370
个编辑
更改
跳到导航
跳到搜索
第230行：
第230行： − 在他的“神存在”这一陈述的光谱中，有7个等级介于1(100% 确定上帝或神存在)和7(100% 确定上帝或神不存在) ，Dawkins 说他是6.9，这代表了一个“事实上的无神论者”，他认为“我不能确定，但我认为上帝是非常不可能的，我的生活在他不存在的假设之上。”当被问及他的轻微的不确定性时，道金斯戏谑地说: “我是不可知论者，以至于我对花园尽头的仙女是不可知论者。”2014年5月，在威尔士的海伊节上，道金斯解释说，虽然他不相信基督教信仰的超自然元素，但他仍然怀念宗教仪式的一面。除了对神的信仰之外，Dawkins 还批评宗教信仰是非理性的，比如耶稣把水变成了酒，胚胎开始时只是一小块，神奇的内衣会保护你，耶稣复活了，精液来自脊椎，耶稣在水上行走，太阳落在沼泽里，伊甸园(2008年电影)存在于 Adam-ondi-Ahman，耶稣的母亲是一个处女，穆罕默德分裂了月亮，还有拉撒路从死亡中复活。+ 第244行：
第244行： − 道金斯认为教育和提高意识是反对他所认为的宗教教条和灌输的主要工具。这些工具包括反对某些刻板印象的斗争，他采用了光明这个词作为一种方式，将积极的公众内涵与那些拥有自然主义世界观的人联系起来。他支持建立一所自由思考的学校的想法，这所学校不会“向孩子们灌输思想”，而是教导孩子们寻求证据，保持怀疑、批判和开放的心态。道金斯说，这样的学校应该“教授宗教比较，正确地教授它，不偏向于特定的宗教，包括历史上重要但已经消亡的宗教，如古希腊和挪威神，如果仅仅因为这些，如亚伯拉罕经文，对于理解英国文学和欧洲历史是重要的。道金斯同样认为,”天主教儿童”和”穆斯林儿童”等短语在社会上应被认为是荒谬的，例如,”马克思主义儿童”，因为他认为，儿童不应根据其父母的意识形态或宗教信仰来分类。+ 第251行：
第251行： − 当一些批评家，如作家克里斯托弗·希钦斯，心理学家 Steven Pinker 和诺贝尔奖获得者 Harold Kroto，James d. Watson 和 Steven Weinberg 为 Dawkins 在宗教上的立场辩护并赞扬他的工作时，其他人，包括诺贝尔奖获得者理论物理学家 Peter Higgs，天体物理学家 Martin Rees，科学哲学家 Michael Ruse,文学批评家特里 · 伊格尔顿、哲学家罗杰 · 斯克鲁顿、学术界和社会批评家卡米尔 · 帕格利亚、无神论哲学家丹尼尔 · 科尔姆和神学家阿利斯特 · 麦格拉斯都从各个方面批评道金斯，包括断言他的作品只是作为宗教原教旨主义的无神论对应物，而不是对它的富有成效的批判，他从根本上误解了他声称反驳的神学立场的基础。特别是里斯和希格斯，他们都反对道金斯对宗教的对抗姿态，认为这种姿态狭隘而“令人尴尬”，希格斯甚至将道金斯与他所批评的宗教原教旨主义者等同起来。无神论哲学家约翰 · 格雷(John Gray)谴责道金斯是“反宗教的传教士”，他的主张“从任何意义上讲都不是新颖的或原创的”，他暗示道金斯“对自己思想的运作惊叹不已，错过了许多对人类至关重要的东西。”格雷还批评道金斯对达尔文的忠诚，他说，如果“对达尔文来说，科学是一种探究的方法，使他能够试探性和谦逊地走向真理，对道金斯来说，科学是一种不容置疑的世界观。”作为对他的批评的回应，道金斯坚持认为神学家在解决深奥的宇宙学问题上并不比科学家好，他不是一个原教旨主义者，因为他愿意在新的证据面前改变自己的想法。+
→对宗教的批评
On his spectrum of theistic probability, which has seven levels between 1 (100% certainty that a God or gods exist) and 7 (100% certainty that a God or gods do not exist), Dawkins has said he is a 6.9, which represents a "de facto atheist" who thinks "I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there." When asked about his slight uncertainty, Dawkins quips, "I am agnostic to the extent that I am agnostic about fairies at the bottom of the garden." In May 2014, at the Hay Festival in Wales, Dawkins explained that while he does not believe in the supernatural elements of the Christian faith, he still has nostalgia for the ceremonial side of religion. In addition to beliefs in deities, Dawkins has criticized religious beliefs as irrational, such as that Jesus turned water into wine, that an embryo starts as a blob, that magic underwear will protect you, that Jesus was resurrected, that semen comes from the spine, that Jesus walked on water, that the sun sets in a marsh, that the Garden of Eden existed in Adam-ondi-Ahman, Missouri, that Jesus' mother was a virgin, that Muhammad split the moon, and that Lazarus was raised from the dead.
