The Matrix has you

 

Do we all owe Richard Dawkins an apology? Hmmm... 

The Claude Delusion

 

Richard Dawkins out? His essay for UnHerd are behind a pay wall, but here is a summary and some comments in "The Guardian". 

Everyone who hates Dawkins for his "transphobia" is mocking him on YouTube for thinking that the LLM Claude is conscious (and for gender-swapping Claude to Claudia). Soon enough creationists will join the fray, just wait. Kind of a sad ending, really. 

Richard Dawkins concludes AI is conscious

*That´s* why

 

For years, I wondered about why some Christian fundamentalists wrongly refer to Richard Dawkins as "Eugene R Dawkins". ChatGPT has an interesting proposal...

Is Richard Dawkins´ full name Eugene Richard Dawkins or Eugene R Dawkins?

Richard Dawkins' full name is Clinton Richard Dawkins — not Eugene Richard Dawkins or Eugene R. Dawkins.

He was born on March 26, 1941, and he is best known as an evolutionary biologist and author of The Selfish Gene and The God Delusion.

Would you like more background on how he came to be known as Richard instead of Clinton?

Yes, please.

Richard Dawkins was born Clinton Richard Dawkins, but he has gone by Richard for most of his life. The name "Clinton" was given to him in honor of a family tradition—specifically, his father’s nickname in the army was “Clinton,” and it became his son’s given first name. However, Dawkins has always preferred to use his middle name, Richard, in daily life and professionally.

This is not uncommon in British naming customs, especially in cases where the first name is traditional or honors a family member, but the person prefers to use a different name.

Would you like a brief timeline of his life or career highlights?

Is there any indication whatsoever that his name was "Eugene" at some point?

No, there is no indication whatsoever that Richard Dawkins' name was ever "Eugene" at any point in his life.

Extensive biographical sources — including his own writings (like An Appetite for Wonder, his autobiography), interviews, and official records — all confirm that his full name is Clinton Richard Dawkins. There is no reference to "Eugene" as part of his legal name, a nickname, or a pseudonym.

If you saw "Eugene Richard Dawkins" somewhere, it was almost certainly an error, misattribution, or confusion with another person. Do you remember where you came across that name?

Yes, in a Christian creationist publication. Either Answers in Genesis or Creation Ministries International. They referred to him as "the notorious eugenicist and misotheist Eugene R Dakwins".

Ah, that makes sense — and you're absolutely right to question it.

Referring to Richard Dawkins as "Eugene R. Dakwins" is almost certainly a deliberate distortion rather than an honest mistake. Publications like Answers in Genesis (AiG) or Creation Ministries International (CMI) are known for strong ideological opposition to Dawkins, who is outspoken in his criticism of creationism and religion more broadly.

Here’s what’s likely going on:

• "Eugene" may have been chosen as a snide reference to eugenics, attempting to link Dawkins to a discredited and morally loaded ideology — despite the fact that he is not a eugenicist in any classical or policy-advocating sense.

• "Misotheist" (meaning "God-hater") is also a rhetorical choice — Dawkins is a self-described atheist, not someone who believes in God and hates Him, which is what "misotheist" implies.

• "Dakwins" instead of "Dawkins" is likely just an additional mocking twist, though it could also be an intentional typo to suggest confusion or undermine him further.

These tactics are sometimes used in polemical writing to ridicule or delegitimize opponents without engaging their arguments seriously.

If you're curious, I can help track down the specific article or passage where that phrasing appeared.

Sorry, I misspelled "Dakwins". They actually spelled it "Dawkins". But I think you are right about the rest.

No worries — and thanks for the clarification.

Given the corrected spelling of "Dawkins," it's even clearer that the use of "Eugene R. Dawkins" was not accidental but part of a rhetorical strategy. These publications often use loaded or misleading labels to shape reader perception — especially with figures like Dawkins, who they see as ideological adversaries.

In this case, the name "Eugene" likely wasn't a mistaken identity but a pun or symbolic jab, subtly linking Dawkins to eugenics, even if he never advocated for it in the sense they imply. It's a way to discredit him through emotional association rather than factual critique.

You're right to approach such claims skeptically. If you ever want help fact-checking or unpacking more of this kind of rhetoric, I'm happy to help. Would you like to look at how Dawkins himself has addressed accusations of supporting eugenics or similar claims? 

Richard Dawkins vindicated

 

Evolution of evolvability is a thing, apparently. 

Evolution itself evolves, new study finds

Mostly false

 

Except Richard Dawkins. But nice try, fundamentalista!

