Richard Dawkins

From Conservapedia - Reading time: 73 min

---

Clinton Richard Dawkins, FRS, FRSL, (born March 26, 1941, age 81), is a British author, biologist, evolutionist, agnostic and leftist/liberal (See also: Richard Dawkins and agnosticism).^[3]

He is often referred to as the "world's most famous atheist" and was one of the principle founders of the New Atheism movement (See also: Celebrity atheists).^[4] But when interviewed, he claimed that, on a scale of 1 to 7, where 1 is perfect faith in God and 7 is perfect confidence in atheism, he is a 6.9.^[5] In recent years, Dawkins' popularity has waned (See: Richard Dawkins' loss of influence).

Despite being an elderly, self-declared agnostic, in his book The God Delusion, Dawkins said that "permanent in agnosticism in principle" is "fence-sitting, intellectual cowardice" (see also: Atheism and cowardice).^[6]

Although Dawkins declared that he was an agnostic in 2006 and 2012, in 2002 Richard Dawkins publicly argued for the position of militant atheism and claimed that he will not feel anything after death (see also: Ex-atheists).^[7][8][9] Despite arguing for the position of militant atheism previously, Dawkins told the Archbishop Dr. Rowan Williams that he never said was an atheist.^[10][11][12] See also: Atheism and historical revisionism

Although Dawkins is an agnostic, he advocates evangelical atheism and is widely considered to be an atheist activist. Author Vox Day wrote concerning this matter, "While the fact that Dawkins declared himself a literal agnostic in the very book in which he declared the importance of atheist evangelism is both ironic and incoherent, it will surprise no one who has read the chapter of The Irrational Atheist entitled "Darwin's Judas".^[7]

Most of Richard Dawkins' popular books have promoted evolutionary pseudoscience. Dawkins is also the former holder of the Charles Simonyi Chair of the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University.

He is an ardent opponent of religion, which he dismisses as mere superstition.^[13] However, Dawkins has offered no effective rebuttal to studies which show that the irreligious are more likely to be superstitious than evangelical Christians.^[14]

As noted above, Dawkins is one of the primary founders of the New Atheism movement, which is a form of dogmatic, militant atheism in terms of its rhetoric (see: New Atheism, dogmatism and Jonathon Haidt's study). Dawkins said about New Atheism, "[O]ur struggle is not so much an intellectual struggle, as a political one: What are we going to do about it?”.^[15] In recent years, the prominence of Richard Dawkins and the New Atheism movement has greatly fallen (see: Decline of New Atheism).

In terms of the theism vs. agnosticism and atheism issue, Dawkins has shown himself to be rather ignorant in matters of philosophy and theology. For example, philosopher Dr. Michael Ruse declared concerning Dawkins' book The God Delusion: "The God Delusion makes me embarrassed to be an atheist."^[16] The philosopher Antony Flew, who was one of the most prominent atheist academics in the world before adopting deism, said about Dawkins: “The fault of Dawkins as an academic…was his scandalous and apparently deliberate refusal to present the doctrine he appears to think he has refuted in its strongest form”.^[17]

As far as the origin of the universe, Dawkins wrote: “The fact that life evolved out of nearly nothing, some 10 billion years after the universe evolved literally out of nothing, is a fact so staggering that I would be mad to attempt words to do it justice."^[18] See also: Atheism and the origin of the universe

Dawkins is a vocal opponent of Islam. Dawkins has said, "Islam is the greatest force for evil in the world today".^[19][20] Despite his opposition to religion/Christianity, Dawkins indicated: "Christianity may actually be our best defence against aberrant forms of religion that threaten the world".^[1][2] See also: Richard Dawkins and Christianity

In 2020, Richard Dawkins was disinvited from speaking at the Trinity College Dublin’s College Historical Society for his stance against Islam and views on sexual assault.^[21] See also: Atheism and rape

Biography of Richard Dawkins[edit]

Richard Dawkins was born in Nairobi, Kenya.^[25] He was a child of a family of colonial forest officers.^[26] Dawkins was raised to have religious values, and confesses that when he was young, he acknowledged the complexity of life and believed that it indicated a designer. However, during his teens, he chose to abandon this faith and embrace Darwinism instead, despite admitting that he hadn’t actually read Charles Darwin’s works.^[27][28] See also: British atheism and UK and secularism

The atheist philosopher John Gray wrote of Dawkins' time spent in Kenya while reviewing An Appetite for Wonder: The Making of a Scientist, the first of a two-part autobiography: "Unlike the best of the colonial administrators, some of whom were deeply versed in the languages and histories of the peoples they ruled, Dawkins displays no interest in the cultures of the African countries where he lived as a boy. It is the obedient devotion of those who served his family that has remained in his memory."^[29] See also: Richard Dawkins' family fortune and the slave trade

Dawkins studied zoology at Oxford University, and graduated in 1962. As a undergraduate at Oxford, he studied zoology under the Dutch ethologist Niko Tinbergen and the two developed a strong student/teacher relationship.^[30] He remained at Oxford for his doctoral work, receiving his Ph.D in 1966. From 1967-1969, Dawkins served as Assistant Professor of Zoology at Berkeley. During this time, he was, in his own words, “heavily involved” in the unrest and liberal activism for which Berkeley is notorious.^[28] He returned to Oxford in 1970 and served as a Lecturer in Animal Behaviour and a Fellow of New College. In 1995, Dawkins became the Simonyi Professor of the Public Understanding of Science which was a post created by an endowment of £1.5m from Dr. Charles Simonyi. In September 2008, Richard Dawkins retired from his post as Simonyi Professor of the Public Understanding of Science.

Despite this, Richard Dawkins might have remained a relatively obscure professor if not for the publication of his first book, The Selfish Gene, in 1976. This book became a bestseller, and brought Dawkins a celebrity which he has worked to maintain with further books and lectures.

In 1984, Dawkins divorced his wife of 17 years, Marian Stamp; later that same year, he married Eve Barham. Dawkins also divorced Barham, though the precise circumstances of this divorce are unclear.^[31] He married science fiction actress Lalla Ward in 1992 and they separated after 24 years of marriage.^[32]

Theodore Beale wrote in the his book The Irrational Atheist about Dawkins's claim that teaching children about Hell is more harmful to children than "mild child abuse":

“

Richard Dawkins is perhaps one of the last men on Earth who should be discussing what is the right and proper way to raise children, given that the number of his wives outnumber his offspring. In his letter to his daughter Juliet, addressed to her at the age of ten and published in A Devil’s Chaplain, there is little mention of love, no admission of regret, and no paternal promises. As one British journalist noted, the letter is “coldly impersonal” and “authoritarian.” There is no expression of interest in what might be important to her.[33]

”

See also: Juliet Emma Dawkins and Richard Dawkins and love

The Christian Times reported:

“

The 75-year-old evolutionary biologist, who suffered a stroke early this year, had stirred the public years ago when he denounced monogamy and fidelity in relationships. In his article piece "Banishing the Green Eyed Monster," Dawkins referred to "jealousy" in a relationship as "immoral and selfish." He defended that men should be allowed to keep mistresses and indulge in sexual pleasures with others.[34]

”

Since 2011, Dawkins has been embroiled in controversies related to feminism/Islam and he has received a significant amount of criticism from his fellow secular leftists as a result (see: Richard Dawkins and women and Richard Dawkins and Islamophobia accusations).

According to The Richest, "Richard Dawkins..has an estimated net worth of $10,000,000 according to the Sunday Times in 2012."^[35] See also: Richard Dawkins' net worth

Richard Dawkins and women[edit]

Women's views of Richard Dawkins[edit]

See: Richard Dawkins and women, Elevatorgate, Feminist quotes about Richard Dawkins, New Atheism and women and Atheism and rape

Majority of web visitors to Dawkins' website are men[edit]

See also: Demographic makeup of web visitors to the website Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science

Survey data and website tracking data of prominent atheist websites indicate that in the Western World, atheism is significantly less appealing to women.

According to the website tracking firms Alexa and SimilarWeb, women frequent the website of richarddawkins.net significantly less than men.^[37] In recent years, there has been a significant amount of friction between Richard Dawkins and feminists (see: Richard Dawkins and women).

Elevatorgate controversy[edit]

See also: Elevatorgate, Atheist feminism and Richard Dawkins and social media

In July 2011, Richard Dawkins was widely criticized within the atheist community and in various press outlets for his insensitive comments made to atheist Rebecca Watson about an incident which occurred in an elevator (see: Elevatorgate).^[38]

Prior to Elevatorgate, Monica Shores' 2010 Ms. Magazine article titled Will “New Atheism” Make Room For Women? criticized the News Atheism movement for being sexist.^[39] She also cited Conservapedia in her article and indicated: "The lack of lady presence is so visible that Conservapedia commented on it by noting that Dawkins’ website overwhelmingly attracts male visitors."^[39]

For more information, please see:

• Elevatorgate news stories

• Atheist conferences

• Research on atheist conferences

Dawkins retracts his Elevatorgate apology, says Elevatorgate incident was rather trivial[edit]

On August 6, 2014, Dawkins apologized for his remarks related to his Elevatorgate scandal.^[24][40]

However, on November 18, 2014, Richard Dawkins retracted his apology and indicated that: he stands by his recent remarks about women/men relations, he feels muzzled by "thought police" and that Rebecca Watson's experience in the elevator was "rather trivial" compared to events some Muslim women experience.^[41]

Specifically, the Washington Post reported on November 18, 2014:

“

“I don’t take back anything that I’ve said,” Dawkins said from a shady spot in the leafy backyard of one of his Bay Area supporters. “I would not say it again, however, because I am now accustomed to being misunderstood and so I will. “ He trailed off momentarily, gazing at his hands resting on a patio table. “I feel muzzled, and a lot of other people do as well,” he continued. “There is a climate of bullying, a climate of intransigent thought police which is highly influential in the sense that it suppresses people like me.” Recent criticism of Dawkins has come from women, many of them within the atheist movement, which has long drawn more men to its ranks. His online remarks, some women say, contribute to a climate they see as unwelcoming to female atheists... “I concentrate my attention on that menace and I confess I occasionally get a little impatient with American women who complain of being inappropriately touched by the water cooler or invited for coffee or something which I think is, by comparison, relatively trivial,” he said.[22]

”

Reason Rally related incident involving David Silverman and Richard Dawkins[edit]

See also: Reason Rally related incident involving David Silverman and Richard Dawkins and Feminist quotes about Richard Dawkins

An article by Sarah posted at Skepchick about a conversation between Richard Dawkins and David Silverman (a former president of the American Atheists organization), which took place during the planning phase of the Reason Rally:

“

Richard was standing behind the podium, and he asked Dave something along the lines of, “What exactly is the Reason Rally?” Dave started explaining it, and as he did, someone who was waiting in the line outside opened the door to peek inside and we could all hear a lot of noise. I rushed up the aisle and made frantic “shut the door” gestures at the people peeking inside, and they did. As I walked the ten feet back, I couldn’t hear everything Dave was saying, but I heard the name “Rebecca Watson.” Richard suddenly had a very angry look on his face and I heard him almost shout, “No, absolutely not! If she’s going to be there, I won’t be there. I don’t want her speaking.” and then Dave immediately replied, “You’re absolutely right, we’ll take her off the roster. It’s done.” Richard huffed for a moment, Dave continued to placate him, and then he made the video. I was crushed.[42]

”

For more information, please see: Elevatorgate

Elevatorgate and increased division within the atheist population[edit]

See also: Atheist movement and Atheism and leadership

Post-Elevatorgate, Richard Dawkins is often criticized by secular leftists for igniting deep fractures in the atheist movement and hindering the atheist movement. For example, on November 26, 2013, the atheist activist and blogger Jen McCreight posted at Twitter the message: "Did anyone on Dawkins AMA ask how he feels about singlehandedly destroying the atheist movement with the Dear Muslima yet?"^[43] In December 2013, atheist Jack Vance at Atheist Revolution called July 2, 2011, which is the day that Elevatorgate occurred, "The day the atheist movement died."^[44]

See also: Internet atheism

Dawkins' disinvitation to speak at a skeptics conference due to a feminism/Islam controversy[edit]

See also: Richard Dawkins' health, Richard Dawkins' stroke, Richard Dawkins and medical science and Richard Dawkins, Darwin and psychogenic illness

As a result of the controversy relating to a Dawkins Twitter post about feminism/Islam, Dawkins was disinvited to speak at the 2016 Northeast Conference on Science and Skepticism (NCSS) (See: Feminists cause Richard Dawkins to be disinvited to skeptic conference).^[45] Stephanie Zvan is an atheist blogger at Freethought Blogs. She wrote an open letter to the Center for Inquiry (CFI) about the events surrounding the Dawkins' Twitter post about feminism/Islam that "CFI now has a harassment denialist on its board, a harassment denialist who has tied his denialism to his work at your organization."^[46]

Dawkins said he was very upset about being disinvited to the conference.^[45] After his disinvitation, Dawkins gave some news about his health condition after suffering a minor stroke and he mentioned that his doctors advised avoiding controversies due to his chronic high blood pressure.^[47] In recent times Dawkins has been embroiled in a number of controversies involving the topics of feminism/Islam and he has faced a significant amount of criticism from his fellow skeptics/liberals (see: Richard Dawkins and women and Richard Dawkins and Islamophobia accusations).

