Content deleted Content added
Undid revision 959304079 by Permareperwiki1664 (talk) see WP:CRITICISM; the reason the fork articles exist is to allow people to work out their feelings without cluttering the bio | Until we can clear up on talk page about controversy and comments on rape, I have still included the criticism section | ||
Line 127: 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 |accessdate=15 January 2007 |date=27 November 2006 |newspaper=The Guardian |location=London}}</ref><ref name="bright">{{cite news |url=http://books.guardian.co.uk/review/story/0,12084,981412,00.html |title=The future looks bright |accessdate=13 March 2008 |last=Dawkins |first=Richard |date=21 June 2003 |newspaper=The Guardian |location=London}}</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 |accessdate=20 September 2011}}</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 |accessdate=29 July 2010 |location=London}}</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 |accessdate=29 July 2010 |location=London |first=Richard |last=Garner}}</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" /> ==== Criticism of creationism ==== Line 160 ⟶ 157: Dawkins identifies as a feminist.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://twitter.com/richarddawkins/status/280427716010983424 |title=Richard Dawkins |date=16 December 2012 |accessdate=3 May 2015 |website=Twitter |last=Dawkins |first=Richard}}</ref> Dawkins has said that feminism is "enormously important" and "a political movement that deserves to be supported".<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 |accessdate=1 February 2015}}</ref> == Criticism == While is contribution to Science and rationalism cannot be doubted, Dawkins has attracted much criticism from fellow academics and philosophers. === Criticism by scientists === A study of British Scientists by [[Rice University]] brought about heavy criticism of Dawkins. In an in-depth study of 137 British scientists 48 referenced Dawkins despite no questions being asked about him, 80% said they thought that Dawkins misrepresents science and scientists in his books and public speeches. Another common criticism was that Dawkins was too strong in his criticism of religion, one non religious biology professor described him as a “fundamental atheist' another said he was on a "crusade". However it should be noted 20% did mention him with positive views, owing to him challenging creationists and those who adhere to intelligent design. Paul Fidalgo, of the [[Center for Inquiry|centre for inquiry]], also challenged the saying that Dawkins has inspired millions and due to the size pool of the study this was understandable. <ref>{{Cite web|title=British scientists really, really dislike Richard Dawkins, new study discover|url=http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/richard-dawkins-atheism-criticism-atheist-study-rice-university-science-scientists-a7389396.html|date=2016-10-31|website=The Independent|language=en|access-date=2020-05-27}}</ref> In 2014 biologist and Harvard University professor, E.O Wilson, criticised Dawkins on [[Newsnight]] calling him a Journalist and not a scientist.<ref>{{Cite web|title=|url=https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/why-richard-dawkins-is-no-scientist-the-survival-of-the-least-selfish-and-what-ants-can-tell-us-9849956.html|last=|first=|date=|website=www.google.com|url-status=live|archive-url=|archive-date=|access-date=2020-05-28}}</ref>His comments are below: <blockquote>“There is no dispute between me and Richard Dawkins and there never has been, because he’s a journalist, and journalists are people that report what the scientists have found and the arguments I’ve had have actually been with scientists doing research,” </blockquote>He also went on to answer questions about his opinions on Dawkins' book the selfish gene, stating: <blockquote>“I have abandoned it and I think most serious scientists working on it have abandoned it. Some defenders may be out there, but they have been relatively or almost totally silenced since our major paper came out.”</blockquote>The paper he referred to was a 2010 study published in [[Nature (journal)|Nature]] entitled [https://www.nature.com/articles/nature09205 The evolution of eusociality]. Dawkins attributed Wilson's comments to a disagreement over [[kin selection]], later tweeting “I greatly admire EO Wilson & his huge contributions to entomology, ecology, biogeography, conservation, etc. He’s just wrong on kin selection.” He later elaborated referencing a critical [[Prospect (magazine)|Prospect Magazine]] review of Wilson’s book [[The Social Conquest of Earth]]. <ref>{{Cite news|last=Johnston|first=Chris|date=2014-11-07|title=Biological warfare flares up again between EO Wilson and Richard Dawkins|language=en-GB|work=The Guardian|url=https://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/nov/07/richard-dawkins-labelled-journalist-by-eo-wilson|access-date=2020-05-27|issn=0261-3077}}</ref> [[Nobel Prize in Physics|Nobel Prize]]-winning [[theoretical physicist]] [[Peter Higgs]] and [[Astrophysicists|astrophysicist]] [[Martin Rees]] has equated Dawkins with the religious fundamentalists he criticises saying he has adopted "[[fundamentalist]]" view of non-atheists. Other scientists have accused