Richard Dawkins cytaty
strona 2

Richard Dawkins, właściwie Clinton Richard Dawkins – brytyjski zoolog, etolog, ewolucjonista i publicysta. Do końca 2008 był profesorem katedry Public Understanding of Science na Uniwersytecie Oksfordzkim.

Jest teoretykiem ewolucji biologicznej. W wydanej w 1976 książce Samolubny gen opisał koncepcję ewolucji, w której jednostką doboru naturalnego jest gen. Wprowadził tam również pojęcie memu oraz zainicjował powstanie memetyki. W 1982 w książce Fenotyp rozszerzony dowodził, że działanie fenotypu nie ogranicza się do ciała danego organizmu, ale rozciąga się na środowisko, włączając w to także ciała innych istot.

Jest antyteistą, działa w ruchu "The Brights", wspiera Great Ape Project – ruch, który wyznaczył sobie wywalczenie niektórych praw dla wszystkich hominidów. Jest też inicjatorem akcji Out Campaign.

Krytykuje religię jako "niebezpieczny nonsens, który uczy wrogości wobec innych ludzi". Po zamachach na World Trade Center i Pentagon wezwał do ostrzejszej krytyki światopoglądów religijnych: "Skończmy wreszcie z tym cholernym szacunkiem!". Krytykuje również kreacjonizm, wiarę w zjawiska nadnaturalne i tzw. medycynę alternatywną.

Jest doktorem honoris causa uniwersytetów: Westminster, Durham, Hull i Walencji oraz laureatem l Nagrody Literackiej "Los Angeles Times" oraz Srebrnego Medalu Londyńskiego Towarzystwa Zoologicznego . Czasopismo "Prospect" umieściło go na trzecim miejscu na liście najwybitniejszych współczesnych intelektualistów znanych szerokiej publiczności .

Jest krytykiem religii instytucjonalnej, zwłaszcza chrześcijaństwa, judaizmu i islamu.

✵ 26. Marzec 1941
Richard Dawkins Fotografia
Richard Dawkins: 344   Cytaty 2   Polubienia

Richard Dawkins słynne cytaty

Richard Dawkins Cytaty o religii

Richard Dawkins cytaty

„Rozważmy ideę Boga. Nie wiemy, skąd się wzięła w puli memów. Przypuszczalnie powstała wiele razy na drodze niezależnych mutacji. W każdym razie z pewnością jest bardzo stara. W jaki sposób się replikuje? Słowem mówionym i pisanym, wspomaganym przez wspaniałą muzykę i wielkie dzieła sztuki. Czemu ma tak wysoką przeżywalność? W tym przypadku przeżywalność nie jest oczywiście własnością genu w puli memów, ale memu w puli memów. Pytanie to znaczy w istocie tyle: co w idei Boga stanowi o tak wielkiej jej stabilności i zdolności do penetrowania środowiska kulturowego? Zdolność przetrwania memu Boga w puli memów wynika z tego, że przemawia on bardzo silnie do psychiki. Udziela prawdopodobnie brzmiącej odpowiedzi na głębokie i drażniące pytania o sens istnienia. Zdaje się obiecywać, że niesprawiedliwości tego świata zostaną naprawione na tamtym. Nieśmiertelne zastępy łagodzą dotkliwość doczesnych niedostatków, i choć istnieją tylko w naszej wyobraźni, nie są przez to ani trochę mniej skuteczne, będąc w tym podobne do placebo podanego przez lekarza. Oto niektóre z powodów łatwości, z jaką idea Boga jest kopiowana przez mózgi kolejnych pokoleń. Bóg istnieje, przynajmniej jako mem o dużej zdolności przetrwania, czy tej wybitnej zaraźliwości, w środowisku tworzonym przez kulturę człowieka.”

Cytaty z książek, Samolubny gen (1976)<span id=Samolubny gen>&nbsp;</span>

„Całe stworzenie, wszędzie we Wszechświecie, jest bezpośrednim lub pośrednim wynikiem kumulatywnego procesu, którego ziemskim odpowiednikiem jest to, co na Ziemi nazywamy darwinowskim doborem naturalnym.”

Cytaty z artykułów
Źródło: Karol Jałochowski, W cieniu zakwitających teorii, „Polityka” wydanie specjalne, 6/2010.

Richard Dawkins: Cytaty po angielsku

“We are going to die, and that makes us the lucky ones. Most people are never going to die because they are never going to be born.”