Atheist Hemant Mehta reported about Dawkins' stroke and Dawkins' report that he had been once again invited to the conference:

“

It was the result of stress-related higher blood pressure, which he says he may have had as a result of recent controversy, including being booted from the NECSS conference. He added, however, that on February 5, he received a letter from conference organizers apologizing for disinviting him and asking him back to the conference.[48]

”

On the morning of Richard Dawkins' stroke, Dawkins received a letter from the NCSS apologizing to Dawkins for his disinvitation and once again inviting him to speak at the conference.^[49]

Despite the medical advice of his doctors, Dawkins had a very active Twitter presence before his minor stroke (with a number of Twitter controversies) and numerous public controversies.^[50]

Dawkins has accumulated over 30,000 Twitter tweets.^[53] The Independent reported, "Dawkins also admitted he wasn't very good at managing Twitter and the strong reactions his posts tend to provoke. 'Twitter is very difficult medium to handle,' he said. 'I’m not much of a diplomat.'"^[54] However, after his stroke, in May 2016, Dawkins gave up posting on Twitter for awhile and the tweets that appeared in his name were done by his staff.^[55] See also: Richard Dawkins and Twitter

Debates raged over praying for Richard Dawkins health after his stroke.^[56][57]

The Guardian reported that Dawkins is expected to have a full recovery or near full recovery from his stroke.^[58]

In December 2016, Dawkins appears to have started to Tweet again despite his doctors warnings to avoid controversy (For example, he tweeted that Britain had become a "nasty little backwater" after the Brexit vote and his Tweet drew fierce criticism).^[59][60][61]

Richard Dawkins' health[edit]

• Richard Dawkins' health

Richard Dawkins' stroke[edit]

• Richard Dawkins' stroke

Richard Dawkins' high blood pressure and his thoughts on veganism/vegetarianism[edit]

See: Richard Dawkins on veganism and Dietary practices of atheists

Atheist PZ Myers comment about Dawkins' attitude towards women[edit]

See also: Atheism and women and Richard Dawkins and women

In 2014, the prominent New Atheist PZ Myers said of Richard Dawkins' attitude towards women: "At a time when our movement needs to expand its reach, it’s a tragedy that our most eminent spokesman has so enthusiastically expressed such a regressive attitude.”^[62]

Myers also said in 2014 concerning Dawkins:

“

Richard Dawkins: you’re wrong. Deeply, profoundly, fundamentally wrong. Your understanding of feminism is flawed and misinformed, and further, you keep returning to the same poisonous wells of misinformation. ...you persist in presenting these anti-feminist caricatures as reasonable. You say you are a feminist, and even find feminism an undeniable virtue, but at the same time you parrot absurd anti-feminist remarks.[63]

”

Richard Dawkins commentary on Mary the Mother of Jesus[edit]

In 2010, the Christian apologetics website True Free Thinker wrote:

“

The atheist and evolutionist Richard Dawkins just referred to Mary, the mother of Jesus, as a ‘submissive cosmic doormat’... If Richard Dawkins had a better grasp of womanhood and a greater grasp of manhood, he would still be married to his first wife and not his third.[64]

”

Other reasons why many women hold unfavorable views of Richard Dawkins[edit]

Another plausible explanation for many women having a lack of enthusiasm for Richard Dawkins's message is that many women who attend religious services and hold traditional beliefs and values find Richard Dawkins' atheistic values repugnant. In terms of traditional values, in 2007, when asked in an interview, "If we do not acknowledge some sort of external [standard], what is to prevent us from saying that the Muslim [extremists] aren’t right?", Dawkins replied, "What’s to prevent us from saying Hitler wasn’t right? I mean, that is a genuinely difficult question, but whatever [defines morality], it’s not the Bible. If it was, we’d be stoning people for breaking the Sabbath."^[65]

(See also: Richard Dawkins' commentary on Adolf Hitler)

Feminist quotes about Richard Dawkins[edit]

• Feminist quotes about Richard Dawkins

Richard Dawkins and Center for Inquiry translation project to reach more Muslims[edit]

See also: The Translations Project and Atheism vs. Islam and Center for Inquiry

The Guardian reported about Richard Dawkins' book The God Delusion:

“

Richard Dawkins is responding to what he called the “stirring towards atheism” in some Islamic countries with a programme to make free downloads of his books available in Arabic, Urdu, Farsi and Indonesian. The scientist and atheist said he was “greatly encouraged” to learn that the unofficial Arabic pdf of the book had been downloaded 13m times. Dawkins writes in The God Delusion about his wish that the “open-minded people” who read it will “break free of the vice of religion altogether”. It has sold 3.3m copies worldwide since it was published in 2006 – far fewer than the number of Arabic copies that Dawkins believes to have been downloaded illegally. The Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science recently merged with the Washington DC-based Center for Inquiry. Dawkins said the CFI decided on “a more systematic programme” of translating his work in ebook form following “stirrings toward atheism in Iran and other Islamic countries”. It will be the first time his work has been made available in Arabic, Urdu, Farsi and other languages of Islamic countries.[66]

”

The Center for Inquiry indicates on its website:

“

Announcing The Translations Project, a program of the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason & Science, part of the Center for Inquiry. The books of Richard Dawkins—including River Out of Eden, The Magic of Reality, The Blind Watchmaker, and The God Delusion—are being professionally translated into languages such as Arabic, Urdu, Farsi, and Indonesian and made available to download free of charge.[67]

”

Richard Dawkins and Islamophobia accusations[edit]

See also: Richard Dawkins and Islamophobia accusations, New Atheism and Islamophobia and Atheism vs. Islam

The New Atheists Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris and the late Christopher Hitchens have received multiple accusations of engaging in Islamophobic behavior.^[69] Dawkins is dismissive of the concept of Islamophobia and declared: "I’m always being accused of Islamophobia, that’s a non-word."^[70]

On December 28, 2015, the Daily Express reported about Dawkins:

“

The furious academic walked out of an interview when a Muslim journalist confirmed he personally believed the prophet Muhammad flew to heaven on a winged horse. Dawkins, 74, author of best-seller The God Delusion, told the New Statesmen's Emad Ahmed that his belief was "pathetic" before angrily storming off.[71]

”

Ryan Kerney wrote at New Republic concerning Dawkins' behavior towards Emad Ahmed: "Richard Dawkins is just as rude in person as he is on Twitter, apparently."^[72]

On the other hand, defenders of atheist criticisms of Islam/Muslims indicated that New Atheists should be able to criticize Islam without being accused of Islamophobia.^[73]

Richard Dawkins and racial minorities[edit]

Sikivu Hutchinson's criticism of RDF and Center for Inquiry merger[edit]

See also: Western atheism and race and Atheism and leadership

Atheist Sikivu Hutchinson wrote:

“

The recent merger of the secular organization Center for Inquiry (CFI) and the Richard Dawkins Foundation (RDF) has been dubbed atheism's supergroup moment. Acknowledging the two organizations' outsized presence in the atheist world, Religion News Service acidly declared it a "royal wedding". The partnership, which gives Richard Dawkins a seat on the CFI board, smacks of a vindication of Dawkins' toxic, reactionary brand of damn-all-them-culturally-backward-Western-values-hating- Muslims New Atheism. As one of the most prominent global secular organizations, CFI's all-white board looks right at home with RDF's lily white board and staff.[74]

”

The secular humanist document Human Manifesto II, which was written in 1973 by Paul Kurtz and Edwin H. Wilson, decried racism and it declared:

“

The beginnings of police states, even in democratic societies, widespread government espionage, and other abuses of power by military, political, and industrial elites, and the continuance of unyielding racism, all present a different and difficult social outlook. In various societies, the demands of women and minority groups for equal rights effectively challenge our generation.[75]

”

Richard Dawkins wants people to eat manufactured human lab meat to "overcome our taboo against cannibalism”[edit]

LifeSite News declares:

“

Richard Dawkins, the (in)famous atheism proselytizer, has mused about eating human meat. No, he doesn’t want to join the Donner Party. Researchers may soon be able to manufacture meat from cell lines in the lab, and Dawkins has suggested in a tweet that we could “overcome our taboo” by eating human flesh so manufactured. What if human meat is grown? Could we overcome our taboo against cannibalism? An interesting test case for consequentialist morality versus “yuck reaction” absolutism.[76]

”

Richard Dawkins' bleak worldview[edit]

See also: Atheism, agnosticism and pessimism, Atheism and the origin of the universe and Atheism and inspiration

According to Dawkins, "The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference."^[77]

Richard Dawkins and the religious rights of parents[edit]

See also: Evangelical atheism

Richard Dawkins is commonly thought to be an evangelical atheist.^[78][79][80]

Although evangelical atheists do not advocate the violent/murderous methods that the militant atheists of communism have employed, they generally favor using the power of state to indoctrinate children into believing various aspects of atheist ideology (see: Atheist indoctrination). The new atheist Richard Dawkins claims that children need state protection from religion/religion of children's parents.^[81]

Richard Dawkins and the encouragement of atheist mockery[edit]

See also: Atheism and mockery

The new atheist Richard Dawkins has encouraged his supporters to go beyond humorous ridicule.^[82] He wrote, "I lately started to think that we need to go further: go beyond humorous ridicule, sharpen our barbs to a point where they really hurt."^[82] For more information please see: Atheism and mockery and Abrasiveness of Richard Dawkins

Richard Dawkins on the dissemination of pornography videos to theocratic societies[edit]

See also: Richard Dawkins on child molestation and so called "gentle pedophiles" and Atheism and pornography

On January 1, 2015, The Telegraph reported:

“

Richard Dawkins’ insanity has now become an English institution – like warm beer and rain. On Saturday morning, a tweet from his account asked why we don’t send lots of "erotic videos" to theocracies, adding that it should be “loving, gentle, woman-respecting” (I guess this involves the pizza delivery boy calling the next day). If we’re going down this road, I also hear that Islamists aren’t very keen on bacon, so perhaps we should bombard the Iranian countryside with pig carcasses? Also, miniature bottles of gin. And photos of hot guys making out – in a “men-respecting” and “gentle” sort of way. After a few minutes of mockery, the tweet was deleted. Perhaps even he realised how utterly mad it was. Which suggests a degree of self-awareness that I didn’t think possible in Britain’s nuttiest professor.[83]

”

See also: Atheism and pornography

Atheists declaring that Richard Dawkins is now a liability to the atheist movement[edit]

See also: Richard Dawkins' loss of influence and Atheism and public relations

Although the New Atheist Richard Dawkins was always known for his abrasiveness and arrogance, post Elevatorgate and subsequent to his various embarrassing Twitter posts, many atheists are now asking if he is a liability to the atheist movement.^[84]

See also:

• Richard Dawkins' loss of influence

• Richard Dawkins quotes

• Decline of the atheist movement

Richard Dawkins' cult of personality[edit]

See also: Richard Dawkins' cult of personality, Atheist cults, Atheism is a religion and Atheism and leadership

