Richard Dawkins: The Enemies of Reason

[dichotomy]

Believers in a deity believe in a preposterous and dangerous fairy tale. They can offer nothing that can be proven and repeated as fact. Nothing that is logical or rational. The only reason science was allowed to grow, was because the leaders responsible for concocting deities to control the masses knew that technology and science kept them from being destroyed, and or dominated by other nations. A deity was never going to provide divine protection to them. Seas where not going to magically part for a handy escape. If they where killed by their enemies they weren't going to end up in some fantasy luxury 5 star heaven, and they know it very well. Wake up! The real god is the natural 'Good' within the individual; no convenient primitive deity is in you, nor anywhere else, just necessary goodness, good you naturally have because our species needs good to better our chances of herd survival, and to bring up good children. It’s as natural as the head on your shoulders. This is no delusion. It can be proven with your very own senses and logic. You can be your own science lab, so the cost is low. The power of nature compels you. The power of nature compels you. The power of nature compels you. [splashes natural rain water on sleeping masses to awaken them].

 

Believers in evolution at least, 'can see' an observable rational body of past, present and ever growing evidence. Evidence that we can perceive thorough our senses, and analyse, and make sense from using our rational minds, and the rational minds of others.

 

cheers.

[iNow]

And what impact do these ideas have that makes him "one of the world's greatest scientists of all time"? I think you are either very ignorant of science or have a very warped sense of what is important.

 

I agree with the tone of your post, but might suggest that his importance as a person is directly intensified by the danger imposed by the mindset against which he argues. Basically, irrational belief and the creationist crowd are so detrimental to life's survival in the long-term that those who stand up against it become immediately more important. I'm not sure this was the intent of 1veedo, but it's my stance on the topic. Sometimes the most important people are the ones who battle back the things dangerous to us all. This does not, however, make them the best *scientists.*

 

 

Fluoridation is the most monstrously conceived and dangerous communist plot we have ever had to face.

[John Cuthber]

"I'll possibly get shot for this but.....

 

Am I the only one who finds it amusingly ironic that the main claim to fame of the proclaimed leader of the "If I can't it or measure it, it doesn't exist" brigade is a philosophical/psychological concept that cannot be seen or measured?"

OK so Dawkin's claim to fame is biology and you don't think that's measurable?

 

I thought that people were doing mathematical modeling of repearted games and such looking at evolutionarily stable strategies and such that depend on the idea. Not a direct measure but a measure nopne the less.

[Reaper]

I agree with the tone of your post, but might suggest that his importance as a person is directly intensified by the danger imposed by the mindset against which he argues. Basically, irrational belief and the creationist crowd are so detrimental to life's survival in the long-term that those who stand up against it become immediately more important. I'm not sure this was the intent of 1veedo, but it's my stance on the topic. Sometimes the most important people are the ones who battle back the things dangerous to us all. This does not, however, make them the best *scientists.*

 

There are plenty of outspoken critics and scientists who speak out against creationism and other pseudosciences that we never hear about. In fact, there are plenty of scientists and mathematicians who do come up with ground breaking or revolutionary new theories that the general public never hears about.

 

The only reason Richard Dawkins is so famous is because of his position, his books to some extent, and more importantly his influence in public affairs. Therefore he is more likely to get referenced more. It's the same with any other famous scientist today for that matter such as Hawking, Kaku, and Einstein. But fame does not necessarily make them the "greatest scientist(s) of all time" .

 

 

IMO Newton, Galileo, Feynman, Curie, and Riemann were way better than those guys. I can list more, but I don't want to take this thread too off topic.

[1veedo]

The only reason Richard Dawkins is so famous is because of his position, his books to some extent, and more importantly his influence in public affairs. Therefore he is more likely to get referenced more. It's the same with any other famous scientist today for that matter such as Hawking, Kaku, and Einstein. But fame does not necessarily make them the "greatest scientist(s) of all time" .

This was more of what I was going for. Most people agree Galileo for instance was a "great scientist" but in reality it was Bruno, not Galileo, that came up with all his ideas. Bruno in reality was "one of the greatest scientists of all time," and not Galileo. Galileo however won the battle against religious dogma (and the church), Bruno was burned for it and promptly forgotten. So who gets the title of "great scientist?" Galileo of course! (even though Bruno was way cooler)

 

Richard Dawkins was originally famous because of his revolutionary work in biology. Most of evolutionary thought completely changed because of Dawkins so this is why he's a "great scientist" -- he's contributed a lot to science, or at least to biology, and this is partially because of his fame.

