many times cleverer than I am. However, I think I know what he means.
In addition to the many wise answers here about potential combinations of DNA, his comment might be an allusion to the fact that most (60 - 80%) of fertilised eggs never implant or carry to term. For those people who believe that a person is created at the moment of conception, then most people are never born.

Answer 7

There are two possible explanation for why you would find that sentence confusing. One of them is that Dawkins is thick.

I think the evidence points to the other possibility, because I can understand the sentence perfectly well. It's an entirely sensible statement, and merely demands a little imagination and intelligence on the reader's behalf.

You appear to lack those qualities. Some of your other silly remarks tend to confirm that.

All this may shed light on your stated worldview. Perhaps you're not a rational agnostic at all, and instead are simply too limited to understand facts. If, in the light of this, you wish to continue with your search for insights into existence, I suggest you stop casting insults at your betters and adopt a outlook of humility appropriate to your limitations.

CD

Answer 8

"Agree?"

That's a sentence from your post, taken out of context. Hard to know what to think of it, isn't it? I'll give you some more context.

Here's the sentence that preceded it:

"And i bet those who defend it will say it has to be read 'in context' , well NO actually, sentences (written by a scientist in particular) should be fully intelligable by themselves."

Enough said?

Answer 9

How incredibly limiting! A sentence, which in reality is only a brief set of words, must make total sense alone, without exposition or explanation.

In reality this sentence's context is taken into account the enormous number of POSSIBLE human beings that could have been born but were either never conceived, never were carried to term, or for some other reason never came to exist. It is a statement that decries the futility of an afterlife as providing meaning to this life. In that context, the relatively meager poetic license employed by Dr. Dawkins (oh... do you have a Ph.D.?....) makes perfect, rational sense.

If, by chance, you ever do decide to write a book or make a television program, I hope that you are equally satisfied when small-minded critics take it apart into single sentences and demand that each one stand on its own without any buttressing or interpretation.

^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^

Answer 10

It is a sign of ignorance and arrogance ( it's odd how often these two traits are found together) to assume that because you do not understand, the other persons intelligence is in question. Who do you think you are to tell Dawkins, or anyone else for that matter, what they should and should not do? I have studied a fair bit of Dawkins and not encountered anywhere that he claims to be 'clever', where have you read this quote?

Answer 11

I'd recommend reading "The Selfish Gene", "River Out Of Eden" and "The Blind Watchmaker" before making an informed appraisal of Richard Dawkins' intellect. Incidentally, the most powerful man in the "secular" west, George Bush, believes in God, and in celestial judgement. That's enough of a threat for me, thanks very much.