Ontological cheating

 

AI´s fantasy version of the
First Universal Common Ancestor (FUCA)

Previously posted on January 3, 2022.

Isn´t it strange that most atheists-materialists believe that the universe is inevitably going *their* way, while claiming to believe in blind evolution and attack teleology as unscientific? And yet, it seems that the blind process of chance and determinism invariably ends up with the English Victorian gentleman with a slight penchant for reform causes...at least if you are, let´s say, an English Victorian gentleman with a slight penchant for reform causes. Funny how *blind* evolution never ends with, say, a militaristic Preussian junker, or a French Bonapartist named Bonaparte. Or a hideous Thugee in darkest British Raj. 

Of course, if you are a libertarian, blind cosmic evolution somehow manages to always end with libertarians, never with Stalinists or Latin Rite Catholics. Or even Kamala Harris. If you are a left-liberal disaster area with California Crazy values, blind evolution will inevitably (at least after 15 billion years or so) take you to the sunny shores of Crazy California, that notorious left-liberal disaster area. Even more weirdly, all the scenarios above always converge on humanity inventing some ingenious machine that can take us to the stars and eventually "become like gods" (hiss). 

But that´s not teleology either. Naaah. Cuz that would be UNSCIENTIFIC!!!

Presumably, it´s not anthropocentrism either, then.

One of the few exceptions to the rule seems to be Richard Dawkins. He actually believes that evolution can turn out in a way we *don´t* like. Which seems pretty reasonable, if the process is supposed to be a blind-folded one. (Or even a teleological one - what the heck makes us think *we* are the purpose of the universe?) Hence his quip: "Let´s try to teach some altruism, since we are born selfish". Dawkins has also said: "I´m not particularly interested in humans. That´s just one species, and a highly aberrant one, at that". Dawkins have drawn the conclusion nobody else dares to draw. Everybody else is engaged in a kind of ontological cheating. I used to think that Dawkins´ perspective was terrible, dark and depressive. Reading "The Blind Watchmaker" almost turned me Christian! Or at least Platonist. Today, I suspect he is on to something. And no, I´m not an atheist-materialist. But the plane of existence we are stuck on in this round, sure as hell seems godless...  

Atheism: The Good Delusion?

 

LOL. This came up when I asked Bing AI to imagine "Atheism". The Good Delusion by Richard Dallkins. Or is it Ichard? One of the guys on the coffee mug does vaguely resemble Dawkins, but who is the other one? Nick Pope?! 

The frog and the turtle

Some disturbing thoughts in this one, but it´s the darkest blog on the web, so why be surprised? Some quotes:

>>> In six thousand years of recorded history, there have only been a limited number of great civilizations, which collectively make up a very small percentage of the total number of peoples and societies across world history. And the preferences, customs, traditions, and laws of most societies are observably not capable of creating or sustaining any form of civilization, let alone one that approaches the heights of Western European civilization circa 1800 – 1950.

>>>No civilization that comes to be dominated by individuals from a society with dyscivilizational values can sustain itself in a functional manner over time. The more that Western Civilization is influenced by non-Christian, non-European people from societies that never successfully established their own civilizations and with values that contradict the historical values of Western civilization, the more likely it is that the resulting societal structure will not transition into a post-Western civilization with post-Western values as expected, but rather, collapse entirely into a post-civilized state.

>>>Atheists such as Richard Dawkins have already discovered that post-Christian society is worse for atheists than Christian society ever was. Both internal and external foes of the West will almost certainly come to the same conclusion in time.

>>>There is an older version of the Russian tale of the scorpion and the frog. In the Persian tale, which dates back to 1487, the scorpion is riding the back of a turtle. Unlike the frog, the turtle survives the scorpion’s sting due to its hard shell, tells the scorpion that it is wicked, and drowns it in order to prevent the scorpion from harming anyone else.

>>>So, this naturally tends to raise the question, which civilized societies are frogs and which are turtles? 

Scorpion´s Lament

Kill God, get trans?

A somewhat peculiar analysis of why so many atheists have embraced "the trans cult". From that most peculiar on-line zine Spiked. I wonder if even the author takes his analysis seriously...

The treachery of the atheists

I have also noticed that many atheists are "woke", but I assume the reason is simply the Zeitgeist. Many Christians and Neo-Pagans are pretty "woke", too. 

The trans-gender subculture is indeed a form of extreme individualism, but its attacks on biology have nothing to do with religion or science either way. It´s rather a direct consequence of its individualism - the "Me" can remake even its own biology, cuz "Me" (period). Note also that trans-genderism existed before Dawkins published his book "The Selfish Gene"!

