Richard Dawkins

{{silver}}[[Image:HappyDawkins.jpg|thumb|right|165px|Just a well-timed shot of Professor Richard Dawkins looking silly]]{{atheism|1}}
{{cquote|[[Science]] works! Planes fly. Cars drive. Computers compute. If you [[evidence-based medicine|base medicine on science]], you cure people. If you base the design of planes on science, they fly. If you base the design of rockets on science, they reach the moon. It works... <small>bitches.</small>|||Richard Dawkins' thug life<ref>[http://www.openculture.com/2017/04/richard-dawkins-on-why-we-should-believe-in-science-it-works-bitches.html Richard Dawkins on Why We Should Believe in Science: "It Works … Bitches"] (April 11<sup>th</sup>, 2017) ''Open Culture''.</ref>}}

But also…

{{cquote|Dawkins still appears to be convinced that religion will be defeated by rationality alone. Were that the case, [[David Hume]] would have sufficed.|||[[Massimo Pigliucci]]<ref>[http://rationallyspeaking.blogspot.com/2012/04/lawrence-krauss-another-physicist-with.html Lawrence Krauss: another physicist with an anti-philosophy complex] by Massimo Pigliucci (April 25, 2012) ''Rationally Speaking''.</ref>}}

'''Clinton Richard Dawkins''' {{lived|26 March 1941}} is a [[British]] [[evolutionary biologist]], ethologist and [[author]], born in [[Kenya]]. Due to his passionate defense of the [[theory of evolution]] and his attacks on [[religion]] and [[superstition]] in general, he has become known as ''[[Darwin]]'s Rottweiler'' and also as one of the "Four Horsemen" in the [[New Atheism|New Atheist]] movement (along with [[Christopher Hitchens|Hitchens]], [[Daniel Dennett|Dennett]], and [[Sam Harris|Harris]]). He held the Charles Simonyi Chair for the Public Understanding of [[Science]] at the University of Oxford from 1995 to 2008 (after his retirement from this post the Oxford [[mathematician]] Marcus du Sautoy succeeded him).

The general public came to know Dawkins' name after he published his first book, ''The Selfish Gene'', in 1976. This book made a [[Gene-centered view of evolution|gene-centric view of evolution]] popular and that view later became an influential approach to evolutionary theory. ''The Selfish Gene'' also introduced the idea of [[meme]]s, and the concept went on to become a meme itself. Other best-selling books Dawkins has written include ''The Extended Phenotype'' (1982), which discussed the way that [[Phenotype|phenotypic]] effects can extend beyond an organism's body and affect the surrounding environment, and ''The Blind Watchmaker'' (1986) which explains how [[natural selection]] works by small, incremental and cumulative steps, keeping what "works" (in terms of the usefulness for survival and reproduction of the [[gene]]s comprising an organism) and discarding what does not. The title ''The Blind Watchmaker'' obviously plays on the concept of [[unguided evolution]] and on {{wpl|William Paley||'s}} "watch" [[argument from design]] (Paley also receives extended attention in Dawkin's later book ''[[The God Delusion]]''). Dawkins is well respected in some circles and a genus of [[fish]] was named after him.<ref>
[https://web.archive.org/web/20130521022747/http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hEvNbHt8O7e3jB5HlC2uwNrSQvpQ?docId=CNG.2417bf61f21b75ec00dacc78e05295ae.341 Sri Lankans name new fish genus after atheist Dawkins] (Jul 16, 2012) ''AFP'' (archived from May 21, 2013). A genus of fish was named ''"Dawkinsia"'' after Richard Dawkins.</ref><ref>
[http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2012/07/16/new-genus-of-south-asian-fish-named-after-richard-dawkins/ "New Genus of South Asian Fish Named After Richard Dawkins"] by Hemant Mehta (July 16, 2012) ''Friendly Atheist''. Retrieved on 8 October 2015.</ref>

In 1992 Dawkins married the much younger actress Lalla Ward and he has collaborated with her on several books. She contributed artwork, and also read audiobook versions of Dawkins' work. He has one daughter from a previous marriage - Juliet Emma Dawkins.

Dawkins is an [[#Dawkins and religion|outspoken atheist]] and critic of [[religion]] (see below). However, in recent years (though not without precedent), Dawkins has softened some of his criticisms of [[Christianity]], to the point that he declared that he was a "[[cultural Christian]]" in 2024.<ref name="facultchristian">[https://www.friendlyatheist.com/p/richard-dawkins-says-christianity "Richard Dawkins says Christianity is 'fundamentally decent,' but Islam 'is not'"], Friendly Atheist, 2024 April 2</ref> Since the 2010s, Dawkins has also been [[Richard Dawkins#Legitimate criticisms of Dawkins|tarnishing his legacy]] with a series of ill-informed controversial proclamations on [[gender]], [[Islam]], [[feminism]], and other similar topics.<ref>[https://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/jun/09/is-richard-dawkins-destroying-his-reputation "Is Richard Dawkins destroying his reputation?"] by Sophie Elmhirst, Guardian, 2015 June 9</ref>

==Career and qualifications - highlights==
[[File:Oxford - Balliol College - geograph.org.uk - 1329613.jpg|thumb|right|325px|Oxford's Balliol College.]]
Dawkins was an Assistant [[Professor]] of [[Zoology]] at the University of [[California]], Berkeley from 1967 to 1969. In 1970 he was appointed a Lecturer, and 10 years later he was appointed a Reader in Zoology at Oxford University. (For readers outside the UK, a "Reader" in a British university is approximately equivalent to an "Associate Professor" or "Full Professor" in the [[US]].)

In 1995, he was appointed Simonyi Professor for the Public Understanding of Science at the University of Oxford. This position was endowed by Charles Simonyi with an express intention that Dawkins be its first holder. He has been a Fellow of New College, Oxford since 1970. (A Fellow is part of the governing body of the university.)

===Education, positions and degrees===
For completeness, his full academic career is shown below.

*1954-1959 Oundle School
*1959-1962 Balliol College, Oxford University
*1962-1966 Research Student, Oxford University (D.Phil., 1966)
*1965-1967 Research Assistant to Professor N.Tinbergen FRS
*1967-1969 Assistant Professor of Zoology, University of California, Berkeley
*1969-1970 Senior Research Officer, Department of Zoology, Oxford
*1970-1990 University Lecturer in Zoology, and Fellow of New College, Oxford
*1989 D.Sc. (Oxford)
*1990-1995 Reader in Zoology, Oxford University
*1995-2008 Charles Simonyi Professor of the Public Understanding of Science, University of Oxford, and Professorial Fellow of New College<ref>[http://web.archive.org/web/20070225195322/http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/CV.pdf 2007 Curriculum Vitae] (archived from February 25, 2007).</ref>

==Dawkins and religion==
[[File:Richard dawkins lecture.jpg|thumb|right|225px|Dawkins giving a lecture in [[Iceland]], 2006.]]

Dawkins' treatment of [[evolution]] is his forte, for he is, by credentials, an evolutionary biologist. He has frequently been the target of less than [[education|literate]] Christian [[fundamentalist]]s. In his book ''The God Delusion'' (2006), he outraged the [[Religious right|Christian right]] by counterattacking in their own backyard — [[New Atheism|daring to suggest]] not only that creationism is a load of bollocks, but that '''the entirety of Christianity is [[bullshit]]'''.

Dawkins takes exception to [[Stephen Jay Gould]]'s ideas of [[Non-Overlapping Magisteria]]. He points out that [[God]] either exists or he does not, and that statements about his existence or non-existence can be [[Experiment|tested]] by the [[scientific method]] in the same way as any other statement. [[Agnostic]]s, tremble at the mighty Dawkins!

While many have praised the book, some [[Theology|theological]] [[academic]]s have criticized the book because he has not mastered their [[Term of art|terms of art]] and have [[Sophisticated theology|poked at his work]] as being "deeply ignorant". Dawkins, admittedly, has no formal theological or philosophical education. However, he has responded by saying: "Most of us happily disavow [[Fun:Fairies|fairies]], [[astrology]], and the [[Flying Spaghetti Monster]] without first immersing ourselves in books of Pastafarian theology etc."<ref>[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NBaAJcv7Vxg "'I'm an atheist, BUT...' by Richard Dawkins (1 of 6)"]. ''YouTube''. 1 July 2007. Retrieved on 8 October 2015.</ref> This mockery and denial of theology is not wholly unlike the [[fundamentalist]] tendency to ridicule and forbid the teaching of [[evolution]].

While never explicitly declaring God not to exist, it's rather difficult to say he is non-[[partisan]]. Given his views on theology, religion, the existence of God, and the utter superiority of science, it's not really all that difficult to see he considers the evidence to be against the existence of God. No, he won't explicitly deny God exists. But, he contends, [[Absence of evidence|if we don't have evidence for God]], it's probably not worth believing in a God.

===''The God Delusion''===
{{main|The God Delusion}}
[[File:God delusion.JPG|thumb|right|225px|Dawkin's most famous book.]]
There has been quite a bit of controversy surrounding ''The God Delusion''. Most criticism has come from Christians — both [[fundamentalist]]s and more [[Anglican|moderate]] [[Roman Catholic|varieties]]. More cogent points have involved two particular issues: The [[Tone argument|form of the message]], and the content of the message.

In form, Dawkins' message on [[atheism]] is quite abrasive to many — despite insistence by both him and his supporters that he's actually quite mild-mannered ("shrill" gets mentioned a lot, but no video evidence of Dawkins making odd noises has yet been uncovered). This aggression is not necessarily a bad thing. It does echo the passion of fundamentalists, but his [[New Atheism|direct and uncompromising approach]] has alienated many others who fight unreason, especially those who are not atheists, and those who approve of the concept of NOMA. In content, many have argued that he is not the finest philosopher of atheism, and that his work contains many inconsistencies and poor examples, as well as fundamental ignorance of the things he attacks. Specifically, he's often accused of over-simplifying [[the Troubles]] in [[Northern Ireland]], which he reduces to a simple religious feud between [[Roman Catholic]]s and [[Protestant]]s. However, to his credit, the book in general is accessible to the public at large, which cannot be said of many of the great philosophical atheist works (or most [[philosophy]] in general). 