Richard Dawkins książka Rozplatanie tęczy

Dawkins has stated on many occasions that this passage will be read at his funeral.
Unweaving the Rainbow (1998)
Kontekst: We are going to die, and that makes us the lucky ones. Most people are never going to die because they are never going to be born. The potential people who could have been here in my place but who will in fact never see the light of day outnumber the sand grains of Sahara. Certainly those unborn ghosts include greater poets than Keats, scientists greater than Newton. We know this because the set of possible people allowed by our DNA so massively outnumbers the set of actual people. In the teeth of these stupefying odds it is you and I, in our ordinariness, that are here. We privileged few, who won the lottery of birth against all odds, how dare we whine at our inevitable return to that prior state from which the vast majority have never stirred?

“No matter how much knowledge and wisdom you acquire during your life, not one jot will be passed on to your children by genetic means. Each new generation starts from scratch.”

Richard Dawkins książka The Selfish Gene

Źródło: The Selfish Gene (1976, 1989), Ch. 3. Immortal Coils
Kontekst: Genes do indirectly control the manufacture of bodies, and the influence is strictly one way: acquired characteristics are not inherited. No matter how much knowledge and wisdom you acquire during your life, not one jot will be passed on to your children by genetic means. Each new generation starts from scratch.

“The first cause cannot have been an intelligence, let alone an intelligence that answers prayers and enjoys being worshiped.”

Intelligent, creative, complex, statistically improbable things come late into the universe, as the product of evolution or some other process of gradual escalation from simple beginnings. They come late into the universe and therefore cannot be responsible for designing it.
The Huffington Post, 23/10/2006 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/richard-dawkins/why-there-almost-certainl_b_32164.html
Why There Almost Certainly Is No God (2006)

“The universe does not owe you a sense of hope.”

The Big Questions (2008)
Kontekst: "The universe does not owe you a sense of hope. It could be that the world, the universe, is a totally hopeless place. I don't as a matter of fact think it is, but even if it were - that would not be a good reason for believing in God. You cannot say "I believe in X", whatever X is - God or anything else - "because that gives me hope". You have to say "I believe in X because there is some evidence for X". In the case of God - there is not a tiny shred of evidence for the existence of any kind of god.” … “There's plenty of reason for hope in a Godless world. The universe is a beautiful place. The world is a beautiful place. To understand it in a clear-eyed, open-eyed way; to look out at the world and to really understand why we exist, what it's all about - that is a hugely uplifting feeling; That really does give a sense of worth to life, even if life itself is finite, as I believe it is. Nevertheless, it is not a hopeless life without a god, and to re-divert to my earlier point, even if it were - then it's just illogical to say that that gives you evidence for the belief in God." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=of-8Q3HySjE&t=44m08s

“However difficult those simple beginnings may be to accept, they are a whole lot easier to accept than complicated beginnings. Complicated things come into the universe late, as a consequence of slow, gradual, incremental steps. God, if he exists, would have to be a very, very, very complicated thing indeed. So to postulate a God as the beginning of the universe, as the answer to the riddle of the first cause, is to shoot yourself in the conceptual foot because you are immediately postulating something far far more complicated than that which you are trying to explain.”

Richard Dawkins książka The God Delusion

The God Delusion (2006)
Kontekst: If the alternative that's being offered to what physicists now talk about - a big bang, a spontaneous singularity which gave rise to the origin of the universe - if the alternative to that is a divine intelligence, a creator, which would have to have been complicated, statistically improbable, the very kind of thing which scientific theories such as Darwin's exists to explain, then immediately we see that however difficult and apparently inadequate the theory of the physicists is, the theory of the theologians - that the first course was a complicated intelligence - is even more difficult to accept. They're both difficult but the theory of the cosmic intelligence is even worse. What Darwinism does is to raise our consciousness to the power of science to explain the existence of complex things and intelligences, and creative intelligences are above all complex things, they're statistically improbable. Darwinism raises our consciousness to the power of science to explain how such entities - and the human brain is one - can come into existence from simple beginnings. However difficult those simple beginnings may be to accept, they are a whole lot easier to accept than complicated beginnings. Complicated things come into the universe late, as a consequence of slow, gradual, incremental steps. God, if he exists, would have to be a very, very, very complicated thing indeed. So to postulate a God as the beginning of the universe, as the answer to the riddle of the first cause, is to shoot yourself in the conceptual foot because you are immediately postulating something far far more complicated than that which you are trying to explain. Now, physicists cope with this problem in various ways, which may seem somewhat unconvincing. For example, they suggest that our universe is but one bubble in foam of universes, the multiverse, and each bubble in the foam has a different set of laws and constants. And by the anthropic principle we have to be - since we're here talking about it - in the kind of bubble, with the kind of laws and constants, which are capable of giving rise to the evolutionary process and therefore to creatures like us. That is one current physicists' explanation for how we exist in the kind of universe that we do. It doesn't sound so shatteringly convincing as say Darwin's own theory, which is self-evidently very convincing. Nevertheless, however unconvincing that may sound, it is many, many, many orders of magnitude more convincing than any theory that says complex intelligence was there right from the outset. If you have problems seeing how matter could just come into existence - try thinking about how complex intelligent matter, or complex intelligent entities of any kind, could suddenly spring into existence, it's many many orders of magnitude harder to understand.

