Is wokeness replacing religion? with Richard Dawkins 

As a secular person I think Dawkin's insistence of replacing christianity with science rather than wokeness is way too simplistic. Science is a methodology not a value system.

Coleman I have the gut feeling that the religions shaped hole is actually a yearning for acceptance by society and because religion typically for the longest time has been the measuring stick for that acceptance . We accepted ppl who adhere to the same code of conduct. So I think wokeism has become the new code of conduct

I used to think we could all agree that A = A until it became impossible to say men aren’t women without being called a bigot.

It's definitely a pattern in my anecdotal experience, that the friends I grew up with that were raised without religion have never had these existential crisis issues, guilt issues, needing to be part of some cult-like group think assembly. Can't say the same for my friends that came from religious backgrounds, and then left. I think that alleviation of responsibility and independence that religion gave them, left a mark on their psyche. This obviously is a generalization, but it seems to be something I observe consistently enough.

Thank you Coleman for this interview. Makes me consider many important questions.

Dawkins statement that "it would be pathetic if..." is basically a non-sequitur. If religion (superstition in his mind) were advantageous (and it's nearly uniform ubiquity in human lineages indicates that it was advantageous) then it would of course leave a "hole" which would be felt because tens of thousands of years of humans evolved the underlying conditions which led to the rise of this ubiquitous social mechanism. It being something pathetic or laudable isn't relevant. Only if it is, or isn't real.

Believing in dogma saves you from having to think deeply, provides a sense of certainty, and bonds groups together who share the dogma. This is why religion is so persistent, and where religion is rejected a new dogma is found to achieve the same ends (be it political, ideological etc). Dawkins was a huge influence on my life but I always felt he was ultimately naive about human nature.

I love Richard Dawkins

As usual, Dawkins is asked deep, thoughtful, and pertinent philosophical questions, and answers with inadequate, predictable and delusional personal opinions; reveling his worldview of wishful thinking in regards to human nature, societal structures, and even the epistemological limits of science itself. I actually find myself much more interested in Coleman Hughes's thoughts and opinions at this point, and this has been my first introduction to him.

As a moderate agnostic, I worry that a decline in faith is a major cause in young men feeling purposeless, depressed, and nihilistic. Any discussion involving morality is shut down under the guise of it being cringy, conservative, out of touch, puritanical, or dogmatic. In my opinion, this is very bad.

A key factor missing from the correlation between religious societies and low levels of happiness, is that bad experiences reliably pushes people towards religion. For example, after the massive earthquake in New Zealand there was a large increase in religious affiliation.

Nicholas Wade's book "the Faith Instinct" argues that religious faith is an inbuilt part of the human mind, akin to language. It would help explain why many people who stop believing in religion often end up believing in something else, such as a political ideology, as if it's a religion.

Being a non-believer in any kind of supernatural phenomena, when I first heard this argument that "it's condescending and contemptuous of humanity to expect that people need to fill a 'god shaped hole'" from Dawkins about 15 years ago I mostly believed and sympathized with it. Today, after witnessing the god shaped hole inexorably grow and just as rapidly get filled with the neo-religion of woke ideology, not so much. I now think that religious, or at least some kind of irrational belief in the vast majority of people is ineradicable and inescapable. He says that science and reason should instill sufficient awe in people instead, and for me, it does. My whole life is science, I understand science and scientific concepts at a very deep level, and I love scientific inquiry. But most people haven't got the slightest clue as to how science works, it doesn't interest or inspire them in the least. One in four people believe the Sun goes round the Earth, and that number hasn't budged in decades. There is nothing we can do to even remotely convince VAST swathes of people that a scientific and rational worldview will suffice in the absence of their ardently held religious beliefs. So I'm sorry Dr. Dawkins, but if that makes me contemptuous of humanity, well I cannot escape the accusation then I suppose. So be it.

Richard Dawkins is one of my favorite people What a great thinker!

That religion-shaped hole was carved there, by religion itself. The atheists of the 2010s failed to repair the hole that religion cut, and so woke walked right into it.

I think the main function of religion is the feeling of shared cause and unity. In that sense the "God-shaped hole" is not necessarily the trait of an individual, but rather of a group that "needs" a common enemy.

People NEED a guiding myth. They will never abandon myths, but they might trade. We are witnessing the rejection of God and the replacement with Social Justice, Climate Change, Gender And Racial Obsessions, etc. Just because Dawkins doesn’t need a Myth doesn’t mean he can speak for all people. Dawkins is arrogant to think all other people SHOULD adopt his viewpoint. Logic and reason are not enough for most people.