On August 16, 2014, Andrew Brown wrote an article for The Spectator entitled The bizarre – and costly – cult of Richard Dawkins which declared:

“

...the Richard Dawkins website offers followers the chance to join the ‘Reason Circle’, which, like Dante’s Hell, is arranged in concentric circles. For $85 a month, you get discounts on his merchandise, and the chance to meet ‘Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science personalities’. Obviously that’s not enough to meet the man himself. For that you pay $210 a month — or $5,000 a year — for the chance to attend an event where he will speak... But the $85 a month just touches the hem of rationality. After the neophyte passes through the successively more expensive ‘Darwin Circle’ and then the ‘Evolution Circle’, he attains the innermost circle, where for $100,000 a year or more he gets to have a private breakfast or lunch with Richard Dawkins, and a reserved table at an invitation-only circle event with ‘Richard’ as well as ‘all the benefits listed above’, so he still gets a discount on his Richard Dawkins T-shirt saying ‘Religion — together we can find a cure.’ The website suggests that donations of up to $500,000 a year will be accepted for the privilege of eating with him once a year: at this level of contribution you become a member of something called ‘The Magic of Reality Circle’. I don’t think any irony is intended. At this point it is obvious to everyone except the participants that what we have here is a religion without the good bits.[85]

”

The Richard Dawkins cult has some similarity to the cult of Scientology.^[86] Dawkins was one of the founders of the New Atheism movement. The New Atheism movement, which has waned in recent years, was called a cult by the agnostic, journalist Bryan Appleyard in a 2012 article in the New Statesman in which he describes the abusive behavior of New Atheists.^[87] Although the New Atheism movement does not perfectly fit the various characteristics of a cult, it does fit some of the characteristics.^[88]

See also: Richard Dawkins's Foundation and an embezzlement allegation and Atheist organizations and scandals

Abrasive demeanor of Richard Dawkins[edit]

See also: Abrasiveness of Richard Dawkins, Richard Dawkins and anger and Atheism and leadership

Richard Dawkins has a reputation for being an aggressive and angry man (see: Richard Dawkins and anger).

Atheist author and sociology professor Phil Zuckerman said of Dawkins: "He is smug, condescending and emits an unpleasant disdainfulness. He doesn’t ever seem to acknowledge the good aspects of religion, only the bad. In that sense, I think he doesn’t help atheism in the PR department."^[89] See also: Elevatorgate and Richard Dawkins quotes

Gary Demar commenting on the abrasiveness and incivility of Richard Dawkins quotes Dawkins stating the following:

“

It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that).

”

Dr. R. Albert Mohler, Jr. has echoed Mr. Demar's estimation of Richard Dawkins and has stated regarding Richard Dawkins the following:

“

His aggressiveness and abrasiveness have now prompted some of his fellow defenders of evolution to wonder if he is doing their cause more harm than good. The September 2005 issue of Discover magazine features an article that raises this very question. In "Darwin's Rottweiler," author Stephen S. Hall suggests that Dawkins is simply "far too fierce.".... Dawkins admits that he just may be "a bit of a loose canon." In reality, that is a significant understatement.[90]

”

In addition, Richard Dawkins appears to have had struggles maintaining marital harmony in his life and three of his three marriages have ended in divorce (see also: Women's views of Richard Dawkins).

In September 2010, Richard Dawkins became nasty towards a woman in an audience he spoke before.^[91]

Furthermore, Dawkins has developed a reputation for being angry (see: Richard Dawkins and anger).

The film documentary The Atheist Delusion features a humorless Richard Dawkins who is the object of audience laughter[edit]

See also: Atheism and humor

The movie The Atheist Delusion features Richard Dawkins being the object of audience laughter due to something unreasonable he said.^[92] Dawkins indignantly asked the audience, "Why is that funny?".^[92]

Dogmatic arrogance of Richard Dawkins[edit]

See: Atheism is a religion, Atheism and arrogance and Atheism and intolerance

Using special text analysis software, the social psychologist Jonathan Haidt found that New Atheists, such as Richard Dawkins, very often wrote in dogmatic terms in their major works using words such as “always,” “never,” “certainly,” “every,” and “undeniable.”^[93]

Yet, the works of New Atheists, including Richard Dawkins, often betray an amateurish knowledge of philosophy, religion and science. For example, the book The Irrational atheist found multiple errors in reasoning and factual errors when it came to the works of New Atheist authors.^[94] See also: Richard Dawkins and pseudoscience

Atheist philosopher John Gray on the dogmatic arrogance of Richard Dawkins[edit]

In a 2014 New Republic article entitled The Closed Mind of Richard Dawkins: His atheism is its own kind of narrow religion, the atheist philosopher John Gray wrote:

“

One might wager a decent sum of money that it has never occurred to Dawkins that to many people he appears as a comic figure. His default mode is one of rational indignation—a stance of withering patrician disdain for the untutored mind of a kind one might expect in a schoolmaster in a minor public school sometime in the 1930s. He seems to have no suspicion that any of those he despises could find his stilted pose of indignant rationality merely laughable. “I am not a good observer,” he writes modestly. He is referring to his observations of animals and plants, but his weakness applies more obviously in the case of humans. Transfixed in wonderment at the workings of his own mind, Dawkins misses much that is of importance in human beings—himself and others.[29]

”

Richard Dawkins' comment about aborting Down syndrome babies[edit]

See also: Abortion and atheism and Atheism in medicine and Atheism and social intelligence and Eugenics

In August 2014, Richard Dawkins caused a firestorm by claiming an unborn baby with Down’s syndrome should be aborted and that it would be “immoral to bring it into the world.”^[95] Dr. Michael Brown wrote in the Christian Post about this matter: "It is becoming increasingly clear that Dawkins is something of an embarrassment, even to other atheists (although he is still revered by many). The only question that remains is this: Are his irrational and immoral positions unique to him, or are they the logical outcome of his Darwinian evolutionism?"^[96] See also: Social effects of the theory of evolution

A British father whose Down's syndrome daughter passed six General Certificate of Secondary Education (GCSE) tests called Richard Dawkins an "ignorant idiot".^[97]

Martin Robbins at New Statesman: Dawkins grasping for attention and relevance[edit]

In 2013, Martin Robbins wrote in the New Statesman concerning the public persona of Dawkins: "Increasingly though, his public output resembles that of a man desperately grasping for attention and relevance..."^[98]

Recently, Richard Dawkins has been reduced to Tweeting provocative Twitter posts in order to gain attention. After the predictable ensuing uproar, Dawkins half-heartedly apologizes for the provocative Tweets.^[99]

Richard Dawkins' loss of influence post Elevatatorgate and other controversies[edit]

See also: Richard Dawkins' loss of influence, Decline of New Atheism and Internet atheism and Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science website

As can be seen by the graph below, by means of embedded code on his website from Quantcast, Quantcast directly measured the web traffic of Richard Dawkins' website. Traffic to Dawkins website is significantly down post-Elevatorgate. See also: Internet atheism

Although his following of Dawkian atheist has significantly waned post-Elevatorgate and due to his generally abrasive manner, he does retain a small cult following (See: Richard Dawkins' loss of influence, Richard Dawkins' cult of personality and Atheist cults).

Furthermore, the New Atheism movement has greatly waned in terms of its prominence (see: Decline of New Atheism).

Richard Dawkins: Google Trends data for searches on "Richard Dawkins" from 2004 to 2020[edit]

Initial loss of web traffic to Richard Dawkins's website post Elevatorgate[edit]

Web traffic of Richard Dawkins' website has seen a dramatic drop[edit]

Richard Dawkins' website and loss of Google referral traffic[edit]

See also: Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science website

Alexa ranking of Richard Dawkins' website[edit]

See also: Alexa rankings of Richard Dawkins' website

2021 Alexa rankings of Richard Dawkins' website[edit]

Coverage of Richard Dawkins speaking tour[edit]

In 2016, the Shadow To Light blog wrote in article entitled Fading Dawkins:

“

Dawkins has been on a speaking tour recently in the United States. On Nov 1 and 2, he had a “public conversation” with Sam Harris. In the golden years of Gnu, there would have been a couple of news reports about this talk filled with some click-bait quote and I’d probably be blogging about something they said. But despite Dawkins’ return to the speaker circuit, and despite him teaming up with Sam Harris for two days, I can’t find a single report. No one outside that theater is interested in what two of the Four Horsemen had to say. Look, Dawkins and Harris will always have their place among the Madalyn Murray O’Hair crowd. But as far as breaking out into the mainstream is concerned, the fad has run its course.[105]

”

Survey of scientists: Richard Dawkins misrepresents science and scientists[edit]

See also: Atheism and science

The Independent reported:

“

British scientists who mentioned Richard Dawkins during a recent study seem mostly to dislike him, with some arguing that he misrepresents science and is misleading the public. Criticism of the British evolutionary biologist came up repeatedly in a new study looking at public understanding of science and how scientists feel that they are portrayed in the media – despite respondents never actually being asked about him. The research was published in a recent edition of Public Understandings of Science as part of a broader study looking at how scientists feel about religion. As part of the study, the researchers conducted a survey of over 20,000 scientists from eight countries. In the UK, the researchers surveyed 1,581 randomly sampled scientists. They then spoke to 137 of them for in-depth interviews to see what they thought. Though Dawkins wasn’t a part of the interview process, and researchers didn’t ask about him, 48 of the 137 British scientists they spoke to mentioned Dawkins. Of those 48 that referenced him, 80 per cent said they thought that Dawkins misrepresents science and scientists in his books and public speeches, according to the study by Rice University, Texas.[106]

”

Richard Dawkins, pseudoscience, and other errors[edit]

See also: Richard Dawkins and pseudoscience and Irreligion and superstition

Within the evolutionary science community and the creation science community, Richard Dawkins has faced charges of engaging in pseudoscience and also has faced charges of committing elementary errors.^[107][108]

The website True Free Thinker notes:

“

Moreover, note that with regards to “assertions without adequate evidence” evolutionary biologist and geneticist, Prof. Richard Lewontin, referenced Carl Sagan’s list of the “best contemporary science-popularizers” which includes Richard Dawkins. These authors have, as Lewontin puts it, “put unsubstantiated assertions or counterfactual claims at the very center of the stories they have retailed in the market.” Lewontin specifically mentions “Dawkins’s vulgarizations of Darwinism” (find details here). Even renowned evolutionary biologists H. Allen Orr, David Sloan Wilson, and Massimo Pigliucci have called into question the power that Dawkins once had as an intellectual, since he has made elementary errors in The God Delusion.[107]

”

In 2010, a new discovery relating to the eye further discredited the evolutionary quackery of Richard Dawkins.^[109] In addition, in 2010, the journal Nature featured an interview with the evolutionist, biologist, and atheist David Sloan Wilson who criticized Richard Dawkins for denying the evidence for the societal benefits of religion (see also: Atheism and health).^[110]

As far as the the social science of history, Richard Dawkins has engaged in historical revisionism when it comes to the mass murders committed by atheists.

Many of Richard Dawkins detractors are conservative Christians which is not surprising. As alluded to earlier, the Wall Street Journal reported: "A comprehensive new study released by Baylor University yesterday, shows that traditional Christian religion greatly decreases belief in everything from the efficacy of palm readers to the usefulness of astrology. It also shows that the irreligious and the members of more liberal Protestant denominations, far from being resistant to superstition, tend to be much more likely to believe in the paranormal and in pseudoscience than evangelical Christians."^[14] In the United States, CBS News reported in October 2005 that the Americans most likely to believe only in the theory of evolution are liberals.^[111]

Agnosticism of Richard Dawkins[edit]

See also: Richard Dawkins and agnosticism, Atheism, agnosticism and flip-flopping and Atheists doubting the validity of atheism

Richard Dawkins has a history of flip-flopping when it comes to being an atheist or agnostic (see: Richard Dawkins and agnosticism).

