The Richard Dawkins Foundation

Whilst reading the publicity that surrounds The God Delusion and now reading the book itself, one point that kept coming into my mind was that we really need some kind of organisation that can serve as a focal point for atheists and can campaign for more rational thought in public life. And it seems that Richard Dawkins has been thinking along the same lines. Recently he has launched the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Science and Reason which aims to do just that. I’d recommend that everyone visits the site and looks at some of the interesting articles over there. I particularly recommend watching the video on the mission page.


  1. It’s just a pity that such an organization has to be headed by Richard Dawkins … although he has some decent ideas I’m not sure I like the preachy way he’s inclined to package them … still, some reason in science, particularly the way that science is presented to the public wouldn’t go amiss!

  2. Emma,I disagree. I think that Richard Dawkins is exactly the right person to lead this organisation. The religious have had their way for far too long and we need someone as forthright as Dawkins to lead the fightback.

  3. He’s certainly forthright enough to stand up to the church, and they might even listen to him, but I really don’t think that Richard Dawkins has the ability to bring the rest of the non-religious community with him. Even though I agree with a lot of what he has to say his way of saying it alienates me. It might be my science background makes me throw his books across the room at his pomposity, but I’m sure even people without a science background can see when he’s being patronizing and preachy. IMHO Richard Dawkins is only suitable for this position because nobody else has stepped up to take the role for themselves.

  4. Well, I have a scientifica background too, and he doesn’t seem pompose to me.Who do you think would be good for the role? David Attenborough perhaps? Douglas Adams would have been perfect but, unfortunately, he’s no longer available.

  5. I’m not sure there’s anyone who I’d give the job to at the moment… maybe that’s the problem… if there were more approchable scientists in the public eye then maybe there wouldn’t be such a huge problem.

  6. Hi guys, you dont need a zealeot leader preaching for what you believe. Leave that for extremist religious leaders that have been proven extremely dangerous which Dawkins is becoming more and more akin rather than a wonderful intellect.Can I direct you to this site below for an interesting alternate perspective on Richard Dawkins. a read and open up a little.

  7. Phil,Thanks for the link to McGrath’s lecture. I’m planning to read it (I’m actually planning to read his book on the subject too), but I have to say that from an initial look at what he says he seems to be determined to miss the point about what Dawkins is saying. Dawkins’ response to McGrath’s book is at the bottom of this page.It’s also worth pointing out that McGrath’s lecture is from almost two years ago. So he’s not responding to The God Delusion or even The Root of All Evil?. I wonder if his opinions have changed at all in the last two years (of course, as he’s religious, that’s unlikely!)

  8. you certainly don’t need to be religious to have a problem with Richard Dawkins

    I don’t think I’ve said (or implied) that you do. One thing that came out quite strongly at the Q&A on Monday was that there are quite a few atheists out there who are uneasy at Dawkins’ tactics.I’m not one of them though.And before you get too friendly with Phil, you might like to read some of his previous comments on my blog.

  9. Thanx Emma. I really can’t believe you Dave, Emma for your own safety you should probably stay well away from me. Hell I maybe I should wear a star, Dave.I can’t actually believe how prejudice you are Dave! Maybe that’s the main reason behind Daveblog. Emma to clear things up here I’m a creationist and I really do not think there is enough evidence to support evolution but a lot of people are happy to support both and I think everyone should get along together and we can focus on removing the dangerous ones.Im very glad to see an atheist who thinks outside the box. I aggree with you Emma and please do read the comments on the previous blog regarding the doomsday code. That’s why its there.On a last note it’s not hard to see Dawkins is becoming the very same person he is trying to remove and is driving an unnecessary wedge through so much knowledge because of his opinion.

  10. Sorry, that was rather cheeky as its not a direct reference to the recent book but I reckon if Alister dosnt give a reponse then he has given up and finally said “whats the point?”, as the link above was from a lecture he made ealier this year.

  11. I really can’t believe you Dave, Emma for your own safety you should probably stay well away from me. Hell I maybe I should wear a star, Dave.

    Oh stop being so paranoid and melodramatic. I was just pointing Emma at our previous discussions. I thought that would be useful as, whilst she has similar opinions to you on Dawkins, she’s a scientist and I’d be surprised if she agrees with you on evolution.