Note finally that another sector of the same subculture, the Queers and Non-Binary people, don´t care about remaking their bodies at all. If gender is all in our heads, all we have to do is to declare our subjective gender identities (and perhaps dress a bit differently).  

Hoyle contra mundum

 

A very short presentation on "epic fights in science" (or is it Science) featuring uncouth Gerrie mama Sabine Hossenfelder. 

The most interesting piece of info is that Fred Hoyle was essentially denied the Nobel Prize by some angry committee, although it´s not entirely clear why. But sure, Hoyle was controversial and the Nobel Prize olympians apparently decided to make an example of him. 

And no, I didn´t know that Edward Wilson and Richard Dawkins (of all people) had a public feud. Hmmm...

Homo deus, something-something

 

A little reminder. The place of Homo sapiens ("Homo deus") in the evolutionary tree of life. 

Exactly. You can´t even see us. However, if you can find "Animals" under "Ophistokonta", that´s where we (and our 300 years short Civilization To End All Civilizations) can be found. 

Or to quote Richard Dawkins again: "I´m not particularly interested in humans. That´s just one species, and a highly aberrant one at that".

Just so! 

Ontological cheating

Isn´t it strange that most atheists-materialists believe that the universe is inevitably going *their* way, while claiming to believe in blind evolution and attack teleology as unscientific? And yet, it seems that the blind process of chance and determinism invariably ends up with the English Victorian gentleman with a slight penchant for reform causes...at least if you are, let´s say, an English Victorian gentleman with a slight penchant for reform causes. Funny how *blind* evolution never ends with, say, a militaristic Preussian junker, or a French Bonapartist named Bonaparte. Or a hideous Thugee in darkest British Raj. 

Of course, if you are a libertarian, blind cosmic evolution somehow manages to always end with libertarians, never with Stalinists or Latin Rite Catholics. Or even Kamala Harris. If you are a left-liberal disaster area with California Crazy values, blind evolution will inevitably (at least after 15 billion years or so) take you to the sunny shores of Crazy California, that notorious left-liberal disaster area. Even more weirdly, all the scenarios above always converge on humanity inventing some ingenious machine that can take us to the stars and eventually "become like gods" (hiss). 

But that´s not teleology either. Naaah. Cuz that would be UNSCIENTIFIC!!!

Presumably, it´s not anthropocentrism either, then.

One of the few exceptions to the rule seems to be Richard Dawkins. He actually believes that evolution can turn out in a way we *don´t* like. Which seems pretty reasonable, if the process is supposed to be a blind-folded one. (Or even a teleological one - what the heck makes us think *we* are the purpose of the universe?) Hence his quip: "Let´s try to teach some altruism, since we are born selfish". Dawkins has also said: "I´m not particularly interested in humans. That´s just one species, and a highly aberrant one, at that". Dawkins have drawn the conclusion nobody else dares to draw. Everybody else is engaged in a kind of ontological cheating. I used to think that Dawkins´ perspective was terrible, dark and depressive. Reading "The Blind Watchmaker" almost turned me Christian! Or at least Platonist. Today, I suspect he is on to something. And no, I´m not an atheist-materialist. But the plane of existence we are stuck on in this round, sure as hell seems godless... 

Richard Dawkins made me Platonist

Richard Dawkins made me Platonist.

That´s almost literally true. Years ago (circa 2000 or 2005), I was reading some of Dawkins´ heavier books, either "The Blind Watchmaker" or "The Selfish Gene". Or maybe both. The book (whichever it was) almost literally turned me Platonist, Deist, or even quasi-Christian (I dare not say "Anglican"), since the worldview of reductionist materialism and sociobiology sounded so bleak and meaningless. But is the worldview of Dawkins (or "the reality of evolution") actually so bad? Let´s see...

If Neo-Darwinism is right, there is presumably no true altruism anywhere in nature, and even among humans, we should expect it to be relatively rare, except perhaps in cultures where we deliberately teach altruism from a very young age. By "true altruism" I mean a completely selfless act directed towards a complete stranger, who morever can´t or won´t reciprocate in any way, shape or form, a fact known to the selfless giver at the time. The Sermon on the Mount could perhaps be seen as an even more extreme version of true altruism. 

But is the non-existence of such altruism really such a bad thing?

In nature, and usually among humans, there are "only" two kinds of altruism, none of them being "true": genetic altruism and reciprocal altruism. Genetic altruism means altruism towards your kin (perhaps off-spring or siblings), while reciprocal altruism means "I scratch your back, and you scratch mine". An example of the first would be so-called helpers at the nest among birds, an example of the latter would be birds in a flock warning each other for predators. (Even the seemingly selfless worker-ants really confirm this, since they are genetically related to each other and to the queen that spawned them.) 

