I'm an atheist, but I'm very relaxed about it. I don't preach my atheism, but I have a huge amount of respect for people like Richard Dawkins who do.
Imagine someone holding forth on biology whose only knowledge of the subject is 'The Book of British Birds,' and you have a rough idea of what it feels like to read Richard Dawkins on theology.
Richard Dawkins is arguably England's most pious atheist.
One of Dawkins' major gripes is against religion. I am in total agreement on that one. I abhor religion.
Fundamentalism is another problem. I mean, Dawkins in a way is almost a fundamentalist himself, of another kind.
I call myself an agnostic. I'm open to change. I'm the same sort of person, although much less aggressive, as Richard Dawkins.
You can't be a part-time Richard Dawkins.
Science is a victim of its own reductive metaphors: 'Big Bang,' 'selfish gene' and so on. Richard Dawkins' selfish gene fitted with the Thatcherite politics of the time. It should actually be the 'altruistic gene,' but he'd never have sold as many books with a title like that.
I like to think 'The God Delusion' is a humorous book. I think, actually, it's full of laughs. And people who describe it as a polarizing book or as an aggressive book, it's just that very often they haven't read it.
In neither his definition nor the examples illustrating what memes are does Dawkins mention anything that would distinguish memes from concepts.