It’s interesting that none of the Four Horsemen of the New Atheism movement have ever acknowledged that wokism cannabalized and destroyed that movement, perhaps merely because they weren’t very involved with the politics and organization of it. But God, I wish Hitch were still around to share his thoughts. I’m not a huge proponent of the brand of cult Atheism those gentlemen spawned but Christopher Hitchens was an undeniably brilliant and thoughtful guy and he would’ve had the courage and integrity to admit that this new woke religion deserves just as much contempt as the other religions he railed against.

If you wanna criticize anything effectively, you have to take it seriously. That is the problem with Dawkins.

Dawkins is successful. Science has provided him fame and fortune. This isn't the case for most people. Science fills that hole for him, but it probably won't for most people.

I think both men need to think long and hard about the word "Sacred." I've met few atheists who had "hope" of any kind; most have been nihilists. Morality only comes from truth; and we live in a post truth world. Dawkins ought to actually read the Old Testament, for its content rather than as mere literature. Religious people are happier because they have HOPE. Even in Secular countries in Europe - they haven't abandoned the church altogether, they still go there for Christmas, Easter, Weddings, Baptisms, Funerals - which is odd, because there is no reason for truly secular people to observe any of those things.

Humans will always need existential meaning, whether Hitchens, Harris, Nietzsche etc want it to be true or not.

I remain convinced...what a wonderful statement Coleman. You in one part of one sentence perfectly express a commitment to humility to open mindedness and still expressing an opinion. I will try to use that in conversation more often.

I hope Dawkins makes another trip out to my city at some point. He was here giving a lecture and book signing a year or two ago and I couldn't make it but I would love to get a chance to see him in person.

Short answer: Yes Long answer: Absolutely

Science is science. It provides no code, no philosophy to live by. It’s not something you can solely live by.

I have followed Dr Hawkins all my life and his book the selfish gene had more impact on my life then anything or anyone. Over time I also believed that religion is a force for evil and best be abandoned. But as I have grown older and I have seen woke ideologues take center stage in my kids and neices lives , I have been forced to rethink. I see the calm that religious believe gives to my mom and helps her deal with adversity in life. I see the younger generation having absorbed the woke values to give meaning to their lives. And I am now convinced that the religious upbringing I had was essential and I wish at times that I had not broken free of it and was foolish enough to keep believing and hence have more meaning in my own life. Even if religion is not necessary for all of one’s life , it is mighty important to keep one centered and give a foundation in morality. As the ability to reason develops, those values that one acquired stay deep within one self and a sense of right and wrong stays around for good. One might even spend half one’s life trying to figure out if God truly exists or not. By the time one decides one way or the other, it’s too late for an alternate ideology to take hold and turn one into a cult member of woke or some other ideology.

Interesting point about axioms! That is the appeal of traditional religions in our current moment: They are grounded in [T]ruth. (a.k.a fundamental assumptions) In order to make a secular counterweight to the identitarian relativism, we also need to ground our opposition in some sort of Truth.

Like many people here I'm an atheist and years ago I used to think Dawkins was right, but not anymore. He is clearly wrong and it baffles me he doesn't want to accept it.

Mr Dawkins seems to have a fairly light grasp of the idea of original sin. Its actually a very liberating thing to recognise that you are imperfect, and need to move towards perfection, but are still loved. He also seems to be over-confident in our ability to be completely rational - what he would like and what is differ. I don't know if he has talked to many ordinary people, as he moves in academic circles. Most people have a pretty shaky if any grasp on science.

There might be a correlation between the increase of Wokeism and the decline of religion or Christianity in the west. They are correlations but that doesn’t mean it is the causation of the problem

Dawkins has a religion. Its a secular beleif system that he religiously adheres to, with no oppeness to the possibility of being wrong.

I would like to speak with Mr. Dawkins about NDEs. Since mine, I find it impossible NOT to believe in a God.... though, I would definitely say that I have not found that God in any religion. So I call myself a deist. The change in me is real, and so was the glimpse of my future that I got while dead.

Listening to Dawkins talk about religion sounds like a conversation with my teenage atheist self. Every argument - indeed every book he's written on the topic - is aimed at a cliched straw-man of religious systems. I can't fault his work on evolutionary biology; but why do people have so much reverence for his opinion on a topic for which he is so contemptuous and chooses to remain a pedestrian thinker?

Yes.

