Richard Dawkins Warning: You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you log in or create an account, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.Anti-spam check. Do not fill this in! == Work == ===Evolutionary biology=== {{further|Gene-centred view of evolution}} [[File:Dawkins at UT Austin.jpg|thumb|upright|At the [[University of Texas at Austin]], March 2008]] Dawkins is best known for his popularisation of the [[gene]] as the principal [[unit of selection]] in [[evolution]]; this view is most clearly set out in two of his books:<ref>{{cite book |title=Richard Dawkins: How a Scientist Changed the Way We Think: Reflections by Scientists, Writers, and Philosophers |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=lH4sh2436rEC&q=%22evolutionary+biologist%22 |year=2007 |publisher=Oxford University Press |isbn=978-0-19-921466-2 |page=228 |first1=Mark |last1=Ridley |access-date=27 January 2016 |archive-date=19 March 2015 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150319065837/http://books.google.com/books?id=lH4sh2436rEC&q=%22evolutionary+biologist%22 |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{cite book |last=Lloyd |first=Elisabeth Anne |title=The structure and confirmation of evolutionary theory |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=hO8vHTSiBkAC |year=1994 |publisher=Princeton University Press |isbn=978-0-691-00046-6 |access-date=20 May 2020 |archive-date=23 May 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200523013222/https://books.google.com/books?id=hO8vHTSiBkAC |url-status=live }}</ref> * ''[[The Selfish Gene]]'' (1976), in which he notes that "all life evolves by the differential survival of replicating entities." * ''[[The Extended Phenotype]]'' (1982), in which he describes [[natural selection]] as "the process whereby [[DNA replication|replicators]] out-propagate each other". He introduces to a wider audience the influential concept he presented in 1977,<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Dawkins |first1=Richard |title=Replicator Selection and the Extended Phenotype |journal=Zeitschrift für Tierpsychologie |date=1978 |volume=47 |issue=1 |pages=61–76 |doi=10.1111/j.1439-0310.1978.tb01823.x |pmid=696023}}</ref> that the [[phenotype|phenotypic]] effects of a gene are not necessarily limited to an organism's body, but can stretch far into the environment, including the bodies of other organisms. Dawkins regarded the extended phenotype as his single most important contribution to evolutionary biology and he considered [[niche construction]] to be a special case of extended phenotype. The concept of extended phenotype helps explain evolution, but it does not help predict specific outcomes.<ref name="esf">{{cite web |url=https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/01/090119081333.htm |title=European Evolutionary Biologists Rally Behind Richard Dawkins' Extended Phenotype |publisher=Sciencedaily.com |date=20 January 2009 |access-date=28 June 2011 |archive-date=13 December 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181213083316/https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/01/090119081333.htm |url-status=live }}</ref> Dawkins has consistently been sceptical<!-- PLEASE NOTE: 'sceptical' is the correct British spelling, and Dawkins is British --> about non-adaptive processes in evolution (such as [[spandrel (biology)|spandrels]], described by [[Stephen Jay Gould|Gould]] and [[Richard Lewontin|Lewontin]])<ref name="gould-lewontin">{{cite journal |last=Gould |first=Stephen Jay |author-link=Stephen Jay Gould |author2=Lewontin, Richard C. |author2-link=Richard Lewontin |year=1979 |title=The Spandrels of San Marco and the Panglossian Paradigm: A Critique of the Adaptationist Programme |journal=Proceedings of the Royal Society of London |volume=205 |issue=1161 |series=B |pages=581–598 |doi=10.1098/rspb.1979.0086 |pmid=42062 |bibcode=1979RSPSB.205..581G|s2cid=2129408 }}</ref> and about selection at levels "above" that of the gene.<ref name=Extended_Phenotype>{{cite book |last=Dawkins |first=Richard |title=The extended phenotype: the long reach of the gene |url=https://archive.org/details/extendedphenotyp0000dawk |url-access=registration |year=1999 |publisher=Oxford University Press |isbn=978-0192880512 |edition=Revised with new afterword and further reading}}</ref> He is particularly <!-- PLEASE NOTE: 'sceptical' is the correct British spelling, and Dawkins is British -->sceptical about the practical possibility or importance of [[group selection]] as a basis for understanding [[altruism]].{{sfn|Dawkins|2006|pp=169–172}} Altruism appears at first to be an evolutionary paradox, since helping others costs precious resources and decreases one's own chances for survival, or [[fitness (biology)|"fitness"]]. Previously, many had interpreted altruism as an aspect of group selection, suggesting that individuals are doing what is best for the survival of the population or species as a whole. British evolutionary biologist [[W. D. Hamilton]] used gene-frequency analysis in his [[inclusive fitness]] theory to show how hereditary altruistic traits can evolve if there is sufficient genetic similarity between actors and recipients of such altruism, including close relatives.<ref>{{cite journal |last=Hamilton |first=W.D. |author-link=W. D. Hamilton |title=The genetical evolution of social behaviour I and II |journal=Journal of Theoretical Biology |volume=7 |issue=1 |pages=1–16, 17–52 |year=1964 |doi=10.1016/0022-5193(64)90038-4 |pmid=5875341|bibcode=1964JThBi...7....1H |s2cid=5310280 }}</ref>{{Ref label|a|a|none}} Hamilton's inclusive fitness has since been successfully applied to a wide range of organisms, including [[human inclusive fitness|humans]]. Similarly, [[Robert Trivers]], thinking in terms of the gene-centred model, developed the theory of [[reciprocal altruism]], whereby one organism provides a benefit to another in the expectation of future reciprocation.<ref>{{cite journal |last=Trivers |first=Robert |title=The evolution of reciprocal altruism |journal=Quarterly Review of Biology |volume=46 |issue=1 |pages=35–57 |year=1971 |doi=10.1086/406755 |s2cid=19027999 }}</ref> Dawkins popularised these ideas in ''The Selfish Gene'', and developed them in his own work.<ref name="dawkins79">{{cite journal |last=Dawkins |first=Richard |title=Twelve Misunderstandings of Kin Selection |journal=Zeitschrift für Tierpsychologie |volume=51 |pages=184–200 |year=1979 |issue=2 |url=http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/writings/Twelve%20Misunderstandings%20of%20Kin%20Selection.pdf |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080529180009/http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/writings/Twelve%20Misunderstandings%20of%20Kin%20Selection.pdf |archive-date=29 May 2008 |doi=10.1111/j.1439-0310.1979.tb00682.x}}</ref> In June 2012, Dawkins was highly critical of fellow biologist [[E. O. Wilson]]'s 2012 book ''[[The Social Conquest of Earth]]'' as misunderstanding Hamilton's theory of kin selection.<ref>{{cite news |last=Thorpe |first=Vanessa |title=Richard Dawkins in furious row with EO Wilson over theory of evolution. Book review sparks war of words between grand old man of biology and Oxford's most high-profile Darwinist |url=https://www.theguardian.com/science/2012/jun/24/battle-of-the-professors |access-date=3 October 2012 |newspaper=The Guardian |date=24 June 2012 |location=London |archive-date=6 May 2019 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190506014702/https://www.theguardian.com/science/2012/jun/24/battle-of-the-professors |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{cite news |last1=Dawkins |first1=Richard |title=The Descent of Edward Wilson |url=http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/magazine/edward-wilson-social-conquest-earth-evolutionary-errors-origin-species |access-date=24 October 2015 |work=[[Prospect (magazine)|Prospect]] |date=24 May 2012 |archive-date=24 September 2015 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150924105332/http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/magazine/edward-wilson-social-conquest-earth-evolutionary-errors-origin-species |url-status=live }}</ref> Dawkins has also been strongly critical of the [[Gaia hypothesis]] of the independent scientist [[James Lovelock]].<ref>{{cite book |title=The molecular biology of Gaia |url=https://archive.org/details/molecularbiology0000will |url-access=registration |year=1996 |publisher=Columbia University Press |isbn=978-0-231-10512-5 |page=[https://archive.org/details/molecularbiology0000will/page/178 178] |first1=George Ronald |last1=Williams}} [https://archive.org/details/molecularbiology0000will/page/178 Extract of page 178]</ref><ref>{{cite book |title=Scientists debate gaia: the next century |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=TOi1Cyj9h1UC |year=2004 |publisher=MIT Press |isbn=978-0-262-19498-3 |page=72 |first1=Stephen Henry |last1=Schneider |access-date=27 January 2016 |archive-date=29 July 2016 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160729013112/https://books.google.com/books?id=TOi1Cyj9h1UC |url-status=live }} [https://books.google.com/books?id=TOi1Cyj9h1UC&pg=PA72 Extract of p. 72] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150319005453/http://books.google.com/books?id=TOi1Cyj9h1UC&pg=PA72 |date=19 March 2015 }}</ref><ref>{{cite book |title=Unweaving the Rainbow: Science, Delusion and the Appetite for Wonder |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=ZudTchiioUoC |year=2000 |publisher=Houghton Mifflin Harcourt |isbn=978-0-618-05673-6 |page=223 |first1=Richard |last1=Dawkins |bibcode=1998ursd.book.....D |access-date=27 January 2016 |archive-date=21 September 2014 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140921122549/http://books.google.com/books?id=ZudTchiioUoC |url-status=live }} [https://books.google.com/books?id=ZudTchiioUoC&pg=PA223 Extract of p. 223] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150319064040/http://books.google.com/books?id=ZudTchiioUoC&pg=PA223 |date=19 March 2015 }}</ref> Critics of Dawkins's biological approach suggest that taking the [[gene]] as the unit of ''selection'' (a single event in which an individual either succeeds or fails to reproduce) is misleading. The gene could be better described, they say, as a unit of ''evolution'' (the long-term changes in [[allele]] frequencies in a population).