The Weaknesses of Richard Dawkins

Think whole person.

Strength of will.

Stuff like that.

Spiritual material (in defense of Descartes).

I don’t have to agree 100% with every single person on (or off) the face of the planet.

Think “I am pure awareness.” The body/mind complex that arises is an avatar. You know, like Jesus. Play your absolute best in the big video game of life.

In real life, I can’t respawn myself. Into someone else’s avatar against their will? Consent violation: Cheating is automatic losing.

The only one for whom that is NOT cheating is the one in whose image each gamer is programmed.

Mere possession-against-informed-consent does not equal winning.

See my game ideas.

Thx for reminder.

P.s. I don’t play games rigged by losers … without an ulterior (higher) motive. Ideally.

Not someone else’s avatar. The avatar of the pure awareness that you are.

I sure as heck hope I have not yet “arrived”.


It’s your call.

Notice Dawkins says nothing here about memes being parasites or cancers. Where do those ideas come from?

“ But can a meme evolve into an even more powerful force, a destructive mass affliction caused by the spread of thoughts? One example can be seen in the case of religion. A noted atheist, Dawkins regards religion as a meme that has taken over human brains for millennia. In his 1991 essay “Viruses of the Mind,” Dawkins describes religious beliefs as “mind-parasites” while believers are “faith sufferers” or “patients”. He sees several conditions to be present in such people. One is that the belief is not based on reason.”

I was looking for where I copied that chapter of Dawkins’ book that introduced the selfish gene, which I can’t find so far (only excerpts), but in looking for it I found that we’ve been talking about this since roughly (at LEAST) 2007:

If you’re interested, I will look harder to find the chapter & link to it. I think it’s prolly linked in the thread that I posted a long time ago (we were active in it in 2022, heh—we must like this topic).

Yes, I hadn’t thought about memes for a while but Carleas brought meme theory up as a major contribution of Dawkins. It isn’t clear that a meme is more than a metaphor. As such meme theory may be no more than a magical projection of those who account for various cultural phenomena using the metaphor. How is that better than demonology?

1 Like

Dawkins weaknesses are on full display here. His is scientism at its most arrogant. Religion is bullshit. He has “the truth.” He tells Ayaan what she must believe to call herself a Christian. Christianity is a milder form of mind virus than Islam. After calling Christianity bullshit he denies that he wants to mock it when confronted. When confronted with coming out as a cultural Christian only recently, he admits that he has been one all his life. If he didn’t move in circles where people turn the other cheek when he calls their beliefs bullshit, would he be alive today?

Dawkins hubris is based on his spiritual ignorance. He mistakes the findings of empirical science which all about appearances and are subject to change with truth which does not change. His meme theory which Ayaan has bought into is basically demonology. Ayaan who is apparently experiencing spiritual regeneration recognizes the importance of Christianity to Western society. She feels that protesters are blaming the victim—Israel, but I don’t know why she fails to note the innocent victims in Gaza.

1 Like

Ayaan having left her Islamic culture of origin in protest became an atheist and after a honeymoon period of several years as an atheist celebrity entered a period of despair in the experience of the emptiness of existence apart from truth which ended when she found God in Christ. Richard Dawkins seems to understand none of this, and so he mocks and repudiates it even while admitting that he has nothing to offer but his “truth”—that we are nothing but machines designed by a mindless process to propagate selfish genes. Hollow man that he is he has finally admitted that he plays at being a cultural Christian even as he mocks the substance of such nonsense. What am I missing?

1 Like

You are missing nothing. He is as wooden-headed as can be, or with Iain McGilchrist’s language, a completely left-hemisphere guided reductionist, who lacks the empathy to know when someone has extended their horizons to encompass the wider concepts of the sacred.

Thank you. Yes, Dawkins is a text book left brain dominant. Yet, he demonstrated that he is a master of metaphor in service Darwinian theory. Language, dependent as it is on the gestalt figure-ground phenomenon, guarantees an opposing perspective. Applying Dawkins’ trope, we are machines—vehicles of the Selfish Language meme, that immortalizes itself through endless dialogue.

I equate spirit with consciousness—the ever-present witness to the beneficent/vicious process of nature. The hard problem for modern science is understanding what the relationship of consciousness to nature is. I see that question as the central point of the dialogue between Dawkins and Ayaan about which they agreed to disagree.