Dawkins' religious critics were brilliantly parodied in an article which pretended to criticize the non-existent book ''The Fascism Delusion''.<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20071011052155/http://www.thevalve.org/go/valve/article/more_on_dawkins/ More on Dawkins] by Adam Roberts (September 09, 2007) ''The Valve'' (archived from October 11, 2007). Review of "''The Fascism Delusion''".</ref>

===''Root of All Evil?''===
{{main|Root of All Evil?}}
''Root of All Evil?'' is a television documentary by Dawkins, and is essentially the film version of his book ''The God Delusion''. The title was forced upon the show by its producers at Channel 4 and the question mark at the end was a concession to Dawkins.<!-- {{efn|For all his disdain towards religion, Dawkins was not willing to go so far as to claim that it is ''entirely and inherently'' evil, or more saliently, that destroying religion will automatically destroy evil. More details in the article.}} -->

The first part, titled "The God Delusion", explored the beliefs of religion and their conflicts with [[science]], while in the second part, "The Virus Of Faith", he brought in the theory of the [[meme]] to explain religions, making them akin to [[virus]]es, and explored the moral implications of religious belief. The programme also included an interview with [[Ted Haggard]] where Haggard's [[wingnut|wingnuttery]] is shown off quite nicely, threatening Dawkins for "calling his children animals," i.e., mentioning evolution.

The program received predictably mixed reviews. Religious proponents accused Dawkins of everything from [[Journalism|journalistic]] [[Deceit|dishonesty]] to concentrating on the bad aspects of religion, whilst ignoring the potential good. On the other hand, Dawkins' fans and anyone happy to see potshots taken at the [[church]] on mainstream TV loved it.

===Religion as child abuse===
[[File:Dawkins aaconf.jpg|thumb|right|250px|Dawkins with a scarlet 'A' lapel pin, 2008.]]
Dawkins also went out of his way to suggest that religious teaching could be considered as a form of [[child abuse]]. 
{{cquote|I do disapprove very strongly of labelling children, especially young children, as something like 'Catholic children' or 'Protestant children' or 'Islamic children'. That does seem to me to be very wicked because what you're in effect doing is making the assumption that the beliefs, the cosmology, the beliefs about the world, about life, are automatically going to be inherited in a way that you don't assume for anything else. (...) But society simply assumes, without even asking, that there is such a thing as a Catholic 4-year-old, or a Muslim 4-year-old. And that I do think is wicked.<ref>[http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/atheism/people/dawkins.shtml Religions: Richard Dawkins] (Last updated 2009-10-22) ''BBC''.</ref>}}
Dawkins has also written a great deal about how [[children]] are frightened that they themselves will go to [[Hell]] and that children are upset that people they care about will end up there, which he thinks is a form of child abuse. He cites the example of a woman brought up as a Roman Catholic: when this woman was 7, a childhood friend died tragically in a car accident. The 7-year-old girl lay awake at night thinking about her little friend being tortured in Hell because she had died a Protestant. Dawkins argues that in many cases, frightening children over Hell causes more lasting damage than physical abuse or [[Child sexual abuse in the Roman Catholic Church|sexual abuse]] by religious authorities.

===Theology=== 
Richard Dawkins believes that theology is not a suitable subject for a university because he believes theology is not scientific.{{efn|To which the gap-toothed [[Fundamentalist Christianity|fundamentalist]] would reply, no doubt, "[[Fun:Scientific evidence of evolution being a hoax|Evolution isn't scientific]]! Keep it out of our schools!"}} 
{{cquote|But as for theology itself, defined as "the organised body of knowledge dealing with the nature, attributes, and governance of God", a positive case now needs to be made that it has any real content at all, and that it has any place in today's universities.<ref>[http://richarddawkins.net/articles/1698 Letters: Theology has no place in a university] by Richard Dawkins (30 September 2007 at 4:00 PM) ''Richard Dawkins Foundation''. Reply to David Heywood.</ref>}} 
Dawkins denies that theology is a subject to be studied at any level.
{{cquote|What has 'theology' ever said that is of the smallest use to anybody? When has 'theology' ever said anything that is demonstrably true and is not obvious? What makes you think that 'theology' is a subject at all?<ref>[http://www.age-of-the-sage.org/quotations/quotes/richard_dawkins_god.html Richard Dawkins quotations, quotes on God, Religion, Religious Beliefs] 'age-of-sage.org''</ref>}}

Dawkins further draws attention to serious shortcomings in the theology department of Oxford University where he teaches.

===The former Pope=== 
Dawkins spoke at the Protest the Pope Rally in [[London]] during the visit of (now dead) [[Pope]] [[Benedict XVI]] in 2010:
{{Cquote|He is an enemy of truth, promoting barefaced lies about condoms not protecting against [[AIDS]], especially in Africa. He is an enemy of the poorest people on the planet, condemning them to inflated families that they cannot feed, and so keeping them in the bondage of perpetual [[poverty]]. A poverty that sits ill with the obscene riches of the [[Vatican]].|||[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q_0kFU7IfPM&feature=player_embedded#! Richard Dawkins' speech at Protest the Pope march] [http://richarddawkins.net/articles/521113-ratzinger-is-an-enemy-of-humanity transcribed here.]}}

===The God helmet===
In 2003, Richard Dawkins had the allegedly religiosity-inducing device known as the [[God helmet]] tested on him; appearing in the [[BBC]] science documentary series ''Horizon''. He did not have a "sensed presence" [[hallucination|experience]], but instead felt at times "slightly dizzy", "quite strange", and had sensations in his limbs and changes in his breathing. Persinger explained Dawkins' limited results in terms of his low score on a psychological scale measuring temporal lobe sensitivity.<ref>[http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2003/godonbrain.shtml God on the Brain] (April 17, 2003) ''BBC Two''.</ref>

===Atheism===
Dawkins has denied that [[Atheism as a religion|atheism is a religion]], or that [[Morality#Morality without religion|atheism is violent]]; he wrote:
{{cquote|There is no atheist religion. (...) Oh yes, I was forgetting. All those atheists beheading people, setting fire to them, cutting off their hands, cutting off their clitorises. If you think atheists are violent you don't know what violence means.|||Richard Dawkins<ref name=Independent/>}}

Dawkins is a patron of the [[British Humanist Association]]; he helped get the [[Atheist Bus Campaign]] going.<ref>[https://humanism.org.uk/campaigns/successful-campaigns/atheist-bus-campaign/ Atheist Bus Campaign] ''Humanists UK''.</ref> Dawkins is also an enthusiastic [[The Brights Movement|Bright]], and he expounded his reasons for this in an article in ''[[The Guardian]].''<ref>[http://books.guardian.co.uk/review/story/0,12084,981412,00.html The future looks bright: Language can help to shape the way we think about the world. Richard Dawkins welcomes an attempt to raise consciousness about atheism by co-opting a word with cheerful associations] (21 Jun 2003 07.11 EDT) ''the Guardian''.</ref> He hopes the term 'Brights' will help reduce negative [[stereotyping]] of atheists in the United States.<ref>[http://www.the-brights.net/vision/essays/let_there_be_brights.html Let There Be Brights] by Richard Dawkins (October 2003) ''The Brights''. Originally published in Wired online, Issue 11.10.</ref>

Dawkins sees atheists as ordinary people, typically thoughtful people who work things out for themselves and do not accept automatically what they learnt from their parents or in primary school. Dawkins wants atheists to stand up and be counted.{{efn|Dawkins sees religion as a childish idea he overcame when he came to think in a more adult way. Discovering evolution removed the [[Teleology|last argument for God he had]].<ref>[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IwcIq42WpjI Richard Dawkins - We Are Atheism] (Jun 12, 2013) ''YouTube''.</ref>}}

==Dawkins and pseudoscience==
Dawkins is seemingly no less critical of [[pseudoscience]], especially "[[Spirituality|spiritual]]" matters, than he is of religion. He made his views known about [[Faith healing|faith healers]], [[psychic]] [[medium]]s, [[angel]] therapists, "[[aura]] photographers", [[Astrology|astrologers]], [[Tarot cards|tarot card]] readers, and water [[Divination|diviners]], and claimed that Britain is gripped by "an epidemic of superstitious thinking."<ref>[https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1559468/New-age-therapies-cause-retreat-from-reason.html New age therapies cause 'retreat from reason'] by David Harrison (12:01AM BST 05 Aug 2007) ''The Telegraph''.</ref>

==Dawkins and eugenics==
Dawkins has come under fire for statements made in 2006, 2014, and 2020 on [[eugenics]]. In 2006, he supported the scientific validity of eugenics asking, "If you can breed cattle for milk yield, horses for running speed, and dogs for herding skill, why on Earth should it be impossible to breed humans for mathematical, musical or athletic ability?" He also asked, "I wonder whether, some 60 years after Hitler's death, we might at least venture to ask what the moral difference is between breeding for musical ability and forcing a child to take music lessons."

In 2014, he said "Intelligently designed morality would have no problem with negative eugenics", further arguing that the problem with positive eugenics comes about when it is state directed and government sponsored.<ref>[http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/belief/2014/aug/29/nobody-better-at-being-human-richard-dawkins "Nobody is better at being human, Professor Dawkins, least of all you": The one thing one ought to expect from humanists is that they’d be good at protecting the human] by Giles Fraser (29 Aug 2014 14.30 EDT) ''the Guardian''.</ref>

In 2020, he stepped in it yet again when he tweeted:
{{blockquote|It’s one thing to deplore eugenics on ideological, political, moral grounds. It’s quite another to conclude that it wouldn’t work in practice. Of course it would. It works for cows, horses, pigs, dogs & roses. Why on earth wouldn’t it work for humans? [[Fact]]s ignore ideology.