I often hear the claim that Christians is inherently oppressive because of original sin, but there's a redemption factor that is usually never alluded to after that point is made, where secularism and wokeness has no redemption. One may not agree with it, as that's the entire point of the religion. But it's a bit deceptive to make the original sin point and then continue to ignore redemption, which is emphasized far more than original sin within Christianity.

And here we can observe Dawkins abandon empiricism and tell us what he wishes was true.

I think that people are looking for meaning in their existence, a purpose that is greater in a world in which they are so small. It is easy build an idea that you are immensely significant in the plan of the universe - that is why some due to cause and effect imagine that there must be a supreme being pulling the strings and caring about everyone's life. And religion is something that is practices in collectives. Wokeness fills the same idea. They find a cause, make moral judgments, justify it with bad "science" run by activists. Completely rejecting that science should be "value-free", i.e. should not make moral judgements. Science should just find out and explain how the world works - theories based on proven objective facts - the idea of which woke activists reject all together. Wokeness builds communities in which there are strict rules on what to believe or say - if you question those beliefs you get ostracized from the community.

My highest aspirations and questions in life such as having a moral code, working through life’s difficulties, experiencing feeling of awe, wonder, and gratitude, understanding love and empathy, understanding where I come from, where life came from, my place in the universe, my personal sense of meaning and purpose, have all been answered in such a satisfying and compelling way from within a naturalistic and scientific framework that reaching for old supernatural and religious traditions is unimaginable and quite impossible for me.

Great question !

Thank goodness for Coleman Hughes, John McWhorter, Sam Harris, Ayaan Hirsi Ali bringing science and reason to the next generation,

I greatly admire Dawkins, but he's missing the point here, and failing to make the is/ought distinction. Like it or not, reason is the slave of the passions, as Hume observed. We have not yet evolved beyond the limbic system, and until we do, the elephant is still in motion. Of course, reason must shape our epistemologies and direct our actions, but we ignore our emotions and their concomitant biases at our peril, and there will always be a pre-rational yearning and response toward reality that opens and fills in the gaps in our understanding of the world. Yes, we can and should continue to cultivate rational mechanisms and interventions to prop up the better angels of our nature, but the fact remains that we will continue ontologically to suffer itches which empiricism and reason cannot scratch. What is required is what EO Wilson called consilience: A blended synthesis of science and the humanities which satisfies our requirements for meaning and belonging without sacrificing a clear understanding of the facts of the world. Truth is not a fact, but is felt; without reason it is blind without emotion it is empty. I would submit that it is Art that opens the space where knowledge and experience intersect, where what is observed, and what is imagined can be recorded and expressed, revealing reality as it is, and evoking it as we imagine it to be without our becoming lost to the description.

amazing, suscribed.

Good job man! I've watched many interviews/ speaking engagements with Dawkins and you did a great job getting him to open up and pretend he's not an alien.

Dawkins would prefer it if wokeness and other crap didn't replace religion... and he thinks it's condescending to note the proliferation of woke religion. He's not facing reality. It's pure stubbornness to ignore what just happened in western societies

As an atheist, I reject wokery for the same reason that I do religion; that its beliefs and claims have no basis in reality.

Sir Richard is the Greatest Exponent of Critical thinking and reasoning in the search for Truth in the scientific understanding of our Universe...deluded and coming away from religion can be greatly influenced in turning to the scientific way of understanding our Universe...science is the best solution and remedy for those poor people who want to fill the void...Thank you Sir Richard ❤❤❤

The science shows lifetime happiness correlates to family which offers more human intimacy. secular societies are overwhelmingly lonely.

Funny how Dawkins immediately resorts to an “argument from Incredulity.” I think despite his many public proclamations about religion Dawkins has failed to think very deeply about it.

Notice how Dawkins gets asked a question concerning mainly wokism and, even though after a long speech he does end up criticising the "original-sin-like race blaming", all this time he is being extremely careful with his words, he barely comments on wokism and he almost completely deviates from that question, and focuses almost solely on criticising religion. Dawkins may not be a hard believer in wokism, but throughout his life he has indeed declared himself as a leftist, a progressive, a feminist, a socialist, etc., beliefs which are not that far from wokism, and he has been a hard critic of those who did not share these views. I am not commenting on whether I agree or disagree with his views, but I am disappointed with the way he is unable to state his views clearly, evading questions like this one here, being extremely careful not to offend woke people, yet having no concern, or even seemingly enjoying offending e.g. republicans, Christians, Brexit supporters, etc. He was even unable to acknowledge the obvious problem with lack of religion leaving a hole for ideologies such as wokism or communism, and instead he talked about his wishful utopia world, without even recognising the obvious emotional hole that atheism has brought to millions of people. In the past he has always said "The universe doesn't care what I would like, this is just a fact and we need to address it." Yet here he completely "forgets" his own logic and hides in his wishes, not addressing the question nor the problem, i.e. contradicting himself.

