- Why did everyone start to hate the Russians if the U.S. did the same thing in Afghanistan, Iraq?
- What needs to be corrected in the management of Russia first?
- Why did Blaise Pascal become a religious man at the end of his life?
- How do I know if a guy likes you?
- When they say "one generation", how many do they mean?
He is a recognized biologist, and, as already mentioned, NIKOLAI IVANKOV, the author of the theory of the selfish gene. In my opinion, he is a fairly average popularizer(not because his texts are complex, but because the idea that can be conveyed in 10 sentences is written on 25 pages). But he is a well-known popularizer, his books are interesting to read and some find new and important ideas there. It should be noted that he is a good speaker, knows how to joke and provoke. This attracts the public. Since he promotes his ideas quite actively, some people change their point of view. I want to tell you about the person who changed your view of the world. I think these are the main reasons for Dawkins ' popularity. Some time ago, as far as I understand, he retired from science. -1 scientist, which is a pity.
I don't like his “militant atheism” at all. Once I tried to read his book “God as an illusion”. I had enough for 2.5 pages. The fact is that he apparently tries to talk to aggressive believers in their own language, and since I am not one of the aggressive believers(or indeed believers in general), I do not perceive such language. Many of the arguments seemed unfounded to me. I believe that you should not publish your dilettante exercises in theology(or anti-theology) without first trying to understand the subject of criticism. From the speeches and excerpts of Dawkins ' books, it seemed to me that his knowledge of theology and history was rather weak. In his debates with religious people, he is not always convincing.�
I respect him as a scientist and popularizer, but I don't like his aggressiveness and uncompromising attitude.
First, Richard Dawkins himself. Dawkins is a recognized biologist who, in particular, is the author of the concept of the selfish gene. With the help of this concept, it was possible to understand altruism and other behavioral features in animals in scientific terms, for which no clear theories previously existed. This is why Dawkins deserves to be as popular as, say, Noam Chomsky with his concept of language universals or Jared Diamond with his approach to the development of society in the light of available resources.
The book of Richard Dawkins is so popular because of its scandalous nature. Normal, theologically savvy believers will find Dawkins ' argument primitive, because it is aimed at those believers who are willing to mistake the cry of a tropical bird for the laughter of Satan, but are not ready to accept their ancestors as they were – monkeys, cynodonts, amphibians, and so on. But it is precisely these last believers who, due to their lack of proper counterarguments, are raising a fuss. While not very literate atheists help them in this, believing that the theory of evolution really refutes the existence of God.
In fact, the theories of evolution, abiogenesis, the big bang, the multiverse, and so on make the hypothesis of the existence of God redundant, but they do not refute His very existence. It's just that everyone is free to decide for themselves whether Occam's razor is needed here, whether it is worth waiting, or whether there is something that does not allow it to be used in principle.