For those determined to miss the point, I deplore the idea of a eugenic policy. [[Just asking questions|I simply said deploring it doesn’t mean it wouldn’t work.]] Just as we breed cows to yield more milk, we could breed humans to run faster or jump higher. But heaven forbid that we should do it.

A eugenic policy would be bad. I’m combating the illogical step from “X would be bad” to “So X is impossible”. It would work in the same sense as it works for cows. Let’s fight it on moral grounds. Deny obvious scientific facts & we lose – or at best derail – the argument.<ref>[http://archive.ph/bJhXO It’s one thing to deplore eugenics on ideological, political, moral grounds. It’s quite another to conclude that it wouldn’t work in practice. Of course it would. It works for cows, horses, pigs, dogs & roses. Why on earth wouldn’t it work for humans? Facts ignore ideology.] by Richard Dawkins (11:26 PM — 15 Feb 2020) ''Twitter'' (archived from 16 Feb 2020 21:28:29 UTC).</ref>}}

===Dawkins’ bigoted remarks on Down syndrome===
Dawkins sparked controversy in 2014 when he claimed that it would be "[[Ableism|immoral]]" to give birth to a fetus with [[Down syndrome]], given the choice.<ref>[https://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/aug/21/richard-dawkins-immoral-not-to-abort-a-downs-syndrome-foetus Richard Dawkins: 'immoral' not to abort if foetus has Down's syndrome: Scientist says a mother has a responsibility to ‘abort it and try again’ if she knows her baby would have the disorder] (21 Aug 2014 00.14 EDT) ''[[The Guardian]]''.</ref>

{{quotebox|If your morality is based, as mine is, on a desire to increase the sum of happiness and reduce suffering, the decision to deliberately give birth to a Down's baby, when you have the choice to abort it early in the pregnancy, might actually be immoral from the point of view of the child's own welfare.<ref>[https://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/aug/21/richard-dawkins-apologises-downs-syndrome-tweet Richard Dawkins apologises for causing storm with Down's syndrome tweet: Author told woman on Twitter it would be immoral not to abort pregnancy if she knew baby had Down's syndrome] (21 Aug 2014 12.13 EDT) ''The Guardian''.</ref>}}

While Dawkins claimed that his beliefs were logical, they are clearly contrary to the principles of logic. 99% of people with Down syndrome are happy with their lives<ref>[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3740159/ Self-perceptions from People with Down Syndrome] by Brian G. Skotko et al. (2011) ''American journal of medical genetics. Part A'' 0(10): 2360–2369. doi:10.1002/ajmg.a.34235.</ref> (which is higher than the general population<ref>[https://ourworldindata.org/happiness-and-life-satisfaction Happiness and Life Satisfaction] by Esteban Ortiz-Ospina & Max Roser (First published in 2013; substantive revision May 2017) ''Our World in Data''.</ref>). Thus, giving birth to a child with Down syndrome would be '''morally superior''' to having a child without Down syndrome. People have value regardless of disability.

==Baseless attacks on Dawkins==
[[File:Ariane Sherine and Richard Dawkins at the Atheist Bus Campaign launch.jpg|thumb|right|375px|Dawkins and {{wpl|Ariane Sherine}} during the [[Atheist Bus Campaign]] in 2009.]]
Dawkins' outspoken views on religion have earned him many knee-jerk criticisms from religious [[apologist]]s. With the high regard in which religious [[belief]] is held,{{efn|[http://www.smbc-comics.com/comics/20070514.gif And I ''respect'' that.]}} openly and directly attacking religion has seen Dawkins break one of the greatest [[taboo]]s still in existence in the [[Western world]]. Most critics concentrate on his divisive approach to the subject: he is generally seen to reject all [[theist]]ic views, even when they support his own on evolution or [[secular]]ism, and his dismissal of all the claimed good aspects of religion, which Dawkins either believes are non-existent or completely irrelevant. In ''The God Delusion'', Dawkins spends most of the introduction of the book addressing potential critics, predicting their arguments quite accurately and putting forward his own counter-arguments.

The criticism of Dawkins and general anti-Dawkins attitudes manifest in many ways, from homemade [[YouTube]] videos to criticism by well-known theists. In September 2008, a Turkish court banned [[internet]] users from viewing the official Richard Dawkins website after [[Harun Yahya]], a [[Muslim]] [[creationist]], claimed its contents were defamatory and [[blasphemy|blasphemous]].<ref>[http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/sep/19/religion.turkey "Missing link: creationist campaigner has Richard Dawkins' official website banned in Turkey"] by Riazat Butt (18 Sep 2008 19.01 EDT) ''the Guardian''.</ref>

[[Rabbi]] Shmuley Boteach accused Dawkins of [[Godwin's Law|comparing him to Hitler]].<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20081015170240/https://www.beliefnet.com/faiths/judaism/2008/05/richard-dawkins-shameful-attack.aspx Richard Dawkins' Shameful Attack: The famous atheist accused me of speaking like Hitler. Has he lost his mind?] by Shmuley Boteach, ''Beliefnet'' (archived from October 15, 2008).</ref><ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20081016033520/http://www.beliefnet.com/News/Science-Religion/2008/05/Richard-Dawkins-Responds-To-Rabbi-Shmuley-Boteach.aspx Richard Dawkins Responds to Rabbi Shmuley Boteach: The famous atheist explains his correspondence with Boteach, references to Hitler, and why they should 'all calm down.'] by Richard Dawkins, ''Beliefnet'' (archived from October 16, 2008).</ref>

===The "11 second pause"===
One of the more famous incidents that Dawkins has been involved in was during an interview in 1997 where he paused for 11 seconds after being asked to answer the question "can you give one example of a [[mutation]] that increases information in the genome?" Creationists happily seized on the video as a "smoking gun" proving evolution was a [[hoax]]: one of its key proponents stumped on a simple question!<ref>[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B_MN_O9ICzY "11 second Pause Dawkins 'stumped' hoax videos exposed again!"] (12 June 2007) ''YouTube''.</ref> Dawkins has since gone on record explaining that this pause was because he suddenly realised he had been tricked into an interview with creationists — something he doesn't do as policy, as such interviews can be used to give [[crank]]s credibility.

Most creationists take the pause to be genuine proof that Dawkins doesn't know what he is talking about and evolution is false and that his reasonings for not interviewing creationists are just any old excuse to dodge their questions. [[CreationWiki]] claims that he ''still'' hasn't answered the initial question. Anyone familiar with [[information theory]] and the average creationist tactics and [[straw man]] based arguments should be able to figure out this answer; it's certainly not the simple soundbite they were looking for. Of course Dawkins ''has'' answered, and the entire response can be found on Australian Skeptics.<ref>[http://www.skeptics.com.au/publications/articles/the-information-challenge/ The Information Challenge] by Richard Dawkins (8 October 2015) ''Australian Skeptics''.</ref>

==Legitimate criticisms of Dawkins==
[[Image:UpdatedDawkins.png|thumb|thumb|right|350px|Timeline of Dawkins' destruction of his own image, up to 2016.]]
{{cquote|Every one of us has lots of things we don't understand. The trick is to realise it.|||Dawkins, Twitter, 2015<ref>[http://archive.ph/Sph7K Every one of us has lots of things we don't understand. The trick is to realise it. As well as tides, I also don't understand the bicycle.] by Richard Dawkins (1:24 AM — 25 Jun 2015) ''Twitter'' (archived from 25 Jun 2015 12:00:05 UTC).</ref><br/>(level of perceived [[irony]] depends on the reader)}}

===Researchers' views on Dawkins===
Despite promoting the virtues of science and scientific research, Dawkins is no longer involved in conducting original scientific research but is in effect a [[Popular science|science popularizer]]. Within the scientific community, Dawkins is generally regarded as a very good communicator of science, but a certain public [[hagiography]] of him as "the greatest scientist since Darwin" is misplaced. Most of his ideas are based on those of others (see "standing on the shoulders of giants"), in particular the likes of {{wpl|Ronald Fisher|R. A. Fisher|,}} {{wpl|W. D. Hamilton||,}} {{wpl|John Maynard Smith||,}} {{wpl|Robert Trivers||,}} and {{wpl|George C. Williams||.}} To be fair to Dawkins, he always cites and defers to his sources, but some Dawkins fanboys don't catch onto historical and social context in which he has written, despite his stating them in his writing! Similarities between his books also leads to the criticism that he's written "the same book" again and again.

Dawkins is not, however, immune to criticism from within the scientific community. Theoretical [[physicist]] Peter Higgs (yes, [[Higgs boson|that Higgs]]) criticized him in December 2012 for his anti-religious "fundamentalism", asserting that Dawkins focuses too much of his attacks on religious fundamentalism despite there being many non-fundamentalists out there and that his belief that religion and science cannot co-exist ''at all'' is wrong.<ref>[http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2012/dec/26/peter-higgs-richard-dawkins-fundamentalism Peter Higgs criticises Richard Dawkins over anti-religious 'fundamentalism': Higgs boson theorist says he agrees with those who find Dawkins' approach to dealing with believers 'embarrassing'] by Alok Jha (26 December 2012 13.58 EST) ''The Guardian''.</ref> Dawkins has countered assertions that he is an anti-religious [[extremist]].<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20121231022508/http://old.richarddawkins.net/articles/1071-how-dare-you-call-me-a-fundamentalist How dare you call me a fundamentalist] by Richard Dawkins (13 May 2007 at 4:00 PM) originally published in ''The Sunday Times Online'' (archived from December 31, 2012).</ref>

Dawkins and fellow evolutionary biologist David Sloan Wilson have also debated over ''The God Delusion'' and studying religion scientifically in the pages of ''Skeptic'' magazine.<ref>[http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/07-07-04/ Beyond Demonic Memes: Why Dawkins is Wrong About Religion] by David Sloan Wilson (July 4, 2007) eSkeptic</ref><ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20110715082252/http://richarddawkins.net/articles/1403 Richard Dawkins Replies to David Sloan Wilson] by Richard Dawkins (10 July 2007 at 4:00 PM) ''Richard Dawkins Foundation'' (archived from July 15, 2011).</ref> Dawkins also denies his own meme theory is pseudoscience, despite not being based on [[experiment]]al data.

