Richard Dawkins is the Kim Kardashian of atheism as he shakes his ass for it all over the world for it, makes the jingle, and people like to watch.
They must be exceptionally boring people, tho.
In reviewing Dawkins' bibliography, we discover he loves to call himself a scientist but he's one of the laziest you'll ever find as it lists decades where he published maybe ten papers. Wow.
His first four or five books at least are all restatements of the same thing.
For almost all his academic life, Dawkins has been as much of a preacher as those he seeks to pull down. (Wiki: Richard Dawkins bibliography)
It's true that his idea of 'extended phenotypic expression' excited some thinking but it's not true that it's turned into anything. In his lofty view of himself, the theory will explain how symbiosis occurs (e.g. all manner of bacteria in your gut required for your digestive process). He might have achieved more if he were trying to accomplish science rather than just pushing an agenda that intelligent design is ridiculous.
The general premise is that elimination of Christianity and the Bible will elicit a New Enlightenment in which all is based on logic, rational thinking, and I bet in California it would be positive rationalism.
You can do paid lectures for life on that theme with complete confidence it will never happen so your market is assured.
Dawkins misses the point altogether that there's no inherent harm in the Bible but rather in what politicians do with it. If you take away the Bible, they will switch to another tool and things will change not one whit. However, that assumes Dawkins' purpose really is elimination of the Bible and not just making money ... I don't believe it for a millisecond. How's that for atheism, Nobel Prize Laureate.
They must be exceptionally boring people, tho.
In reviewing Dawkins' bibliography, we discover he loves to call himself a scientist but he's one of the laziest you'll ever find as it lists decades where he published maybe ten papers. Wow.
His first four or five books at least are all restatements of the same thing.
For almost all his academic life, Dawkins has been as much of a preacher as those he seeks to pull down. (Wiki: Richard Dawkins bibliography)
It's true that his idea of 'extended phenotypic expression' excited some thinking but it's not true that it's turned into anything. In his lofty view of himself, the theory will explain how symbiosis occurs (e.g. all manner of bacteria in your gut required for your digestive process). He might have achieved more if he were trying to accomplish science rather than just pushing an agenda that intelligent design is ridiculous.
The general premise is that elimination of Christianity and the Bible will elicit a New Enlightenment in which all is based on logic, rational thinking, and I bet in California it would be positive rationalism.
You can do paid lectures for life on that theme with complete confidence it will never happen so your market is assured.
Dawkins misses the point altogether that there's no inherent harm in the Bible but rather in what politicians do with it. If you take away the Bible, they will switch to another tool and things will change not one whit. However, that assumes Dawkins' purpose really is elimination of the Bible and not just making money ... I don't believe it for a millisecond. How's that for atheism, Nobel Prize Laureate.
No comments:
Post a Comment