Science doesn't deal with "what is", science generates models that predict the behaviour of nature.

The questions we ought to ask ourselves are, what aspects of a religious belief do people seem to need, and what makes people with that kind of belief happier?

Richard is wrong. Not having a religious scaffolding is totally feasible for people who have family, career, achievements and wealth but for the multitude of humans who lack such things, a religious structure is essential. And as long as society has millions of people who lack such things, civilization requires a religious structure to function. I say that as someone who used to be an anti theist like Dawkins

I always used to be interested in cults, extreme religions, and other powerful social persuasion that would lead people to do certain things. And then of course it happened to me as well, I identified as trans for a few years. And now I realize it was a very similar phenomenon. Its not a cult, its a cultURE, same thing. Social groups creating ideas about bodies and souls, and persuading people to disregard facts of reality in favor of honoring these souls as if they were some higher power. God is dead and most people, human beings in a mob, will cling onto whatever their social group decides is right the same as any other religion. Be skeptical.

Its often depressing that people have not connected and realized that Philosophy isnt something you apply to science, IT IS THE FIRST SCIENCE that you to the physical sciences. Ayn Rands Philosophy who needs it, to all that see this message please give it a read.

to me, contemplating the vastness of the universe or life's complexity is not enough to find solace. I think it really depends on the person. I mean, I really enjoy community, metaphor and ritual. I find these wonderful elements of religion and I often find these elements most properly integrated there. I do concede that the dogma is a massive problem.

Richard Dawkins has contradicted himself when he finds it condescending and pathetic for the idea that humanity abstracts from reality a belief system than to take it as it is. Dawkins himself can't answer the second question being that to understand concepts like "the beauty of reality" one must again abstract from reality. Belief systems can be straw-manned to assume it's entirely a question of how ought to live, commandments, strict tradition, judgement, social stigma, etc. But more often than that, all abstractions of reality are of the same process, neurologically, psychologically, phenomenologically, etc. The question Coleman is presenting is that the "hole" that religion fills is that means to abstract which at the deepest level, is being filled with an equally ideological framework. Dawkins does not want to honestly confront this question because it would immediately end his atheistic career, if we excluded his brilliant work in evolutionary biology.

2:30 No, it's not pathetic, it's simply a consequence of the fact that science does not provide _in fact_ any answers to the most basic fundamental questions of existence and the human condition.

It's fascinating that Dawkins doesn't believe that there is a need for a meta-narrative (filled usually with religion) and that humans should just accept the world as it is.... while he's championing how his meta-narrative is the correct way to view the world and others need follow what he believes.

As much as I respect Dawkins work...the god delusion was a great read...but I find his stance quite condescending. If only the people behaved like piano keys and danced to his superior understanding of what people should believe in...I find this is ignorant and arrogant. The statement of the religion shaped hole is an observation people made who were rather on the side of atheism... dawkins clearly doesn not like this, since it goes against his struggle against religion. And instead of perhaps analysing it and perhaps readjusting his "believe" system...he goes full cognitive dissonance and calls it silly...Cause it would be way better if we followed his supreme intellect and believed in truth. Truth? We are apes living on a rock in hostile space, floating around a giant ball of fire!...And even if we are good boys and girls, one day the sun is going to explode...killing us all....truth is, life is bleak...and the only rational thing to do is to give up and despair....perhaps sprinkling some happy-silly-fairy dust into our perception of our doomed infinitvely-complex shitty reality is not the worst move humans came up with.

Richard Dawkins has never understood, and I doubt he ever will, the role of religion and spirituality in our species. He continuously claims that one cannot be both religious and a person of science. Part of his confusion may come from the mindboggling variety of religious expressions, and that many of them are not very compatible with science. He may lack familiarity with theologies that embrace it. For me, religion isn't just a way to reach truth, it's a way to find meaning and purpose, which are things that are subjective and personal, and not available to the scrutiny of the scientific method.

I'm not convinced by the idea that "the worst possible suffering for everybody is bad" will get you very far in constructing a framework for morality. Take all of the contentious moral questions faced by society today, from the line at which a fetus accrues rights, to the permissibility of forced v-xinations, to the gun control debate, or involvement in the war in Ukraine. A simple rule like "I want what's best for everybody/more people" doesn't tell us much beyond justifying what we already may believe about these questions.

