Richard Dawkins

Richard Dawkins' Opinions

Evolution Did complex life evolve through the process of natural selection? Agree The Darwinian world-view [...] is the only known theory that could, in principle, solve the mystery of our existence. This makes it a doubly satisfying theory. A good case can be made that Darwinism is true, not just on this planet but all over the universe, wherever life may be found. Edit Pitches 01 Jan 1986    Source Is the theory of evolution falsified by fossil evidence? Disagree The distribution of fossils in space and in time are exactly what you would expect if evolution were a fact. There are millions of facts all pointing in the same direction and no facts pointing in the wrong direction. British scientist J.B.S. Haldane, when asked what would constitute evidence against evolution, famously said, "Fossil rabbits in the Precambrian." They've never been found. Nothing like that has ever been found. Evolution could be disproved by such facts. The Overwhelming Evidence Pitch   Edit Pitches 30 Apr 2005    Source God Is God just? Disagree The total amount of suffering per year in the natural world is beyond all decent contemplation. ... In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, [others] are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference. The Nature is Nasty Pitch   Edit Pitches 01 Nov 1995    Source Science Does astrology work (is personality correlated with the positions of celestial bodies at birth)? Disagree If the methods of Astrologers were really shown to be valid it would be a fact of signal importance for science. Under such circumstances astrology should be taken seriously indeed. But if - as all indications agree - there is not a smidgen of validity in any of the things that astrologers so profitably do, this, too, should be taken seriously and not indulgently trivialised. We should learn to see the debauching of science for profit as a crime. Edit Pitches 01 Dec 1995    Source Philosophy Are the core truths of science and religion complementary? Disagree There is something dishonestly self-serving in the tactic of claiming that all religious beliefs are outside the domain of science. On the one hand, miracle stories and the promise of life after death are used to impress simple people, win converts, and swell congregations. It is precisely their scientific power that gives these stories their popular appeal. But at the same time it is considered below the belt to subject the same stories to the ordinary rigors of scientific criticism... Edit Pitches 01 Mar 1998    Source Do we have an immaterial soul? Disagree ...The theory that there is something non-material about life, some non-physical vital principle [...] according to which a body has to be animated by some anima [or] vitalized by a vital force. Energized by some mysterious energy. Spiritualized by some mysterious spirit. Made conscious by some mysterious thing or substance called consciousness. In [this] sense of [a soul] science has either killed the soul or is in the process of doing so [but] science [is absolutely not] killing soulfulness... Edit Pitches 10 Feb 1999    Source Is the world explainable without God? Agree The whole scientific enterprise is aimed at explaining the world in terms of simple principles. We live in a world which is breathtakingly complicated, and we have a scientific theory - we have several - which enables us to see how that world could have come into being from very simple beginnings. That's what I call understanding. ... Reductionist explanations are true explanations. ... I don't think God is an explanation at all. Edit Pitches 09 Jan 2006    Source Is truth relative? Disagree You mean true for you is different from true for anybody else? Something either has to be true or not. Edit Pitches 23 Apr 2007    Source

Genetics Is genetically modified food safe to eat? Mostly Agree When one uses rhetoric like 'Frankenstein's plants', you could call a maize cob a Frankenstein plant, but every one is quite happy to eat maize cobs. ... The reaction has been as if people believe genetically modified plants are poisonous... Well anything can [be]. Genetic engineering can introduce genes from one species of plant or animal into the genetic make-up of another species of crop plant, but [this fact] does not inherently make it bad or good. Edit Pitches 14 Aug 1998    Source Does belief in God have a significant genetic component? Neutral ...it's not necessary to assume religion aids human survival, though it might. ...do religious people survive better than non-religious people because they are freed up from stress, and so they don't get stress-related diseases and that kind of thing? I find that less interesting and less persuasive than the idea that religious ideas are just simply good [i.e. successfully replicating memes] for the religious ideas themselves. Edit Pitches 18 Oct 2004    Source Psychology Is self-deception a fault? Agree Many of us saw religion as harmless nonsense. Beliefs might lack all supporting evidence but, we thought, if people needed a crutch for consolation, where's the harm? September 11th changed all that. Revealed faith is not harmless nonsense, it can be lethally dangerous nonsense. Dangerous because it gives people unshakeable confidence in their own righteousness. Dangerous because it gives them false courage to kill themselves, which automatically removes normal barriers to killing others. Edit Pitches 11 Oct 2001    Source Ethics Are our enemies innately evil? Neutral I mistrust the uses of words like 'evil' which suggest a kind of personification of them. I'm happy to use a word like 'evil' of a particular individual. I'm happy to say that Adolf Hitler was evil, Adolf Hitler did evil things, but too many people once again, leap to the conclusion 'Oh there must be some kind of spirit of evil which entered into Hitler,' or 'There's a spirit of evil abroad'. That I think is unhelpful, putting it mildly. Edit Pitches 01 Apr 2004    Source Is morality objective? Agree I was one of those who had unthinkingly bought into the hectoring myth that science can say nothing about morals. To my surprise, The Moral Landscape has changed all that for me. It should change it for philosophers too. Philosophers of mind have already discovered that they can’t duck the study of neuroscience, and the best of them have raised their game as a result. Sam Harris shows that the same should be true of moral philosophers, and it will turn their world exhilaratingly upside down. The Convert Pitch   Edit Pitches 26 Apr 2010    Source Christianity Should the Bible be interpreted literally? Disagree ...no serious theologian takes the Old Testament literally anymore... We choose the good verses in the Bible and we reject the bad. Whatever criterion we use to choose the good verses and throw out the bad, that criterion is available to us anyway whether we are religious or not. Why bother to pick verses? Why not just go straight for the morality? The Incoherent Pitch   Edit Pitches 09 Oct 2006    Source Does God exist? Disagree God is a delusion. ... Human thoughts and emotions emerge from exceedingly complex interconnections of physical entities within the brain. An atheist in this sense of philosophical naturalist is somebody who believes there is nothing beyond the natural, physical world, no supernatural creative intelligence lurking behind the observable universe, no soul that outlasts the body and no miracles - except in the sense of natural phenomena that we don't yet understand. Edit Pitches 18 Oct 2006    Source Religion Do miracles happen? Disagree Any belief in miracles is flat contradictory not just to the facts of science but to the spirit of science. Edit Pitches 05 Nov 2006    Source Atheism Should atheists directly challenge religious beliefs? Agree "What are you going to put in its place? How are you going to fill the need, or comfort the bereaved?" What patronising condescension! "You and I are too intelligent and well educated to need religion. But ordinary people, hoi polloi, Orwellian proles, Huxleian Deltas and Epsilons need religion." In any case, the universe doesn't owe us comfort, and the fact that a belief is comforting doesn't make it true. Edit Pitches 12 May 2007    Source

Comparisons with Other Experts and Influencers

The similarity between Richard Dawkins and each expert and influencer is calculated by looking at how the same questions were answered. These figures are used to calculate conforming, nonconforming, and projected opinions. The accuracy of the analysis depends on Richard Dawkins' coverage, which grows with the number of their opinions entered into TakeOnIt.

Conforming Opinions

Richard Dawkins' conforming opinions are opinions that align with the group of experts and influencers Richard Dawkins typically agrees with.

Nonconforming Opinions

Richard Dawkins' nonconforming opinions are opinions that contradict the group of experts and influencers Richard Dawkins typically agrees with.

Projected Opinions

Richard Dawkins' projected opinions are opinions Richard Dawkins is expected to have if their opinions align with the experts and influencers that they typically agree with.