Richard Dawkins?

Question

What do you think about him and his books?

Answer 1

I strongly agree with Dawkins on some things, strongly disagree on others.

On issues of biology, he is not only impeccable in his logic and command of the subject, but he is an outstanding *explainer* as well. I'm not even talking about his credentials as Oxford professor of biology. I am talking sheer knowledge, intelligence and skill at what he does. I challenge anyone to read (for example) "The Ancestor's Tale" and not come away learning something new on *every single page*.

But on isses of religion, I not only disagree with his atheist conclusions, but I really, really wish he did not become the poster-boy for atheism. However, I understand it absolutely ... he rightly sees banner-carriers for religion waging outright *war* on science, a war they wage with no honor, no honesty, no shred of intellectual integrity ... and Dawkins got fed up. Religion has gone beyond irrational to *anti-rational*.

As far as I'm concerned atheism (and I am not an atheist) has gained a powerful spokesman ... but science has lost one its best spokesmen. It only feeds into the already disastrous and FALSE perception that evolution = atheism.

In other words, I wish he didn't go there (making his case for atheism), but I also respect his right to do so, and understand the reasons why he is.

Answer 2

The religion played important part in evolution, cognitive scientist today stress that an awarness of the supernatural and the emergence of religion occurred as converging by-products of cognitive and emotional mechanism that evolved under natural selection for mundane adaptive tasks (Atran 2002, 2006). It is easy to see how these converging mechanism rapidly came to be used to rationalize of solve existential problems that otherwise have no solution.
It is a great paradox that a biologist whose life goal is evolutionary biology does not understand it. Believe in God is a natural process a product of evolution. Dawkins, however, decided to fight religious beliefs unto death. Does it make sense? Dawkins certainly does not make any sense. His alliance with American comedian Bill Maher perhaps best characterizes this. He is either a big joke or possessed by the devil, or both.

Answer 3

I have read most of his books and think he is brilliant in his thinking and in his ability to write so it can be understood by the lay person.

My religious friends argue about free will. I jokingly tell them I have no free will but am totally controlled by genes and memes.

Most of the time I agree with secretsause, but not in this case. I think it is important for scientists to speak out against creationists and others of their ilk. Especially now when religion is becoming so powerful throughout the world. I applaud Dawkins for being willing to take valuable time from studying much more worthwhile things to learn enough about the goofiness of religion to be able to argue knowledgeably against the religionists' nonsense.

Answer 4

. That he would possibly be. He has made tens of millions of greenbacks with a manner it is a techniques greater useful than that of Phineas Taylor Barnum, a guy who undeniably became into certainly stunning. Dawkins isn't yet as materially efficient as became into P.T. Barnum, probably because of the fact he's not as smart as Mr. Barnum. Dawkins additionally isn't as ethically good as P.T.Barnum, because of the fact Dawkins peddles his BS on the college, while Mr. Barnum had the decency to limit distribution of the vast majority of his BS to greater suited locales - which includes traveling circuses, carnivals, and ten-cent sensationalist "museums."

Answer 5

He generally does quite a good job of explaining classical Darwinism to the general, educated public, and his prose is generally quite good. He is an author I would recommend to someone who is just starting to read about evolution and who wants readable text on more or less orthodox evolutionary theory (natural selection, etc.). Genes as the objects of selection seems a bit silly to me, and I consider him a selectionist/'adaptationist.' As a bit of a Gouldian, I would say that he overestimates the power of natural selection to create adaptive organismal design, and that he focuses on adaptive design to the exclusion of other important and fascinating aspects of evolution (evolutionary theory).

Answer 6

I like him quite a bit and I think he has quite a fan base here on Y! Answers. I suggest you read some of his books if you are interesting in reading straightforward scientific approaches.

Answer 7

He talks a lot of common sense. His views are practical and not based on anything other than observable facts. You have to applaud him just for inventing the word "meme".

And anyone who says that creationism is "preposterous, mind-shrinking falsehood" has to be a hero.

Answer 8

Hes a great scientist and no one can take that away from him. However he is just the same as an evangelical Christian saying that evolution cant possibly happened. By being so consumed with Atheism (not thats something is wrong w/ it but anythink taken to an extreme can be bad) he rules out a possibility of a God, like evangelicals rule out evolution. Therefore he is just as closed minded as the closed minded people. So his science is great, but he is just like an evangelical except he tries for force aithesism on people.

Answer 9

He's great and I think quite an original thinker. However, it remains to be seen if we can outwit our "selfish genes" in order to survive as a species.

Answer 10

A