 

He's famous today because of his stance on religion and irrationality. Not surprisingly because of this many "Christians" for instance will downplay his role in modern science, which, regardless of what he's doing today with things like The Enemies of Reason are up there in importance with many other scientists. He was a "great scientist" in other words before he started all this stuff with "atheism."

 

I always thought Hawking and Brian Green were overrated. Sense I read The Selfish Gene I've liked Dawkins better so to speak than other contemporary "popular scientists", and this was before he published The God Delusion. Before the God deulsion actually it seemed like everyone liked Dawkins. I'd say him and Neil DeGrasse Tyson are probably two of my favorite scientists.

[Reaper]

This was more of what I was going for. Most people agree Galileo for instance was a "great scientist" but in reality it was Bruno, not Galileo, that came up with all his ideas. Bruno in reality was "one of the greatest scientists of all time," and not Galileo. Galileo however won the battle against religious dogma (and the church), Bruno was burned for it and promptly forgotten. So who gets the title of "great scientist?" Galileo of course! (even though Bruno was way cooler)

 

Well, that's debatable. Galileo is famous for both scientific contributions and squaring off against the Catholic Church. Bruno has his own merits though.

 

Richard Dawkins was originally famous because of his revolutionary work in biology. Most of evolutionary thought completely changed because of Dawkins so this is why he's a "great scientist" -- he's contributed a lot to science, or at least to biology, and this is partially because of his fame.

 

........... He was a "great scientist" in other words before he started all this stuff with "atheism."

 

You should probably read up on a little bit of history before you put him on such a high pedestal. What he did was to popularize the revolutionary work being done in biology with the books "The Selfish Gene" and "The Extended Phenotype" He is not the brain child of what we would call the "selfish gene", or the "meme" for that matter.

 

The person who first seriously advocated gene-centered evolution was George C Williams, in his book "Adaptation and Natural Selection". The only thing the "Selfish Gene" does is expand on that earlier book. Before then, evidence for such came through with the work of Gregor Mendel in the 19th century who worked on hereditary. And in the early 20th century; J.B.S Haldane, Ronald Fischer, and Sewall Wright, who were the founders of population genetics.

 

The person who was the brain child of what we now know as the meme was a German biologist by the name of Richard Wolfgang Semon back in 1904. The "meme" was coined by Dawkins.

 

Other than that, I looked at Dawkins' biography and I don't see any Nobel Prizes for any scientific brilliances. I see some literary prizes, but not a whole lot of scientific ones. He is way overrated.

 

 

He's famous today because of his stance on religion and irrationality. Not surprisingly because of this many "Christians" for instance will downplay his role in modern science, which, regardless of what he's doing today with things like The Enemies of Reason are up there in importance with many other scientists.

 

And that I agree with. He is so popular because of his activity in publicity. The media was the one who gave him titles such as "great scientist", etc. In terms of scientific advancement, he helped to expand on the work of others and popularize the idea with the general public.

[CDarwin]

The person who first seriously advocated gene-centered evolution was George C Williams, in his book "Adaptation and Natural Selection". The only thing the "Selfish Gene" does is expand on that earlier book. Before then, evidence for such came through with the work of Gregor Mendel in the 19th century who worked on hereditary. And in the early 20th century; J.B.S Haldane, Ronald Fischer, and Sewall Wright, who were the founders of population genetics.

 

He was wrong anyway. The individual is the unit of selection, not the gene.

 

The person who was the brain child of what we now know as the meme was a German biologist by the name of Richard Wolfgang Semon back in 1904. The "meme" was coined by Dawkins.

 

Meme was the brain child of Semon not Semon was the brain child of the meme. You're use the term backwards.

 

Anyway, the 'meme' is reductionist and inaccurate too. Any anthropologist will tell you human cultures are more holistic than that.

 

Basically, Dawkins is the most eloquent advocate of attractive but incomplete ideas. That's his "greatness."

[bascule]

You should probably read up on a little bit of history before you put him on such a high pedestal. What he did was to popularize the revolutionary work being done in biology with the books "The Selfish Gene" and "The Extended Phenotype" He is not the brain child of what we would call the "selfish gene", or the "meme" for that matter.

 

The person who first seriously advocated gene-centered evolution was George C Williams, in his book "Adaptation and Natural Selection". The only thing the "Selfish Gene" does is expand on that earlier book. Before then, evidence for such came through with the work of Gregor Mendel in the 19th century who worked on hereditary. And in the early 20th century; J.B.S Haldane, Ronald Fischer, and Sewall Wright, who were the founders of population genetics.