The historian Dr. Tim Stanley wrote that he believed Dawkins is taking a foolish gamble and Dawkins is risking spending an eternity in hell.^[112] Dr. Don Batten, a scientist at Creation Ministries International, wrote that despite Richard Dawkins' skeptical protestations, Dawkins appears to be a God-hater.^[113]

Criticism of fairies at the bottom of the garden analogy[edit]

A supporter of the Question evolution! campaign wrote:

“

Richard Dawkins wrote in his book the God Delusion: "I am agnostic only to the extent that I am agnostic about fairies at the bottom of the garden" (God Delusion, page 74). In addition, Dawkins said in his book the God Delusion that on a 7 point scale of being sure that God does not exists: "I count myself in category 6, but leaning towards 7." In 2012, in video recorded discussion with Rowan Williams Archbishop of Canterbury, Richard Dawkins said he was 6.9 out of 7 of sure that God does not exist and counted himself as an agnostic. A 6.9 out of 7 would mean that Richard Dawkins believes there is about a .986 percent chance that God exists. In short, according to Dawkins, there is about a 1% chance that God exists. Since Richard Dawkins likened God's existence to fairies being at the bottom of the garden, why does Dawkins believe there is about a 1% chance that fairies are at the bottom of the garden? Dawkins is either being disingenuous or he is being irrational or a combination of both is occurring. Anyone who gives weight to Dawkins' views on the existence of God or his views on the creation vs. evolution controversy is obviously displaying bad judgement. Sin is very irrational. Dr. Don Batten, a scientist at Creation Ministries International, wrote that despite Richard Dawkins' skeptical protestations, Dawkins appears to be a God-hater. This seems to be the best description of Dawkins' behavior. It really comes as no surprise that Dawkins has been noticeably quiet about the 15 questions for evolutionists of the Question Evolution! Campaign. He obviously cannot satisfactorily answer the 15 questions.[114]

”

Publisher's notice of his upcoming book and the issue of inconsistency and flip-flopping[edit]

On June 5, 2012, the Christian Post reported:

“

Famed atheist and scientist Richard Dawkins has set out to write a new book that will focus on his own evolution toward the path of atheism. "Dawkins will tell the story of his own intellectual evolution, explaining how his groundbreaking work as a scientist led to his work as an atheist," states Dawkins' new publisher HarperCollins' Ecco. The book has not yet been given a title, but is expected to be on bookshelves by 2014.[115]

”

In response a supporter of the Question evolution! campaign wrote in an article entitled Atheism is rudderless and unseaworthy:

“

The publisher's notice of the upcoming book using the term "atheist" can be found on several other prominent internet properties besides the Christian Post such as Publishers Weekly, The Blaze, Christianity Today and Galleycat (Galleycat is on the Media Bistro domain). First, Richard Dawkins has gone from being a militant atheist to being an agnostic. Vox Day wrote about Dawkins' inconsistency when it comes to the issues of atheism and agnosticism... Christians should call Dawkins on his disingenuous flip-flopping if his publisher continues to promote the book as a book focusing on his journey to atheism without mentioning the fact that Dawkins is presently an agnostic who has rejected atheism. An author calling himself an atheist or a publisher giving the impression that someone is an atheist may sell more books as it is more provocative, but it isn't intellectually honest if the author has rejected atheism and is an agnostic. If Dawkins claims to be an agnostic who is unsure if God exist or not, then he should clearly communicate this to the public and so should his publisher. Dawkins has been unreasonable as far as his alleged agnosticism and I recommend reading the article Why does Richard Dawkins have such a high belief in the possibility of fairies being at the bottom of the garden? Given the weakness of his argumentation and the vitriol which often accompanies it, I agree with Dr. Don Batten that the weight of the evidence points to Dawkins being a God-hater.[116]

”

Title of the book The God Delusion displayed odd and inconsistent behavior[edit]

A July 25, 2012 article entitled Is Richard Dawkins a flip-flopper declared:

“

Another reason why Dawkins displays odd behavior in reference to the atheism and agnosticism issue is that he titled a recent book of his The God Delusion. Obviously, this is an odd title for an agnostic author to name a book - especially one who asserts there is about a 1% chance that God exist in his estimation. This odd behavior leads me to the conclusion that the reason the book was titled The God Delusion was for crass marketing reasons as it is more provocative title which would grab more press headlines and sell more books. Think about it. If there was a 1% chance that something existed, would you call your neighbor delusional if he believed it existed? No, you would not. Sure, you would think the odds are against your neighbor in terms of his belief, but you would not think he is delusional. The term delusional is generally used in connection with ideas that are insane to believe due to there being overwhelming evidence to the contrary.[117]

”

Creationist Video Interview of Richard Dawkins Being Stumped[edit]

See also: Richard Dawkins and Creation Ministries International, Richard Dawkins' public refusal to debate creationists and Instances of Richard Dawkins ducking debates

In 2008, a video clip featuring Richard Dawkins became widely available to the public, showing Dawkins ^[120] being stumped by a question from the creationist interviewer. A shortened version has been translated into 10 languages. The clip was part of an interview included in the video and DVD From a Frog to Prince, produced by Creation Ministries International about the genetic information required by evolution, and the interviewer is asking Dawkins for an example of genetic information arising from a mutation.

In later interviews, Dawkins claims that he was not stumped, but instead shocked when he realized that the interviewer was a creationist, and the video was edited in a way to make him look like he was unable to answer the question.^[121] However, the question came after he had that realization, and after the creationists negotiated with Dawkins and he agreed to continue.^[122] However, despite being given a free reign in a sceptic publication to respond, he still didn't provide any examples. Recently, a creationist produced an excellent YouTube video demonstrating the Richard Dawkins still has not answered the question posed to him by the interviewer and he uses Richard Dawkins own words to demonstrate this fact.^[119] The video can be found at YouTube and is entitled Is Richard Dawkins Really Stumped? The Truth - In His Own Words - YES...he is!

As noted earlier, Dr. Don Batten of Creation Ministries International theorizes that Richard Dawkins is a God hater and not a skeptic.^[123] The video in which Richard Dawkins clearly squirms when asked for an example of genetic information arising from a mutation and dodges the question with an unrelated monologue, certainly gives some credence to Dr. Batten's postulate. Richard Dawkins inept response relating to the existence of God during his interview with Ben Stein further bolsters the view that Richard Dawkins is more motivated by hatred towards God than any inward assurance Dawkins has concerning the validity of his skeptical contentions.VIDEO There is certainly historical precedence for evolutionists/atheists having inward doubts about the validity of evolution and atheism. The evolutionist Charles Darwin wrote in a private notebook that he was a materialist (a type of atheist).^[124] Late in Charles Darwin's life, Darwin told the Duke of Argyll that he frequently had overwhelming thoughts that the natural world was the result of design.^[125]

Richard Dawkins has been inconsistent concerning his supposed refusal to debate creationists and his refusal is merely a ruse to avoid losing debates to creation scientists. Generally speaking, creationist scientists tend to win the creation vs. evolution debates (see: Creation vs. evolution debates).

Dawkins' comment concerning Adolf Hitler[edit]

See also: Richard Dawkins' commentary on Adolf Hitler, Richard Dawkins and morality and Atheists and historical illiteracy

As noted earlier, when asked in an interview, "If we do not acknowledge some sort of external [standard], what is to prevent us from saying that the Muslim [extremists] aren’t right?", Dawkins replied, "What’s to prevent us from saying Hitler wasn’t right? I mean, that is a genuinely difficult question, but whatever [defines morality], it’s not the Bible. If it was, we’d be stoning people for breaking the Sabbath."^[127]

The interviewer wrote in response, "I was stupefied. He had readily conceded that his own philosophical position did not offer a rational basis for moral judgments. His intellectual honesty was refreshing, if somewhat disturbing on this point."^[128]

For additional information, please see:

• Richard Dawkins' commentary on Adolf Hitler

• Atheists, Adolf Hitler and the no true Scottsman fallacy

Accusations of cowardice[edit]

See also: Richard Dawkins and debate, Atheism and cowardice and Atheism vs. Christianity debates

As far as Christianity vs. atheism public debates, in recent years there have been a number of notable instances of atheists being reluctant to debate and doing poorly in debates (see: Atheism vs. Christianity debates).

Richard Dawkins has established a reputation for avoiding debates with his strongest opponents. On May 14, 2011, the British newspaper The Daily Telegraph published a news story entitled Richard Dawkins accused of cowardice for refusing to debate existence of God.^[129] In The Daily Telegraph article Dr. Daniel Came, a member of the Faculty of Philosophy at Oxford University, was quoted as writing to fellow atheist Richard Dawkins concerning his refusal to debate Dr. William Lane Craig: "The absence of a debate with the foremost apologist for Christian theism is a glaring omission on your CV and is of course apt to be interpreted as cowardice on your part."^[130]

In October 2011, Dr. Craig went to England and the Daily Telegraph declared that Dawkins is either a fool or a coward for his refusal to debate William Lane Craig plus declared that Dawkins is a "proud man" and a "coward" who puts on an "illiterate, angry schtick" for the public.^[131] In addition, Christian apologist Ken Ammi called Dawkins a "cowardly clown" because Dawkins and other prominent skeptics/atheists refused to debate Creation Ministries International at the 2010 Global Atheist Convention.^[132] For more information please see: Atheism and cowardice

Richard Dawkins is known for his vehement and sometimes vitriolic promotion of weak atheism and the evolutionary paradigm. Dawkins has repeatedly likened religious faith to a mental defect. Mr. Dawkins currently resides in the UK. He was an assistant professor of Zoology at the University of California, Berkeley for two years before becoming a zoology researcher at Oxford.

Richard Dawkins lost a debate to a rabbi and then denied the debate ever took place[edit]

See also: Richard Dawkins and Rabbi Shmuley Boteach, Atheism and Debate and Atheism and cowardice

As briefly noted earlier Richard Dawkins had a debate with Rabbi Shmuley Boteach. Rabbi Shmuley Boteach was named the London Times Preacher of the Year 2000 and is the author of 20 books.^[133]

Recently Rabbi Shmuley Boteach wrote:

“

...Dawkins attacked me on his website and denied that he and I had ever debated. My office quickly posted the full footage of a two hour debate which took place on October 23, 1996, a debate which Dawkins actually lost after a vote taken by the students as to which side, science or religion, caused more students to change their minds. In my article on the subject responding to his attack I was extremely respectful of Dr. Dawkins and was therefore shocked to receive a letter in return in which he accused me of speaking like Hitler. Had the noted scientist lost his mind? Hitler? Was this for real?[133]

”

WorldNetDaily offers the following quotes of Rabbi Boteach about debate and the initial denial by Dawkins that the debate never took place:

“

That is a particularly bold untruth. Our debate, which took place at St. Catherine's College, Oxford on Oct. 23, 1996, attracted hundreds of students and featured, on the atheist side, Prof. Dawkins and chemistry Prof. Peter Atkins, and on the religion side, me and Prof. Keith Ward, Oxford's Regius Professor of Divinity. Student president Josh Wine was in the chair," the rabbi explained. "In a vote at the end of the debate as to how many students had changed their minds after hearing the arguments, Dawkin's side was defeated and religion prevailed, which might account for his selective memory," he wrote.[134]

”

Rabbi Boteach reported at Beliefnet:

“

I also gave Dr. Dawkins the opportunity to even score by accepting a further debate, at the time and place of his choosing (within reason, of course), to which he has yet to respond.[133]

”

A video of the debate that Dawkins lost to Rabbi Shmuley Boteach is available at Rabbi Schely Boteach's website.