<ref>{{cite book |last=Dover |first=Gabriel |title=Dear Mr Darwin |year=2000 |publisher=London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson |isbn=978-0-7538-1127-6}}</ref> In ''The Selfish Gene'', Dawkins explains that he is using [[George C. Williams (biologist)|George C. Williams]]'s definition of the gene as "that which segregates and recombines with appreciable frequency".<ref>{{cite book |last=Williams |first=George C. |title=Adaptation and Natural Selection |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=wWZEq87CqO0C |year=1966 |publisher=Princeton University Press |location=New Jersey |isbn=978-0-691-02615-2 |access-date=20 May 2020 |archive-date=23 May 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200523013348/https://books.google.com/books?id=wWZEq87CqO0C |url-status=live }}</ref> Another common objection is that a gene cannot survive alone, but must cooperate with other genes to build an individual, and therefore a gene cannot be an independent "unit".<ref>{{cite book |last=Mayr |first=Ernst |author-link=Ernst Mayr |title=What Evolution Is |year=2000 |publisher=Basic Books |isbn=978-0-465-04426-9}}</ref> In ''The Extended Phenotype'', Dawkins suggests that from an individual gene's viewpoint, all other genes are part of the environment to which it is adapted. Advocates for higher levels of selection (such as [[Richard Lewontin]], [[David Sloan Wilson]], and [[Elliott Sober]]) suggest that there are many phenomena (including altruism) that gene-based selection cannot satisfactorily explain. The philosopher [[Mary Midgley]], with whom Dawkins clashed in print concerning ''The Selfish Gene'',<ref>{{Cite news |last=Midgley |first=Mary |year=1979 |title=Gene-Juggling |periodical=Philosophy |volume=54 |issue=210 |pages=439–458 |url=http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=3520652 |doi=10.1017/S0031819100063488 |access-date=18 March 2008 |archive-date=31 July 2016 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160731184320/http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=3520652 |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |last=Dawkins |first=Richard |year=1981 |title=In Defence of Selfish Genes |periodical=Philosophy |volume=56 |issue=218 |pages=556–573 |url=http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=3512724 |doi=10.1017/S0031819100050580 |access-date=17 March 2008 |archive-date=31 July 2016 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160731181424/http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=3512724 |url-status=live }}</ref> has criticised gene selection, memetics, and sociobiology as being excessively [[reductionism|reductionist]];<ref>{{cite book |last=Midgley |first=Mary |title=Science and Poetry |year=2000 |publisher=Routledge |isbn=978-0-415-27632-0}}</ref> she has suggested that the popularity of Dawkins's work is due to factors in the [[Zeitgeist]] such as the increased individualism of the Thatcher/Reagan decades.<ref>{{cite book |first=Mary |last=Midgley |title=The solitary self: Darwin and the selfish gene |year=2010 |publisher=McGill-Queen's University Press |isbn=978-1-84465-253-2}}</ref> Besides, other, more recent views and analysis on his popular science works also exist.<ref>{{cite book |first=Alan G.|last=Gross|title=The Scientific Sublime: Popular Science Unravels the Mysteries of the Universe (Chapter 11: Richard Dawkins: The Mathematical Sublime) |year=2018|publisher=Oxford University Press |asin=B07C8L2CZY}}</ref> In a set of controversies over the mechanisms and interpretation of evolution (what has been called 'The Darwin Wars'),<ref>{{cite book |last=Brown |first=Andrew |author-link=Andrew Brown (writer) |title=The Darwin Wars: How stupid genes became selfish genes |year=1999 |publisher=London: Simon & Schuster |isbn=978-0-684-85144-0}}</ref><ref name="AndrewBrown2000">{{cite book |last=Brown |first=Andrew |author-link=Andrew Brown (writer) |title=The Darwin Wars: The Scientific Battle for the Soul of Man |year=2000 |publisher=Touchstone |isbn=978-0-684-85145-7}}</ref> one faction is often named after Dawkins, while the other faction is named after the American palaeontologist [[Stephen Jay Gould]], reflecting the pre-eminence of each as a populariser of the pertinent ideas.<ref name="Brockman">{{cite book |last=Brockman |first=J. |title=The Third Culture: Beyond the Scientific Revolution |year=1995 |publisher=Simon & Schuster |location=New York |isbn=978-0-684-80359-3 |url=https://archive.org/details/thirdculture00broc}}</ref><ref name="Sterelny">{{cite book |last=Sterelny |first=K. |author-link=Kim Sterelny |title=Dawkins vs. Gould: Survival of the Fittest |year=2007 |publisher=Icon Books |location=Cambridge, UK |isbn=978-1-84046-780-2 |title-link=Dawkins vs. Gould}}</ref> In particular, Dawkins and Gould have been prominent commentators in the controversy over [[sociobiology]] and [[evolutionary psychology]], with Dawkins generally approving and Gould generally being critical.<ref>{{cite book |last=Morris |first=Richard |title=The Evolutionists |year=2001 |publisher=W. H. Freeman |isbn=978-0-7167-4094-0}}</ref> A typical example of Dawkins's position is his scathing review of ''[[Not in Our Genes]]'' by [[Steven Rose]], [[Leon J. Kamin]], and Richard C. Lewontin.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Dawkins |first=Richard |date=24 January 1985 |title=Sociobiology: the debate continues |periodical=New Scientist |url=http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/WorldOfDawkins-archive/Dawkins/Work/Reviews/1985-01-24notinourgenes.shtml |access-date=3 April 2008 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080501043602/http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/WorldOfDawkins-archive/Dawkins/Work/Reviews/1985-01-24notinourgenes.shtml |archive-date=1 May 2008 |url-status=dead}}</ref> Two other thinkers who are often considered to be allied with Dawkins on the subject are [[Steven Pinker]] and [[Daniel Dennett]]; Dennett has promoted a gene-centred view of evolution and defended [[reductionism]] in biology.<ref>{{cite journal |last=Dennett |first=Daniel |author-link=Daniel Dennett |title=Darwin's Dangerous Idea |journal=Complexity |volume=2 |issue=1 |department=Reviews: books and software |pages=32–36|year=1995 |publisher=Simon & Schuster |location=United States |isbn=978-0-684-80290-9 |bibcode=1996Cmplx...2a..32M |doi=10.1002/(SICI)1099-0526(199609/10)2:1<32::AID-CPLX8>3.0.CO;2-H |url=https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/%28SICI%291099-0526%28199609/10%292%3A1%3C32%3A%3AAID-CPLX8%3E3.0.CO%3B2-H }} {{free access}}</ref> Despite their academic disagreements, Dawkins and Gould did not have a hostile personal relationship, and Dawkins dedicated a large portion of his 2003 book ''[[A Devil's Chaplain]]'' posthumously to Gould, who had died the previous year. When asked if [[Neo-Darwinism|Darwinism]] informs his everyday apprehension of life, Dawkins says, "In one way it does. My eyes are constantly wide open to the extraordinary fact of existence. Not just human existence but the existence of life and how this breathtakingly powerful process, which is natural selection, has managed to take the very simple facts of physics and chemistry and build them up to redwood trees and humans. That's never far from my thoughts, that sense of amazement. On the other hand, I certainly don't allow Darwinism to influence my feelings about human social life", implying that he feels that individual human beings can opt out of the survival machine of Darwinism since they are freed by the [[consciousness]] of self.<ref name="strident" /> === "Meme" as behavioural concept === {{Main|Meme}} [[File:Richard Dawkins Cooper Union Shankbone.jpg|thumb|right|Dawkins at [[Cooper Union]] in [[New York City]] to discuss his book ''[[The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution]]'' in 2010]] In his book ''The Selfish Gene'', Dawkins [[neologism|coined]] the word ''meme'' (the behavioural equivalent of a gene) as a way to encourage readers to think about how Darwinian principles might be extended beyond the realm of genes.{{sfn|Dawkins|1989|p=11}} It was intended as an extension of his "replicators" argument, but it took on a life of its own in the hands of other authors, such as [[Daniel Dennett]] and [[Susan Blackmore]]. These popularisations then led to the emergence of [[memetics]], a field from which Dawkins has distanced himself.<ref name="misunderstanding">{{cite journal |last1=Burman |first1=J. T. |year=2012 |title=The misunderstanding of memes: Biography of an unscientific object, 1976–1999 |journal=[[Perspectives on Science]] |volume=20 |issue=1 |pages=75–104 |doi=10.1162/POSC_a_00057|s2cid=57569644 |doi-access=free }}{{open access}}</ref> Dawkins's ''meme'' refers to any cultural entity that an observer might consider a replicator of a certain idea or set of ideas. He hypothesised that people could view many cultural entities as capable of such replication, generally through communication and contact with humans, who have evolved as efficient (although not perfect) copiers of information and behaviour. Because memes are not always copied perfectly, they might become refined, combined, or otherwise modified with other ideas; this results in new memes, which may themselves prove more or less efficient replicators than their predecessors, thus providing a framework for a hypothesis of [[cultural evolution]] based on memes, a notion that is analogous to the theory of biological evolution based on genes.