 

The person who was the brain child of what we now know as the meme was a German biologist by the name of Richard Wolfgang Semon back in 1904. The "meme" was coined by Dawkins.

 

That's a rather roundabout way of saying that Dawkins' work is a synthesis of older ideas. What he accomplished in the Selfish Gene was an excellent juxtaposition of biological vs. cultural evolution, demonstrating that the underlying mechanisms are remarkably similar.

 

But you're saying his work being a synthesis undermines its value? Virtually everything is a synthesis of earlier work. "...I have stood on the shoulders of giants" and all that jazz.

 

By the way, your usage of "brain child" is not correct

 

Other than that, I looked at Dawkins' biography and I don't see any Nobel Prizes for any scientific brilliances. I see some literary prizes, but not a whole lot of scientific ones. He is way overrated.

 

I would say, first and foremost, that he is an excellent author with a deep understanding of science.

[Reaper]

That's a rather roundabout way of saying that Dawkins' work is a synthesis of older ideas. What he accomplished in the Selfish Gene was an excellent juxtaposition of biological vs. cultural evolution' date=' demonstrating that the underlying mechanisms are remarkably similar.

 

But you're saying his work being a synthesis undermines its value? Virtually everything is a synthesis of earlier work. "...I have stood on the shoulders of giants" and all that jazz.

[/quote']

 

I'm not saying that it doesn't have any value. What I'm saying is that they aren't original, nor is he the one primarily responsible for their development and progress. His only real claim to fame was popularization of these ideas through his books, and his anti-religious ramblings.

 

And yes, I know all scientific progress is based on the work of others.

 

My definition of greatness does not depend on majority rules, media attention, or number of sales of a given book(s).

 

By the way, your usage of "brain child" is not correct

 

My mistake, I used it in reverse.

 

I would say, first and foremost, that he is an excellent author with a deep understanding of science.

 

Yeah, I know. But there are plenty of people like that. What I meant by overrated was his perceived importance as a scientist or his "great" contributions to scientific theory; they were not necessarily unique or revolutionary. As a scientist he really isn't all that great. But, to give him some slack, he did help to bring understanding of these ideas to the general public, which is good.

[dichotomy]

Don’t underestimate Dawkins’ skill as a Babel fish between science and the general public. We don’t want anymore witch hunts do we?

[Reaper]

Don’t underestimate Dawkins’ skill as a Babel fish between science and the general public. We don’t want anymore witch hunts do we?

 

True. Here in America its a constant battle having to keep creationism out of the science classroom. And apparently 26% of American college students believe in witches.

[1veedo]

You should probably read up on a little bit of history before you put him on such a high pedestal. What he did was to popularize the revolutionary work being done in biology with the books "The Selfish Gene" and "The Extended Phenotype" He is not the brain child of what we would call the "selfish gene", or the "meme" for that matter.

I mentioned this earlier. Darwin didn't come up with evolution, either. He even talks about this in his book On the Origin of Species.

What I'm saying is that they aren't original, nor is he the one primarily responsible for their development and progress.

The orignial? No. Primarily responsible for their development and progress? Absolutely yes. This time you need to read up on your history.

My definition of greatness does not depend on majority rules, media attention, or number of sales of a given book(s).

Agreed. And this is not what I'm arguing. I made it abundantly clear earlier,

This was more of what I was going for. Most people agree Galileo for instance was a "great scientist" but in reality it was Bruno' date=' not Galileo, that came up with all his ideas. Bruno in reality was "one of the greatest scientists of all time," and not Galileo. Galileo however won the battle against religious dogma (and the church), Bruno was burned for it and promptly forgotten. So who gets the title of "great scientist?" Galileo of course! (even though Bruno was way cooler)[/quote']You're essentially saying a scientist shouldn't be merited based on his "popularity." I'm just saying that in that context Dawkins has been successful, and on top of that his actual contributions to science are definitely more ground-breaking than your average peer-review paper. You were the one who said Galileo was a great scientist. Pick up a biography about Bruno -- almost all of Galileo's ideas, and definitely his important ideas, came from Bruno. A scientist doesn't always have to be merited by their actual work in science. Sometimes the other things scientists accomplish in their lives are equally important.

they were not necessarily unique or revolutionary

Gene-centered evolution definitely was revolutionary. It's been described as the second most important thing in evolution sense Darwin. And depending on what you appreciate many of the other things Dawkins has "synthesized" are just as interesting -- for instance his take on altruism. His computer experiments btw which were all original research provided needed data in evolutionary psychology. Dawkins in other words was a key player in our modern understanding of where human morality comes from, even if some of it was just synthesized (which is perfectly normal btw in science if you haven't noticed -- including many "great scientist" such as Darwin and even Newton if I remember correctly). I find the biological reasons for morality just as interesting as gene-centered evolution even though it's not nearly as important.

