Personal Development for Smart People Forums - View Single Post - Richard Dawkins: Anti-spiritual or Anti-superstitious?

dor · 01-25-2007, 12:42 AM

I think he is anti religious to the point of irrationality.
Certainly one's values color one's views of the world...but its been clearly demonstrated his ideology over-rides reality. Anyone who would label the indo-pakisthan wars are religiously based and claiming they would vanish if there was no religioun is clearly not operating in reality. I won't go into the complexities of it here - but as a short cut...its as foolish as saying that british colonization of india were 'christian-hindu' wars and if both sides had no religion there would be no problem.

Many scientists have complained that he brings nothing but anomosity to the table. I agree.

Others have complained that evolution is the hammer which every scientific problem is a nail - he is an evolutionary fundementalist:

Dawkins's version of evolution also attracts critics, for it is dazzlingly digital. It features "robots" and "vehicles" and DNA, not flesh and fur; some evolutionary biologists regard him as a kind of reductionist fanatic -- an "ultra-Darwinist" who overplays the smooth mathematical progress of natural selection and its relevance to an animal's every characteristic, every nook and cranny.,
RICHARD DAWKINS'S EVOLUTION

I think he has gone 'over the top' as you say and resorted to cheap "Cops" style confrontations.

01-25-2007, 12:42 AM	#3 (permalink)
dor Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 587	I think he is anti religious to the point of irrationality. Certainly one's values color one's views of the world...but its been clearly demonstrated his ideology over-rides reality. Anyone who would label the indo-pakisthan wars are religiously based and claiming they would vanish if there was no religioun is clearly not operating in reality. I won't go into the complexities of it here - but as a short cut...its as foolish as saying that british colonization of india were 'christian-hindu' wars and if both sides had no religion there would be no problem. Many scientists have complained that he brings nothing but anomosity to the table. I agree. Others have complained that evolution is the hammer which every scientific problem is a nail - he is an evolutionary fundementalist: Dawkins's version of evolution also attracts critics, for it is dazzlingly digital. It features "robots" and "vehicles" and DNA, not flesh and fur; some evolutionary biologists regard him as a kind of reductionist fanatic -- an "ultra-Darwinist" who overplays the smooth mathematical progress of natural selection and its relevance to an animal's every characteristic, every nook and cranny., RICHARD DAWKINS'S EVOLUTION I think he has gone 'over the top' as you say and resorted to cheap "Cops" style confrontations.