===Islamophobia===
{{main|Islamophobia}}
{{cquote|For years we've been calling attention to the deafening silence from moderate Muslims, [[Guilt by association|their reluctance to condemn 9/11, suicide bombings and other atrocities]]. For years we have challenged moderate Muslims to disown [[Capital punishment|the death penalty]] for apostasy, and [[Purity culture|officially sanctioned Islamic mistreatment of women]]. With a few honourabe {{sic}} exceptions like {{wpl|Yasmin Alibhai Brown||,}} our appeals have met with lamentably little response.|||Dawkins, demanding collective punishment for the Islamic community everywhere. Notice how he doesn't ask all Catholics to condemn the [[Irish Republican Army|IRA]], or all Jews to condemn certain [[Israeli]] actions in the Middle East (though some certainly have).<ref>[http://web.archive.org/web/20130507174441/http://old.richarddawkins.net/articles/643224-muslim-peace-conference-condemns-terrorism/comments?page=3 Muslim peace conference condemns terrorism — Comments: Comment 77] by Richard Dawkins (25 September 2011 at 5:56 AM) ''Richard Dawkins Foundation'' (archived from May 7, 2013).</ref>}}
In 2013, Dawkins came under fire for a series of statements regarding [[Islam]] that seemed to blur the line between reason-based resistance to [[dogma]] and [[xenophobic]] prejudice. He views Islam as the "greatest force for evil in the world today"<ref>[http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/apr/22/richard-dawkins-islamophobic Richard Dawkins' latest anti-Muslim Twitter spat lays bare his hypocrisy: The celebrity atheist's Twitter rant against journalist Mehdi Hasan shows he's a believer too – in his own mythology] by Andrew Brown (22 Apr 2013 05.33 EDT) ''The Guardian''.</ref><ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20191116045502/https://twitter.com/RichardDawkins/status/307369895031603200 @ToddKincannon Haven't read Koran so couldn't quote chapter & verse like I can for Bible. But often say Islam greatest force for evil today] by Richard Dawkins (10:01 PM - 28 Feb 2013) ''Twitter'' (archived from November 16, 2019).</ref> and stated that "All the world's Muslims have fewer [[Nobel Prize]]s than Trinity College, Cambridge,"<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20190626211542/https://twitter.com/RichardDawkins/statuses/365473573768400896 All the world's Muslims have fewer Nobel Prizes than Trinity College, Cambridge. They did great things in the Middle Ages, though.] by Richard Dawkins (:04 AM - 8 Aug 2013) ''Twitter'' (archived from June 26, 2019).</ref> He's generally called Islam "an unmitigated evil", which is in line with his opinion on religion.

In 2016, Dawkins wrote:
{{quotebox|Anyone who believes that what is written in a holy book is true even if the evidence is against it is dangerous. Christianity used to be the most dangerous religion. Now Islam is. Of course that doesn't mean more than a small minority of the world's Muslims. But it only takes a few if their beliefs are sufficiently strong, fanatical and unshakeable.<ref name=Independent>[http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/richard-dawkins-responds-to-the-suggestion-atheists-are-violent-a7056301.html Richard Dawkins responds to the suggestion atheists are violent: 'If you think atheists are violent you don't know what violence means'] by Samuel Osborne (30 May 2016 12:55) ''The Independent''.</ref>}}

This appears to mitigate the charge of Islamophobia somewhat. And, if it is clarified that one is not referring to all Muslims but only to extremists and governments, the claim that Islam is currently the world's most dangerous religion doesn't seem unreasonable.<ref>[https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2016/06/13/here-are-the-10-countries-where-homosexuality-may-be-punished-by-death-2/ Here are the 10 countries where homosexuality may be punished by death] by Max Bearak & Darla Cameron (June 16, 2016 at 7:37 a.m. PDT) ''The Washington Post''.</ref><ref>[https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Apostasy_laws_in_2013.SVG Map of apostasy laws in 2013.] Wikipedia commons.</ref>

He also wrote positively of Islamphobe [[Geert Wilders]], saying: "if it [[Irony meter|should turn out that you are a racist or a gratuitous stirrer and provocateur]] I withdraw my respect, but [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QDms-nP2E90&feature=youtu.be&t=43s on the strength of ''Fitna'' alone I salute you as a man of courage], who has the balls to stand up to a monstrous enemy,"<ref>[http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/not-in-our-name-dawkins-dresses-up-bigotry-as-non-belief-he-cannot-be-left-to-represent-atheists-8754183.html Not in our name: Dawkins dresses up bigotry as non-belief — he cannot be left to represent atheists] by Owen Jones (9 August 2013 11:59) ''Independent''.</ref> described the [[burka]] as being like a "full bin liner thing", and spoken of his "visceral revulsion" when he sees it being worn.<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20130312122012/http://old.richarddawkins.net/articles/498234-fury-over-richard-dawkins-s-burka-jibe-as-atheist-tells-of-his-visceral-revulsion-at-muslim-dress Fury over Richard Dawkins's burka jibe as atheist tells of his 'visceral revulsion' at Muslim dress] by Liz Thomas (UPDATED: 07:07 EDT, 10 August 2010) ''Daily Mail'' via ''Richard Dawkins Foundation'' (archived from March 12, 2013).</ref> He also seems to think that being a Muslim makes a person unsuitable for hiring as a [[journalist]], saying of ''[[The Guardian]]'' and ''New Statesman'' contributor and [[Al Jazeera|Al Jazeera]] journalist, Mehdi Hasan, "Mehdi Hasan admits to believing [[Muhammad|Muhamed]]{{sic}} flew to heaven on a winged horse. And ''New Statesman'' sees fit to print him."<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20180802192849/https://twitter.com/RichardDawkins/status/325957740835004416 Mehdi Hasan admits to believing Muhamed flew to heaven on a winged horse. And New Statesman sees fit to print him as a serious journalist] by Richard Dawkins (6:02 — 21 Apr 2013) ''Twitter'' (archived from August 2, 2018).</ref>

Dawkins has become a critic of [[multiculturalism]], which he views as "[[Eurabia|code for Islam]]" in Europe.<ref>[http://www.theguardian.com/science/the-lay-scientist/2013/may/03/atheism-dawkins Richard Dawkins, 'Islamophobia' and the atheist movement: Whether or not 'Islamophobia' is a valid term, leading atheists like Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins have been confused, inconsistent and blundering in their attempts to talk about Muslims] by Martin Robbins (3 May 2013 06.18 EDT) ''The Guardian''.</ref> He has described {{wpl|First Cameron ministry|the coalition government}} as "fanatical about multiculturalism and the need to respect the different traditions from which these children come",<ref>[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2494397/Richard-Dawkins-Muslim-parents-import-creationism-into-schools.html Richard Dawkins: Muslim parents 'import creationism' into schools] by Duncan Gardham (6:06PM BST 03 Aug 2008) ''The Telegraph''.</ref> and claims that "the compromised values of multicultural Britain mean that teachers hesitate to offend the religious beliefs of their pupils, even when these directly contradict scientific fact."<ref>[http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xh0cf8_multiculturalism-against-darwinian-s-science-of-evolution_tech Multiculturalism against Darwinian's science of evolution] by Jean-Charles Patenaude (c. 2011) ''Daily Motion''.</ref><ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20160305220420/https://twitter.com/richarddawkins/status/463620788546203649 Relativism and Multiculturalism. Was I unfair to these three decent science teachers? http://bit.ly/1kGuvlI What would you say to them?] by Richard Dawkins (3:06 AM - 6 May 2014) ''Twitter'' (archived from March 5, 2016). The tweet cites the Daily Motion video with the bit.ly address.</ref> Of course, respecting different cultural traditions is not mutually exclusive with pointing out when those traditions include scientifically false beliefs, so the problem would seem to be not multiculturalism but some teachers' flawed interpretation of it.

Following his 'cultural Christian' theme, he has also tweeted such things as "Listening to the lovely bells of Winchester, one of our great [[medieval]] cathedrals. So much nicer than the aggressive-sounding 'Allahu Akhbar.' Or is that just my cultural upbringing?"<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20200217182935/https://twitter.com/RichardDawkins/status/1018933359978909696 Listening to the lovely bells of Winchester, one of our great mediaeval cathedrals. So much nicer than the aggressive-sounding “Allahu Akhbar.” Or is that just my cultural upbringing?] by Richard Dawkins (12:00 PM — 16 Jul 2018) ''Twitter'' (archived from February 17, 2020).</ref> As some people have noticed, this argument just so happens to mirror that of [[alt-right]] figures such as [[Tommy Robinson]], making Dawkins a [[useful idiot]] for these tools at best.