[dichotomy]

True. Here in America its a constant battle having to keep creationism out of the science classroom. And apparently 26% of American college students believe in witches.

 

Archaic psychological relics of the past are very difficult to lose. I think the mass media has a lot to do with perpetuating 'exciting' myths. Seems like you fellows could use many more ‘Myth Busters’ type shows to balance things out a bit.

 

‘Witch Busters’ anyone?

 

‘Mass Media’ Busters?

 

Hey, I know, ‘Creationist Busters’. Oh, that’s right. Dawkins has this covered.

[Reaper]

I mentioned this earlier. Darwin didn't come up with evolution' date=' either. He even talks about this in his book On the Origin of Species.

[/quote']

 

I am well aware of that. But I'm not talking about Darwin over here.

 

The orignial? No. Primarily responsible for their development and progress? Absolutely yes. This time you need to read up on your history.

 

Really? You are going to have to show me then. While memes and memetics and gene-centered evolution were popularized by Dawkins, most work in those fields were done by quite different people, at least my sources indicate this.

 

You're essentially saying a scientist shouldn't be merited based on his "popularity."

 

Well, yeah, that's basically my point. A scientist in my opinion should be based on his work, not whether anybody likes him or not.

 

I'm just saying that in that context Dawkins has been successful, and on top of that his actual contributions to science are definitely more ground-breaking than your average peer-review paper.

 

Well, yes, he is successful in some aspects of his life, but again you are going to have to show me convincing proof that he does deserve the title of "great scientist". I've read a couple of his books, but not his peer reviewed scientific papers, for I have yet to find them. They might be more ground breaking than the average peer-reviewed paper, I have yet to evaluate, but I'm pretty sure that it is no Principia Mathematica.

 

You were the one who said Galileo was a great scientist. Pick up a biography about Bruno -- almost all of Galileo's ideas, and definitely his important ideas, came from Bruno.

 

OMG I cannot believe I'm arguing about this. First of, I am aware that Galileo draws his ideas from Bruno. He also draws his ideas from Copernicus and to some extent Tycho as well. The only thing I am going to say, aside from his significant contributions to science and yes he did have some original ideas, was that he was the first to prove their ideas.

 

In my opinion, Galileo is better, and if you don't agree, well, I don't care. I have facts to back my opinion up.

 

A scientist doesn't always have to be merited by their actual work in science. Sometimes the other things scientists accomplish in their lives are equally important.

 

That is certainly true. But that depends on what one would consider a "great scientist", which is the heart of the debate here. To my mind, a great scientist is someone who is either original, who made great strides in our understanding of a particular field or discipline, or, most importantly, a person who fundamentally changes the way we think about our universe. Galileo did that. Einstein did that. Feynman did that. Darwin did that. And so many other people that nobody ever hears about did that.

 

Dawkins popularized many ideas in evolutionary biology, and he is certainly successful in promoting science and some sense of rational thinking among the general public, but to my mind, he fails in all three accounts for being a "great scientist".

 

And depending on what you appreciate many of the other things Dawkins has "synthesized" are just as interesting -- for instance his take on altruism. His computer experiments btw which were all original research provided needed data in evolutionary psychology. Dawkins in other words was a key player in our modern understanding of where human morality comes from, even if some of it was just synthesized (which is perfectly normal btw in science if you haven't noticed -- including many "great scientist" such as Darwin and even Newton if I remember correctly). I find the biological reasons for morality just as interesting as gene-centered evolution even though it's not nearly as important.

 

Alright, I'll concede to you on that point. He certainly does play a significant role in the evolution of altruism and other things contained in morality and ethics.

 

But I never said that gene-centered evolution was not revolutionary, read the post more carefully.

 

Archaic psychological relics of the past are very difficult to lose. I think the mass media has a lot to do with perpetuating 'exciting' myths. Seems like you fellows could use many more ‘Myth Busters’ type shows to balance things out a bit.

 

‘Witch Busters’ anyone?

 

‘Mass Media’ Busters?