Many built-in features of human psychology we don't understand till things have changed drastically from historical norms.

The danger of a belief in science is that science itself is different from "what scientists say".

I found religion after living a Dionysian, atheistic life throughout my 20's. I had followed the 4 horsemen, watched all the famous debates and discussions, and really tried to get into Harris's "secular buddhism" and his arguments for objective morality, but I ended up at a dead-end and frankly felt hollow and joyless. It's actually quite a relief to read the comments here. I think people are starting to see the forest through the trees. People forget that the ancients saw science as an outgrowth of metaphysics and philosophy. Otherwise you have nothing to actually base your science on. There's no sacredness or deep-rooted value system that the science sits on tops of.

"Life feels quite beautiful and sacred to me on its own." Well said. Were we all to accept this, it may end this intractable debate.

interesting!

I think it's problematic when people judge a book by a sentence, a paragraph, or even a chapter. It leaves the cherries ripe for picking in both ways, pro and con.

People don't put down religious texts and pick up science texts...people are more simple than what Dawkins supposes. They need a framework for explaining death, meaning, purpose....to feel hope that existence is about something greater than ourselves.

I think that much of morality can find a bedrock in ‘universal’ human (primate) behaviour, in human psychology.

I agree this argument was first in my mind having been raised an extreme Christian and now being agnostic, quite early I saw how religion, ironically Christianity mapped so well onto Wokeism

I've been saying this for ages. Militant intersectional identitatianism, the CSJ cult if you will, most definitely satisfies the religious impulse for many people. CSJ cultist often display the same (or very similar) behaviours and ideas that are found in fundamentalist religious dogmas. Such as, 'I am right and anyone who disagrees with me is not just wrong, but an enemy to be fought and punished'; 'if you dare to question me you are guilty of blasphemy and will be punished'; 'women are second class, non people'; 'if you don't outwardly affirm your 'wokeness' all of the time to everyone you meet, then you will be publicly shamed and cast out'. The list goes on.

Ist been said by others but back around 10 - 15 years ago when I was in my 20's watching the new Atheists. I was a huge fan of the fire brand of atheism Dawkins had, today however listenign to what he said at 02:10 I find myself totally disagreeing, people clearly have a hunger for this stuff..

Richard Dawkins admits that people needs a, "decent target for their reverence". Right here he admits that humanity needs to have reverence for something which is basically an admittance that we have a religious instinct. In the same breath, Richard Dawkins at the beginning of the video made the claim that assuming that humanity needed to believe in something was condescending toward the human race. He is suffering from a massive case of cognitive dissonance and isn't being rationally consistent since what he hopes to be true is taking him away from what he knows to be true. Richard Dawkins in order to position himself on firmer intellectual grounds, should admit that humans are wired to believe in something. If he wanted to take this conversation one step further, he should flesh out what humans should believe in. Whatever he advocates for, it needs to be something that fills humanity with a sense of purpose. Telling people that they should put their religious instinct into science is foolish since science isn't as fulfilling to the soul as religion.

Yes

I used to be religious, and I feel no sense of loss. I feel a huge gain from leaving that nonsense, and my life has improved immensely. Furthermore, I disdain wokeness as much as religion.

Whilst I can appreciate Prof Dawkins point, I do think that anyone who had religion as a major part of their life would feel a hole if they stopped believing. However, I think that an increase in general levels of education, free from the dogma of religion, will necessarily create people with a greater sensitivity to injustice. The problem arises when people turn that sensitivity into a movement and follow it as they did their religion. We should all be intolerant of injustice but the term 'wokeness' invokes a different level of strangely twisted logic, self loathing and hand wringing that helps no-one.

This topic is Dawkins Achilles heal. He just doesn’t seem to be able to wrap his heart/head around the magnitude of this issue. He comes off as recalcitrant and the epitome of a person in denial. I say this as someone who is grateful for Dawkins’ generous contribution to science and the domain of intellectual progress. I’ve always wondered if there’s a backstory in RD’s personal background which accounts for his recalcitrance.

Replacing religion? No. Becoming an exact counterpart to religion? Definitely. It had always fascinated me that if really dig into both Calvinism and anti-racism you'll see how eerily similar the epistemology of the two are.