On his spectrum of theistic probability, which has seven levels between 1 (100% certainty that a God or gods exist) and 7 (100% certainty that a God or gods do not exist), Dawkins has said he is a 6.9, which represents a "de facto atheist" who thinks "I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there." When asked about his slight uncertainty, Dawkins quips, "I am agnostic to the extent that I am agnostic about fairies at the bottom of the garden." In May 2014, at the Hay Festival in Wales, Dawkins explained that while he does not believe in the supernatural elements of the Christian faith, he still has nostalgia for the ceremonial side of religion. In addition to beliefs in deities, Dawkins has criticized religious beliefs as irrational, such as that Jesus turned water into wine, that an embryo starts as a blob, that magic underwear will protect you, that Jesus was resurrected, that semen comes from the spine, that Jesus walked on water, that the sun sets in a marsh, that the Garden of Eden existed in Adam-ondi-Ahman, Missouri, that Jesus' mother was a virgin, that Muhammad split the moon, and that Lazarus was raised from the dead.
在道金斯的“神存在”陈述的怀疑光谱中，有7个等级介于1(100% 确定上帝或神存在)和7(100% 确定上帝或神不存在)。Dawkins 说他是6.9，这代表了一个“事实上的无神论者”，他认为“我不能确定，但我认为上帝是非常不可能的，我的生活在他不存在的假设之上。”当被问及他的轻微的不确定性时，道金斯戏谑地说: “我是不可知论者，以至于我甚至不能确认或否认花园尽头的仙女（fairies at the bottom of the garden）。”<ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/9102740/Richard-Dawkins-I-cant-be-sure-God-does-not-exist.html |title=Richard Dawkins: I can't be sure God does not exist |date=24 February 2012 |access-date=5 March 2016 |first=John |last=Bingham |location=London |work=The Telegraph |archive-date=24 May 2019 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190524001926/https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/9102740/Richard-Dawkins-I-cant-be-sure-God-does-not-exist.html |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/side-effects/201202/why-does-richard-dawkins-take-issue-agnosticism |title=Why Does Richard Dawkins Take Issue With Agnosticism? |date=2 February 2012 |access-date=5 April 2016 |work=Psychology Today |first=Christopher |last=Lane }}</ref> 2014年5月，在威尔士的海伊节上，道金斯解释说，虽然他不相信基督教信仰的超自然元素，但他仍然怀念宗教仪式的一面<ref>{{cite news |first=Sarah |last=Knapton |url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/hay-festival/10853648/Richard-Dawkins-I-am-a-secular-Christian.html |title=Richard Dawkins: 'I am a secular Christian' |newspaper=Telegraph |access-date=9 June 2014 |archive-date=21 December 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181221043247/https://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/hay-festival/10853648/Richard-Dawkins-I-am-a-secular-Christian.html |url-status=live }}</ref>。除了对神的信仰之外，Dawkins 还批评宗教信仰是非理性的，比如耶稣把水变成了酒，胚胎开始时只是一小块，神奇的内衣会保护你，耶稣复活了，精液来自脊椎，耶稣在水上行走，太阳落在沼泽里，伊甸园(2008年电影)存在于 Adam-ondi-Ahman，耶稣的母亲是一个处女，穆罕默德分裂了月亮，还有拉撒路从死亡中复活。{{refn|<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/richard-dawkins-islamophobic-berkeley-event-cancelled-islam-muslim-uc-university-california-a7860281.html|title=Richard Dawkins hits back at allegations he is Islamophobic after Berkeley event is cancelled|date=26 July 2017|access-date=10 September 2017|archive-date=29 August 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170829181754/http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/richard-dawkins-islamophobic-berkeley-event-cancelled-islam-muslim-uc-university-california-a7860281.html|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=https://twitter.com/richarddawkins/status/681453611906396160 |title=Dawkins Twitter This is almost as impressive as the prescient knowledge that embryo starts as a blob, semen comes from the spine & the sun sets in a marsh. |access-date=26 July 2017 |archive-date=21 November 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201121060816/https://twitter.com/richarddawkins/status/681453611906396160 |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=https://twitter.com/richarddawkins/status/344419641101275137 |title="Did Jesus exist?" Who cares? "Did Jesus lack a father? Raise Lazarus? Walk on water? Resurrect?" I care, and the answer is no in all cases. |access-date=1 August 2017 |archive-date=21 November 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201121060841/https://pbs.twimg.com/hashflag/config-2020-11-21-06.json |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=https://twitter.com/richarddawkins/status/677189384169512960 |title=There are people who believe Jesus turned water into wine. How do they hold down a job in the 21st century? |access-date=1 August 2017 |archive-date=21 November 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201121060819/https://twitter.com/richarddawkins/status/677189384169512960 |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=https://twitter.com/richarddawkins/status/685591187479212032 |title=Ridicule is the proper response to beliefs such as Jesus' mother was a virgin, Joshua slowed Earth's rotation or Muhammad split the moon. |access-date=1 August 2017 |archive-date=21 November 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201121060820/https://twitter.com/richarddawkins/status/685591187479212032 |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=https://twitter.com/richarddawkins/status/255543797528817664 |title=Over and above believing surreal nonsense about planets and magic stones, hats and underwear, Romney is also a liar |access-date=1 August 2017 |archive-date=19 July 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200719043539/https://twitter.com/richarddawkins/status/255543797528817664 |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=https://twitter.com/richarddawkins/status/244790357420826626 |title=Could you really vote for a man who thinks the Garden of Eden was in Missouri? |access-date=1 August 2017 |archive-date=30 October 2017 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171030133510/https://twitter.com/richarddawkins/status/244790357420826626 |url-status=live }}</ref>}}
Dawkins sees education and consciousness-raising as the primary tools in opposing what he considers to be religious dogma and indoctrination. These tools include the fight against certain stereotypes, and he has adopted the term bright as a way of associating positive public connotations with those who possess a naturalistic worldview. He has given support to the idea of a free-thinking school, 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. Inspired by the consciousness-raising successes of 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.
Dawkins sees education and consciousness-raising as the primary tools in opposing what he considers to be religious dogma and indoctrination. These tools include the fight against certain stereotypes, and he has adopted the term bright as a way of associating positive public connotations with those who possess a naturalistic worldview. He has given support to the idea of a free-thinking school, 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. Inspired by the consciousness-raising successes of 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.