<ref>{{cite book |last=Kelly |first=Kevin |title=Out of Control: The New Biology of Machines, Social Systems, and the Economic World |year=1994 |publisher=Addison-Wesley |location=United States |isbn=978-0-201-48340-6 |page=[https://archive.org/details/outofcontrolnewb00kell/page/360 360]| title-link = Out of Control: The New Biology of Machines, Social Systems, and the Economic World}}</ref> Although Dawkins invented the term ''meme'', he has not said that the idea was entirely novel,<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.cscs.umich.edu/~crshalizi/formerly-hyper-weird/memetics.html |title=Memes |work=Center for the Study of Complex Systems |publisher=University of Michigan |access-date=14 August 2009 |last=Shalizi |first=Cosma Rohilla |archive-date=22 April 2009 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090422091304/http://cscs.umich.edu/~crshalizi/formerly-hyper-weird/memetics.html |url-status=live }}</ref> and there have been other expressions for similar ideas in the past. For instance, John Laurent has suggested that the term may have derived from the work of the little-known German biologist [[Richard Semon]].<ref name="mneme">{{Cite journal |last=Laurent |first=John |year=1999 |title=A Note on the Origin of 'Memes'/'Mnemes' |journal=Journal of Memetics |volume=3 |issue=1 |pages=14–19 |url=http://cfpm.org/jom-emit/1999/vol3/laurent_j.html |access-date=17 March 2008 |archive-date=25 March 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180325202014/http://cfpm.org/jom-emit/1999/vol3/laurent_j.html |url-status=live }}</ref> Semon regarded "mneme" as the collective set of neural memory traces (conscious or subconscious) that were inherited, although such view would be considered as [[Lamarckian]] by modern biologists.<ref name="leiden">{{Cite web |last=van Driem |first=George |year=2007 |title=Symbiosism, Symbiomism and the Leiden definition of the meme |url=https://www.researchgate.net/publication/249904767 |access-date=6 November 2018 |archive-date=21 November 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201121060835/https://www.researchgate.net/publication/249904767_Symbiosism_Symbiomism_and_the_Leiden_definition_of_the_meme |url-status=live }}</ref> Laurent also found the use of the term ''mneme'' in [[Maurice Maeterlinck]]'s ''The Life of the White Ant'' (1926), and Maeterlinck himself stated that he obtained the phrase from Semon's work.<ref name=mneme/> In his own work, Maeterlinck tried to explain memory in termites and ants by stating that neural memory traces were added "upon the individual mneme".<ref name="leiden"/> Nonetheless, [[James Gleick]] describes Dawkins's concept of the meme as "his most famous memorable invention, far more influential than his [[The Selfish Gene|selfish gene]]s or his later proselytising against religiosity".<ref>{{cite book |first=James |last=Gleick |title=The Information: A History, a Theory, a Flood |year= 2011 |publisher=Pantheon |isbn=978-0-375-42372-7 |page=269}}</ref> === Foundation === {{Main|Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science}} In 2006, Dawkins founded the ''Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science'' (''RDFRS''), a [[non-profit organisation]]. RDFRS financed research on the [[psychology of religion|psychology of belief and religion]], financed scientific education programs and materials, and publicised and supported [[charitable organisation]]s that are [[secularity|secular]] in nature.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.richarddawkins.net/foundation,ourMission |title=Our Mission |first=Richard |last=Dawkins |access-date=17 November 2006 |publisher=Richard Dawkins Foundation |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20061117150429/http://www.richarddawkins.net/foundation,ourMission |archive-date=17 November 2006 |url-status=dead}}</ref> In January 2016, it was announced that the foundation was merging with the [[Center for Inquiry]], with Dawkins becoming a member of the new organization's board of directors.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.worldreligionnews.com/religion-news/atheism/richard-dawkins-atheist-organization-merges-with-center-for-inquiry |title=Richard Dawkins' Atheist Organization Merges with Center for Inquiry |date=26 January 2016 |access-date=26 January 2016 |website=WorldReligionNews.com |last=Lesley |first=Alison |archive-date=28 January 2016 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160128080214/http://www.worldreligionnews.com/religion-news/atheism/richard-dawkins-atheist-organization-merges-with-center-for-inquiry |url-status=live }}</ref> ===Criticism of religion=== [[File:Richard dawkins lecture.jpg|thumb|upright=1|Lecturing on his book ''[[The God Delusion]]'', 24 June 2006]] Dawkins was confirmed into the Church of England at the age of 13, but began to grow sceptical of the beliefs. He said that his understanding of science and evolutionary processes led him to question how adults in positions of leadership in a civilised world could still be so uneducated in biology,<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.beliefnet.com/story/178/story_17889_2.html |title=The Problem with God: Interview with Richard Dawkins (2) |access-date=11 April 2008 |last=Sheahen |first=Laura |date=October 2005 |publisher=Beliefnet.com |archive-date=10 April 2008 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080410075833/http://www.beliefnet.com/story/178/story_17889_2.html |url-status=live }}</ref> and is puzzled by how belief in God could remain among individuals who are sophisticated in science. Dawkins says that some physicists use 'God' as a metaphor for the general awe-inspiring mysteries of the universe, which he says causes confusion and misunderstanding among people who incorrectly think they are talking about a mystical being who forgives sins, transubstantiates wine, or makes people live after they die.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.pbs.org/faithandreason/transcript/dawk-frame.html |title=Interview with Richard Dawkins |access-date=12 April 2008 |publisher=PBS |archive-date=20 June 2010 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100620151103/http://www.pbs.org/faithandreason/transcript/dawk-frame.html |url-status=live }}</ref> He disagrees with [[Stephen Jay Gould]]'s principle of [[Non-overlapping magisteria|nonoverlapping magisteria (NOMA)]]<ref>{{cite news |url=http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1555132-3,00.html |title=God vs. Science (3) |access-date=3 April 2008 |date=5 November 2006 |last=Van Biema |first=David |magazine=[[Time (magazine)|Time]] |archive-date=11 February 2012 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120211180034/http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1555132-3,00.html |url-status=dead }}</ref> and suggests that the [[existence of God]] should be treated as a scientific hypothesis like any other.{{sfn|Dawkins|2006|p=50}} Dawkins became a prominent [[criticism of religion|critic of religion]] and has stated his [[Antireligion|opposition to religion]] as twofold: religion is both a source of conflict and a justification for belief without evidence.{{sfn|Dawkins|2006|pp=282–286}} He considers faith—belief that is not based on evidence—as "one of the world's great evils".<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.thehumanist.org/humanist/articles/dawkins.html |title=Is Science A Religion? |publisher=The Humanist |first=Richard |last=Dawkins |date=1 January 1997 |access-date=31 December 2012 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121030144700/http://www.thehumanist.org/humanist/articles/dawkins.html |archive-date=30 October 2012}}</ref> On his [[spectrum of theistic probability]], which ranges from 1 (100% certainty that a God or gods exist) to 7 (100% certainty that a God or gods do not exist), Dawkins has said he is a 6.9, which represents a "de facto atheist" who thinks "I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there." When asked about his slight uncertainty, Dawkins quips, "I am agnostic to the extent that I am agnostic about fairies at the bottom of the garden."<ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/9102740/Richard-Dawkins-I-cant-be-sure-God-does-not-exist.html |title=Richard Dawkins: I can't be sure God does not exist |date=24 February 2012 |access-date=5 March 2016 |first=John |last=Bingham |location=London |work=The Telegraph |archive-date=24 May 2019 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190524001926/https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/9102740/Richard-Dawkins-I-cant-be-sure-God-does-not-exist.html |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/side-effects/201202/why-does-richard-dawkins-take-issue-agnosticism |title=Why Does Richard Dawkins Take Issue With Agnosticism? |date=2 February 2012 |access-date=5 April 2016 |work=Psychology Today |first=Christopher |last=Lane }}</ref> In May 2014, at the [[Hay Festival]] in Wales, Dawkins explained that while he does not believe in the supernatural elements of the Christian faith, he still has nostalgia for the ceremonial side of religion.<ref>{{cite news |first=Sarah |last=Knapton |url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/hay-festival/10853648/Richard-Dawkins-I-am-a-secular-Christian.html |title=Richard Dawkins: 'I am a secular Christian' |newspaper=Telegraph |access-date=9 June 2014 |archive-date=21 December 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181221043247/https://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/hay-festival/10853648/Richard-Dawkins-I-am-a-secular-Christian.html |url-status=live }}</ref> In addition to beliefs in deities, Dawkins has criticized religious beliefs as irrational, such as that Jesus turned water into wine, that an embryo starts as a blob, that [[Temple garment|magic underwear]] will protect you, that Jesus was resurrected, that [[semen]] comes from the spine, that Jesus walked on water, that the sun sets in a marsh, that the Garden of Eden existed in [[Adam-ondi-Ahman]], Missouri, that Jesus' mother was a virgin, that [[Splitting of the moon|Muhammad split the moon]], and that [[Raising of Lazarus|Lazarus was raised from the dead]].