  12. Um, ok il try lol.I want to point out to any one that reads this that I agree with Dave and we should be concerned about fanatics that are trying to bring an offence or destruction to people and use religious over tones as a mask in means of support. These people should be stopped at all costs but I think that if this applies to creation in general which is then elaborated through confrontation by an individual who is equally fundamental in his theories/beliefs then this is equally concerning as its a path to full opinionated division and no good can come of it as people take this to an emotional level where lies a philosophical view.I think Emma is on the right plain of thinking where by she knows characters like Dawkins offend and distance people (would you support Billy Graham). Leave the passion of offence/attack behind and concentrate on science and its conclusions.I reckon science and philosophy mix like oil and water. Science can show how to split atoms but delivers no morals as to when or if we should use it as a means of defence, power or control and this is were Dawkins is weakest in his understanding of religion.No one can explain the point of origin Dave and to say for sure that God is an impossibility is just plain ignorant. Instead of the God Delusion what about the Theroy of God? Why this absurd hatred for creation. I hope you know this hatred correlates with the bibles end time teachings as a living example and encourages people who read the bible to distance themselves from preachers like Dawkins and his opinions. The guys biggest weapon to counter creation however is humour and controversy which is plain wrong! I would certainly object to this form of indoctrination should it arise in the Christian faith.Here is my summary. Remove idealist idiots from power and keep good scientific studies and our good philosophical teachings which can’t work from an atheistic point of view (Nothing exploded and created everything by itself?), and this I believe would be a better world.Can anyone else agree because if I’m a figure of fun then I am deeply concerned about idealist atheism which seems a trif shut tight and is anti science.

  13. Phil,Have you read The God Delusion yet? Do you intend to?Dawkins freely admits that it is impossible to prove the non-existance of any supernatural being. But, of course, just saying that something can’t be disproved doesn’t make it any more likely to exist. Just as you can’t disprove the existance of god, you can’t disprove the existance of Thor, Russell’s teapot or the Flying Spaghetti Monster. I’m sure that you don’t believe in the existance of any of those, so what makes god’s existance more likely? I know. You’re going to cite two thousand year old writings. But the stories about the Greek gods are older than that. Why don’t you believe those?No-one is saying that god is impossible. Just that his existance is extremely unlikely and absolutely unnecessary to explain anything that we see in this universe.It’s true that no-one can yet explain the creation of the universe, but it’s a question that is being investigated by science and until we get an answer (and I have every confidence that we will), thne surely “we don’t know yet” is a better answer than “a supernatural being called it into existance”.And. Phil, you constantly mischaracterise the difference between science and religion by saying that scientists need as much faith in their science as the religious need in their religions. That’s simple not true. There’s a fundamental difference between science and religion. In science we have evidence to back up everything that we say and anyone else is free to try to recreate that evidence and come to their own conclusions. That’s not faith. Religions insist that their beliefs are true without any evidence of their truth. Believers just have to accept it without any kind of proof. That’s the difference. Scientists don’t need faith, they have evidence.I’d rather have evidence that faith any day. You may have a different opinion.

  14. No Dave I agree with you. Evidence over faith any day (that’s why I cant except evolution as science). However I don’t believe God will be seen by science because we have a clear distinctive knowledge of right and wrong (which science can’t explain) and it’s up to you to choose which lifestyle you’ll inherit. Use your own individual mind follow good/righteousness to appease a righteous God who grieves in his heart when men choose sin and wickedness.Religious I admit, but it is a fact that there is innate knowledge of right and wrong. You can’t remove any absolutes between them however because you would then render your own argument useless (you can’t be absolutely right in that case).Follow righteousness if you can or do but you know this world is sick. Religious, scientific or sinful be whatever the reason. Bad things have always happened to people and have happened since we can remember but science does not explain why. You can build me a bomb but can I use it any where I want. Science is in this sentence but so is philosophy, where did this philosophy come from though, nature? I doubt its scientifically possible with out reason of a creator but as you say that is mine and a few million intellects, opinions.I can tell you how to become a better scientist and its absolutely free! Question the flaws and find answers in what you believe because of this I’m a better Christian.

  15. we have a clear distinctive knowledge of right and wrong (which science can’t explain)

    Actually, Dawkins’ latest book has a couple of sections that consider that issue.Firstly, there’s a section that demonstrates that no reasonable sense of morality can be built on the bible without an external idea of right and wrong which is used to filter it.And secondly he has some good ideas about how the idea of morality can be explained through Darwinian selection. It boils down to saying that behaviours that we see as moral are behaviours that favour the community over the individual and that therefore “moralistic” communities will ultimately be more successful than more selfish ones.It’s only an idea, of course, and I don’t know if there’s been any real research into it, but it sounds like an interesting idea to me.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.