道金斯认为教育和提高意识是反对他所认为的宗教教条和灌输的主要工具<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 |access-date=15 January 2007 |date=27 November 2006 |newspaper=The Guardian |location=London |archive-date=9 July 2008 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080709084224/http://education.guardian.co.uk/schools/story/0,,1958138,00.html |url-status=live }}</ref><ref name="bright">{{cite news |url=http://books.guardian.co.uk/review/story/0,12084,981412,00.html |title=The future looks bright |access-date=13 March 2008 |last=Dawkins |first=Richard |date=21 June 2003 |newspaper=The Guardian |location=London |archive-date=6 June 2008 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080606085217/http://books.guardian.co.uk/review/story/0,12084,981412,00.html |url-status=live }}</ref>。这些工具包括反对某些刻板印象的斗争，他采用了光明这个词作为一种方式，将积极的公众内涵与那些拥有自然主义世界观的人联系起来。他支持建立一所自由思考的学校的想法<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 |access-date=20 September 2011 |archive-date=17 March 2019 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190317151949/https://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/20/science/20dawkins.html |url-status=live }}</ref>，这所学校不会“向孩子们灌输思想”，而是教导孩子们寻求证据，保持怀疑、批判和开放的心态。道金斯说，这样的学校应该“教授宗教比较，正确地教授它，不偏向于特定的宗教，包括历史上重要但已经消亡的宗教，如古希腊和挪威神，如果仅仅因为这些，如亚伯拉罕经文，对于理解英国文学和欧洲历史是重要的<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 |access-date=29 July 2010 |location=London |archive-date=27 June 2010 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100627144143/http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/7849563/Richard-Dawkins-interested-in-setting-up-atheist-free-school.html |url-status=dead }}</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 |access-date=29 July 2010 |location=London |first=Richard |last=Garner |archive-date=1 August 2010 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100801053001/http://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/education-news/gove-welcomes-atheist-schools-2037990.html |url-status=live }}</ref>。道金斯同样认为,“天主教儿童”和“穆斯林儿童”等短语在社会上应被认为是荒谬的，就像“马克思主义儿童”一样，因为他认为，儿童不应根据其父母的意识形态或宗教信仰来分类<ref name="bright" />。
While some critics, such as writer Christopher Hitchens, psychologist Steven Pinker and Nobel laureates Sir Harold Kroto, James D. Watson, and Steven Weinberg have defended Dawkins's stance on religion and praised his work, others, including Nobel Prize-winning theoretical physicist Peter Higgs, astrophysicist Martin Rees, philosopher of science Michael Ruse, literary critic Terry Eagleton, philosopher Roger Scruton, academic and social critic Camille Paglia, atheist philosopher Daniel Came and theologian Alister McGrath, have criticised Dawkins on various grounds, including the assertion that his work simply serves as an atheist counterpart to religious fundamentalism rather than a productive critique of it, and that he has fundamentally misapprehended the foundations of the theological positions he claims to refute. Rees and Higgs, in particular, have both rejected Dawkins's confrontational stance toward religion as narrow and "embarrassing", with Higgs going as far as to equate Dawkins with the religious fundamentalists he criticises. Atheist philosopher John 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." In response to 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.
While some critics, such as writer Christopher Hitchens, psychologist Steven Pinker and Nobel laureates Sir Harold Kroto, James D. Watson, and Steven Weinberg have defended Dawkins's stance on religion and praised his work, others, including Nobel Prize-winning theoretical physicist Peter Higgs, astrophysicist Martin Rees, philosopher of science Michael Ruse, literary critic Terry Eagleton, philosopher Roger Scruton, academic and social critic Camille Paglia, atheist philosopher Daniel Came and theologian Alister McGrath, have criticised Dawkins on various grounds, including the assertion that his work simply serves as an atheist counterpart to religious fundamentalism rather than a productive critique of it, and that he has fundamentally misapprehended the foundations of the theological positions he claims to refute. Rees and Higgs, in particular, have both rejected Dawkins's confrontational stance toward religion as narrow and "embarrassing", with Higgs going as far as to equate Dawkins with the religious fundamentalists he criticises. Atheist philosopher John 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." In response to 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.