{{refn|<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/richard-dawkins-islamophobic-berkeley-event-cancelled-islam-muslim-uc-university-california-a7860281.html|title=Richard Dawkins hits back at allegations he is Islamophobic after Berkeley event is cancelled|website=[[Independent.co.uk]]|date=26 July 2017|access-date=10 September 2017|archive-date=29 August 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170829181754/http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/richard-dawkins-islamophobic-berkeley-event-cancelled-islam-muslim-uc-university-california-a7860281.html|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=https://twitter.com/richarddawkins/status/681453611906396160 |title=Dawkins Twitter This is almost as impressive as the prescient knowledge that embryo starts as a blob, semen comes from the spine & the sun sets in a marsh. |access-date=26 July 2017 |archive-date=21 November 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201121060816/https://twitter.com/richarddawkins/status/681453611906396160 |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=https://twitter.com/richarddawkins/status/344419641101275137 |title='Did Jesus exist?' Who cares? 'Did Jesus lack a father? Raise Lazarus? Walk on water? Resurrect?' I care, and the answer is no in all cases. |access-date=1 August 2017 |archive-date=21 November 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201121060841/https://pbs.twimg.com/hashflag/config-2020-11-21-06.json |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=https://twitter.com/richarddawkins/status/677189384169512960 |title=There are people who believe Jesus turned water into wine. How do they hold down a job in the 21st century? |access-date=1 August 2017 |archive-date=21 November 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201121060819/https://twitter.com/richarddawkins/status/677189384169512960 |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=https://twitter.com/richarddawkins/status/685591187479212032 |title=Ridicule is the proper response to beliefs such as Jesus' mother was a virgin, Joshua slowed Earth's rotation or Muhammad split the moon. |access-date=1 August 2017 |archive-date=21 November 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201121060820/https://twitter.com/richarddawkins/status/685591187479212032 |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=https://twitter.com/richarddawkins/status/255543797528817664 |title=Over and above believing surreal nonsense about planets and magic stones, hats and underwear, Romney is also a liar |access-date=1 August 2017 |archive-date=19 July 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200719043539/https://twitter.com/richarddawkins/status/255543797528817664 |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=https://twitter.com/richarddawkins/status/244790357420826626 |title=Could you really vote for a man who thinks the Garden of Eden was in Missouri? |access-date=1 August 2017 |archive-date=30 October 2017 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171030133510/https://twitter.com/richarddawkins/status/244790357420826626 |url-status=live }}</ref>}} Dawkins has risen to prominence in public debates concerning science and religion since the publication of his most popular book, ''[[The God Delusion]]'', in 2006, which became an international bestseller.<ref name="michaelpowell">{{cite news |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/20/science/20dawkins.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 |title=A Knack for Bashing Orthodoxy |newspaper=The New York Times |first=Michael |last=Powell |access-date=31 December 2012 |date=19 September 2011 |archive-date=27 December 2012 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121227231703/http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/20/science/20dawkins.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 |url-status=live }}</ref> As of 2015, more than three million copies have been sold and the book has been translated into over 30 languages.{{sfn|Dawkins|2015|p=173}} Its success has been seen by many as indicative of a change in the contemporary cultural [[zeitgeist]] and has also been identified with the rise of [[New Atheism]].<ref>{{cite news |url=http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/europe/11/08/atheism.feature/index.html |title=The rise of the New Atheists |publisher=CNN |first=Simon |last=Hooper |date=9 November 2006 |access-date=16 March 2010 |archive-date=8 April 2010 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100408094135/http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/europe/11/08/atheism.feature/index.html |url-status=live }}</ref> In the book, Dawkins contends that a supernatural creator almost certainly does not exist and that religious faith is a [[delusion]]—"a fixed false belief".{{sfn|Dawkins|2006|p=5}} In his February 2002 [[TED (conference)|TED]] talk entitled "Militant atheism", Dawkins urged all atheists to openly state their position and to fight the incursion of the church into politics and science.<ref name="militant" /> On 30 September 2007, Dawkins, [[Christopher Hitchens]], [[Sam Harris (author)|Sam Harris]], and [[Daniel Dennett]] met at Hitchens's residence for a private, unmoderated discussion that lasted two hours. The event was videotaped and entitled "The Four Horsemen".<ref>{{Cite web |last=Dawkins |first=Richard |date=1 October 2013 |title=The Four Horsemen DVD |url=https://centerforinquiry.org/store/product/the-four-horsemen-discussions-with-richard-dawkins-episode-1-dvd/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170611214236/https://richarddawkins.net/2013/10/the-four-horsemen-dvd-19-95/ |archive-date=11 June 2017 |access-date=13 April 2016 |website=Richard Dawkins Foundation |language=en-US}} See also {{YouTube|9DKhc1pcDFM}}</ref> Dawkins sees education and [[consciousness raising|consciousness-raising]] as the primary tools in opposing what he considers to be religious dogma and indoctrination.<ref name="belief interview"/><ref name="education">{{cite news |last=Smith |first=Alexandra |url=http://education.guardian.co.uk/schools/story/0,,1958138,00.html |title=Dawkins campaigns to keep God out of classroom |access-date=15 January 2007 |date=27 November 2006 |newspaper=The Guardian |location=London |archive-date=9 July 2008 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080709084224/http://education.guardian.co.uk/schools/story/0,,1958138,00.html |url-status=live }}</ref><ref name="bright">{{cite news |url=http://books.guardian.co.uk/review/story/0,12084,981412,00.html |title=The future looks bright |access-date=13 March 2008 |last=Dawkins |first=Richard |date=21 June 2003 |newspaper=The Guardian |location=London |archive-date=6 June 2008 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080606085217/http://books.guardian.co.uk/review/story/0,12084,981412,00.html |url-status=live |ref=none}}</ref> These tools include the fight against certain stereotypes, and he has adopted the term ''[[brights movement|bright]]'' as a way of associating positive public connotations with those who possess a [[naturalism (philosophy)|naturalistic]] worldview.<ref name="bright"/> He has given support to the idea of a free-thinking school,<ref name="Powell">{{cite news |last=Powell |first=Michael |title=A Knack for Bashing Orthodoxy |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/20/science/20dawkins.html |date=19 September 2011 |work=The New York Times |page=4 |access-date=20 September 2011 |archive-date=17 March 2019 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190317151949/https://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/20/science/20dawkins.html |url-status=live }}</ref> which would not "indoctrinate children" but would instead teach children to ask for evidence and be skeptical, critical, and open-minded. Such a school, says Dawkins, should "teach comparative religion, and teach it properly without any bias towards particular religions, and including historically important but dead religions, such as those of ancient Greece and the Norse gods, if only because these, like the Abrahamic scriptures, are important for understanding English literature and European history."<ref name="telegraph1">{{cite news |last=Beckford |first=Martin |url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/7849563/Richard-Dawkins-interested-in-setting-up-atheist-free-school.html |title=Richard Dawkins interested in setting up 'atheist free school' |newspaper=Telegraph |date=24 June 2010 |access-date=29 July 2010 |location=London |archive-date=27 June 2010 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100627144143/http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/7849563/Richard-Dawkins-interested-in-setting-up-atheist-free-school.html |url-status=dead }}</ref><ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/education-news/gove-welcomes-atheist-schools-2037990.html |title=Gove welcomes atheist schools – Education News, Education |newspaper=The Independent |date=29 July 2010 |access-date=29 July 2010 |location=London |first=Richard |last=Garner |archive-date=1 August 2010 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100801053001/http://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/education-news/gove-welcomes-atheist-schools-2037990.html |url-status=live }}</ref> Inspired by the consciousness-raising successes of [[Feminism|feminists]] in arousing widespread embarrassment at the routine use of "he" instead of "she", Dawkins similarly suggests that phrases such as "Catholic child" and "Muslim child" should be considered as socially absurd as, for instance, "Marxist child", as he believes that children should not be classified based on the ideological or religious beliefs of their parents.