It seems to me that the problem with the Sam Harris argument you mentioned is that "suffering is wrong" only extends to your group/tribe because empathy only extends so far. The problem is moral assumptions are not like "A=A" and many people choose to live by different assumptions (like the Mafia who reduce suffering in their own group but not the outgroup). The benefit of religion is they say that assumption is not arbitrary but built into the structure of the universe so that one becomes "more real" when they follow it. There is a profound psychological difference between taking something as true or as a first principle and believing it actually is true.

If you're a smart person like Richard Dawkins you can live your life simply following science and appealing to higher values of logic and reason. But most people aren't that smart and they do need some sort of moral value system to guide them. If traditional religion isn't providing it they will find something else.

Sometimes Dawkins seems more like a fundamentalist than Christian fundamentalists.

‘If you allow an assumption then….’ That’s so convenient. You claim to be wed to the scientific method then allow yourself an exception to answer a question that science can’t answer yet still stick to your position that only science has the answers.

I have been an admirer of Richard Dawkins for decades reading and listening to almost everything he produces. After seeing this video I'm confused that he would equate religion and woke. Religion is superstition based on faith and the superanatural. Woke is a social construct which (as I understand it) is based on the interpretation of and response to real historical events therefore open to rational discussion. As an American, I do feel that our country's original sins are genocide of Indigenous Americans and 200 years of enslaving our fellow humans. Our country is still fighting that 'civil' war.

You gave about as good an explanation as anyone could, and it went completely over his head. He doesn't understand the fact that most people aren't into science like he is. For him science is Science, with a capital 'S'. He's not getting that that's HIS THING, and that most people aren't as smart as he is, and aren't going to be really into science. Everyone needs something to give their life meaning, and for a lot of people that is religion. I'm not a fan of religion either, but everyone needs something that drives them, and he's not getting that other people need to believe in something. Even Einstein had his own idea about God, even though he discarded religion.

When people lose religion they try to fill it because religion actually does perform a usefulness, in spite of the drawbacks, and for many of us created an actual chemical reality.

This language is 100% what Jonathan Haidt does say. He claims there is a religious hole we all have, and it will be filled with something. Interesting. Blatant disagreement between Dockins and Haidt. The idea of white original sin is what Jon McWhorter talks about in his woke religion book, too. He makes the argument that wokeism is just another religion, but a baaaadd one at that.

I'd love to interview you on my channel, Coleman. I'm a Christian, so obviously, our views vary, but Id love to hear about yours more.

The sense of sacredness which Dawkins admits he feels in awe of the universe is a metaphysical phenomenon. Yet Dawkins denies the existence of anything metaphysical, reality is for him is purely matter and its interaction. He also asserts that life, the universe and everything is meaningless. Most of the rest of the human race knows there is more to reality than atoms and the void. Music, art, literature, human relationships etc all point to realities above and beyond the physical. People naturally yearn for transcendence.

Richard Dawkins, one of my favorite people.

I get not buying into religion but not knowing God must be horrible.

His book The Greatest Show on Earth showed me that Dawkins has real marvel and love of the beauty and the strangeness of the natural world.

I take reality as it is (at least I try to do my best). Thank you Mr. Dawkins for all your energy and patience you are an inspiration.

I'm sorry, but I've heard Dawkins talk about religion so often and he still is so ignorant and uneducated on the subject I just can't take it anymore. He constantly sets religion equal to superstition and unreasonableness, which shows he has not the slightest idea about catholic theology, and his whole concept why religion exists is completely flawed.

Being awake we see pictures. Sacrifice argued property. The Words Whole relation: Kneel to trace on Earth. G is an incomplete whole with one square angle drawn in Earth. O is a Whole measure. D is a split whole with two square angles drawn in Earth.

We can and should acknowledge that every individual has a "religion", a set of morals and beliefs that influences their actions and outlook on life. Dawkins acknowledges that humanity needs an object of reverence (at 5:39) however, he seems to miss the fact that many people do not spend the time philosophically considering WHAT to revere. Wishing something were true doesn't make it so. It's the weakness of many political positions, where a policy is implemented hoping it goes one way and ignoring things when they don't work out.

Before watching: I'm going to predict that Dawkins will acknowledge some problems with the woke neo-religion but ultimately downplay it, and get some digs in on Christians or Muslims for good measure.

Keep hoping Dawkins lmao

All human beings worship something. There are no exceptions.

Back in the mid-2000s, I was a huge fan of Richard Dawkins. I believe that Dr. Dawkins has good motives, but I also think he criticized the Judeo-Christian tradition without appreciating what it provided.