====Ahmed Mohamed aka "Clock Boy"====
{{cquote|Don't call him "clock boy" since he never made a clock. Hoax Boy, having hoaxed his way into the White House, now wants $15M in addition!|||Dawkins, introducing his theory of how a child fooled millions of adult people<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20200320050954/https://twitter.com/RichardDawkins/status/669098728662409216 Don't call him "clock boy" since he never made a clock. Hoax Boy, having hoaxed his way into the White House, now wants $15M in addition!] by Richard Dawkins (2:22 AM · Nov 24, 2015) ''Twitter'' (archived from March 20, 2020).</ref>}}

Dawkins was heavily criticized after he joined [[Bill Maher]] in attacking Islam as a whole, and one Muslim kid in particular. Said kid was briefly arrested for playing with electronics that looked like a bomb to some, while also being Muslim. On Twitter, Dawkins also accused Ahmed Mohammed of being comparable to an [[ISIS]] child soldier.<ref>[http://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/nov/25/richard-dawkins-links-isis-child-who-beheaded-man-and-clock-boy-ahmed-mohamed Richard Dawkins links Isis child who beheaded man and 'clock boy' Ahmed Mohamed: The scientist and leading atheist faces a barrage of criticism after posting comments on Twitter about Muslim teenager] by Elle Hunt and Michael Safi (25 Nov 2015 03.48 EST) ''The Guardian''.</ref> [[PZ Myers]] has called Dawkins' and Maher's team-up as "a combination to bring out the worst in both"<ref>[http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2015/11/28/atheists-should-not-condemn-any-culture/#more-26211 Atheists should not condemn any culture] by PZ Myers (28 November 2015) ''Pharyngula''.</ref> and described their talk as follows:

{{quotebox|
*"Oh, that’s their culture, you have to respect it," Dawkins said mockingly.
*"That’s right! That’s what they say. It’s just insane," Maher said, swooning.
*"Liberal about everything else, but then this one exception, ‘It’s their culture.’ Well, to hell with their culture," Dawkins concluded, to a storm of applause and a passionate yelp of approval from Maher.
}}

Myers went on to describe Dawkins' hypocrisy in how he likes many things about his culture, specifically his "Anglican tradition" which, according to Dawkins, gave birth to "evensong and cricket matches", despite his culture being just as guilty of horrible acts, from [[colonialism]] to wars of mass destruction. Myers went on to denounce people who claim that "unlike Islam, Christianity has mellowed" and pointed at racist police, [[Planned Parenthood]] killings, murders of [[transgender]] people, [[Scott Lively]], the [[Westboro Baptist Church]], the American prison system, the drone war, unfettered [[capitalism#Criticisms of capitalism|capitalism]], and predatory attitudes towards the [[environment]]. Myers concluded by praising Islamic gifts to literature, poetry, music, mathematics, and science, and stressed that he wants to embrace Islamic culture as a significant part of the human experience even as he rejects the barbarisms within it, just as he rejects the barbarism in Western culture.

==="Mild pedophilia"===
{{cquote|Mild [[paedophilia]] is bad. Violent paedophilia is worse. If you think that's an endorsement of mild paedophilia, go away and learn how to think. Date [[rape]] is bad. Stranger rape at knifepoint is worse. If you think that's an endorsement of date rape, go away and learn how to think.|||Someone restrain him from anything with an Internet connection<ref>[http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/richard-dawkins-says-date-rape-is-bad-stranger-rape-is-worse-on-twitter-9634572.html Richard Dawkins tweets: 'Date rape is bad, stranger rape is worse': The writer was using examples to illustrate logical syllogisms] by Lizzie Dearden (29 July 2014 09:45) ''The Independent''.</ref>}}
Dawkins has been criticized for comments he made in his books<ref>[http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2013/09/10/richard-dawkins-isnt-defending-mild-pedophilia-but-that-doesnt-make-his-comments-okay/ "Richard Dawkins Isn't Defending 'Mild Pedophilia'… but That Doesn’t Make His Comments Okay"] by Hemant Mehta (September 10, 2013) ''Friendly Atheist''.</ref> and interviews<ref>[http://www.thewire.com/global/2013/09/richard-dawkins-defends-mild-pedophilia-again-and-again/69269/ "Richard Dawkins Defends 'Mild' Pedophilia, Again and Again"] by Abby Ohlheiser (September 10, 2013) ''The Wire''.</ref> regarding "mild paedophilia" he experienced as a child. He says a prep school teacher "pulled me on his knee and put his hand inside my shorts".<ref>[http://www.news.com.au/world/he-was-a-victim-of-child-sexual-abuse-but-richard-dawkins-refuses-to-condemn-the-behaviour/story-fndir2ev-1226717774514 He was a victim of child sexual abuse but Richard Dawkins refuses to condemn the behaviour] (September 12, 20134:01pm) ''NewsComAu''.</ref> Dawkins downplays the effects of the crime because he said it did not have a big effect on him but may on others.<ref>[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/09/richard-dawkins-pedophilia_n_3895514.html "Richard Dawkins Pedophilia Remarks Provoke Outrage"] (September 9, 2013) ''Religion News Service'' via ''The Huffington Post''.</ref> Dawkins commented saying:<ref>[https://richarddawkins.net/2013/09/child-abuse-a-misunderstanding-w-polish-translation/ Child Abuse: a misunderstanding. w/ Polish translation] (Sep 12, 2013) ''Richard Dawkins Foundation''.</ref>
{{quotebox|Should I have lied and said it was the worst thing that ever happened to me? Should I have mendaciously sought the sympathy due to a victim who had truly been damaged for the rest of his life? Should I have named the offending teacher and called down posthumous disgrace upon his head? No, no and no. To have done so would have been to belittle and insult those many people whose lives really were blighted and cursed, perhaps by year-upon-year of abuse by a father or other person who was deeply important in their life. … To excuse pedophiliac assaults in general, or to make light of the horrific experiences of others, was a thousand miles from my intention.}}
Dawkins made many well-publicised attacks on the [[Catholic Church]] over the [[Child sexual abuse in the Roman Catholic Church|priest molestation scandal]], which includes numerous cases of severe [[child sexual abuse]].

====Jeffrey Epstein====
Dawkins was connected to [[Jeffrey Epstein]]. This was mainly through his publishing agent, John Brockman, who was used by Epstein in order to access major scientific and intellectual figures.<ref>[https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/feb/03/epstein-silicon-valley ‘The smart, the rich, the powerful’: Epstein associated with Silicon Valley elite years after his release from prison], Jason Wilson, ''The Guardian'' 3 February 2026</ref> However, he was photographed on Epstein's plane,<ref>[https://finance.yahoo.com/news/jeffery-epstein-billionaires-dinner-john-brockman-photos-sarah-kellen-173443481.html Jeffrey Epstein attended the 'Billionaires' Dinner' and now his presence has been scrubbed], Julia La Roche, ''Yahoo Finance'' 15 July 2019</ref> and also seemed to defend Epstein in an email sent to Brockman trashing [[Rebecca Watson]]:

{{quotebox|There is a rather nasty young woman called Rebecca Watson, who seems to be running some kind of a witch-hunt against [[Lawrence Krauss]] because of his defence of Jeffrey Epstein.<br>
There are people on her blog talking about organising a walkout when Lawrence speaks at TAM in Las Vegas. I remember that you told me something of the circumstances of Jeffrey's arrest, and that his case is not as black as painted. Might you possibly remind of it.<ref>[https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA00431306.pdf EFTA00431306.pdf]. US Department of Justice.</ref>}}

===Feminism===
===="Elevatorgate," or how the fallacy of relative privation went into overdrive====
{{main|Elevatorgate}}
If you found the above abhorrent, it's not particularly new. The 2011 conference incident known as "Elevatorgate" showed that even we "enlightened" atheists (especially if male) can be easily prone to [[Not as bad as|logical fallacies]] and appalling nastiness.

====Ranting about "radical feminists" on Twitter====
Between Dawkins' rushing to the aid of poor beleaguered [[Sam Harris]] and propping [[Christina Hoff Sommers]], it became self-evidently clear that Dawkins did not understand feminism. This has led [[PZ Myers]] to write an open letter on [[Freethought Blogs|FtB]] to Dawkins,<ref>[http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2014/09/12/dear-richard-dawkins/ Dear Richard Dawkins] by PZ Myers (12 September 2014) ''Freethought Blogs''.</ref> where he tried to explain to him what feminism is about and his own journey to understanding it. It fell on deaf ears, as Dawkins instead went on Twitter to rant about "'''F'''eedingfrenzy '''T'''houghtpolice '''B'''ullies"<ref>[http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2014/09/16/richard-dawkins-the-wrongering/ Richard Dawkins: The Wrongering] by PZ Myers (16 September 2014) ''Freethought Blogs''.</ref> and "[[clickbait]]".<ref>[http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2014/09/16/clickbait-abuse/ Clickbait abuse] by PZ Myers (16 September 2014) ''Freethought Blogs''.</ref>

Things backfired on Dawkins after he [http://web.archive.org/web/20160127095804/https:/twitter.com/richarddawkins/status/692033018970705920 retweeted a link to a video] by noted antifeminist [[Sargon of Akkad]]. He later [https://twitter.com/RichardDawkins/status/692468079184449536 deleted his tweet], but the damage was already done, as he was swiftly [http://us12.campaign-archive1.com/?u=1fe062c83a0e3b45fcbc0e2de&id=95aeb913c6&e=393d12151e uninvited from the NECSS 2016 conference by majority vote of the leading panel]. Since then, however, the NECSS panel had both publicly and privately apologized to Dawkins for acting unilaterally rather than first expressing their concerns, and he has been [http://necss.org/2016/02/14/statement-from-the-executive-committee/ re-invited to NECSS to discuss both his prior planned talk, as well as being part of a panel discussion about feminism/diversity and free speech within the skeptical community]. Unfortunately, this was just prior to his stroke, and cancellation of this and other talks due to his health.