 

Hey, I know, ‘Creationist Busters’. Oh, that’s right. Dawkins has this covered.

 

 

Yeah, no kidding. You know what, that gives me an idea, I'm actually going to email the Myth Busters to see if they are up to the task of showing how ridiculous those 26% who do believe in witches are.....

 

As for creationist busters, well, you can never have too many of those, especially here in the U.S. where they are seriously considering teaching it along side evolution. Just the thought of it makes me cringe.

[dichotomy]

Yeah, no kidding. You know what, that gives me an idea, I'm actually going to email the Myth Busters to see if they are up to the task of showing how ridiculous those 26% who do believe in witches are.....

.

 

Maybe we can organise everyone on this forum to email the Mythbusters to get this done. It would be a complicated one to bust though. Due to the fact that much pre-modern science was the work of those who where considered witches, wizards and alchemists. Just remember, Sir Issacc Newton was initially an alchemist. They'd have to bust things like broomsticks flight, evil spells, conjuring the dead...

[Severian]

Lol! Now I have seen it all. 1veedo is basically trying to argue that Dawkins is a "one of the world's greatest scientists of all time" by changing the definition of "greatest scientist".

[bascule]

Lol! Now I have seen it all. 1veedo is basically trying to argue that Dawkins is a "one of the world's greatest scientists of all time" by changing the definition of "greatest scientist".

 

In regard to great scientists who are also proponents of atheism, how about Steven Weinberg?

[1veedo]

Really? You are going to have to show me then. While memes and memetics and gene-centered evolution were popularized by Dawkins, most work in those fields were done by quite different people, at least my sources indicate this.

Yes, this is perfectly normal in science. As I indicated earlier Darwin didn't come up with evolution nor did he do "most" of the work in evolution/natural selection (we're talking about "work" done before 1870 here). He did however popularize it and help advance the science.

 

Of course we want to give credit to everyone else. I'm not saying we should make a list of people (newton, einstein, etc) and give them all the credit. Nor am I suggesting we should credit Dawkins for instance completely with gene-centered evolution, I'm just saying he was an important contributer. He actually corrected earlier work where "gene" refereed literally to alleles, and Dawkins defined gene in a slightly different manner in the context of gene-centered evolution. I'll be it, some other scientist would have eventually figured it out, but it was Dawkins, and not someone else, who figured these things out.

Well, yeah, that's basically my point. A scientist in my opinion should be based on his work, not whether anybody likes him or not.

Regardless to the other topic of discussion (above), if you actually look at Dawkins work he does stand out from most other scientists. He didn't invent a entire field of science like say Einstein did but compared to your average research scientist, based purely on his work, Dawkins does stand out.

OMG I cannot believe I'm arguing about this. First of, I am aware that Galileo draws his ideas from Bruno. He also draws his ideas from Copernicus and to some extent Tycho as well. The only thing I am going to say, aside from his significant contributions to science and yes he did have some original ideas, was that he was the first to prove their ideas.

 

In my opinion, Galileo is better, and if you don't agree, well, I don't care. I have facts to back my opinion up.

Based purely on his work Galileo didn't have many original ideas. And none of his more ground breaking ideas were actually original. I'm not saying I don't like Galileo, I'm just pointing this out.

That is certainly true. But that depends on what one would consider a "great scientist", which is the heart of the debate here. To my mind, a great scientist is someone who is either original, who made great strides in our understanding of a particular field or discipline, or, most importantly, a person who fundamentally changes the way we think about our universe. Galileo did that. Einstein did that. Feynman did that. Darwin did that. And so many other people that nobody ever hears about did that.

Darwin and Galileo were not "original." You can actually read about where some of Darwin's ideas came from in his own book! He does however pass the second two, and so does Dawkins, actually. Dawkins would even pass for the first depending on what exactly you're talking about. Eg he fixed gene-centered evolution with his definition of gene and he did invent memes and some other stuff as well.

Lol! Now I have seen it all. 1veedo is basically trying to argue that Dawkins is a "one of the world's greatest scientists of all time" by changing the definition of "greatest scientist".

He is a "great scientist" but I don't know about a Newton.

[Severian]

In regard to great scientists who are also proponents of atheism, how about Steven Weinberg?

 

Sure, I think I would rate Steven Weinberg as a great scientist. There are plenty of other great scientists who are atheists too.

[Reaper]

Yes, this is perfectly normal in science. As I indicated earlier Darwin didn't come up with evolution nor did he do "most" of the work in evolution/natural selection (we're talking about "work" done before 1870 here). He did however popularize it and help advance the science.