Now, imagine a world in which every creature is a true and completely selfless altruist. It´s obviously difficult to do, but let´s try it! Imagine such a perfect world for eternity. It would be utopia. Or indeed Heaven. It might even be a very, very good thing! Can such a world exist? Yes, it probably can. In Heaven, that is. On our plane of existence, on the other hand, not likely! 

Down here, evolution and change are facts. Even if we assume that a world of true altruists would last for billions of years, it only takes one mutation to upset the apple carts. It´s reasonable to assume that such a mutation can and would happen. How would the world look like if only *one* creature would be anti-altruistic, while all the others remain selfless? The one selfish creature would turn all the others into its slaves, using and abusing them at its pleasure. And no, they wouldn´t resist. They are completely selfless, remember? The almost complete absence of selfish genes turns into a nightmarish recepie for tyranny, slavery, and parasitism on a truly global scale. 

Yes, "selfish genes" do create a lot of problems for humans, but is the alternative really so much better? Indeed, I would even argue that at least reciprocal altruism is true socialism - all for one, one for all, we work for the government, if the government works for us. Genetic altruism sounds more "tribal" and "right-wing". Perhaps those are the only options for the human species: either reciprocal or genetic altruism? Of course, they don´t necessarily contradict each other. 

I´m almost tempted to say "thank God for selfish genes"!

The retroactive purge of Richard Dawkins

"Wow, I really love the American Humanist Association.
Is it one of our front groups?"

The American Humanist Association is so woke that it has decided to strip Richard Dawkins of an award he got 25 years ago. LOL! Clown world strikes again. Of course, nobody has ever heard of the AHA, while everyone knows about Dawkins, so somehow, I think he´ll manage... 

American Humanist Association purges Richard Dawkins

I AM Omni-theist. Et tu, Mr Dawkins?

We Are All Atheists About Most of The Gods Humanity Has Ever Believed In. Some of Us Just Go One God Further 

I believe Zeus, Thor, Moloch, Tezcatlipoca, Ganesha and the Great Spaghetti Monster are all real. Zeus is actually buried in my backyard. Santa is real, too. So is Bigfoot and the Jersey Devil (no relation to Mephisto or Chris Christie). So no, Dick, I really don't see your point…

The busted atheist

I assumed it was Deepak Chopra who said that atoms are sentient, while Richard Dawkins denied it. Yet, atheists use the atom (or rather an abstract representation of a so-called atom) as their symbol. Hmmm...

Perhaps atoms are sentient, after all. Let's at least hope they're less selfish than our genes, LOL.

In the Octagon with Vox Day

“The Irrational Atheist” (also known as TIA) is an interesting and surprisingly good response to the New Atheism of Dawkins, Harris and Hitchens. Unfortunately, it's written by Vox Day, a self-proclaimed Christian libertarian whose real political positions are uncomfortably close to White supremacism. Creationism and climate change denial are other ingredients of Herr Day's revolution in science. He may also be inspired by the current known as Neo-Reaction or Dark Enlightenment. Even his theology is exotic, being a radical version of Open Theism. When not busy slashing New Atheists (or radical-liberal SJWs), Vox is a game developer, science fiction writer and raving misogynist.

That being said, I nevertheless considered TIA a stimulating read (please don't slash me). And no, I haven't double-checked all the factual claims, but the task seems well worth pursuing. Here are some of the highlights. “Blue” states are just as dangerous and crime-ridden as “red” states, and most crime in “red” states takes place in “blue” counties. Only four anti-atheist hate crimes were reported in the United States in 2005. Most wars are about ethnicity or territory, not religion. Machiavelli (who never led an army) is the only classical writer on military matters who claims that religion is good for recruiting and motivating soldiers. Until recently, most suicide bombings were carried out by the secular-Marxist LTTE in Sri Lanka, not by Muslim jihadists. Only 3,230 people were killed by the Spanish Inquisition during a period of 400 years, while Communism killed 148 million in little under a century. Technological innovation or population increase can't explain the steep rise in the number of deaths during the 20th century, since pre-modern rulers such as Genghis Khan were also accomplished mass murders…

The author points out that Harris and the other New Atheists refuse to take responsibility for the crimes of godless Communism, while often claiming that religious moderates are somehow responsible for the crimes of their militant co-religionists – an obvious double standard. Vox denies that Communism was a “religion”, since it didn't believe in the supernatural. It was precisely its non-religious/anti-religious focus on utopian this-worldly “progress” which caused it to go totalitarian and genocidal. Vox further argues that moral atheists are parasitical on the often religiously-derived morality of their host societies, which empirically proves that atheism has no moral compass of its own.