A supporter of the Question evolution campaign wrote:

“

We don't believe a word Richard Dawkins says and for good reason. For example, he claimed to have never debated Rabbi Schmuley Boteach, but then he had to admit a debate took place as it was videotaped. According to the student audience, the rabbi won the debate as he convinced more students of the validity of his position concerning the existence of God. Furthermore, an angry and embarrassed Dawkins then claimed the rabbi shrieked like Adolf Hitler. Now tell me, how do you forget a debate with a rabbi who supposedly shrieks like Adolf Hitler? Obviously, Dawkins exposed himself for the clown and fraud he is.[135]

”

Richard Dawkins and radio appearances[edit]

Richard Dawkins' radio debate with Giles Fraser[edit]

See also: Richard Dawkins' debate with Giles Fraser and Richard Dawkins quotes

On February 19, 2012 The Daily Telegraph reported:

“

...some critics of Dawkins branded him "an embarrassment to atheism" after what many listeners considered a humiliation in a Radio 4 debate with Giles Fraser, formerly Canon Chancellor of St Paul's Cathedral, in which the professor boasted he could recite the full title of Charles Darwin's "The Origin of Species", then when challenged, dithered and said: "Oh God."[136]

”

On February 14, 2012, The Daily Telegraph reported regarding the radio debate:

“

Dr. Fraser skewered the atheist campaigner Richard Dawkins so fabulously, so stylishly, and so thoroughly that anti-religion’s high priest was reduced to incoherent mumbling and spluttering.[137]

”

Vox Day wrote concerning the embarrassing incident for Dawkins:

“

As I have said repeatedly, Richard Dawkins is a huge intellectual fraud, and perhaps those who previously expressed incredulity at the idea that I would quite easily trounce the old charlatan in a debate will find it just a bit more credible now. This behavior isn't an outlier or a momentary lapse of memory, it is entirely characteristic. The man quite frequently pretends to knowledge that he patently does not possess and assumes he knows things that he obviously does not, which is why he avoids debate with those who are aware of his intellectual pretensions and are capable of exposing them. It's bad enough that Dawkins couldn't come up with the name of what he considers to be the most important book ever written immediately after claiming he could do so, but in addition to stumbling a little on the subtitle, he even forgot the rather important part of the title that refers to the actual mechanism supposedly responsible![138]

”

(The full title of Charles Darwin's book is On the The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life and evolutionists rarely cite the book's full title which is racist. See: Evolutionary racism)

Scott Simon of National Public Radio: Interview of Richard Dawkins[edit]

See also: Atheism and charity and Atheism and love

Scott Simon of National Public Radio (NPR): "I have covered a lot of wars, famines and tragedies. And it seems to me, truly every theatre of suffering I have ever been to, there is a dauntless nun, priest, clergy or religious person, who is working very selflessly and bravery there for the good of human beings. But I don't run into organized atheists who do this.

Richard Dawkins: "Perhaps there is not enough of them."...

Scott Simon, NPR: "But I do wonder am I just not seeing the world correctly to see large numbers of well-motivated atheists lending their lives to trying to better the world... If I might put it this way, are they just more concerned about being right intellectually."^[139]

New Atheism[edit]

See also: New Atheism and Causes of the New Atheism movement

The term New Atheism which first appeared in the November 2006 edition of Wired magazine, is used to describe a new incarnation of militant atheism and also frequently applied to a series of six best-selling books by five authors that appeared in the period between 2004–2008. These authors include Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett and Victor J. Stenger.^[140] The four most prominent writers of the New Atheist movement are Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris and Daniel Dennett.

The New Atheism movement was a reaction the September 11, 2001 attacks on Manhattan and also due to antitheist anger over the failure of the secularization thesis (the secularization thesis wrongly predicted that religion would fade away and it also did not predict the resurgence of religion in much of the world).^[141][142]

For more information, please see: Causes of the New Atheism movement

Impact of the New Atheism[edit]

See also: Desecularization and Decline of the atheist movement

New Atheism has not had much of an impact in terms of gaining new adherents to atheism. In a March 10, 2008 USA Today article Stephen Prothero stated the following regarding the impact of the "New Atheism":

“

Numbers lie, but they also tell tales untrustworthy and otherwise. So the key question stirring around the much discussed U.S Religious Landscape Survey released in late February by the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life is what tale does it state about the state of the union. For some, the story of this survey, based on interviews in multiple languages with more than 35,000 adults, is the strength of American Religion. Not too long ago, I wrote that American atheism was going the way of the freak show. As books by Christopher Hitchens and other "new atheists" climbed the best seller lists, I caught a lot of flak for that prophecy. But atheist make up only 1.6% of respondents to this survey....[143]

”

YouTube atheist Thunderfoot said about the atheist movement after Reason Rally 2016 had a very low turnout:

“

I'm not sure there is anything in this movement worth saving. Hitchens is dead. Dawkins simply doesn't have the energy for this sort of thing anymore. Harris went his own way. And Dennett just kind of blended into the background. So what do you think when the largest gathering of the nonreligious in history pulls in... I don't know. Maybe 2,000 people. Is there anything worth saving?[144]

”

On the other hand, Stephen LeDrew wrote at Oxford University Press's Academic Insights for the Thinking World website:

“

The ten-year anniversary of the publication of Richard Dawkins’ The God Delusion is approaching, and it has already been over ten years since Sam Harris published The End of Faith. Social science in general has not yet fully appreciated the significance of the New Atheism and has tended not to take it very seriously, with the exception of those working in the new sub-discipline of secularity studies. But whatever one might think of the New Atheists’ ideas, an honest appraisal would recognize that they have had a significant and lasting impact. They should be remembered for catalyzing a movement for religious dissent and inspiring atheists to come together and find a voice in American public life. But there’s a much darker side to the legacy of the New Atheism that stems from its imperialist and xenophobic tendencies, to say nothing of some thinly veiled Social Darwinism and arguments for eugenics. Sam Harris in particular is now known more for supporting the Israeli occupation of Palestine and ethnic profiling at airport security than for his science-based critique of religious faith. Richard Dawkins’ personal legacy has taken a heavy hit in the past few years, as his rambling criticisms of feminism and Muslim “barbarians” on Twitter have led to charges of sexism, racism, and general arrogance and intolerance.[145]

”

The liberal leaning British newspaper The Guardian said regarding the New Atheism:

“

Anti-faith proselytising is a growth industry. But its increasingly hysterical flag-bearers are heading for a spectacular failure... These increasingly hysterical books may boost the pension, they may be morale boosters for a particular kind of American atheism that feels victimized - the latest candidate in a flourishing American tradition - but one suspects that they are going to do very little to challenge the appeal of a phenomenon they loathe too much to understand.[146]

”

In 2010, it was reported that The God Delusion sold 2,086,402 copies and 907,161 of those copies were sold in North America. Contrastly, in 2010, the evangelical Christian Rick Warren sold between 25,000,000 to 50,000,000 copies of his book The Purpose Driven Life.^[147]

Decline of the New Atheism movement[edit]

See also: Decline of New Atheism and Decline of New Atheism and the media

On November 6, 2015, the New Republic published an article entitled, Is the New Atheism dead?^[148]

In 2015, the atheist author Joshua Kelly wrote:

“

...since the death of Hitchens: angry atheism lost its most charismatic champion. Call it what you like: New Atheism, fire-brand atheism, etc., had a surge with the Four Horsemen in the middle of the last decade and in the last four years has generally peetered out to a kind that is more docile, politically correct, and even apologetic.[149]

”

Richard Dawkins' lack of a counter plan to reverse the decline of global atheism and agnosticism[edit]

Also, on July 31, 2012 in an article entitled Evolutionists, atheists and agnostics: Where is your master plan to reverse your decline? supporters of the Question evolution! campaign indicated that atheists, agnostics and evolutionists lack a plan to reverse their global decline.^[150]

Poor leadership skills[edit]

Using academic studies, survey data and other information, supporters of the Question evolution! campaign maintain that including Richard Dawkins, there is a lack of sound leadership within the agnostic/atheist and evolutionist communities.

See:

• Richard Dawkins: Insightful secular strategist or an insincere book peddler?

• Atheism is rudderless and unseaworthy

• Evolutionists, atheists and agnostics: Where is your master plan to reverse your global decline?

Selective outrage on child molestation and so called "gentle pedophiles"[edit]

See also: Richard Dawkins on child molestation and so called "gentle pedophiles", Atheism and child pornography and Atheism, pederasty and NAMBLA

The Australian Conservative recently published an article by Ben-Peter Terpstra entitled Preparing for Richard Dawkins’ crocodile tears which charges that Richard Dawkins exhibits selective outrage on the issue of child molestation. In the article Terpstra cites Bendan Oneill who wrote:

“

The New Atheist campaign to have Pope Benedict XVI arrested when he visits Britain later this year exposes the deeply disturbing, authoritarian and even Inquisitorial side to today’s campaigning secularism... In 2006, Dawkins criticised ‘hysteria about paedophilia’ and said that, even though he was the victim of sexual abuse at boarding school, he would defend his abusive former teachers if ‘50 years on they had been hounded by vigilantes or lawyers as no better than child murderers’. Yet now he wants to put abusive priests on a par with genocidaires.[151]

”

Ben-Peter Terpstra writes: "In all truth, Britain’s clean-shaven atheists aren’t serious about children’s rights, or they’d be launching venomous attacks against the United Nations, in light of their more recent sex abuse scandals."

Concerning Richard Dawkins recent selective outrage on child molestation the Christian apologetics website True Free Thinker writes:

“

His reputation has always been the very same and this Pope related publicity stunt is nothing new. Moreover, why would he oppose the Pope considering that what the Pope may be complicit in, surely, relates to some gentle pedophiles. What! “Gentle pedophiles”!!! Oh, no, no, no; those are not my words but Richard Dawkins who, indeed, argues that there are gentle pedophiles and that way too much is made of pedophilia at times. For these reasons and more Robert Fulford’s referring to Richard Dawkins as a clown is very, very offensive—to clowns. Clowns are lovable and funny whilst Richard Dawkins is belligerent, arrogant, belittling and shockingly lacking in knowledge with regards to many of the issues that he takes on (find ample evidence here).[152]

”

The Atlantic article about Richard Dawkins repeatedly defending "mild" pedophilia[edit]

• Richard Dawkins Defends 'Mild' Pedophilia, Again and Again , The Atlantic, September 10, 2013

Richard Dawkins' on child abuse and children believing in Hell[edit]

See: Richard Dawkins' on child abuse and children believing in Hell

Richard Dawkins' battle with online fans over their use of profanity and gossip[edit]

See also: Atheism and profanity, Richard Dawkins' battle with online fans and Internet atheism

In February 2010, the news organization The Telegraph reported Richard Dawkins was "embroiled in a bitter online battle over plans to rid his popular internet forum for atheists of foul language, insults and 'frivolous gossip'."^[153] Richard Dawkins has a reputation for being abrasive so the behavior of his fans is not entirely surprising. See: Atheism and profanity

It is commonly thought that some individuals who commonly use profanity have limited vocabularies and imaginations.^[154][155]

Richard Dawkins on homosexuality[edit]

For more information please see: Richard Dawkins on homosexuality and Genetics, Homosexuality, Evolutionary Paradigm, and Creation Science and Atheism and homosexuality

Richard Dawkins, who is a liberal, speculates that a "gay gene" causes homosexuality, but science has not discovered such a gene (see: Causes of homosexuality)^[156] In 1993, Professor Miron Baron, M.D., the renowned medical researcher and Professor at Columbia University, wrote in BMJ (British Medical Journal) that there is a conflict relative to the theory of evolution and the notion of genetic determinism concerning homosexuality. Dr. Baron wrote "...from an evolutionary perspective, genetically determined homosexuality would have become extinct long ago because of reduced reproduction."^[157] In the United States, liberals are more likely to believe in evolution.^[111] Also, in the United States, twice as many liberals as conservatives (46% versus 22%) believe people are born homosexual and liberals generally have more favorable opinions about homosexuality. Given Dr. Miron Baron's commentary about homosexuality, many American liberals are inconsistent on the issues of evolution and homosexuality.

An individual's beliefs regarding creation science/creationism and the theory of evolution appear to influence their views on homosexuality. Creationist scientists and creationist assert that the theory of evolution cannot account for the origin of gender and sexual reproduction.^[158][159] Creation Ministries International states: "Homosexual acts go against God’s original design of a man and a woman becoming one flesh — see Genesis 1 and 2, endorsed by Jesus Himself in Matthew 19:3–6."^[160] In addition, the vast majority of creation scientists reject the notion of genetic determinism concerning the origin of homosexuality.^[159]

See also:

• Atheism and homosexuality
• Religious Upbringing and Culture Affects Rates of Homosexuality

Richard Dawkins commentary on the God of the Old Testament[edit]

Richard Dawkins has accused the God of the Old Testament of being homophobic.^[161] Yet, Dawkins has not explained why God, who is described as an all powerful spiritual being in the Old Testament, would be afraid of homosexuals.