当一些批评家，如作家克里斯托弗·希钦斯，心理学家史蒂芬·平克和诺贝尔奖获得者哈罗德·克罗托，詹姆斯·D·沃森和 史蒂芬·温伯格为道金斯在宗教上的立场辩护并赞扬他的工作时<ref>{{cite web |url=http://richarddawkins.net/godDelusionReviews |title=The God Delusion – Reviews |access-date=8 April 2008 |publisher=Richard Dawkins Foundation |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080702000504/http://richarddawkins.net/godDelusionReviews |archive-date=2 July 2008 |url-status=dead}}</ref>，其他人，包括诺贝尔奖获得者理论物理学家彼得·希格斯，天体物理学家马丁·里斯，科学哲学家迈克尔·鲁斯,文学批评家特里·伊格尔顿、哲学家罗杰·斯克鲁顿、学术界和社会批评家卡米尔·帕格利亚、无神论哲学家丹尼尔·科尔姆和神学家阿利斯特·麦格拉斯都从各个方面批评道金斯，包括断言他的作品只是作为宗教原教旨主义的无神论对应物，而不是对它的富有成效的批判，他从根本上误解了他声称反驳的神学立场的基础{{refn|<ref>{{cite book |last=McGrath |first=Alister |author-link=Alister McGrath |title=Dawkins' God: Genes, Memes, and the Meaning of Life |year=2004 |publisher=Blackwell Publishing |location=Oxford, England |isbn=978-1-4051-2538-3 |page=[https://archive.org/details/dawkinsgodgenesm0000mcgr/page/81 81] |url=https://archive.org/details/dawkinsgodgenesm0000mcgr/page/81 }}</ref><ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/belief/2009/nov/02/atheism-dawkins-ruse |location=London |work=The Guardian |first=Michael |last=Ruse |author-link=Michael Ruse |title=Dawkins et al bring us into disrepute |date=2 November 2009 |access-date=23 April 2016 |archive-date=19 September 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180919173459/https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/belief/2009/nov/02/atheism-dawkins-ruse |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/belief/2012/oct/02/richard-dawkins-humanists-religion-atheists |location=London |work=The Guardian |first=Michael |last=Ruse |author-link=Michael Ruse |title=Why Richard Dawkins' humanists remind me of a religion |date=2 October 2012 |access-date=13 December 2016 |archive-date=21 August 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180821191854/https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/belief/2012/oct/02/richard-dawkins-humanists-religion-atheists |url-status=live }}</ref><ref name="salon.com">{{cite web |url=https://www.salon.com/2015/07/29/camille_paglia_takes_on_jon_stewart_trump_sanders_liberals_think_of_themselves_as_very_open_minded_but_that%e2%80%99s_simply_not_true/ |title=Camille Paglia takes on Jon Stewart, Trump, Sanders: "Liberals think of themselves as very open-minded, but that's simply not true!" |date=29 July 2015 |website=Salon |access-date=4 February 2019 |archive-date=4 February 2019 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190204231514/https://www.salon.com/2015/07/29/camille_paglia_takes_on_jon_stewart_trump_sanders_liberals_think_of_themselves_as_very_open_minded_but_that%e2%80%99s_simply_not_true/ |url-status=live }}</ref><ref name="spectator.co.uk">{{cite web |url=https://www.spectator.co.uk/2006/01/dawkins-is-wrong-about-god/ |title=Dawkins is wrong about God |date=14 January 2006 |website=The Spectator |access-date=19 January 2019 |archive-date=12 June 2019 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190612141649/https://www.spectator.co.uk/2006/01/dawkins-is-wrong-about-god/ |url-status=live }}</ref><ref name="auto">{{cite web |url=https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/belief/2011/oct/22/richard-dawkins-refusal-debate-william-lane-craig |title=Richard Dawkins's refusal to debate is cynical and anti-intellectualist |first=Daniel |last=Came |date=22 October 2011 |via=www.theguardian.com |access-date=19 January 2019 |archive-date=30 September 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180930081527/https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/belief/2011/oct/22/richard-dawkins-refusal-debate-william-lane-craig |url-status=live }}</ref>}} 特别是里斯和希格斯，他们都反对道金斯对宗教的对抗姿态，认为这种姿态狭隘而“令人尴尬”，希格斯甚至将道金斯与他所批评的宗教原教旨主义者等同起来<ref>{{cite