In early 2016, Dawkins re-tweeted a meme juxtaposing a picture of {{wpl|Matt Taylor (scientist)#Shirt controversy|Matt Taylor's shirt}} and a still frame of a fully-veiled Muslim woman about to be executed that, instead of making a point about the lack of Western media reporting on the latter or calling for more humanitarian aid/intervention, tried to suggest that Western feminists don't care enough about the fate of oppressed Muslim women, while also appearing so unseasoned on feminism as to conflate [[fringe]] ''radical'' feminists with the broader movement of [[feminism]]. This prompted PZ Myers to strongly criticize him — as he did in the "Dear Muslima" situation years ago — and Myers announced he would cancel his plans to attend the Reason Rally, featuring Dawkins (among many others).<ref>[http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2016/01/31/i-cant-take-no-more/ I can’t take no more] by PZ Myers (31 January 2016) ''Freethought Blogs''.</ref> Material opposing types of feminism is a small part of what Dawkins writes but gets disproportionate attention, which isn't surprising due to how loudly Dawkins promotes them.<ref>[https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/18/richard-dawkins-sexist-atheists-bad-name Richard Dawkins has lost it: ignorant sexism gives atheists a bad name: He may have convinced himself that he’s the Most Rational Man Alive, but if wants to be the face of a welcoming movement, he’s doing a terrible job] by Adam Lee (18 Sep 2014 06.45 EDT) ''The Guardian''</ref><ref>[http://www.wehuntedthemammoth.com/2016/01/28/richard-dawkins-lindy-west-and-the-cartoon-video-of-great-hatefulness/ Richard Dawkins, Lindy West, and the Cartoon Video of Great Hatefulness]by David Futrelle (January 28, 2016) ''We Hunted the Mammoth''.</ref><ref>[http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2014/09/12/dear-richard-dawkins/ Dear Richard Dawkins] by PZ Myers (12 September 2014) ''Freethought Blogs''.</ref><ref>[http://www.alternet.org/belief/richard-dawkins-destroying-his-reputation Is Richard Dawkins Destroying His Reputation?] by Sophie Elmhirst (June 9, 2015) ''The Guardian'' via ''AlterNet''.</ref><ref>[http://religionnews.com/2014/11/18/richard-dawkins-stands-remarks-sexism-pedophilia-syndrome/ Richard Dawkins stands by remarks on sexism, pedophilia, Down syndrome] by Kimberly Winston (November 18, 2014) ''Religion News Service''.</ref>

Anyway, Dawkins predictably responded by doubling down, in the process even promoting a [[meme]] which inadvertently featured [[Neo-Nazi]] propaganda embedded in a QR code.<ref>[http://www.salon.com/2016/02/01/never_tweet_richard_dawkins_famed_atheist_now_signal_boosting_nazi_propaganda/ Never tweet, Richard Dawkins: Famed atheist now signal-boosting Nazi propaganda] by Brendan Gauthier (February 2, 2016 12:02AM (UTC)) ''Salon''.</ref><ref>[http://archive.ph/nuGDo Dawkins now retweeting literal white supremacist talking points because they massage his hurt feelings.] by Lindy West (1:19 PM — 29 Jan 2016) ''Twitter'' (archived from 30 Jan 2016 02:13:13 UTC).</ref>

===Transphobia and "anti-gender" politics===
In April 2021, Dawkins "randomly decided to question the humanity of transgender people — under the guise of [[Just asking questions|I’m-just-asking-questions]],"<ref>[https://friendlyatheist.patheos.com/2021/04/12/richard-dawkins-is-still-denying-the-basic-humanity-of-trans-people/ Richard Dawkins is Still Denying the Basic Humanity of Trans People], ''Friendly Atheist''</ref> tweeting: "In 2015, Rachel Dolezal, a white chapter president of [[NAACP]], was vilified for identifying as Black. Some men choose to identify as women, and some women choose to identify as men. You will be vilified if you deny that they literally are what they identify as. Discuss."<ref>[https://twitter.com/RichardDawkins/status/1380812852055973888 Tweet on trans issues by Dawkins]</ref> Trans people and allies responded with frustration and exhaustion,<ref>[https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2021/04/12/richard-dawkins-trans-gender-rachel-dolezal-twitter/ Biologist Richard Dawkins condemned for ‘bad faith’ take on trans lives], ''PinkNews''</ref> with mathematician {{wpl|Timothy Gowers}} tweeting that "this is by no means the first time you have tweeted about issues as though they were fresh and new when in fact they have been done to death."<ref>[https://twitter.com/wtgowers/status/1380824842547703811 Tweet by Timothy Gowers]</ref>

Shortly afterwards, it became known that Dawkins had written an endorsement for an upcoming book attacking "[[gender ideology]]" by noted [[TERF]] [[Helen Joyce]],<ref>[https://twitter.com/HJoyceGender/status/1381888763006160898 Tweet by Helen Joyce]</ref> and it seems entirely possible that his tweet was the result of him reading that book. In response to Dawkins' support for transphobia, the American Humanist Association withdrew the "Humanist of the Year Award" it had awarded him in 1996; the board said "Dawkins has over the past several years accumulated a history of making statements that use the guise of scientific discourse to demean marginalized groups, an approach antithetical to humanist values."<ref>[https://americanhumanist.org/news/american-humanist-association-board-statement-withdrawing-honor-from-richard-dawkins/ American Humanist Association Board Statement Withdrawing Honor from Richard Dawkins], American Humanist Association</ref> Later, in November 2021, he additionally endorsed [[Kathleen Stock]]'s anti-trans book.<ref>[https://twitter.com/RichardDawkins/status/1465004190116188160 Tweet by Richard Dawkins]</ref>

In the ultimate convergence of anti-trans personalities, Dawkins appeared on a 2023 [[Piers Morgan]] program to complain that Stock and [[J.K. Rowling]] were "bullied" for their views.<ref>[https://twitter.com/PiersUncensored/status/1637914407106650115 Tweet by Piers Morgan]</ref> Dawkins also claims "all the bullying [goes] one way", i.e. by transgender people against anti-trans people, despite existing evidence that trans people are much more likely to face violent abuse than the average person.<ref>Hemant Mehta (August 1, 2023). [https://religionnews.com/2023/08/01/richard-dawkins-has-abandoned-science-to-justify-his-transphobia/ "Richard Dawkins has abandoned science to justify his transphobia"]. ''Religion News Service''.</ref> In a June 2023 interview with [[UnHerd]], Dawkins compared being transgender to believing in the Catholic doctrine of [[transubstantiation]].<ref>Freddie Sayers (June 7, 2023). [https://unherd.com/2023/06/was-new-atheism-a-mistake/ "Was New Atheism a mistake?"]. ''UnHerd''.</ref>

On July 11, 2023, [[David Pakman]] interviewed Dawkins,<ref>[https://youtu.be/3vrv9Ns5wMo Richard Dawkins: Trans Rights, Islam, and Christianity | Full Interview], ''YouTube'' (July 11, 2023)</ref> spawning this interaction:
{{collapse}}
{{quotebox|'''Pakman:''' You've said many things over the last two years related to the discussion about [[gender]] and transgender and gender identity etc, some of which you've said that I agree with and some of which you've said that maybe I would agree with a little less. One of the most interesting things that I heard over the last few months was [[Neil deGrasse Tyson]] in a conversation with [[Ben Shapiro|a right-wing person from the United States]]: '''[Paraphrase]''' "Listen, there are all sorts of conversations and debates to be had about this issue and the connection to whether it's mental illness or whether it's age appropriateness of certain decisions that are made etc. Can we all agree that gender is expressed on a spectrum?" And, what I found interesting about Neil deGrasse Tyson saying this, is that it's less a conversation about biology and sex and genitalia, but it is a question about what I think is an undeniable reality about the world, which is, at minimum, the expression of gender is on a spectrum and that maybe that can serve as a starting point for some of these discussions. Would you agree with that, which seems to me like an uncontroversial statement, or is that a problematic statement?<ref group=note>David sometimes speaks in ways which, when transcribed, make him very hard to understand. Bless his heart though, he's got the spirit.</ref>

'''Dawkins:''' I'm a biologist, and, what I really object to is the subversion of language. Talking about "a woman's penis", for example. I mean that is just playing around fast and loose with the English language. I'm a biologist who needs to talk about [[Biological sex|sex]] and the difference between male and female, which is absolutely clear. It's one of the very few binaries we actually have in biology. Race is not a binary, race is a genuine continuum, obviously, because of false hybridization and so on. Almost everything else you can think of is a continuum; short vs. tall, fat vs. thin. All those things are a continuum. Sex is the one thing that actually is a binary, and I think that messing around with the English language – well, any language for that matter. It is a subversion—a perversion—of clarity of thought [and] clarity of speech for political ends.

'''Pakman:''' Yeah, and I think most of my progressive colleagues would agree that the biological circumstances undeniably are: men, women, [and] some percentage born [[intersex]]—

'''Visibly-frustrated Dawkins, interrupting:''' Tiny, tiny percentage; negligent percentage.

'''Pakman:''' Yes! No need to exaggerate what the percentage is. Is it also, in your mind, a problem to separate biological sex and gender expression? Language aside, is that a concern to you?

'''Dawkins:''' I am not particularly bothered if somebody wants to present themselves as the opposite of the sex that they are. I do object if they insist that other people recognize that. I support [[Jordan Peterson]] in this, if nothing else, in that he objects to the Canadian government [[Jordan Peterson#Bill C-16|making it mandatory that he should call people by a pronoun]]. [[Bullshit|He's prepared to do that as a matter of courtesy]], but not as a matter of compulsion and I thoroughly support him on that.

'''Pakman:''' You know, I don't have the bill in front of me, but when I looked at it 18 months ago, I struggled to find anywhere where— He talks about threat of jail if you use the wrong pronoun; I did not find that, but since I don't have it in front of me, maybe we'll table those particulars. But that being said, what about, for example, things like arresting doctors who provide certain gender-affirming care, maybe you have an issue with the term, or not, but, what do you think about the arresting of doctors, for example? Does that not start to bite a little—

'''Dawkins, interrupting:''' Have Doctors been arrested for that?

'''Pakman:''' No these are bills that have been proposed in the United States. It has not happened to my knowledge, fortunately.

'''Dawkins:''' Children or adults?

'''Pakman:''' You've seen both in different states.