<ref name="bright" /> While some critics, such as writer [[Christopher Hitchens]], psychologist [[Steven Pinker]] and [[Nobel laureate]]s Sir [[Harold Kroto]], [[James D. Watson]], and [[Steven Weinberg]] have defended Dawkins's stance on religion and praised his work,<ref>{{cite web |url=http://richarddawkins.net/godDelusionReviews |title=The God Delusion – Reviews |access-date=8 April 2008 |publisher=Richard Dawkins Foundation |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080702000504/http://richarddawkins.net/godDelusionReviews |archive-date=2 July 2008 |url-status=dead}}</ref> others, including [[Nobel Prize in Physics|Nobel Prize]]-winning [[theoretical physicist]] [[Peter Higgs]], [[astrophysicist]] [[Martin Rees, Baron Rees of Ludlow|Martin Rees]], philosopher of science [[Michael Ruse]], literary critic [[Terry Eagleton]], philosopher [[Roger Scruton]], academic and social critic [[Camille Paglia]], atheist philosopher Daniel Came and theologian [[Alister McGrath]],{{refn|<ref>{{cite book |last=McGrath |first=Alister |author-link=Alister McGrath |title=Dawkins' God: Genes, Memes, and the Meaning of Life |year=2004 |publisher=Blackwell Publishing |location=Oxford, England |isbn=978-1-4051-2538-3 |page=[https://archive.org/details/dawkinsgodgenesm0000mcgr/page/81 81] |url=https://archive.org/details/dawkinsgodgenesm0000mcgr/page/81 }}</ref><ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/belief/2009/nov/02/atheism-dawkins-ruse |location=London |work=The Guardian |first=Michael |last=Ruse |author-link=Michael Ruse |title=Dawkins et al bring us into disrepute |date=2 November 2009 |access-date=23 April 2016 |archive-date=19 September 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180919173459/https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/belief/2009/nov/02/atheism-dawkins-ruse |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/belief/2012/oct/02/richard-dawkins-humanists-religion-atheists |location=London |work=The Guardian |first=Michael |last=Ruse |author-link=Michael Ruse |title=Why Richard Dawkins' humanists remind me of a religion |date=2 October 2012 |access-date=13 December 2016 |archive-date=21 August 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180821191854/https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/belief/2012/oct/02/richard-dawkins-humanists-religion-atheists |url-status=live }}</ref><ref name="salon.com">{{cite web |url=https://www.salon.com/2015/07/29/camille_paglia_takes_on_jon_stewart_trump_sanders_liberals_think_of_themselves_as_very_open_minded_but_that%e2%80%99s_simply_not_true/ |title=Camille Paglia takes on Jon Stewart, Trump, Sanders: "Liberals think of themselves as very open-minded, but that's simply not true!" |date=29 July 2015 |website=Salon |access-date=4 February 2019 |archive-date=4 February 2019 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190204231514/https://www.salon.com/2015/07/29/camille_paglia_takes_on_jon_stewart_trump_sanders_liberals_think_of_themselves_as_very_open_minded_but_that%e2%80%99s_simply_not_true/ |url-status=live }}</ref><ref name="spectator.co.uk">{{cite web |url=https://www.spectator.co.uk/2006/01/dawkins-is-wrong-about-god/ |title=Dawkins is wrong about God |date=14 January 2006 |website=The Spectator |access-date=19 January 2019 |archive-date=12 June 2019 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190612141649/https://www.spectator.co.uk/2006/01/dawkins-is-wrong-about-god/ |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/belief/2011/oct/22/richard-dawkins-refusal-debate-william-lane-craig |title=Richard Dawkins's refusal to debate is cynical and anti-intellectualist |first=Daniel |last=Came |newspaper=The Guardian |date=22 October 2011 |via=www.theguardian.com |access-date=19 January 2019 |archive-date=30 September 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180930081527/https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/belief/2011/oct/22/richard-dawkins-refusal-debate-william-lane-craig |url-status=live }}</ref>}} have criticised Dawkins on various grounds, including the assertion that his work simply serves as an atheist counterpart to religious fundamentalism rather than a productive critique of it, and that he has fundamentally misapprehended the foundations of the [[theological]] positions he claims to refute. Rees and Higgs, in particular, have both rejected Dawkins's confrontational stance toward religion as narrow and "embarrassing", with Higgs going as far as to equate Dawkins with the religious fundamentalists he criticises.<ref>{{cite magazine |url=http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n20/terry-eagleton/lunging-flailing-mispunching |title=Lunging, Flailing, Mispunching |first=Terry |last=Eagleton· |date=19 October 2006 |magazine=[[London Review of Books]] |access-date=16 May 2014 |volume=28 |issue=20 |pages=32–34 |archive-date=10 March 2010 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100310145648/http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n20/terry-eagleton/lunging-flailing-mispunching |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://richarddawkins.net/articleComments,1647,Do-you-have-to-read-up-on-leprechology-before-disbelieving-in-them,Richard-Dawkins-The-Independent,page27 |title=Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them? |access-date=14 November 2007 |last=Dawkins |first=Richard |date=17 September 2007 |publisher=Richard Dawkins Foundation |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20071214014838/http://richarddawkins.net/articleComments,1647,Do-you-have-to-read-up-on-leprechology-before-disbelieving-in-them,Richard-Dawkins-The-Independent,page27 |archive-date=14 December 2007}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |url=http://books.guardian.co.uk/hay2007/story/0,,2089947,00.html |title=Scientists divided over alliance with religion |access-date=17 March 2008 |last=Jha |first=Alok |date=29 May 2007 |newspaper=The Guardian |location=London |archive-date=19 July 2008 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080719103328/http://books.guardian.co.uk/hay2007/story/0,,2089947,00.html |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{cite news |last=Jha |first=Alok |url=https://www.theguardian.com/science/2012/dec/26/peter-higgs-richard-dawkins-fundamentalism |title=Peter Higgs criticises Richard Dawkins over anti-religious 'fundamentalism' |date=26 December 2012 |access-date=20 January 2016 |work=[[The Guardian]] |archive-date=28 October 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181028180407/https://www.theguardian.com/science/2012/dec/26/peter-higgs-richard-dawkins-fundamentalism |url-status=live }}</ref> Atheist philosopher [[John Gray (philosopher)|John Gray]] has denounced Dawkins as an "anti-religious missionary", whose assertions are "in no sense novel or original", suggesting that "transfixed in wonderment at the workings of his own mind, Dawkins misses much that is of importance in human beings." Gray has also criticised Dawkins's perceived allegiance to Darwin, stating that if "science, for Darwin, was a method of inquiry that enabled him to edge tentatively and humbly toward the truth, for Dawkins, science is an unquestioned view of the world."<ref>{{cite news |url=https://newrepublic.com/article/119596/appetite-wonder-review-closed-mind-richard-dawkins |title=The Closed Mind of Richard Dawkins |date=2 October 2014 |access-date=20 January 2016 |first=John |last=Gray |magazine=New Republic |archive-date=16 February 2019 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190216012235/https://newrepublic.com/article/119596/appetite-wonder-review-closed-mind-richard-dawkins |url-status=live }}</ref> A 2016 study found that many British scientists held an unfavourable view of Dawkins and his attitude towards religion.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/richard-dawkins-atheism-criticism-atheist-study-rice-university-science-scientists-a7389396.html |title=British scientists don't like Richard Dawkins, finds study that didn't even ask questions about Richard Dawkins |date=31 October 2016 |first =Andrew |last =Griffin |work=The Independent }}</ref> In response to his critics, Dawkins maintains that theologians are no better than scientists in addressing deep [[cosmological]] questions and that he is not a fundamentalist, as he is willing to change his mind in the face of new evidence.{{sfn|Dawkins|2006}}<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/dawkins_18_2.html |title=When Religion Steps on Science's Turf |access-date=3 April 2008 |last=Dawkins |first=Richard |year=2006 |work=Free Inquiry |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080419125549/http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/dawkins_18_2.html |archive-date=19 April 2008 |ref=none}}</ref><ref name=rdf-fundamentalist>{{cite web |last=Dawkins |first=Richard |title=How dare you call me a fundamentalist |url=http://old.richarddawkins.net/articles/1071-how-dare-you-call-me-a-fundamentalist |publisher=Richard Dawkins Foundation |access-date=28 December 2012 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121231022508/http://old.richarddawkins.net/articles/1071-how-dare-you-call-me-a-fundamentalist |archive-date=31 December 2012}}</ref> Dawkins has faced backlash over some of his public comments about Islam. In 2013, Dawkins [[Twitter|tweeted]] that "All the world's Muslims have fewer Nobel Prizes than Trinity College, Cambridge. They did great things in the Middle Ages, though."<ref>{{cite news |last1=Malik |first1=Nesrine |title=Richard Dawkins' tweets on Islam are as rational as the rants of an extremist Muslim cleric |url=https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/08/richard-dawkins-tweets-islam-muslim-nobel |access-date=5 August 2021 |work=The Guardian |date=8 August 2013}}</ref> In 2016, Dawkins' invitation to speak at the [[Northeast Conference on Science and Skepticism]] was withdrawn over his sharing of what was characterized as a "highly offensive video" satirically showing cartoon feminist and Islamist characters singing about the things they hold in common. In issuing the tweet, Dawkins stated that it "Obviously doesn't apply to vast majority of feminists, among whom I count myself. But the minority are pernicious."