Comments on: A few quick points

By: Ian

Ian — Wed, 28 Sep 2005 19:30:30 +0000

I feel Dawkins has totally lost it.

I rank The Selfish Gene amongst those books that have changed my life, for the better, and his analysis of genetics and science as a whole have made great strides in the war of reason over irrationality.

However, his commentry on the Iraq war, which he opposes, runs along the lines of the usual, dreary Bush-hating rhetoric and basically sums up as “Bush is wrong because he believes in God”.

I expected something better, his outbursts are becoming as fanatical as those who he used to skillfully engage in rational debate.

By: James

James — Tue, 27 Sep 2005 17:58:39 +0000

For all his bias towards scientific debate, I can’t help but wonder if the piece is meant as a satire. Surely such an eminent professor wouldn’t resort to publishing his mere belief that religion is the cause of all the worlds woes?

By: Paul Davies

Paul Davies — Tue, 27 Sep 2005 15:40:06 +0000

“For someone with absolutely nothing to do, I find that I am astonishingly busy.”

The sign of a quality idler, Chris… embrace it :)

By: James

James — Tue, 27 Sep 2005 14:03:55 +0000

Flying Spaghetti Monsterism is hardly sophisticated either – but monotheism (which, rather than ‘religion’ in its broadest sense, is the actual problem) is really starting to get on every sensible person’s tits right now. A sledgehammer is as good as a laser beam right as things stand.

By: Phil

Phil — Tue, 27 Sep 2005 13:44:14 +0000

His unsophisticated and tiresome ‘critique’ only strengthens the impression that scientists as grumpy, over-rational, unspiritual and dull, something which is nowhere near the truth. I suspect that’s why the press like printing his stuff so much, he fits the stereotype so easily.

I heard a guy called Tim Taylor make this point a few years ago (in the course of a really punitive debunking of Graham Hancock). He listed a whole series of popular misconceptions of science (‘there’s one right answer’, ‘the only good explanation is a complete explanation’, ‘everything fits together logically’ & (of course) ‘science implies atheism’) & then showed how well they map onto Dawkins’ public pronouncements. What this says about Dawkins as a scientist is another question.