Lynchburg, Virginia, 23/10/2006 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qR_z85O0P2M&t=42m41s

“Evolution could so easily be disproved if just a single fossil turned up in the wrong date order. Evolution has passed this test with flying colours.”

Richard Dawkins książka The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution

Źródło: The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution

“It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that).”

Źródło: Reviewing Blueprints: Solving the Mystery of Evolution (1989) by Maitland A. Edey and Donald C. Johanson

Źródło: Last sentence expanded upon in "Ignorance is No Crime" (2001) (see below)
Kontekst: So to the book's provocation, the statement that nearly half the people in the United States don't believe in evolution. Not just any people but powerful people, people who should know better, people with too much influence over educational policy. We are not talking about Darwin's particular theory of natural selection. It is still (just) possible for a biologist to doubt its importance, and a few claim to. No, we are here talking about the fact of evolution itself, a fact that is proved utterly beyond reasonable doubt. To claim equal time for creation science in biology classes is about as sensible as to claim equal time for the flat-earth theory in astronomy classes. Or, as someone has pointed out, you might as well claim equal time in sex education classes for the stork theory. It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that).

If that gives you offence, I'm sorry. You are probably not stupid, insane or wicked; and ignorance is no crime in a country with strong local traditions of interference in the freedom of biology educators to teach the central theorem of their subject.

“By all means let's be open-minded, but not so open-minded that our brains drop out.”

The Enemies of Reason, "The Irrational Health Service" [1.02], 20 August 2007, timecode 00:13:05"ff"
The Enemies of Reason (August 2007)
Wariant: We should be open-minded, but not so open-minded that our brain falls out.

“Science replaces private prejudice with publicly verifiable evidence.”

The Enemies of Reason, "The Irrational Health Service"
The Enemies of Reason (August 2007)

“American political opportunities are loaded against those who are simultaneously intelligent and honest.”

Richard Dawkins on militant atheism http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/richard_dawkins_on_militant_atheism.html, (February 2002)
Kontekst: We've reached a truly remarkable situation: a grotesque mismatch between the American intelligencia and the American electorate. A philosophical opinion about the nature of the universe which is held by the vast majority of top American scientists, and probably the majority of the intelligencia generally, is so abhorrent to the American electorate that no candidate for popular election dare affirm it in public. If I'm right, this means that high office in the greatest country in the world is barred to the very people best qualified to hold it: the intelligencia, unless they are prepared to lie about their beliefs. To put it bluntly American political opportunities are heavily loaded against those who are simultaneously intelligent and honest.

“Even if it were true that evolution, or the teaching of evolution, encouraged immorality that would not imply that the theory of evolution was false.”

Richard Dawkins książka The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution

Źródło: The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution

“Unfortunately, however much we may deplore something, it does not stop being true.”

Richard Dawkins książka The Selfish Gene

Źródło: The Selfish Gene

“DNA neither cares nor knows. DNA just is. And we dance to its music.”

Richard Dawkins książka River Out of Eden

Źródło: River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life

“In the beginning was simplicity.”

Richard Dawkins książka The Selfish Gene

Źródło: The Selfish Gene

Podobni autorzy

William Somerset Maugham Fotografia
William Somerset Maugham 32
pisarz angielski
Aldous Huxley Fotografia
Aldous Huxley 36
pisarz angielski
Virginia Woolf Fotografia
Virginia Woolf 68
angielska pisarka
George Orwell Fotografia
George Orwell 69
pisarz i publicysta angielski
Rudyard Kipling Fotografia
Rudyard Kipling 32
angielski pisarz, poeta i prozaik
Clive Staples Lewis Fotografia
Clive Staples Lewis 52
angielski pisarz, historyk, filozof i teolog
Agatha Christie Fotografia
Agatha Christie 82
pisarka angielska
John Ronald Reuel Tolkien Fotografia
John Ronald Reuel Tolkien 22
angielski filolog-germanista, filozof chrześcijański, pisarz
James Joyce Fotografia
James Joyce 21
irlandzki pisarz
Aleister Crowley Fotografia
Aleister Crowley 27
okultysta angielski