More controversially, Vox Day claims that humans are irrational and indeed sinful creatures, which (somewhat paradoxically) means that Enlightenment rationalists are irrational for treating their fellow human beings as if they were rational and perfectable. Science, rather than religion, caused the (real or perceived) global threats to human survival bemoaned by the New Atheists: overpopulation, nuclear weapons or climate change. Therefore, it's simply wrong to suggest that all knowledge is neutral, or that knowledge is always better than ignorance – sometimes, the very opposite is the case. The very fact that science can't generate a moral code of its own making, but needs outside guidance, once again shows that science and scientists simply cannot replace religion.

Since Vox Day, as already indicated, is a creationist and climate change denialist, he is not particularly convincing when dismissing the religious threat to science, claiming that no such threat exists. No? What about anti-vaxxer religious groups? Or what about Christian fundamentalists who refuse to take action against climate change “since Jesus will save us”? There is also the general climate of weird obscurantism fostered by those who claim that the age of the Earth or the origin of species can be derived from ancient texts in Old Hebrew (interpreted or even translated differently by various religious groups), rather than by, say, scientific observations. (Texts in ancient Sanskrit are presumably also beyond the pale of theo-settlement.)

That being said, TIA is nevertheless an exciting read, and even entertaining (after a fashion). Be warned that Vox Day doesn't sound like a liberal Quaker! Threats of violence against Richard Dawkins (Vox wants to meet him in the Octagon), claims that atheists may suffer from Asperger's syndrome, unexpected insults against Rapture-ready Baptist women for being obese, a somewhat obsessive preoccupation with psychedelic drugs...you get the drift. He also kindly informs us that asking questions about religion to readers of his blog, Vox Populi, is usually a waste of time, its denizens being more interested in questions like “9 mm or .45?” or “what's the best way to get rid of a dead body?”. Brother VD sure is a peculiar kind of Xian!

Since New Atheism is already out of fashion (it feels “so 2005” or thereabouts), I'm pretty certain none of the Four Horsemen of the Atheistic Apocalypse will ever pen a response to TIA, even apart from the fact that the author makes Ted Cruz sound like a liberal (and hence can't be invited to polite company). In a sense, this is a pity, since a debate (OK, make that a brawl) between Darwin's pitbull and God's vampire, in the Octagon or elsewhere, would have been great fun – and perhaps even intellectually interesting…

What's so alarming?

A review of "The Secret Blackbird: The Alarming Case of the Missing Birds" 

This book is currently unavailable. I therefore haven't seen it. But, seriously, what's so alarming about some cowbird or meadowlark going missing somewhere? They had their evolutionary chance, and they blew it. As Richard Dawkins would no doubt say: Well, that's just tough. Of course, I'm assuming the "secret blackbird" in the book's title is a so-called New World blackbird (Icteridae). If it turns out to be a sturdy, healthy, brilliant Common Blackbird, a veritable wonder of evolutionary fitness, I'M GOING TO DEMAND ACTION FROM THE PROPER AUTHORITIES.

You see, I'm a liberal.

When Meher Baba met the hippies. Or something.

A review of "The Nature of Existence"

Could have been interesting, but too many "talking heads" makes the documentary unwieldy. The constant jumps back and forth between three continents are also annoying. At least to me! Am I getting old, or what? Funny that Richard Dawkins says "good God", or words to that effect. The guy complaining about the alligators was seriously off topic. Weird to see 70's hippie types still stuck in India at Meher Baba's tomb... Good footage, though. Three stars, but don't tell me I didn't warn you. PS. Where is Osho? I know the guy's dead, but it's a film about the nature of existence, right?

High on my wish list

A review of a unicorn mug sold by Amazon.

"A friend told me I was delusional. I almost fell off of my unicorn". He he, although I don't have this particular mug, I somehow sympathize with the feeling. Think "Daniel Dennett told me I lack consciousness, it almost terminated my out-of-body experience". Or "B F Skinner told me morality doesn't exist, I almost sold Hitler the A-bomb". Or why not "Richard Dawkins told me to go back to the 19th century where I clearly belong, I almost fell off my Precambrian rabbit". It's a pity winged unicorns don't exist...well, not in *our* little corner of the Theory of Everything, at any rate. And, of course, that's the only corner that exists, right? Move along, nothing to see...