'''Dawkins:''' I would have a strong objection to doctors injecting minors—children—or performing surgery on them to change their sex.{{efn|Notice that Dawkins' concern that doctors are helping children change sex seemingly contradicts Dawkins' earlier claim that it's impossible to change sex.}}

'''Pakman:''' And as far as adults, you have no issue?

'''Dawkins:''' Well, I think if they've thought about it properly, like {{wpl|Jan Morris}} for example, who I read years ago – one of the first of the trans people that I read and I greatly respected her. Her struggle that she went through in order to change sex from male to female – she really, really put herself through it. Clearly sincere [and] clearly suffered from gender dysphoria, [there's] no doubt about that, and I take my hat off to her and to the doctors who helped her. But [[Fearmongering|I fear that what we're seeing now is a fashion, a craze, a memetic epidemic which is spreading like an epidemic of measles]], or something like that.

'''Pakman:''' Yeah, I mean, listen: obviously we're not going to resolve this today. I share some of the concerns I've seen you share with regard to children, with regard to questions about some of these treatments, etc, and I think that these should all be questions that should be had, and asked, and answered in good faith with data and empiricism. [But], I also can't help but see, that trans people, and also trans kids, have become a very ugly scapegoat of a movement that 15 years ago was mostly targetting gay men, and so, ''my'' desire would be—and you tell me if you think it's possible—that we can ask all of these questions in good faith, while making it clear we're not looking to discriminate against individuals–subject them to whatever it was that other groups were previously subjected to–and hopefully get to a place of understanding, and unfortunately— Do you agree that this has become a scapegoated group?

'''Dawkins:''' What I see, is that [[False dilemma|there's in effect a war going on between gay people and trans people]], or at least not trans people themselves but trans activists, so, I'm not sure that I follow that. I think that I have great sympathy and great respect for ''gay'' people, and I worry about the bullying that goes on, not by trans people themselves necessarily, but by some of the activists. There was somebody in Britain I think just a couple of days ago who stood up and made a speech – it was a trans person—a man-turned-woman—who said 'if you see a TERF, punch her in the fucking face'.

'''Pakman:''' ''Ohh''. So, if I understand correctly, you have some concerns about LGB''T'', and whether or not trans really is part of the LGB movement, or something different?

'''Dawkins:''' I think there's been a recent court case in Britain where [[LGB Alliance|an LGB lobby]] was fighting against a T lobby.

'''Pakman:''' I'm not familiar with that case but I'm aware of that disagreement, certainly. So that is a concern to you?

'''Dawkins:''' Yes.}}
{{collapse end}}

In late July 2024, Dawkins spread conspiracy theories regarding a {{wpl|Concerns and controversies at the 2024 Summer Olympics#Women's boxing controversy|boxing controversy during the summer Olympics}} that two female boxers, Imane Khelif of [[Algeria]] and Lin Yu-ting of [[Taiwan]], were actually male. These rumors started in 2023 when the [[Russian]] {{wpl|International Boxing Association}} claimed that both boxers failed a gender eligibility test due to "XY chromosomes". These claims not only were not backed up by evidence, but conveniently happened to help boost the prospect of a Russian boxer ''after'' Khelif beat said opponent. The IBA was so corrupt that the {{wpl|International Olympic Committee||,}} who are themselves no stranger to corruption, expelled them from the Olympic movement in 2023. In essence, the false allegations were Russian [[propaganda]] designed to anger [[transphobes]]. Despite the clear [[bullshit]] nature of the allegations (both boxers were [[assigned female at birth]] and met all IOC criteria, and Khelif came from a country with nonexistent [[LGBTQ]] rights) Dawkins joined such noxious figures as [[JK Rowling]] in promoting the false idea that these boxers were "[[male|XY undisputed]]".<ref name="faboxer">[https://www.friendlyatheist.com/p/richard-dawkins-lied-about-the-algerian "Richard Dawkins lied about the Algerian boxer, then lied about Facebook censoring him"], ''Friendly Atheist'', 2024 August 11</ref><ref>[https://tribune.com.pk/story/2487217/biologist-richard-dawkins-says-his-comments-on-imane-khelif-caused-facebook-to-remove-his-account "Biologist Richard Dawkins says his comments on Imane Khelif caused Facebook to remove his account"], ''Express Tribune'', 2024 August 11</ref>

Later, Dawkins claimed that his [[Facebook]] account was deleted because of his transphobic tweets on the boxers, attracting the ire of another fellow transphobe, [[Elon Musk]]. In reality, this story was ''also'' [[bullshit]]; Facebook had merely taken some steps to secure Dawkins's Facebook account as it appeared to be hacked and compromised.<ref name="faboxer"/><ref>[https://archive.ph/tHILs "‘Meta Can Never Be Trusted’: Musk Reacts After Facebook 'Deletes' UK Biologist Richard Dawkins’ Account"], ''News18'', 2024 August 11</ref>

====Biological sex====
Dawkins has asserted [[biological sex]] is a "true binary" without really adequately explaining why. He asserts that sex is defined by gametes, {{IdEst}} gamete production, which many individuals simply don't do. Along with some irrelevant references to fish and snails, he says:<ref>Richard Dawkins (February 1, 2024). [http://archive.today/2025.01.31-103049/https://x.com/RichardDawkins/status/1753045097959100600 "The way the non-binary faithful obsess about intersexes ..."] Twitter.</ref>
{{blockquote|The way the [[non-binary]] faithful obsess about [[intersex]]es {{sic}}, and about individuals who can’t produce gametes, amounts to a pathetic clutching at straws while they drown in postmodern effluent.

… In any case, the existence of intersexes is irrelevant to transexualist claims, since trans people don't claim to be intersexes.

… The rare tetra-amelia syndrome (babies born without limbs) does not negate the statement that Homo sapiens is a bipedal species. The rare four-winged bithorax mutation does not negate the statement that Drosophila is a Dipteran (two winged) fly. Similarly, the occasional individual who can’t produce gametes doesn’t negate the generalisation that mammals come in only two sexes, male and female, defined by games size.}}
(Some trans people are also intersex.) The main purpose of mentioning intersex traits in this type of conversation is to illustrate that a grey area exists, around which rigid, orthodox definitions of biological sex tend to break down and become [[Circular reasoning|circular]]. Trans (or "transexualist" as Dawkins puts it) people may invoke this as a way of saying or implying that it is possible to change sex traits enough to enter, or at a minimum pull them closer towards, such a grey area. The argument may instead simply be that trans people are another form of sex diversity in humans akin to intersex people, which also challenges strict definitions, not that they are intersex people. Although taxonomical generalizations such as "humans are a bipedal species" are useful, you would not assert towards a person who naturally lacks two legs that they are lying when they explain they are personally both human and not bipedal. Unless you are Richard Dawkins, that is.

It's sort of like arguing that elements are completely binary between either [[hydrogen]] or [[helium]], except for exceptions simply too rare to even think about ([[Handwave|because I said so]]), as the mass of the universe is made up overwhelmingly of hydrogen and helium (74% and 23-25% respectively, by one count).<ref>[https://www.chemeurope.com/en/encyclopedia/Abundance_of_the_chemical_elements.html "Encyclopedia: Abundance of the chemical elements"]. ''ChemEurope'' (LUMITOS). Quote: "In the universe as a whole, and in the atmospheres of gas-giant planets such as Jupiter, the mass-fraction abundances of hydrogen and helium are about 74% and 23-25% respectively, while the (atomic) mole-fractions of these elements are closer to 92% and 8%."</ref>

===Gene-centered view of evolution===
{{main|Gene-centered view of evolution}}

Dawkins has been an ardent defender of the gene-centred view of evolution. He has debated this issue with many other scientists and thinkers, perhaps most famously [[Stephen Jay Gould]]. Gould and Dawkins battled over a number of topics, including the gene-centred view as well as [[punctuated equilibrium]] and approaches to cultural evolution such as [[evolutionary psychology]]. Gould penned an attack against Dawkins and a number of other thinkers accusing them of "Darwinian Fundamentalism."<ref>[http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/1997/jun/12/darwinian-fundamentalism/?pagination=false Darwinian Fundamentalism] by Stephen Jay Gould (June 12, 1997) article in the ''New York Review of Books''. See also replies to the original article in [http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/1997/aug/14/darwinian-fundamentalism-an-exchange/?pagination=false Darwinian Fundamentalism: An Exchange.]</ref><ref>See Kim Sterelny's {{wpl|Dawkins vs. Gould|''Dawkins vs. Gould''}} for a book-length account of their debates.</ref> Ernst Mayr has also argued in favor of the individual being the most important level of selection, calling the gene-centred view "non-Darwinian."<ref>[http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/mayr/mayr_print.html Ernst Mayr: What Evolution Is], edge.org</ref> The gene-centered view has also come under fire from various proponents of multi-level selection theories, who often focus their criticisms on Dawkins. On one side are the group selectionists such as Elliott Sober, David Sloan Wilson, and Edward O. Wilson, who propose a view of evolution that is still multi-level but puts more emphasis on groups as "superorganisms."<ref>David Sloan Wilson and Elliott Sober. [http://www.joelvelasco.net/teaching/167win10/wilson%20and%20sober%2089%20-%20reviving%20the%20superorganism.pdf Reviving the Superorganism.] ''Journal of Theoretical Biology'', (1989) 136, 337-356</ref><ref>David Sloan Wilson and Edward O Wilson. [https://doi.org/10.1086/522809.] ''The Quarterly Review of Biology'', (2007) 82, 327-348</ref> On the other side are niche constructionists and epigeneticists such as Philip Hunter, [[Eva Jablonka]], and Kevin Laland who criticise especially Dawkins' notion of the "extended phenotype" by invoking means of inheritance that don't involve changes to the underlying genetic structure (e.g., epigenetic inheritance) or more broadly defining inheritance (e.g., ecological inheritance).<ref>Kevin N. Laland. [http://lalandlab.st-andrews.ac.uk/niche/pdf/Publication84.pdf Extending the Extended Phenotype.] ''Biology and Philosophy'' 19: 313–325, 2004</ref><ref>Richard Dawkins. [http://www.andrew.cmu.edu/user/jksadegh/A%20Good%20Atheist%20Secularist%20Skeptical%20Book%20Collection/Extended%20Phenotype%20but%20not%20too%20extended%20-%20Dawkins.pdf Extended Phenotype – But Not ''Too'' Extended. A Reply to Laland, Turner and Jablonka.] ''Biology and Philosophy'' 19: 377–396, 2004</ref><ref>Philip Hunter. [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2658563/ Extended phenotype redux. How far can the reach of genes extend in manipulating the environment of an organism?] ''EMBO Rep.'' 2009 March; 10(3): 212–215.</ref> [[Moral]] [[philosopher]] Mary Midgley has criticized Dawkins' use of the "selfish gene" metaphor.<ref>{{wpa|Mary Midgley#Midgley–Dawkins debate}}</ref>