<ref name="Blair2016">{{cite news |last1=Blair |first1=Olivia |date=29 January 2016 |title=Richard Dawkins dropped from science event for tweeting video mocking feminists and Islamists |work=The Independent |url=https://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/richard-dawkins-vdeo-twitter-necss-event-feminism-a6841161.html |access-date=5 August 2021}}</ref> ====Criticism of creationism==== Dawkins is a prominent critic of [[creationism]], a religious belief that [[human]]ity, [[life]], and the [[universe]] were created by a [[deity]]<ref>{{cite encyclopedia |url=http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/creationism/ |title=Creationism |last=Ruse |first=Michael |author-link=Michael Ruse |encyclopedia=Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy |publisher=Metaphysics Research Laboratory, [[Stanford University]] |quote=a Creationist is someone who believes in a god who is absolute creator of heaven and earth. |access-date=9 September 2009 |archive-date=9 June 2007 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070609094515/http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/creationism/ |url-status=live }}</ref> without recourse to evolution.<ref>{{cite book |last=Scott |first=Eugenie C |author-link=Eugenie Scott |title=Evolution vs. creationism: an introduction |year= 2009 |publisher=University of California Press |location=Berkeley |isbn=978-0-520-26187-7 |page=51 |chapter=Creationism |quote=The term 'creationism' to many people connotes the theological doctrine of special creationism: that God created the universe essentially as we see it today, and that this universe has not changed appreciably since that creation event. Special creationism includes the idea that God created living things in their present forms...}}</ref> He has described the [[Young Earth creationism|young Earth creationist]] view that the Earth is only a few thousand years old as "a preposterous, mind-shrinking falsehood".<ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2002/mar/09/religion.schools1 |title=A scientist's view |last=Dawkins |first=Richard |date=9 March 2002 |work=[[The Guardian]] |access-date=7 November 2009 |location=London |archive-date=21 August 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180821191933/https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2002/mar/09/religion.schools1 |url-status=live }}</ref> His 1986 book, ''[[The Blind Watchmaker]]'', contains a sustained critique of the [[Teleological argument|argument from design]], an important creationist argument. In the book, Dawkins argues against the [[watchmaker analogy]] made famous by the eighteenth-century English [[theology|theologian]] [[William Paley]] via his book ''Natural Theology'', in which Paley argues that just as a watch is too complicated and too functional to have sprung into existence merely by accident, so too must all living things—with their far greater complexity—be purposefully designed. Dawkins shares the view generally held by scientists that natural selection is sufficient to explain the apparent functionality and non-random complexity of the biological world, and can be said to play the role of watchmaker in nature, albeit as an automatic, unguided by any designer, nonintelligent, ''blind'' watchmaker.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/WorldOfDawkins-archive/Dawkins/Work/Books/blind.shtml |title=Book: The Blind Watchmaker |access-date=28 February 2008 |last=Catalano |first=John |publisher=The University of Oxford |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080415140851/http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/WorldOfDawkins-archive/Dawkins/Work/Books/blind.shtml |date=1 August 1996 |archive-date=15 April 2008 |url-status=dead}}</ref> [[File:Dawkins aaconf.jpg|thumb|left|Wearing a [[scarlet 'A']] lapel pin, at the 34th annual conference of [[American Atheists]] (2008)]] In 1986, Dawkins and biologist [[John Maynard Smith]] participated in an [[Oxford Union]] debate against [[A. E. Wilder-Smith]] (a Young Earth creationist) and [[Edgar Andrews]] (president of the [[Biblical Creation Society]]).{{Ref label|b|b|none}} In general, however, Dawkins has followed the advice of his late colleague [[Stephen Jay Gould]] and refused to participate in formal debates with creationists because "what they seek is the oxygen of respectability", and doing so would "give them this oxygen by the mere act of ''engaging'' with them at all". He suggests that creationists "don't mind being beaten in an argument. What matters is that we give them recognition by bothering to argue with them in public."{{sfn|Dawkins|2003|p=218}} In a December 2004 interview with American journalist [[Bill Moyers]], Dawkins said that "among the things that science does know, evolution is about as certain as anything we know." When Moyers questioned him on the [[Evolution as theory and fact|use of the word ''theory'']], Dawkins stated that "evolution has been observed. It's just that it hasn't been observed while it's happening." He added that "it is rather like a detective coming on a murder after the scene... the detective hasn't actually seen the murder take place, of course. But what you do see is a massive clue... Huge quantities of circumstantial evidence. It might as well be spelled out in words of English."<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.pbs.org/now/transcript/transcript349_full.html#dawkins |title='Now' with Bill Moyers |access-date=29 January 2006 |last=Moyers |first=Bill |date=3 December 2004 |publisher=Public Broadcasting Service |archive-date=16 May 2006 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060516223956/http://www.pbs.org/now/transcript/transcript349_full.html#dawkins |url-status=live }}</ref> Dawkins has opposed the inclusion of [[intelligent design]] in science education, describing it as "not a scientific argument at all, but a religious one".<ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.theguardian.com/science/2005/sep/01/schools.research |title=One side can be wrong |access-date=21 December 2006 |date=1 September 2005 |author1=Dawkins, Richard |author2=Coyne, Jerry |name-list-style=amp |newspaper=The Guardian |location=London |archive-date=26 December 2013 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131226232200/http://www.theguardian.com/science/2005/sep/01/schools.research |url-status=live }}</ref> He has been referred to in the media as "Darwin's [[Rottweiler]]",<ref name="discover">{{cite web |url=http://discovermagazine.com/2005/sep/darwins-rottweiler |title=Darwin's Rottweiler |access-date=22 March 2008 |last=Hall |first=Stephen S. |date=9 August 2005 |work=[[Discover (magazine)|Discover]] magazine |archive-date=21 March 2008 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080321202431/http://discovermagazine.com/2005/sep/darwins-rottweiler/ |url-status=live }}</ref><ref name=mcgrath>{{cite book |last1=McGrath |first1=Alister |title=Dawkins' God: genes, memes, and the meaning of life |date=2007 |publisher=Blackwell |location=Malden, MA |isbn=978-1405125383 |page=i |edition=Reprinted |url=https://archive.org/details/dawkinsgodgenesm0000mcgr }}</ref> a reference to English biologist [[Thomas Henry Huxley|T. H. Huxley]], who was known as "Darwin's [[Bulldog]]" for his advocacy of [[Charles Darwin]]'s evolutionary ideas. He has been a strong critic of the British organisation [[Truth in Science]], which promotes the teaching of creationism in state schools, and whose work Dawkins has described as an "educational scandal". He plans to subsidise schools through the [[Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science]] with the delivery of books, DVDs, and pamphlets that counteract their work.<ref>{{cite news |url=http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/education/student/news/article641971.ece |title=Godless Dawkins challenges schools |access-date=3 April 2008 |date=19 November 2006 |last=Swinford |first=Steven |work=The Times |location=London |archive-date=5 August 2011 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110805101216/http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/education/student/news/article641971.ece |url-status=live }}</ref> === Political views === {{further|Political views of Richard Dawkins}} [[File:Ariane Sherine and Richard Dawkins at the Atheist Bus Campaign launch.jpg|thumb|upright=1.3|left|With [[Ariane Sherine]] at the [[Atheist Bus Campaign]] launch in London, January 2009]] Dawkins is an outspoken [[atheism|atheist]]<ref>{{cite book |last=Bass |first=Thomas A. |title=Reinventing the future: Conversations with the World's Leading Scientists |url=https://archive.org/details/reinventingfutur00bass |url-access=registration |year=1994 |publisher=Addison Wesley |isbn=978-0-201-62642-1 |page=[https://archive.org/details/reinventingfutur00bass/page/118 118] }} [https://books.google.com/books?id=yRZYc-LPz1oC&pg=PA118 Extract of page 118] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200523013314/https://books.google.com/books?id=yRZYc-LPz1oC&hl=en&pg=PA118 |date=23 May 2020 }}</ref> and a supporter of various atheist, secular,<ref>{{cite web |publisher=National Secular Society |url=http://www.secularism.org.uk/honoraryassociates.html |title=Our Honorary Associates |year=2005 |access-date=21 April 2007 |archive-date=9 July 2007 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070709124141/http://www.secularism.org.uk/honoraryassociates.html |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.secular.org/bios/Richard_Dawkins.html |title=Secular Coalition for America Advisory Board Biography |publisher=Secular.org |access-date=29 July 2010 |archive-date=31 March 2013 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130331152929/http://secular.org/bios/Richard_Dawkins.html |url-status=live }}</ref> and [[secular humanism|humanist organisations]],<ref>{{cite web |publisher=The Humanist Society of Scotland |url=http://www.humanism-scotland.org.uk/about-us/the-hss-today.html |title=The HSS Today |year=2007 |access-date=3 April 2008 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080418122008/http://www.humanism-scotland.org.uk/about-us/the-hss-today.html |archive-date=18 April 2008}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php/3258 |title=The International Academy Of Humanism – Humanist Laureates |access-date=7 April 2008 |publisher=[[Council for Secular Humanism]] |archive-date=30 March 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180330192331/https://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php/3258 |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.csicop.org/about/fellows.html |title=The Committee for Skeptical Inquiry – Fellows |access-date=7 April 2008 |publisher=[[The Committee for Skeptical Inquiry]] |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080615215501/http://www.csicop.org/about/fellows.html |archive-date=15 June 2008 |url-status=dead}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.americanhumanist.org/Who_We_Are/About_Humanism/Humanist_Manifesto_III/Notable_Signers |title=Humanism and Its Aspirations – Notable Signers |access-date=9 February 2010 |publisher=[[American Humanist Association]] |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100619130831/http://americanhumanist.org/Who_We_Are/About_Humanism/Humanist_Manifesto_III/Notable_Signers |archive-date=19 June 2010}}</ref> including [[Humanists UK]] and the [[Brights movement]].