 

Well, actually, the book was initially a flop and it generated a huge controversy that was not settled until the late 19th and early 20th century.

 

 

Of course we want to give credit to everyone else. I'm not saying we should make a list of people (newton, einstein, etc) and give them all the credit. Nor am I suggesting we should credit Dawkins for instance completely with gene-centered evolution, I'm just saying he was an important contributer. He actually corrected earlier work where "gene" refereed literally to alleles, and Dawkins defined gene in a slightly different manner in the context of gene-centered evolution. I'll be it, some other scientist would have eventually figured it out, but it was Dawkins, and not someone else, who figured these things out.Regardless to the other topic of discussion (above), if you actually look at Dawkins work he does stand out from most other scientists. He didn't invent a entire field of science like say Einstein did but compared to your average research scientist, based purely on his work, Dawkins does stand out.Based purely on his work Galileo didn't have many original ideas. And none of his more ground breaking ideas were actually original. I'm not saying I don't like Galileo, I'm just pointing this out.Darwin and Galileo were not "original." You can actually read about where some of Darwin's ideas came from in his own book! He does however pass the second two, and so does Dawkins, actually. Dawkins would even pass for the first depending on what exactly you're talking about. Eg he fixed gene-centered evolution with his definition of gene and he did invent memes and some other stuff as well.

 

And here you've just demonstrated your ignorance. As it turns out, a lot of those ideas that Dawkins had were circulating around scientific and academic, and even politics before he popularized them. Ok, so he may have distinguished a couple of ideas that were originally put together and advanced on some of them. But a lot of the ideas were in circulation long before then, and afterwards most progress in those fields were done by other people. For example, some the basic ideas behind memes came from the Eugenics Movement in the early 20th century.

 

And I guess you can just forget about kinematics, physics, modern astronomy, and natural selection, which are attributed to Galileo and Darwin respectively.

 

Sure, I think I would rate Steven Weinberg as a great scientist. There are plenty of other great scientists who are atheists too.

 

Yeah, I like Steven Weinberg too.

 

 

-------------------------------------------------

 

<edit> I'm done with this thread.

[1veedo]

And here you've just demonstrated your ignorance. As it turns out, a lot of those ideas that Dawkins had were circulating around scientific and academic, and even politics before he popularized them. Ok, so he may have distinguished a couple of ideas that were originally put together and advanced on some of them. But a lot of the ideas were in circulation long before then, and afterwards most progress in those fields were done by other people. For example, some the basic ideas behind memes came from the Eugenics Movement in the early 20th century.

 

And I guess you can just forget about kinematics, physics, modern astronomy, and natural selection, which are attributed to Galileo and Darwin respectively.

As it turns out evolution had been around sense 1700, and some of its ideas even earlier. Again, this is perfectly normal in science -- it happens all the time.

[JohnB]

OK so Dawkin's claim to fame is biology and you don't think that's measurable?

My comment was "a Philosophical/Psychological concept". This was in reference to the "meme" which is inextricably linked to Dawkin's name in the public consciousness. How do you measure an idea using independently verifiable methods?

 

A meme, by definition, is an idea or concept "considered (presumably by the researcher:-p ) to be a replicator", not "proven" but "considered". So why does the researcher deem a concept to be a "meme"? Because he believes in them. He has no hard physical evidence that can be measured on any form of equipment but he believes in them and therefore they exist.

 

And what is Dawkin's opinion of people who believe in things that can't be shown to actually exist?

[iNow]

And what is Dawkin's opinion of people who believe in things that can't be shown to actually exist?

Why do you think that they cannot be shown to exist? You know, unlike God, it actually is possible to prove or disprove the existence of memes, so your line of reasoning (or, more apropos, your line of attack) is nonsense.

[john5746]

And what is Dawkin's opinion of people who believe in things that can't be shown to actually exist?

 

Good point, I would like to see his answer to this one.

[John Cuthber]

A couple of thoughts. First Does it matter whether Dawkins was a good scientist or not. He came up with or developed or publicised a few ideas. The meme is probably the best known of them.

Is it a real concept that can be shown to exist? Well, I think it is and I guess Dawkins does too. Not only that I could propbably find you a few.

Second, I note that only 26% of American students believe in witches. What do the others think?

I know there are witches, I have met a few, and a warlock too.

I don't think they are correct but to me they don't seem any different from the other religios types I have met.

It makes as much sense to say "I don't believe in witches" as it does to say "I don't believe in Christians"