===Views on "post-modernism"===
Dawkins was also criticized for promoting a conference hosted by the Sovereign Nations, an explicitly evangelical organization, [[Grievance studies hoax|where purveyors of a pseudo-academic hoax — Helen Pluckrose, Dawkins Foundation alum Peter Boghossian, and James Lindsay — would rant at "post-modernists"]] (aka "regressive leftists"). According to their bulletin, the event even started with a prayer.<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20190929094120/https://twitter.com/saeen90_/status/1178242652468400128 Richard Dawkins promoting a right-wing event that starts with *checknotes* a Christian Service. it rules how so many former new atheists now find themselves in the same camp as reactionary religious fundamentalists who they were once opposed to https://twitter.com/RichardDawkins/status/1178170072537264129 …] by @saeen90_ (2:38 AM - 29 Sep 2019) ''Twitter'' (archived from September 29, 2019).</ref> Rebecca Watson criticized Dawkins for arguably selling out. Rather than defending his love of rationality against evangelicals as he would have before, the old man would rather hate leftists, and promotes skeptics that ally with evangelicals because [[My enemy's enemy|their greater enemy]] are anti-racist millennials.<ref>[https://skepchick.org/2019/09/richard-dawkins-loves-evangelicals-if-they-hate-social-justice/ Richard Dawkins Loves Evangelicals if They Hate Social Justice] by Rebecca Watson (September 30, 2019) ''Skepchick''.</ref><ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20190929045043/https:/twitter.com/RichardDawkins/status/1178170072537264129 Pretentious postmodern nonsense is a serious menace in universities & contemporary culture. Peter Boghossian, James Lindsay & Helen Pluckrose are heroes in the fight against it. Hear them at the London conference on "Speaking Truth to Social Justice"] by Richard Dawkins (9:50 PM - 28 Sep 2019) ''Twitter'' (archived from September 29, 2019).</ref> Dawkins apparently later came to his senses and deleted the tweet promoting the event.

==Books published==
Richard Dawkins has published a {{wpl|Richard_Dawkins_bibliography|vast range of material|.}} Books he authored:
{{collist|3|
*''The Selfish Gene'' (1976) ([[Special:Booksources/978-0-19-286092-7|ISBN 978-0-19-286092-7]])
*''The Extended Phenotype'' (1982) ([[Special:Booksources/978-0-19-288051-2|ISBN 978-0-19-288051-2]])
*''The Blind Watchmaker'' (1986) ([[Special:Booksources/978-0-393-31570-7|ISBN 978-0-393-31570-7]])
*''[[River Out of Eden]]'' (1995) ([[Special:Booksources/978-0-465-06990-3|ISBN 978-0-465-06990-3]])
*''Climbing Mount Improbable'' (1996)<ref group=note>''Climbing Mount Improbable'' ([[Special:Booksources/0670850187|ISBN 0670850187]]) is a response to creationist claims about probability and evolution.</ref> ([[Special:Booksources/978-0-393-31682-7|ISBN 978-0-393-31682-7]])
*''Unweaving the Rainbow'' (1997)<ref group=note>In ''Unweaving the Rainbow'', Richard Dawkins tries to counter the viewpoint that a [[philosophical naturalism|scientific worldview]] is cold, bleak and depressing. In Dawkins' view, a scientific understanding of the natural world is poetic and uplifting. However, in public appearances, when asked Dawkins rightly points out that even if the universe is bleak or depressing, then that's tough. Reality is what it is and has no obligation to make us comfortable. </ref> ([[Special:Booksources/978-0-618-05673-6|ISBN 978-0-618-05673-6]])
*''A Devil’s Chaplain'' (2003) ([[Special:Booksources/978-0-618-33540-4|ISBN 978-0-618-33540-4]])
*''The Ancestor’s Tale'' (2004) ([[Special:Booksources/978-0-618-00583-3|ISBN 978-0-618-00583-3]])
*''[[The God Delusion]]'' (2006) ([[Special:Booksources/978-0-618-68000-9|ISBN 978-0-618-68000-9]])
*''The Greatest Show on Earth'' (2009) ([[Special:Booksources/978-0-593-06173-2|ISBN 978-0-593-06173-2]])
*''The Magic of Reality'' (2011) ([[Special:Booksources/978-1-4391-9281-8|ISBN 978-1-4391-9281-8]])
*''An Appetite for Wonder: The Making of a Scientist'' (2013) ([[Special:Booksources/978-0593070895|ISBN 978-0593070895]])
*''Brief Candle in the Dark: My Life in Science'' (2015) ([[Special:Booksources/978-0593072561|ISBN 978-0593072561]])
*''Science in the Soul: Selected Writings of a Passionate Rationalist'' (2017) ([[Special:Booksources/978-0-593-07751-1|ISBN 978-0-593-07751-1]])
*''Outgrowing God: A Beginner's Guide'' (2019) ([[Special:Booksources/9781787631212|ISBN 9781787631212]])
}}

==Quotes==
*"We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further."
*Regarding [[telepathy]]: "If you are in possession of this revolutionary secret of science, why not prove it and be hailed as the new [[Isaac Newton|Newton]]? Of course, we know the answer. You can't do it. {{wpl|Fraud|You are a fake|."}}
*"The universe is a strange and wondrous place. The truth is quite odd enough to need no help from pseudoscientific charlatans."
*"[[Faith]] is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate [[evidence]]. Faith is belief in spite of, even perhaps because of, the lack of evidence."
*"We are built as gene machines and cultured as meme machines, but we have the power to turn against our creators. [[Human exceptionalism|We, alone on earth]], can rebel against the tyranny of the selfish replicators."
*"Nearly all peoples have developed their own [[creation myths]], and the [[Genesis]] story is just the one that happened to have been adopted by one particular tribe of Middle Eastern herders. It has no more special status than the belief of a particular West African tribe that the world was created from the excrement of ants."
*"The God of the [[Old Testament]] is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty, ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully."
*"A mind like that of a [[Young Earth creationism|Young Earth creationist]], it seems to me, is a disgrace to the [[human]] species."
*"[[Gravity]] is not a version of the truth. It is the truth. Anyone who doubts it is invited to jump out a tenth-story window."
*"'[[Pascal's wager|What if I'm wrong?]]' What if you're wrong about the great Juju at the bottom of the sea?"

==See also==
{{fun|Richard Dawkins' face found on tortilla}}
*[[Answers in Genesis Dawkins interview controversy]]
*[[Antitheism]]
*[[Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed#PZ Myers "expelled" from screening of Expelled|Dawkins and the film ''Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed'']]
*[[Dawkins weasel]]
*[[Meme]]
*[[Papal visit to the UK 2010]]
*"[[Richard Dawkins - God Hater]]" — a critique of Dawkins' ''The God Delusion''
*[[Sophisticated theology]]
*[[Teleonomy]]

{{otherlang
|zh=理查德·道金斯}}

==External links==
*[http://www.RichardDawkins.net Official website]
*Richard Dawkins [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X56Kmbgn6dE interviews] [[Derren Brown]] for the documentary "Enemies of Reason". The full hour-long interview is presented in several segments.
*Richard Dawkins [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ZuowNcuGsc&feature=player_embedded reads out some of the hate mail he receives].
*[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R_t4Pksq7BI Little Richie Dawkins]. For those offended by this satire, [https://twitter.com/RichardDawkins/status/386628246541856769 Dawkins thinks you are a crybaby.]
*[http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2016/06/09/heres-the-inspiring-speech-richard-dawkins-couldnt-give-in-person-at-the-reason-rally/ Here’s the Inspiring Speech Richard Dawkins Couldn’t Give in Person at the Reason Rally] This includes a full transcript of a speach recorded by Dawkins and played at the American, 'Reason Rally 2016'.

==Notes==
{{reflist|group=note}}

==References==
{{reflist|2|80%}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:Dawkins, Richard}}
[[ru:Ричард Докинз]]
[[Category:Antifeminism]]
[[Category:Ableism]]
[[Category:Authors]]
[[Category:Biologists]]
[[Category:British people]]
[[Category:British right wing]]
[[Category:California]]
[[Category:Christian atheists]]
[[Category:Criticism of Islam]]
[[Category:Epsteinsphere]]
[[Category:Eugenics supporters]]
[[Category:Islamophobes]]
[[Category:Leftists who turned right with age]]
[[Category:Living people]]
[[Category:Popular science]]
[[Category:Left-wing activists]]
[[Category:Right-wing activists]]
[[Category:Skeptics]]
[[Category:Transphobes]]
[[Category:TERFs]]
[[Category:Racists]]

Categories: Antifeminism, Ableism, Authors, Biologists, British people, British right wing, California, Christian atheists, Criticism of Islam, Epsteinsphere, Eugenics supporters, Islamophobes, Leftists who turned right with age, Living people, Popular science, Left-wing activists, Right-wing activists, Skeptics, Transphobes, TERFs, Racists