<ref name="militant">{{cite web |url=http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/en/richard_dawkins_on_militant_atheism.html |title=Richard Dawkins on militant atheism |date=February 2002 |access-date=14 December 2011 |publisher=TED Conferences, LLC |archive-date=11 December 2011 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20111211194007/http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/en/richard_dawkins_on_militant_atheism.html |url-status=live }}</ref> Dawkins suggests that atheists should be proud, not apologetic, stressing that atheism is evidence of a healthy, independent mind.{{sfn|Dawkins|2006|p=3}} He hopes that the more atheists identify themselves, the more the public will become aware of just how many people are nonbelievers, thereby reducing the negative opinion of atheism among the religious majority.<ref name="suntimes">{{cite news |last=Chittenden |first=Maurice |author2=Waite, Roger |url=http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/science/article3087486.ece |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080517000447/http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/science/article3087486.ece |url-status=dead |archive-date=17 May 2008 |title=Dawkins to preach atheism to US |access-date=1 April 2008 |date=23 December 2007 |work=The Sunday Times |location=London}}</ref> Inspired by the [[Gay Liberation|gay rights movement]], he endorsed the [[Out Campaign]] to encourage atheists worldwide to declare their stance publicly.<ref name="rd-out-annouce">{{cite web |url=http://richarddawkins.net/article,1471,The-Out-Campaign,Richard-Dawkins |title=The Out Campaign |access-date=1 April 2008 |date=30 July 2007 |first=Richard |last=Dawkins |publisher=Richard Dawkins Foundation |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080430213003/http://richarddawkins.net/article,1471,The-Out-Campaign,Richard-Dawkins |archive-date=30 April 2008 |url-status=dead}}</ref> He supported a UK atheist advertising initiative, the [[Atheist Bus Campaign]] in 2008 and 2009, which aimed to raise funds to place atheist advertisements on buses in the London area.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.humanism.org.uk/bus-campaign |title=The Bus Campaign |publisher=[[British Humanist Association]]|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120220154544/http://www.humanism.org.uk/bus-campaign|archive-date=20 February 2012|url-status=dead |access-date=19 January 2009}}</ref> [[File:Richard Dawkin Kepler Talk.jpg|thumb|upright|Speaking at [[Kepler's Books]], [[Menlo Park, California|Menlo Park]], [[California]], 29 October 2006]] Dawkins has expressed concern about the growth of the human population and about the matter of [[Human overpopulation|overpopulation]].<ref>{{cite web |title=BBC: The Selfish Green |url=http://richarddawkins.net/article,829,The-Selfish-Green,Jonathan-Dimbleby-David-Attenborough-Richard-Dawkins-Jane-Goodall-Richard-Leakey |publisher=Richard Dawkins Foundation |date=2 April 2007 |access-date=22 April 2008 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080501094048/http://richarddawkins.net/article,829,The-Selfish-Green,Jonathan-Dimbleby-David-Attenborough-Richard-Dawkins-Jane-Goodall-Richard-Leakey |archive-date=1 May 2008 |url-status=dead}} For video in one segment, see {{YouTube | g5WUIDzxUeo }}</ref> In ''The Selfish Gene'', he briefly mentions population growth, giving the example of [[Latin America]], whose population, at the time the book was written, was doubling every 40 years. He is critical of [[Roman Catholic Church|Roman Catholic]] attitudes to [[family planning]] and [[population control]], stating that leaders who forbid [[birth control|contraception]] and "express a preference for 'natural' methods of population limitation" will get just such a method in the form of [[starvation]].{{sfn|Dawkins|1989|p=213}} As a supporter of the [[Great Ape Project]]—a movement to extend certain moral and legal [[rights]] to all [[Hominidae|great apes]]—Dawkins contributed the article 'Gaps in the Mind' to the ''Great Ape Project'' book edited by [[Paola Cavalieri]] and [[Peter Singer]]. In this essay, he criticises contemporary society's moral attitudes as being based on a "discontinuous, [[speciesism|speciesist]] imperative".<ref>{{cite book | editor-first1= Paola | editor-last1= Cavalieri | editor-first2= Peter | editor-last2= Singer |title=The Great Ape Project |year=1993 |publisher=Fourth Estate |location=United Kingdom |isbn=978-0-312-11818-1 |url=https://archive.org/details/greatapeprojecte00cava}}</ref> Dawkins also regularly comments in newspapers and [[blog]]s on contemporary political questions and is a frequent contributor to the online science and culture digest ''[[3 Quarks Daily]]''.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.3quarksdaily.com/3quarksdaily/2010/06/the-winners-of-the-3-quarks-daily-2010-prize-in-science.html |title=3 Quarks Daily 2010 Prize in Science: Richard Dawkins has picked the three winners |date=1 June 2010 |access-date=20 January 2016 |archive-date=28 January 2016 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160128072740/http://www.3quarksdaily.com/3quarksdaily/2010/06/the-winners-of-the-3-quarks-daily-2010-prize-in-science.html |url-status=live }}</ref> His opinions include opposition to the [[2003 invasion of Iraq]],<ref>{{cite news |first=Richard |last=Dawkins |title=Bin Laden's victory |url=https://www.theguardian.com/world/2003/mar/22/iraq.usa |newspaper=The Guardian |location=London |date=22 March 2003 |access-date=15 March 2008 |archive-date=5 May 2019 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190505210246/https://www.theguardian.com/world/2003/mar/22/iraq.usa |url-status=live |ref=none}}</ref> the [[Trident nuclear programme|British nuclear deterrent]], the actions of then-US President [[George W. Bush]],<ref>{{cite news |first=Richard |last=Dawkins |title=While we have your attention, Mr President... |url=https://www.theguardian.com/world/2003/nov/18/usa.politics1 |work=The Guardian |location=London |date=18 November 2003 |access-date=16 March 2008 |archive-date=2 August 2017 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170802213236/https://www.theguardian.com/world/2003/nov/18/usa.politics1 |url-status=live |ref=none}}</ref> and the ethics of [[designer babies]].<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.heraldscotland.com/from-the-afterword-1.836155 |title=From the Afterword |first=Richard |last=Dawkins |work=Herald Scotland |date=19 November 2006 |access-date=9 June 2014 |archive-date=10 May 2014 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140510235345/http://www.heraldscotland.com/from-the-afterword-1.836155 |url-status=live |ref=none}}</ref> Several such articles were included in ''[[A Devil's Chaplain]]'', an anthology of writings about science, religion, and politics. He is also a supporter of [[Republic (political organisation)|Republic]]'s campaign to replace the [[British monarchy]] with a type of democratic [[Republicanism in the United Kingdom|republic]].<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.republic.org.uk/Who%20we%20are/Our%20Supporters%20Include/index.php |title=Our supporters |publisher=Republic |date=24 April 2010 |access-date=29 April 2010 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120326212133/http://www.republic.org.uk/Who%20we%20are/Our%20Supporters%20Include/index.php |archive-date=26 March 2012 |url-status=dead}}</ref> Dawkins has described himself as a [[Labour Party (UK)|Labour]] voter in the 1970s{{sfn|Dawkins|1989|loc=Endnotes. Chapter 1. Why are people?}} and voter for the [[Liberal Democrats (UK)|Liberal Democrats]] since the party's creation. In 2009, he spoke at the party's conference in opposition to blasphemy laws, alternative medicine, and faith schools. In the [[2010 United Kingdom general election|UK general election of 2010]], Dawkins officially endorsed the Liberal Democrats, in support of their campaign for electoral reform and for their "refusal to pander to 'faith{{' "}}.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://libdems.org.uk/latest_news_detail.aspx |title=Show your support – vote for the Liberal Democrats on May 6th |date=3 May 2010 |publisher=Libdems.org.uk |access-date=29 July 2010 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100414004332/http://www.libdems.org.uk/latest_news_detail.aspx |archive-date=14 April 2010}}</ref> In the run up to the [[2017 United Kingdom general election|2017 general election]], Dawkins once again endorsed the Liberal Democrats and urged voters to join the party. [[File:Richard Dawkins on free speech and Islam(ism).webm|thumb|Dawkins discusses free speech and Islam(ism) at the 2017 Conference on Free Expression and Conscience.]] In April 2021, Dawkins said on Twitter that "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." After receiving criticism for this tweet, Dawkins responded by saying that "I do not intend to disparage trans people. I see that my academic "Discuss" question has been misconstrued as such and I deplore this. It was also not my intent to ally in any way with Republican bigots in US now exploiting this issue."