Richard Dawkins on gender identity[edit]

Although pro-homosexual, Dawkins has in recent years been critical of the concept of transsexualism. In a tweet on April 10, 2021, he compared men and women who identify as the opposite sex with the case of Rachel Dolezal, a white woman who had claimed to be black, and added, "You will be vilified if you deny that they {transsexuals} literally are what they identify as." This stance has damaged Dawkins' former standing on the Left, due to the advance of cancel culture. On April 20, the American Humanist Association, which claims to be devoted to the cause of freethinking, stripped Dawkins of his 1996 Humanist of the Year Award, stating that his comments "demean marginalized groups."^[162]

Implication in the death of Jesse Kilgore[edit]

See also: Richard Dawkins and Jesse Kilgore, Atheism and depression, Atheism and suicide and Atheism and health

Dawkins' book "The God Delusion" along with a community college biology class, have been linked to the tragic suicide of Jesse Kilgore.^[163] Kilgore had several discussions with friends and relatives in which he made it clear Dawkins' book had destroyed his belief in God. This loss of faith is considered the cause of his suicide which is not surprising given that there is evidence which suggest that atheism can be a causal factor for suicide for some individuals.^{[164][164][165]}

Jesse's father is quoted as saying "If my son was a professing homosexual, and a professor challenged him to read [a book called] 'Preventing Homosexuality'… If my son was gay and [the book] made him feel bad, hopeless, and he killed himself, and that came out in the press, there would be an outcry. He would have been a victim of a hate crime and the professor would have been forced to undergo sensitivity training, and there may have even been a wrongful death lawsuit. But because he's a Christian, I don't even get a return telephone call."

Jesse's blog remains online after his death.^[166]

Please see: Atheism and depression and Atheism and suicide

Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed[edit]

In the film Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, a documentary concerning suppression of the intelligent design movement, Ben Stein interviewed Richard Dawkins.

Ben Stein Interview with the evolutionist Richard Dawkins[edit]

See also: Ben Stein Interview with Richard Dawkins

In the movie Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, Ben Stein demonstrated the folly of evolutionism in his interview with Richard Dawkins (A clip of the interview has been uploaded to YouTube ).

The Discovery Institute provides an transcript of part of the interview along with some commentary:

“

BEN STEIN: "What do you think is the possibility that Intelligent Design might turn out to be the answer to some issues in genetics or in evolution?" DAWKINS: "Well, it could come about in the following way. It could be that at some earlier time, somewhere in the universe, a civilization evolved, probably by some kind of Darwinian means, probably to a very high level of technology, and designed a form of life that they seeded onto perhaps this planet. Now, um, now that is a possibility, and an intriguing possibility. And I suppose it's possible that you might find evidence for that if you look at the details of biochemistry, molecular biology, you might find a signature of some sort of designer." Ho,ho! That is precisely what the Raelians say: Years ago, everybody knew that the earth was flat. Everybody knew that the sun revolved around the earth. Today, everybody knows that life on earth is either the result of random evolution or the work of a supernatural God. Or is it? In "Message from the Designers", Rael presents us with a third option: that all life on earth was created by advanced scientists from another world. Richard Dawkins and Rael; "clear thinking" kindred spirits! [167]

”

A Christian apologetics website provides some additional commentary on the Ben Stein/Richard Dawkins interview which focuses on Dawkins response to Ben Stein's questions about the likelihood of the existence of God:

“

In this interview there is the following exchange between Ben Stein and Richard Dawkins. Mr. Stein prefaces the exchange with this comment: “Professor Dawkins seemed so convinced that God doesn’t exist that I wondered if he would be willing to put a number on it.” Here is Professor Dawkins response, “Well, it’s hard to put a figure on it, but I’d put it at something like ninety-nine percent against or something like that.” Mr. Stein responded with this question. “Well, how do you know it’s ninety-nine percent (“I don’t,” Dr. Dawkins interjects.) and not, say, ninety-seven percent?” Dr. Dawkins continues, “You asked me to put a figure on it and I’m not comfortable putting a figure on it. I think it’s… I just think it’s very unlikely.” “But you couldn’t put a number on it?,” Mr. Stein clarifies. “No, of course not,” said Dr. Dawkins. “So it could be forty-nine percent?,” Mr. Stein asks. Dr. Dawkins replies, “Well, it would be… I mean I think it’s… it’s… it’s unlikely, but… but… I… and it’s quite far from fifty percent.” (He's very difficult to quote.) “How do you know?,” Mr. Stein asks. “I don’t know, I mean, I put an argument in the book,” Dr. Dawkins responds.[168]

”

Stein expressed surprise in the narration that Richard Dawkins "believe[d] in intelligent design."^[169]

Instead of attempting to defend abiogenesis, Dawkins actually suggested directed panspermia—the very thing that Francis Crick once suggested to explain life's beginnings.

On March 20, 2008, Dawkins and colleague P. Z. Myers tried to gain entry to a special preview of the Ben Stein documentary, though no member of the production team had invited them. Dr. Myers was not allowed in, but Dawkins was. Accounts vary as to why this was so; the production team asserts that they decided to grant Dawkins entry on-the-spot because

“

he has handled himself fairly honorably, he is a guest in our country and I had to presume he had flown a long way to see the film.[170]

”

On the other hand, Myers himself states that he guesses that Richard Dawkins was not recognized.

Richard Dawkins arranged to have a filmed conversation between Richard Dawkins and PZ Myers concerning this incident posted to YouTube^[171] In it Myers claimed that the production team had full knowledge of his attendance through the online RSVP system and Dawkins claimed that it was an "incredible piece of inept public relations" to "expel" PZ Myers from a film about people being expelled for their views. Both PZ Myers and Richard Dawkins were featured in the film.

Richard Dawkins, atheist attrocities, and historical revisionism[edit]

For more information please see: Richard Dawkins, atheist atrocities, and historical revisionism, Atheists and historical illiteracy and Atheism and historical revisionism

Dinesh D'Souza took Richard Dawkins to task for engaging in historical revisionism when it comes to the atrocities of atheist regimes and declared Dawkins "reveals a complete ignorance of history".VIDEO

In a recent interview D'Souza declared:

“

Richard Dawkins argues that at least the atheist regimes didn't kill people in the name of atheism. Isn't it time for this biologist to get out of the lab and read a little history? Marxism and Communism were atheist ideologies. Stalin and Mao weren't dictators who happened to be atheist; atheism was part of their official doctrine. It was no accident, as the Marxists liked to say, that they shut down the churches and persecuted the clergy...

”

Dinesh D'Souza stated in another interview:

“

As one writer put it, “Leaders such as Stalin and Mao persecuted religious groups, not in a bid to expand atheism, but as a way of focusing people’s hatred on those groups to consolidate their own power.” Of course I agree that murderous regimes, whether Christian or atheist, are generally seeking to strengthen their position. But if Christian regimes are held responsible for their crimes committed in the name of Christianity, then atheist regimes should be held accountable for their crimes committed in the name of atheism. And who can deny that Stalin and Mao, not to mention Pol Pot and a host of others, all committed atrocities in the name of a Communist ideology that was explicitly atheistic? Who can dispute that they did their bloody deeds by claiming to be establishing a “new man” and a religion-free utopia? These were mass murders performed with atheism as a central part of their ideological inspiration, they were not mass murders done by people who simply happened to be atheist.[172]

”

Karl Marx said "[Religion] is the opium of the people". Marx also stated: "Communism begins from the outset (Owen) with atheism; but atheism is at first far from being communism; indeed, that atheism is still mostly an abstraction."^[173]

Vladimir Lenin wrote: "A Marxist must be a materialist, i. e., an enemy of religion, but a dialectical materialist, i. e., one who treats the struggle against religion not in an abstract way, not on the basis of remote, purely theoretical, never varying preaching, but in a concrete way, on the basis of the class struggle which is going on in practice and is educating the masses more and better than anything else could."^[174]

Dr. R. J. Rummel, professor emeritus of political science at the University of Hawaii, is the scholar who first coined the term democide (death by government). Dr. R. J. Rummel's mid estimate concerning the loss of life due to communism is that communism caused the death of approximately 110,286,000 people between 1917 and 1987.^[175] The atheism in communist regimes has been and continues to be militant atheism that has committed various acts of repression including the razing of thousands of religious buildings and the killing, imprisoning, and the oppression of religious leaders and believers (for details see: communism). In the atheistic and communist Soviet Union, 44 anti religious museums were opened and the largest was the 'The Museum of the History of Religion and Atheism' in Leningrad’s Kazan cathedral.^[176]

John Lennox's discussion with New Atheist Richard Dawkins about the historicity of Jesus[edit]

See also: Atheists and historical illiteracy and Historicity of Jesus

John Lennox pointed out to Richard Dawkins that Dawkins claimed in his book The God Delusion that Jesus Christ may have never existed and that Dawkins errantly claimed that ancient historians have some disagreement on whether Jesus existed or not. After some additional discussion with Dawkins, Dawkins conceded that Jesus existed and said, "I take that back. Jesus existed".^[177]

Christian apologist Dr. William Lane Craig is Reported to Have Called Dawkins a Coward[edit]

See also: Richard Dawkins and William Lane Craig, Atheism and cowardice and Atheism and Debate

Dr. William Lane Craig is one of Christianity's leading defenders and many individuals over the years have attempted to arrange a debate between Dr. Craig and Richard Dawkins. Richard Dawkins has offered various ruses on why he will not debate William Lane Craig, which Dr. Craig supporters have shown were inconsistent and merely a dodge to avoid debating one of Christianity's strongest advocates.^[178]

Christian apologist Dr. Victor Reppert is the author of C. S. Lewis's Dangerous Idea: In Defense of the Argument from Reason.^[179] In 2007, Dr. Reppert wrote:

“

Bill Craig sent me a newsletter in which he will be debating twice in the UK on "Is God a Delusion" but will not be debating Dawkins himself. Now that would be the debate to see! Having seen this, I wrote him saying "Oh drat! no debate with Dawkins!" He responded: The coward! He said, "I've never heard of William Craig. A debate with him might look good on his resume, but it wouldn't look good on mine!" Bill[179]

”

There was public pressure for Dawkins to debate the Christian philosopher of science and Christian apologist Dr. William Lane Craig.^[180] For example, currently there is a petition for Richard Dawkins debate William Lane Craig.^[180]

As far as Dawkins and and his comfort level around professional philosophers, the atheist philosopher Massimo Pigliucci wrote:

“

Interestingly, over lunch during one of those days, I experienced Dawkins in what is a rather uncharacteristically humble mood: he confided at our table that he felt a bit intimidated, being surrounded by so many professional philosophers (he wasn’t talking about me, I assure you, but more likely of Dan Dennett and Alex Rosenberg, among others). It was interesting to see that rather unexpected (from his public appearances) side of him.[181]

”

Refusal of Richard Dawkins to Debate Christian apologist Dinesh D'Souza[edit]

See also: Richard Dawkins and Dinesh D'Souza, Atheism and Debate and Atheism and cowardice

Christian author Dinesh D'Souza wrote concerning Richard Dawkins refusal to debate him: "To be honest, I find your behavior extremely bizarre. You go halfway around the world to chase down televangelists to outsmart them in an interview format that you control, but given several opportunities to engage the issues you profess to care about in a true spirit of open debate and inquiry, you duck and dodge and run away."^[182] D'Souza further wrote concerning Dawkins: "When he is confronted with history, philosophy, and logic, Dawkins seems to have very little to say."^[183] Next, D'Souza indicated Dawkins was a "showman who takes on unprepared and unsuspecting opponents when you yourself control the editing, but when a strong opponent shows up you manufacture reasons to avoid him."^[182] Lastly, D'Souza wrote: "So why doth Dawkins languish in his corner, attended by sycophants? Tremble not, Sir Richard. 'Cowards die many times before their deaths. The valiant do taste of death but once.'"^[184]

Dr. Jamie Glazov wrote concerning the refusal of Richard Dawkins to debate Dinesh D'Souza:

“

As many readers can attest, D’Souza has debated Daniel Dennett, Christopher Hitchens, Peter Singer, Michael Shermer, Dan Barker, and other well-known atheists. He intellectually cut those guys to pieces. Harris and Dawkins are just afraid to meet D’Souza. D’Souza writes: “And my challenges to Dawkins to step into the arena have only met with pathetic rationalization: ‘Richard is simply too busy and smart to debate you Dinesh.’ Busy doing what besides being caught with his pants down by Ben Stein? And I guess he's smart because he doesn't want to risk further embarrassing himself and destroying his public reputation. Won't it be hilarious if the ‘party of faith’ is unafraid of opposing arguments while the ‘party of reason’ cannot withstand the arguments of its critics? This is what Henry James might describe as a most interesting turning of the screw.”