him of promoting [[Scientism]], such as [[Francis Collins|Dr Francis Collins]] the head of the [[National Institutes of Health|National Institute of Health]]<ref>{{Cite web|title=New Templeton Prize winner criticises the 'scientism' of Dawkins|url=https://catholicherald.co.uk/new-templeton-prize-winner-criticises-dawkins-scientism/|last=Reporter|first=Staff|date=2020-05-21|website=Catholic Herald|language=en-GB|access-date=2020-05-27}}</ref> === Criticism by theologians and philosophers === Atheist philosophers such as [[Massimo Pigliucci]], [[Michael Ruse]] and [[John Gray (philosopher)|John Gray]] have criticised Dawkins. Their comments are below. Ruse has that Dawkins would fail introductory courses on the study of philosophy or religion. He has also said that Dawkins and New Atheism does science a "grave disservice" and does a "disservice to scholarship" at more general level. Ruse then stated that The God Delusion made him 'ashamed to be an atheist'.<ref>{{Cite book|last=Doherty|first=Tim|title=The Routledge Handbook of Contemporary Philosophy of Religion|publisher=Routledge|year=2009|isbn=9781844658312|location=New York|pages=52–53}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|title=Ruse on belief net|url=http://www.beliefnet.com/columnists/scienceandthesacred/2009/08/why-i-think-the-new-atheists-are-a-bloody-disaster.html|last=|first=|date=|website=|url-status=live|archive-url=|archive-date=|access-date=}}</ref> Pigliucci has accused Dawkins and the leaders of the new atheism movement as adhering to scientism also saying, "I would actually go so far as to charge many of the leaders of the New Atheism movement (and, by implication, a good number of their followers) with anti-intellectualism, one mark of which is a lack of respect for the proper significance, value, and methods of another field of intellectual endeavor."<ref>{{Cite book|last=Pigliucci|first=Massimo|title=New Atheism and the Scientistic Turn in the Atheism Movement|publisher=|year=|isbn=|location=|pages=151–152}}</ref> 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." The Conservative philosopher Rodger Scruton accused Dawkins of 'recycling' evolution as a theory for everything such as "what the human being is, what human communities are, what our problems are and then how they’re not really our problems, but the problems of our genes".<ref>{{Cite web|title=Scruton|url=https://www.theguardian.com/books/2014/aug/15/roger-scruton-notes-on-nonsense-richard-dawkins-original-sin-islamism-and-more|last=|first=|date=|website=|url-status=live|archive-url=|archive-date=|access-date=}}</ref> Scruton has also that Dawkins [[cherry picking|cherry-picks]] his data, and ignores the benefits of religion.<ref name="spectator.co.uk" /> [[Alister McGrath]], the Anglican Priest and Theologian called him "embarrassingly ignorant of Christian theology". His book, ''[[The Dawkins Delusion?]]'' – a response to Dawkins's The God Delusion – was published by [[SPCK]] in February 2007. The author and writer Rupert Short blames Dawkins and New atheists for promoting ignorance, stating that they have peddled an idea that all people of faith share a Creationist view of the world. Writing in the Spectator he states:<blockquote>Call out superstition by all means. But don’t display culpable ignorance by likening all manifestations of faith across the world to belief in the tooth fairy. Dawkins’s new book Outgrowing God is no less crude than his earlier diatribe The God Delusion. Once more, he’s lobbed a stone in a vain bid to hit the clouds.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/richard-dawkins-and-the-ignorance-of-new-atheism-|website=www.spectator.co.uk|access-date=2020-05-28}}</ref></blockquote>In response to some of 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|title=When Religion Steps on Science's Turf|url=http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/dawkins_18_2.html|last=Dawkins|first=Richard|year=2006|work=Free Inquiry|url-status=dead|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20080419125549/http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/dawkins_18_2.html|archivedate=19 April 2008|accessdate=3 April 2008}}</ref><ref name="rdf-fundamentalist">{{cite web|title=How dare you call me a fundamentalist|url=http://old.richarddawkins.net/articles/1071-how-dare-you-call-me-a-fundamentalist|last=Dawkins|first=Richard|publisher=Richard Dawkins Foundation|url-status=dead|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20121231022508/http://old.richarddawkins.net/articles/1071-how-dare-you-call-me-a-fundamentalist|archivedate=31 December 2012|accessdate=28 December 2012}}</ref> === Other fields === | |||
🔥 Top keywords: Main PageSpecial:SearchWikipedia:Featured picturesYasukeHarrison ButkerRobert FicoBridgertonCleopatraDeaths in 2024Joyce VincentXXXTentacionHank AdamsIt Ends with UsYouTubeNew Caledonia2024 Indian general electionHeeramandiDarren DutchyshenSlovakiaKingdom of the Planet of the ApesAttempted assassination of Robert FicoLawrence WongBaby ReindeerXXX: Return of Xander CageThelma HoustonFuriosa: A Mad Max SagaMegalopolis (film)Richard GaddKepler's SupernovaWicked (musical)Sunil ChhetriXXX (2002 film)Ashley MadisonAnya Taylor-JoyPlanet of the ApesNava MauYoung SheldonPortal:Current eventsX-Men '97