<ref name="Flood-2021" /> The [[American Humanist Association]] retracted Dawkins' 1996 Humanist of the Year Award in response to these comments.<ref>{{Cite web |date=19 April 2021 |title=American Humanist Association Board Statement Withdrawing Honor from Richard Dawkins |url=https://americanhumanist.org/news/american-humanist-association-board-statement-withdrawing-honor-from-richard-dawkins/ |access-date=14 March 2023 |website=American Humanist Association |language=en-US}}</ref> [[Robby Soave]] of [[Reason (magazine)|''Reason'' magazine]] criticized the retraction, saying that "The drive to punish dissenters from various orthodoxies is itself illiberal."<ref>{{Cite web |last=Soave |first=Robby |date=26 April 2021 |title=By Canceling Richard Dawkins, the American Humanist Association Has Betrayed Its Values |url=https://reason.com/2021/04/26/by-canceling-richard-dawkins-the-american-humanist-association-has-betrayed-its-values/ |access-date=11 August 2023 |website=[[Reason (magazine)|Reason]] |language=en-US}}</ref> Dawkins has voiced his support for the [[Campaign for the Establishment of a United Nations Parliamentary Assembly]], an organisation that campaigns for democratic reform in the United Nations, and the creation of a more accountable international political system.<ref>{{Cite news |url=http://en.unpacampaign.org/supporters/overview/page/2/?mapcountry=allpro&mapgroup=pro |title=Overview |work=Campaign for a UN Parliamentary Assembly |access-date=9 October 2017 |language=en-US |archive-date=8 August 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180808234235/https://en.unpacampaign.org/supporters/overview/page/2/?mapcountry=allpro&mapgroup=pro |url-status=live }}</ref> Dawkins identifies as a feminist.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://twitter.com/richarddawkins/status/280427716010983424 |title=Richard Dawkins |date=16 December 2012 |access-date=3 May 2015 |website=Twitter |last=Dawkins |first=Richard |archive-date=4 September 2015 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150904014126/https://twitter.com/richarddawkins/status/280427716010983424 |url-status=live }}</ref> He has said that feminism is "enormously important".<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.salon.com/2014/12/08/richard_dawkins_is_there_a_mens_rights_movement/ |title=Richard Dawkins: "Is There a Men's Rights Movement?" |work=[[Salon (website)|Salon]] |last=Kutner |first=Jenny |date=8 December 2014 |access-date=1 February 2015 |archive-date=17 February 2015 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150217192227/http://www.salon.com/2014/12/08/richard_dawkins_is_there_a_mens_rights_movement/ |url-status=live }}</ref> Dawkins has been accused by writers such as [[Amanda Marcotte]], Caitlin Dickson, and Adam Lee of [[misogyny]], criticizing those who speak about sexual harassment and abuse while ignoring sexism within the [[New Atheism#Criticisms|New Atheist movement]].<ref>{{cite web | url=https://www.salon.com/2014/10/03/new_atheisms_troubling_misogyny_the_pompous_sexism_of_richard_dawkins_and_sam_harris_partner/ | title=Atheism's shocking woman problem: What's behind the misogyny of Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris? | date=3 October 2014 }}</ref><ref>{{cite news | url=https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/18/richard-dawkins-sexist-atheists-bad-name | title=Richard Dawkins has lost it: Ignorant sexism gives atheists a bad name | newspaper=The Guardian | date=18 September 2014 | last1=Lee | first1=Adam }}</ref><ref>{{cite web | url=https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/07/richard-dawkins-draws-feminist-wrath-over-sexual-harassment-comments/352530/ | title=Richard Dawkins Gets into a Comments War with Feminists | website=[[The Atlantic]] | date=6 July 2011 }}</ref> === Views on postmodernism === {{See also|Social construction of gender}} In 1998, in a book review published in ''[[Nature (journal)|Nature]]'', Dawkins expressed his appreciation for two books connected with the [[Sokal affair]]: ''[[Higher Superstition: The Academic Left and Its Quarrels with Science]]'' by [[Paul R. Gross]] and [[Norman Levitt]] and ''[[Fashionable Nonsense|Intellectual Impostures]]'' by [[Alan Sokal]] and [[Jean Bricmont]]. These books critiqued [[postmodernism]] in U.S. universities.<ref name="postmodernism">{{cite journal|last=Dawkins|first=Richard|date=9 July 1998|title=Postmodernism Disrobed|journal=[[Nature (journal)|Nature]]|volume=394|issue=6689|pages=141–143|bibcode=1998Natur.394..141D|doi=10.1038/28089|s2cid=40887987|doi-access=free}} For article with math symbols see [http://www.physics.nyu.edu/sokal/dawkins.html this link] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160417132936/http://physics.nyu.edu/sokal/dawkins.html |date=17 April 2016 }}.</ref> Echoing many other critics, Dawkins describes postmodernism as using [[obscurantism|obscurantist]] language to hide its lack of meaningful content.<ref name="postmodernism" /> In 2024, Dawkins co-authored an op-ed in ''[[The Boston Globe]]'' with mathematician Sokal criticizing the use of the terminology "sex assigned at birth" instead of "sex" by the [[American Medical Association]], the [[American Psychological Association]], the [[American Academy of Pediatrics]], and the [[Centers for Disease Control and Prevention]]. Dawkins and Sokal describe sex as an "objective biological reality" that "is determined at conception and is then ''observed'' at birth," rather than assigned by a medical professional.<ref>{{cite news |last1=Sokal |first1=Alan |last2=Dawkins |first2=Richard |date=April 8, 2024 |title=Sex and gender: The medical establishment's reluctance to speak honestly about biological reality |url=https://www.bostonglobe.com/2024/04/08/opinion/sex-gender-medical-terms/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240408223633/https://www.bostonglobe.com/2024/04/08/opinion/sex-gender-medical-terms/ |archive-date=April 8, 2024 |access-date=April 8, 2024 |work=[[The Boston Globe]]}}</ref> === Other fields === [[File:Jayce Lewis & Prof Richard Dawkins 2018.jpg|thumb|Musician [[Jayce Lewis]] at Dawkins' home in 2018 while working on ''Million'' (Part 2)]] In his role as professor for public understanding of science, Dawkins has been a critic of [[pseudoscience]] and [[alternative medicine]]. His 1998 book ''[[Unweaving the Rainbow]]'' considers [[John Keats]]'s accusation that by explaining the [[rainbow]], [[Isaac Newton]] diminished its beauty; Dawkins argues for the opposite conclusion. He suggests that deep space, the billions of years of life's evolution, and the microscopic workings of biology and heredity contain more beauty and wonder than do "[[myth]]s" and "[[pseudoscience]]".<ref>{{cite book |last=Dawkins |first=Richard |title=Unweaving The Rainbow |year=1998 |publisher=Penguin |location=United Kingdom |isbn=978-0-618-05673-6 |pages=4–7}}</ref> For [[John Diamond (journalist)|John Diamond]]'s posthumously published ''Snake Oil'', a book devoted to debunking [[alternative medicine]], Dawkins wrote a foreword in which he asserts that alternative medicine is harmful, if only because it distracts patients from more successful conventional treatments and gives people false hopes.<ref>{{cite book |last=Diamond |first=John |title=Snake Oil and Other Preoccupations |year=2001 |publisher=Vintage |location=United Kingdom |isbn=978-0-09-942833-6 |url-access=registration |url=https://archive.org/details/snakeoilotherpre0000diam }}</ref> Dawkins states that "There is no alternative medicine. There is only medicine that works and medicine that doesn't work."{{sfn|Dawkins|2003|p=58}} In his 2007 Channel 4 TV film ''The Enemies of Reason'', Dawkins concluded that Britain is gripped by "an epidemic of superstitious thinking".<ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1559468/New-age-therapies-cause-retreat-from-reason.html |title=New age therapies cause 'retreat from reason' |date=5 August 2007 |first=David |last=Harrison |work=The Telegraph |location=London |access-date=25 March 2016 |archive-date=21 August 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180821160511/https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1559468/New-age-therapies-cause-retreat-from-reason.html |url-status=live }}</ref> Continuing a long-standing partnership with [[Channel 4]], Dawkins participated in a five-part television series, ''[[Genius of Britain]]'', along with fellow scientists [[Stephen Hawking]], [[James Dyson]], [[Paul Nurse]], and [[Jim Al-Khalili]]. The series was first broadcast in June 2010, and focuses on major, British, scientific achievements throughout history.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.broadcastnow.co.uk/news/2009/01/dawkins_to_front_c4_science_series.html |title=C4 lines up Genius science series |date=27 January 2009 |first=Robin |last=Parker |access-date=31 January 2009 |work=[[Broadcast (magazine)|Broadcast]]}} {{Subscription required}}</ref> In 2014, he joined the global awareness movement [[Asteroid Day]] as a "100x Signatory".<ref name="Telegrapharticle">{{cite news |url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/11272393/Asteroids-could-wipe-out-humanity-warn-Richard-Dawkins-and-Brian-Cox.html |title=Asteroids could wipe out humanity, warn Richard Dawkins and Brian Cox |newspaper=The Telegraph |first=Sarah |last=Knapton |date=4 December 2014 |access-date=4 December 2014 |archive-date=22 February 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200222205213/https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/11272393/Asteroids-could-wipe-out-humanity-warn-Richard-Dawkins-and-Brian-Cox.html |url-status=live }}</ref> Summary: Please note that all contributions to Christianpedia may be edited, altered, or removed by other contributors. If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly, then do not submit it here. You are also promising us that you wrote this yourself, or copied it from a public domain or similar free resource (see Christianpedia:Copyrights for details). Do not submit copyrighted work without permission! Cancel Editing help (opens in new window) Discuss this page