Is Richard Dawkins a scientist?

I consider calling that militant or strident to be hilariously idiotic.

A friend urged me to watch a video of Dawkins, the only long statement by him i've ever seen.

I would not describe Dawkins as religious about atheism, either. From his public statements, he might be what is called an implicit atheist, or a "weak" atheist. Sadly, far too many people do make a religion of what they allege is atheism, and they often worship science. I'm sure they are delighted to think that a well-known scientist is one of them (so to speak). A friend urged me to watch a video of Dawkins, the only long statement by him i've ever seen. He was very parochial, objecting to England's religious establishment, rather than making an assault on theism in general. No Sam Harris, he.

I would urge you to be wary of "facts," too. Often, what is presented as fact needs to be vetted, just as do the publications of scientists.

Thats why hes a cartoon .

When it comes to atheism, he is as militant, strident, and dogmatic as they come.

I would not describe Dawkins as religious about atheism, either.

Why Richard Dawkins' humanists remind me of a religion

Humanism in its most virulent form tries to make science into a religion. It is awash with the intolerance of enthusiasm. For a start, there is the near-hysterical repudiation of religion


There are other aspects of the new atheist movement that remind me of religion. One is the adulation by supporters and enthusiasts for the leaders of the movement: it is not just a matter of agreement or respect but also of a kind of worship. This certainly surrounds Dawkins, who is admittedly charismatic.

Dawkins et al bring us into disrepute

a rather loud group of my fellow atheists, generally today known as the "new atheists", loathe and detest my thinking. Richard Dawkins has likened me to the pusillanimous appeaser at Munich, Neville Chamberlain.


Dawkins has said that on a scale from zero to seven, from belief to non-belief, he scores about 6.9. I am even a tad higher than that. I am a true non-believer. I am also a fanatical Darwinian – more so even than Dawkins...

I have written that [Dawkins' book] "The God Delusion" made me ashamed to be an atheist and I meant it.

On closer inspection, his language is tempered. He's avoiding positive atheism

He's avoiding positive atheism.

Richard Dawkins has lost: meet the new new atheists
Secular humanism is recovering from its Dawkinsite phase – and beginning a more interesting conversation

The atheist spring that began just over a decade ago is over, thank God. Richard Dawkins is now seen by many, even many non-believers, as a joke figure, shaking his fist at sky fairies. He’s the Mary Whitehouse of our day...

The success of five or six atheist authors, on both sides of the Atlantic, seemed to herald a strong new movement. It seemed that non-believers were tired of all the nuance surrounding religion, hungry for a tidy narrative that put them neatly in the right.

Atheism is still with us. But the movement that threatened to form has petered out. Crucially, atheism’s younger advocates are reluctant to compete for the role of Dawkins’s disciple. They are more likely to bemoan the new atheist approach and call for large injections of nuance....

Douglas Murray recently recounted debating alongside Richard Dawkins and being embarrassed by the crudity of his approach. Murray is not one of life’s fence-sitters: it must have occurred to him that atheism has polemical possibilities that would suit him rather well. But he has the sense to turn down the role of the new Christopher Hitchens. A polemical approach to religion has swung out of fashion....

What, if anything, do these newer atheists have to say? What distinguishes the newer atheist is his admission that non-believers can be just as immoral as believers. Rejecting religion is no sure path to virtue; it is more likely to lead to complacent self-regard, or ideological arrogance.

Theo Hobson (born 1972) is a British theologian. He was educated at St Paul's School in London; he read English Literature at the University of York, then theology at the University of Cambridge, where he was a member of Hughes Hall. He focused on the strongest voices of Protestant tradition: Martin Luther, Kierkegaard, and Karl Barth. His PhD thesis became the basis of his first book, The Rhetorical Word – a study of the role of authoritative rhetoric in Protestantism.

He gradually turned his attention to ecclesiology. His next book was Against Establishment: An Anglican Polemic. In this book he announced that the Church of England was doomed, and that he considered himself a "post-Anglican." His third book was Anarchy, Church and Utopia: Rowan Williams on the Church – a critique of the Archbishop's ecclesiology, and perhaps of all ecclesiology. He has written for various journals and newspapers including The Guardian, The Times, The Spectator, and The Tablet.

His principal interests are the relationship between Protestant Christianity and secularism, which he believes is more positive than is generally understood; the relationship between theology and literature; and the post-ecclesial renewal of worship. He thinks that large-scale carnival-style celebration must replace church worship. He lives in Harlesden, London and is married with two children.

Hobson has argued that although there is an instinctive mistrust of spectacle in the Protestant church, Catholic-style theatricality is an essential part of religion.

Hardly what one would call an unbiased observer.

his first book, The Rhetorical Word – a study of the role of authoritative rhetoric in Protestantism... Against Establishment: An Anglican Polemic. In this book he announced that the Church of England was doomed, and that he considered himself a "post-Anglican."...His third book was....a critique of the Archbishop's ecclesiology, and perhaps of all ecclesiology.

Rather than trashing religion, the Reason Rally was supposed to be a "positive experience" to celebrate "secular values" and motivate atheists to "become more active." While that might sound reasonable, if you listen to Dawkins's speech, you'd get a different impression.

Dawkins called on atheists and agnostics to "ridicule and show contempt" for the religious and their doctrines. The example he used was the Roman Catholic belief that the bread and wine of communion turns into the actual body and blood of Christ. He encouraged atheists to mock and ridicule the religious in public.

If Saturday's gathering was a rally for reason, why didn't Dawkins urge the crowd to reason with people of faith?...One wonders why Dawkins, an intelligent man, would promote scorn instead of discourse.

La Shawn Barber
La Shawn writes about culture, faith, and politics. Her work has appeared in the Christian Research Journal, Christianity Today, the Washington Examiner, and other publications

The author of that piece is described at the end of the article, as follows

"Slur," you say? Are you denying that Dawkins said what she reported him to have said, that it?