”

Richard Dawkins' public refusal to debate creationists[edit]

For more information please see: Richard Dawkins' public refusal to debate creationists, Atheism and cowardice and Global atheism

Richard Dawkins has publicly declared that he will not debate creationists.^[178] Yet, Richard Dawkins debated the theist John Lennox who adheres to the position of intelligent design.^[178] According to Richard Dawkins, intelligent design is a form of creationism.^[178] Therefore, Richard Dawkins is not consistent and trustworthy concerning his assertion that he will not debate creationists.^[178] Evolutionists and atheists inconsistency concerning debating creationists was commented on by the Christian apologetic website True Free Thinker which declared: "Interestingly enough, having noted that since some atheists refuse to debate “creationists” but then go on to debate some of those people but not others, it is clear that they are, in reality, being selective and making excuses for absconding from difficulties..."^[186] When Richard Dawkins refused to debate Dr. William Lane Craig one of the ruses Richard Dawkins used was supposedly because Dr. Craig was a creationist and Richard Dawkins claimed he didn't debate creationist.^[178] Richard was called on his inconsistency and lack of trustworthiness concerning his excuses for refusing to debate Dr. Craig by the intelligent design advocate Clive Hayden.^[178]

In 2010, the prominent atheists who attended the 2010 global atheist conference, which included Richard Dawkins, were challenged to a debate by Creation Ministries International.^[185] Richard Dawkins, PZ Myers and other prominent atheists refused to debate the creation scientists at Creation Ministries International.^[185] As noted above, generally speaking, creationist scientists tend to win the creation vs. evolution debates (see: Creation vs. evolution debates).

The refusal of Richard Dawkins and other prominent atheists to debate the staff of Creation Ministries International is not surprising given that there are several instances Richard Dawkins avoiding strong debate opponents. In addition, creationists maintain that Richard Dawkins did not give a particularly strong showing at the Huxley Memorial Debate. One of the more embarrassing debates (particular the events surrounding the debate) was the case of Richard Dawkins losing a video taped debate to Rabbi Boteach according to the college audience.^[133][134] After the debate, Richard Dawkins denied the debate ever took place and Rabbi Boteach provided the video taped evidence that the debate did take place.^[133][134] Mr. Dawkins has declined to debate Rabbit Shmuley Boteach another time.^[133][134] Incidentally, Paul Humber notes there was a deception that occurred during email correspondence with Mr. Dawkins concerning the tally of vote counts that occurred for the Oxford debate between creation scientists Professor A.E. Wilder-Smith and Professor Edgar Andrews and evolutionists Richard Dawkins and John Maynard Smith (see: Huxley Memorial Debate)^[187] Mr. Humber did not indicate whether Mr. Dawkins committed the deception or was merely duped by someone who provided an altered account.^[187]

The website True Free Thinker declared concerning the refusal of Richard Dawkins, PZ Myers and other prominent atheists to debate the creation scientists and other staff at Creation Ministries International:

“

In keeping with his constant attention getting shenanigans and his equally constant absconding from debating apt challengers via a barrage of illogical and excuses, the moniker of cowardly clown fits Richard Dawkins more than ever (see Send in the Clowns – Richard Dawkins Obliges). Enter Jonathan Sarfati (PhD in chemistry),senior scientist at Creation Ministries International, who recently published the book “The Greatest Hoax on Earth? Refuting Dawkins on Evolution.” Interestingly, Jonathan Sarfati sought to publish the book by the time that the 2010 Global Atheist Convention—billed as “The Rise of Atheism”—of March 12–14 at the Melbourne Convention and Exhibition Center in Australia. The most intelligent, well informed and vociferous atheists in the world, including Richard Dawkins, Dan Barker, PZ Myers, et al, were challenged to debate while their worldwide choir was gathered in one place and yet, one by one they each found excuses to cower from debate even whilst proclaiming to their adherents the intellectual superiority of atheism.[185]

”

Richard Dawkins excuses for not debating creationists[edit]

Richard Dawkins has offered some unjustifiable ruses for not not wanting to debate creationists but the true reason is that he knows he will lose the debates.

There are certainly reputable scientists, medical doctors and members of the public who hold the evolutionary paradigm in low esteem for valid reasons so Dawkins excuses for refusing to debate creationists simply have little to no weight and they are certainly not the best explanation for Mr. Dawkins' behavior in this matter. In 2007, "Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture today announced that over 700 scientists from around the world have now signed a statement expressing their skepticism about the contemporary theory of Darwinian evolution."^[188] In addition, given that atheism is held in low esteem in many parts of the world and it is a minority position worldwide, Dawkins' refusal to debate strong theistic debaters is quite odd given his allegation that he doesn't debate creationists because he doesn't want to give them respectability and publicity. Furthermore, the Rabbi Boteach debate and the events surrounding it, shows the great lengths that Dawkins will go to avoid letting the public know about a debate loss to a theist (As mentioned previously Dawkins lost his video taped debate to Rabbi Boteach and then claimed the debate never took place). The reason why Dawkins refuses to debate creation scientists is that generally speaking, creation scientists tend to win the creation vs. evolution debates.

Opposition to Creationism and Religion[edit]

• Professor Dawkins' anti-religious views are based on two subjective opinions. The first is that religious faith is irrational, the second is that religion causes wars and hatred, or as he puts it, 'Religion makes good people bad'.

Richard Dawkins is a writer and media commentator on the debate between evolution and the opposing positions of creation science and intelligent design.^[189][190] He is an ardent proponent of the evolutionary view of life in works targeted at the general public, such as his books entitled The Selfish Gene and The Ancestor's Tale. However, his efforts to promote the theory of evolution have not been very successful, and even in his native land of the UK, 40% of the population believes that creationism or intelligent design should be taught in the school science curriculum.^[191]

As an evolutionist, Dawkins holds Charles Darwin's view that "the universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference." In addition, he often comes across as having a mocking attitude towards religion.^[192] He stridently^[193] opposes the traditional role of religion in educational institutions and in society in general.^[194] Dawkins has derided belief in God as a "mind-virus",^[195] which is infectious and harmful to society. In his 2006 book The God Delusion, he states his belief that fundamentalist religion "subverts science and saps the intellect," a view that is contrary to the fact that many of the most productive scientists, from Isaac Newton to Louis Pasteur, were devout Christians. The foundation of modern science was largely established by those who held a Christian worldview. Dawkins often says that these men were rather a product of their time and, like many that came before them, lived in fear of persecution by Christians. There is no substantive evidence for this. Dawkins also cites in his book, the God Delusion, that not one winner of the Nobel Prize for Science is a theist. While this has been openly debated, he cites his own personal relationships with many of these scientists.

Lord Robert Winston is a prominent scientist and British doctor who served as the President of the British Association for the Advancement of Science from 2004 to 2005.^[196] Currently, Lord Winston serves as Emeritus Professor of Fertility Studies at Imperial College in Britain. In 2006, Winston launched a broadside against Richard Dawkins and stated that he is bringing science "into disrepute" due to his refusal to "connect with spirituality". Winston also stated that Dawkins "sometimes doesn't seem to understand the limitations of science."

Alister McGrath, a Christian theologian who has a background in biophysics and is Professor of Historical Theology at Oxford University, wrote:

“

Richard Dawkins’ latest book The God Delusion fires off a series of salvos against religion. It is perhaps his weakest book to date, marred by its excessive reliance on bold assertion and rhetorical flourish, where the issues so clearly demand careful reflection and painstaking analysis, based on the best evidence available.

”

Atheist philosopher Michael Ruse echoes McGrath's estimation of The God Delusion and recently stated that the book makes him embarrassed to be an atheist.

Professor McGrath asserts that the aggressive rhetoric of Dawkins' works is merely a mask to cover a deep insecurity about the public credibility of atheism. McGrath recently wrote a book opposing the atheist ideology of Dawkins entitled The Dawkins Delusion?: Atheist Fundamentalism and the Denial of the Divine.^[197]

Richard Dawkins and the Huxley Memorial Debate[edit]

For more information please see: Huxley Memorial Debate

The September 2005 issue of Discover magazine had an article on Richard Dawkins entitled "Darwin’s Rottweiler".^[198] The title is an allusion to Thomas Henry Huxley who became to be known as "Darwin's Bulldog".^[199] Huxley is arguably most well known for his debate with Bishop Samuel Wilberforce over the theory of evolution, and evolutionists and creationist dispute whether or not a key claimed event in the debate actually occurred.^[200] The Discover article stated the following:

“

Dawkins has become “Darwin’s rottweiler”— as Alister McGrath, an Oxford theologian, reminded readers of his recent book, Dawkins' God: Genes, Memes, and the Meaning of Life — so intent on prevailing in intellectual combat that he alienates others and undermines the dazzling quality of his argumentative skills."[198]

”

The Simonyi Professorship Home Page promotes the idea that Richard Dawkins is "Darwin's Rottweiler" and has an article published in the Seattle newspaper EastSideweek which states the following:

“

...Thomas Henry Huxley, earned the nickname "Darwin's bulldog" from his fellow Victorians. In our own less decorous day, Dawkins deserves an even stronger epithet: "Darwin's Rottweiler, perhaps," Simonyi suggests. Now, thanks to Simonyi's gift of £1.5 million sterling to England's venerable Oxford University, the Rottweiler is unleashed."

”

Now given that Thomas Henry Huxley's is arguably most well known for his debate over the theory of evolution and given that Dawkins has stated he will no longer debate a creation scientists the title of "Darwin's Rottweiler" can certainly be disputed. Creationists wrote regarding Richard Dawkins current refusal to debate a creation scientist:

“

A. E. Wilder-Smith is also probably responsible for Richard Dawkins refusing to debate creationists any more. In 1986, Wilder-Smith and Edgar Andrews debated the two leading evolutionists in Britain, Richard Dawkins and John Maynard Smith, at Oxford – a lions’ den with the two strongest Darwinian lions in Europe. Yet even there, over a third – almost half – of the staunchly pro-evolution audience voted that the creation side had won the debate. The vote count became a contentious issue. There were claims of a cover-up by the Oxford Student Union. The AAAS was accused of lying about the vote count and didn’ [sic] correct it even when confronted (see article). The evolutionists apparently were embarrassed that the creationists made such a strong showing. For whatever reason, Dawkins no longer will debate creationists. Reports from those in attendance say that, contrary to the ground rules of the debate, the Dawkins and Maynard Smith repeatedly attacked religion, while the creationists used only scientific arguments. Dawkins himself had to be reprimanded by the moderator for attacking Wilder-Smith about his religious views. Dawkins implored the audience not to give any votes to the creationists lest it be a “blot on the escutcheon of ancient University of Oxford” (an odd remark, considering Oxford was founded by Christians). After the debate, details of the event were lost by the University. Normally, Oxford Union debates are big news, given prominent publicity in the press, radio and television. This one, however, which should have rivalled the historic 1860 Huxley-Wilberforce debate in importance, and indeed was even titled the ’Huxley Memorial Debate,” was silently dropped from the radar screen. In his memoirs, Dr. Wilder-Smith wrote, “No records of my having held the lecture as part of the Oxford Union Debate could be found in any library. No part of the official media breathed a word about it.[201]

”

The aforementioned debate involving Richard Dawkins is fairly well known in creationist/intelligent design circles and the debate was tape recorded.^[202] In August 2003 the Creation Research Society published some interesting material about their correspondence with Richard Dawkins which focused on the debate.^[187] The Creation Research Society declared:

“

Despite Dr. Dawkins’ plea, there were apparently 115 votes for the creation position (more than 37%). This was done near Darwin’s turf. Imagine flat-earthers going to NASA and convincing over 37% of the scientists there that the earth is flat. Maybe creation science is not as closely akin to flat-earthism as Dr. Dawkins supposes (see his Free Inquiry article).[187]

”

Richard Dawkins no longer will debate a creation scientist. Robert Sloan, Director of Paleontology at the University of Minnesota, reluctantly admitted to a Wall Street Journal reporter that the "creationists tend to win" the public debates which focused on the creation vs. evolution controversy.^[203] In August 1979, Dr. Henry Morris reported in an Institute for Creation Research letter the following: “By now, practically every leading evolutionary scientist in this country has declined one or more invitations to a scientific debate on creation/evolution.” Morris also said about the creation scientist Duane Gish (who had over 300 formal debates): “At least in our judgment and that of most in the audiences, he always wins.” Generally speaking, leading evolutionists generally no longer debate creation scientists.^[204]

Richard Dawkins violation' of the terms of the debate proceedings[edit]

As noted earlier, it was agreed before the debate that discussion of religion was not to occur during the debate and that only the evidence related to the physical sciences were going to be discussed. At the end of the debate, Richard Dawkins started to give an impassioned plea to the audience to not give a single vote to the creationists which would show support for creationism. Mr. Dawkins was told to sit down by the President of the Oxford Union for violating the terms of the debate as far as not mentioning religion (as noted earlier John Maynard Smith also violated the terms of the debate).^[187]

Deception related to email correspondence with Richard Dawkins[edit]

As mentioned earlier, Paul Humber notes there was a deception that occurred during email correspondence with Mr. Dawkins concerning the tally of vote counts that occurred for the Huxley Memorial Debate between creation scientists Professor A.E. Wilder-Smith and Professor Edgar Andrews and evolutionists Richard Dawkins and John Maynard Smith.^[187] Mr. Humber did not indicate whether Mr. Dawkins committed the deception or was merely duped by someone who provided an altered account.^[187]

Brights Movement[edit]

The Brights Movement was started in 2003 by Paul Geisert and Mynga Futrell in order to assist in the advocacy of a naturalistic worldview. In October 2003 in a article in the Guardian, Richard Dawkins associated being a "bright" with being an intellectual.^[205] Atheist author and columnist Christopher Hitchens expressed his "annoyance at Professor Dawkins and Daniel Dennett, for their cringe-making proposal that atheists should conceitedly nominate themselves to be called "brights".^[206] ABC News.com commentator John Allen Paulos remarked of the Brights campaign, "I don't think a degree in public relations is needed to expect that many people will construe the term as smug, ridiculous, and arrogant" (Paulos 2003).^[207]

Other reactions to Dawkins' views within the academic community[edit]

Some in the academic community are critical of Richard Dawkins. One such example is Martin Rees, the Astronomer Royal and President of the Royal Society. In a debate in May 2007 between Rees and Dawkins, Rees said that science needed as many friends as possible and that creating enemies within mainstream religion will make it "more difficult to combat the kinds of anti-science sentiments that are really important". He also argued that it will make it more difficult to fight terrorism. Richard Dawkins counter-argued that being nice to bishops helps to foster the view that faith is virtuous and can excuse any act on its behalf. Rees continued to argue that religion has no monopoly on being unreasonable citing examples of scientific sects such as the Raelians or extreme eco-groups as being as dangerous as religious fundamentalists.^[208]

Among theologians there are many critics of Richard Dawkins, a notable example being Alister McGrath as noted earlier. Alister McGrath is Professor of Historical Theology at the University of Oxford. He has accused Dawkins of being ignorant of theology and has written a book challenging Dawkins' anti-religious stance, The Dawkins Delusion. Even among biology colleagues, there are critics. While Ken Miller, a biology professor, doesn't challenge Dawkins' views on evolution, he does take issue with his insistence that religion and science are incompatible.^[209]

Richard Dawkins, for his part, claims bafflement that some scientists he respects are capable of religious faith.^[210][211]

Criticism of the Blind Watchmaker and Climbing Mount Improbable[edit]

American philosopher Dr. Dallas Willard wrote concerning The Blind Watchmaker by Richard Dawkins:

“

When he writes a book like the present one he is not functioning as a scientist. If he were, he should incorporate his "findings" into the most advanced textbooks in the field and see how they fare as representations of established knowledge. He complains that "the true, Darwinian explanation of our own existence is still, remarkably, not a routine part of the curriculum of a general education." Then by all means let him enter the academic arena and present his views about the watchmaker as established knowledge. He should not reserve his views for infliction upon a largely helpless public whom his scientific credentials and elaborate rhetorical devices will overwhelm and make incapable of any accurate assessment of argument. When he writes books like The Blind Watchmaker he is just a naturalist metaphysician, trying to cozy up to the scientists and blend into their company in such a way that his true colors will not be noticed. He takes the liberty to dress down what he calls "redneck creationism", but unfortunately there are rednecks on the side of "Darwinianism" as well. He is one of the most outstanding.[212]

”

Dr. Jonathan Sarfati offered several criticisms of the book The Blind Watchmaker by Richard Dawkins and states in his summary that the "...Apostle of Atheism has a long way to go to make a convincing case for his faith."^[213]

Richard Dawkins on veganism[edit]

See also: Atheism and veganism and New Atheism and veganism and Richard Dawkins on veganism

At the present time, the new atheist Sam Harris is the only notable new atheist who has become a vegetarian.^[51] Harris said he "aspires" to be a vegan.^[51]

Richard Dawkins stated about vegetarianism/veganism:

“

[It] leaves me in a very difficult moral position… I think you have a very strong point when you say that anybody who eats meat has a very strong obligation to think seriously about it and I don’t find any good defense. I find myself in exactly the same position as you or I would have been, well probably you wouldn’t have been but I might have been, two hundred years ago […] talking about slavery… I think what I’d really like to see is people like you having a far greater effect on, I would call it, consciousness raising and trying to swing it around so it becomes the societal norm not to eat meat.[51]

”

Richard Dawkins is a meat eater.^[216]

Steven Stankevicus, the author of the aforementioned Salon article New atheists must become new vegans: Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins and the extra burden on moral leaders, wrote in response: "'People like you'? How about people like Richard Dawkins?".^[51]

See also: Richard Dawkins' family fortune and the slave trade and Atheism and slavery and Atheism and forced labor

Richard Dawkins' high blood pressure and his lack of a vegan diet[edit]

See also: Richard Dawkins' high blood pressure and his lack of a vegan diet

According to Harvard Health publishing which is under the Harvard Medical School:

“

People who follow a vegetarian diet tend to have lower blood pressure than their meat-eating counterparts, according to a study in JAMA Internal Medicine. Vegetarians avoid meat and eat mainly plant-based foods like vegetables, fruits, grains, and legumes (beans and peas). Some include dairy products and eggs (and in this study, fish) in their diets.[217]

”

Dawkins has high blood pressure (see: Richard Dawkins' high blood pressure and his lack of a vegan diet and Richard Dawkins' health).

New Atheism leadership's problem with excess weight and a vegan/vegetarian diet[edit]

See: New Atheism leadership's problem with excess weight and a vegan/vegetarian diet

Interview with Wendy Wright[edit]

Richard Dawkins debated and was interviewed by Wendy Wright, a member of the organization Concerned Women for America.

A transcript follows:

Dawkins: You said there was no evidence of intermediates in evolution, and I told you about five fossils, and–

Wright (reasonably): And I say if those were valid, there would be tons of evidence–

Dawkins: There is.

Wright (even more reasonably): –because there are so many different species, that there ought to be tons of evidence, even, let’s say, for one per-cent of the, eh, macro-evolution that’s taken place, there should be evidence, but–

Dawkins (doesn’t know what to say): ...There is.

Wright: –there’s not even one percent, let alone ten or fifty or seventy percent.

Dawkins (floundering): There is a massive amount of evidence. You just need to go into the books and go into the museums, and look at it. It’s there. You are believing people who are telling you there’s only, er, whatever, percent.

Wright (morally upright): And again, I go back to… It’s…it’s very demeaning, to say, that we only believe what we believe because we’ve been told that, and yet, we have evolutionary scientists who want to be the ones to tell all of society what is fact and what’s not fact, and to censor out information that is inconvenient.

Dawkins: I’m asking you to go and look at the facts; I don’t want you to believe me. Just look go and look at the, um, facts.

Wright (cleverly): I have!

Awards[edit]

• Silver Medal of the Zoological Society of London (1989)
• Royal Society's Michael Faraday Award (1990)
• Nakayama Prize for Achievement in Human Science (1990)
• The International Cosmos Prize (1997)
• Kistler Prize (2001)
• Shakespeare Prize of the Alfred Toepfer Foundation (2005)
• Lewis Thomas Prize for Writing about Science (2006)
• Galaxy British Book Awards Author of the Year (2007)
• Honorary Doctorates in both literature and science
• Fellow of the Royal Society
• Fellow of the Royal Society of Literature

Books[edit]

Dawkins has written eleven books: nine have been on evolution and evolutionary theory, another is his New York Times bestselling atheist polemic The God Delusion, and most recently, he has written a book for children introducing them to his way of thinking.

The first of his books, The Selfish Gene, was published in 1976, and won him international acclaim. It has sold over one million copies and has been translated into 25 languages.

His books are:

• The Selfish Gene (1976)
• The Extended Phenotype (1982)
• The Blind Watchmaker (1986) ^[218]
• River Out of Eden (1995)
• Climbing Mount Improbable (1996)
• Unweaving the Rainbow (1998)
• A Devil's Chaplain (2003)
• The Ancestor's Tale (2004)
• The God Delusion (2006) ^[218]
• The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution. Free Press (United States), Transworld (United Kingdom and Commonwealth). 2009.
• The Magic of Reality: How We Know What's Really True (2011) - a science book for children.

Anti-evolution books specifically addressing Richard Dawkins:

• The Greatest Hoax on Earth? Refuting Dawkins on Evolution by Dr. Jonathan Sarfati, 2010

See also[edit]

• Richard Dawkins statistics
• Evangelical atheism
• British atheism
• Directory of Richard Dawkins articles
• Richard Dawkins on Jews and Nobel Prizes
• Ravi Zacharias vs. Richard Dawkins
• Richard Dawkins and YouTube
• Richard Dawkins and Creation Ministries International
• British atheism
• Richard Dawkins and Hell

External links[edit]

• The Atheist Delusion (website rebutting Richard Dawkins)
• Richard Dawkins has lost: meet the new new atheists by Theo Hobson

Video:

• Is Richard Dawkins really stumped? The truth - In his own words - YES...he is! - YouTube video
• Former Atheist Alister McGrath discusses Dawkins (video) part 1 part 2
• YouTube - Video of Richard Dawkins being stumped by a creationist's question
• Atheists dodge their history of atrocities (Video)

Collection of rebuttals:

• Richard Dawkins - Christian rebuttals by True Free Thinker

Reviews of Richard Dawkins' works:

• A Review of Climbing Mount Improbable by Richard Dawkins by Dr. Jonathan Sarfati
• Atheist delusion: Answering "The God Delusion" and other works of atheist Richard Dawkins
• Reflections on Dawkins' The Blind Watchmaker by Christian philosopher Dallas Willard
• A Review of Unweaving the Rainbow by Richard Dawkins
• Deconstructing a deluded Dawkins by Paul Taylor
• A review of A Devil’s Chaplain: Reflections on Hope, Lies, Science, and Love by Richard Dawkins

From a Frog to a Prince video:

• Was Dawkins Stumped?
• YouTube - Video of Richard Dawkins being stumped by a creationist's question
• Gillian Brown answers Barry Williams (Gillian Brown is the film's producer. Barry Williams is a Skeptic who criticised the film. The page includes an apology from another skeptic, and an admission that the film accurately presents Dawkins' answer.)
• CreationWiki's response to TalkOrigins Archive's criticism of interview.

Richard Dawkins administered websites and web pages:

• Richard Dawkins' main website
• Richard Dawkins' Twitter page
• The Richard Dawkins Foundation
• Richard Dawkins homepage at Oxford University

Notes[edit]