magazine |url=http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n20/terry-eagleton/lunging-flailing-mispunching |title=Lunging, Flailing, Mispunching |first=Terry |last=Eagleton· |date=19 October 2006 |magazine=[[London Review of Books]] |access-date=16 May 2014 |volume=28 |issue=20 |pages=32–34 |archive-date=10 March 2010 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100310145648/http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n20/terry-eagleton/lunging-flailing-mispunching |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://richarddawkins.net/articleComments,1647,Do-you-have-to-read-up-on-leprechology-before-disbelieving-in-them,Richard-Dawkins-The-Independent,page27 |title=Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them? |access-date=14 November 2007 |last=Dawkins |first=Richard |date=17 September 2007 |publisher=Richard Dawkins Foundation |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20071214014838/http://richarddawkins.net/articleComments,1647,Do-you-have-to-read-up-on-leprechology-before-disbelieving-in-them,Richard-Dawkins-The-Independent,page27 |archive-date=14 December 2007}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |url=http://books.guardian.co.uk/hay2007/story/0,,2089947,00.html |title=Scientists divided over alliance with religion |access-date=17 March 2008 |last=Jha |first=Alok |date=29 May 2007 |newspaper=The Guardian |location=London |archive-date=19 July 2008 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080719103328/http://books.guardian.co.uk/hay2007/story/0,,2089947,00.html |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{cite news |last=Jha |first=Alok |url=https://www.theguardian.com/science/2012/dec/26/peter-higgs-richard-dawkins-fundamentalism |title=Peter Higgs criticises Richard Dawkins over anti-religious 'fundamentalism' |date=26 December 2012 |access-date=20 January 2016 |work=[[The Guardian]] |archive-date=28 October 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181028180407/https://www.theguardian.com/science/2012/dec/26/peter-higgs-richard-dawkins-fundamentalism |url-status=live }}</ref> 。无神论哲学家约翰·格雷(John Gray)谴责道金斯是“反宗教的传教士”，他的主张“从任何意义上讲都不是新颖的或原创的”，他暗示道金斯“对自己思想的运作惊叹不已，错过了许多对人类至关重要的东西。”<ref>{{cite news |url=https://newrepublic.com/article/119596/appetite-wonder-review-closed-mind-richard-dawkins |title=The Closed Mind of Richard Dawkins |date=2 October 2014 |access-date=20 January 2016 |first=John |last=Gray |work=New Republic |archive-date=16 February 2019 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190216012235/https://newrepublic.com/article/119596/appetite-wonder-review-closed-mind-richard-dawkins |url-status=live }}</ref>格雷还批评道金斯对达尔文的忠诚。他说，如果“对达尔文来说，科学是一种探究的方法，使他能够试探性和谦逊地走向真理，对道金斯来说，科学是一种不容置疑的世界观。”作为对他的批评的回应，道金斯坚持认为神学家在解决深奥的宇宙学问题上并不比科学家好，他不是一个原教旨主义者，因为他愿意在新的证据面前改变自己的想法。{{sfn|Dawkins|2006}}<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/dawkins_18_2.html |title=When Religion Steps on Science's Turf |access-date=3 April 2008 |last=Dawkins |first=Richard |year=2006 |work=Free Inquiry |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080419125549/http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/dawkins_18_2.html |archive-date=19 April 2008}}</ref><ref name=rdf-fundamentalist>{{cite web |last=Dawkins |first=Richard |title=How dare you call me a fundamentalist |url=http://old.richarddawkins.net/articles/1071-how-dare-you-call-me-a-fundamentalist |publisher=Richard Dawkins Foundation |access-date=28 December 2012 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121231022508/http://old.richarddawkins.net/articles/1071-how-dare-you-call-me-a-fundamentalist |archive-date=31 December 2012}}</ref>