Oxford Professor for the Public Understanding of Science.

It is reported that the professor has refused to debate the existence of God with philosopher William Lane Craig when the latter visits the UK. I suppose I find this striking because the professor has largely built his career on such controversy rather than any solid scientific research and such debates fall well within his 'job description'. The suspicion is that the professor is more comfortable bullying "creationists" rather than engaging in any meaningful dialogue with more sophisticated protagonists. It has struck me that the professor's grasp of the issues has always been poor and he has lazily resorted to caricature of his opponents rather than examine what they actually say. Maybe in the final analysis a debate with William Lane Craig was likely to prove too much like hard work.

Bible's Buried Secrets. Thinking of Francesca Stavrakopoulou's TV series I am reminded of historian Hugh Trevor-Roper's scathing analysis of 'scientific history', "we exist in and for our own time: why should we judge our predecessors as if they were less self-sufficient: as if they existed for us and should be judged by us? Every age has its own social context, its own intellectual climate, and takes it for granted, it is not explicitly expressed in the documents of the time: it has to be deduced and reconstructed. It also deserves respect... To discern the intellectual climate of the past is one of the most difficult tasks of the historian, but it is also one of the most necessary. To neglect it - to use terms like 'rational', 'superstitious', 'progressive', 'reactionary', as if only that was rational which obeyed our rules of reason, only that progressive which pointed to us - is worse than wrong: it is vulgar". It is pretty obvious that the presenter is imposing on the evidence a narrative which suits her agenda. For example in episode one she makes a big deal about the Bible not appreciating how significant Omri was. Firstly, I already knew about Omri - not from this TV series as if this is some startling new evidence cunningly hidden by people motivated by a malevolent faith - but years ago in a sermon at church! As important as Omri's stature may be to an academic the fact is, theologically speaking, he is a minnow. To understand the documents and artefacts from another culture require a sensitivity to that culture which is not aided by thrusting on it a demand to fit in with current priorities. The evidence she presents can be interpreted several ways not just the one way she is promoting. Dr Stavrakopoulou often litters her commentary with 'peacock' words which suggest she is being daringly original when actually this is pretty well known stuff and is not as devastating to believers as she constantly asserts. Episode two starts with a false assertion, that the Bible teaches that Israel was a monotheistic culture and that her "careful reading" suggests an alternative which shatters the foundation of Christianity. This is a 'straw man'. Apart from being smug it is self evident nonsense; the Bible is very clear that ancient Israel was not faithful to its calling and did indeed worship Baal, Asherah and the whole Canaanite pantheon. And that Yahweh worship was syncretistically blended with Canaanite religion is well known. That does not require "careful reading", that is a major theme of the Bible story. Her assertion that 'El' is the personal name for one of the Canaanite gods rather than a generic word for 'god' and that it is this god the Bible describes is torturing the evidence to fit her narrative. The juxtaposition of images of scientists extracting evidence from the ground against those of people prostrating themselves before religious images while incense swings in the air is pretty crass editing but at least it indicates the agenda. Just as the presenter uses 'peacock' words to big-up her own status she uses 'smear' words to put down opinions she disapproves of and wishes the viewer to disapprove of too. It is not very clever stuff, in fact as propaganda it is very superficial. But then the purpose of the TV series is not to change the minds of those who have some background Bible knowledge, it is clearly aimed to confirm those who are ignorant of the Bible in their ignorance. POST SCRIPT: 12 April 2011. For further reading I will recommend 'On The Reliability Of The Old Testament' by K.A. Kitchen.

Richard Dawkins' Summer Camp.

There is a superb cartoon from "Private Eye" about Richard Dawkins' Summer Camp aimed at teaching children the joys of atheism.

A camp leader is counselling one of the children, "I'm sorry Cuthbert but because you came last in the running race.... you must die!"

"GOD IS NOT GREAT!"

Christopher Hitchens recently published a book by this title in which he attributes all of Humanity's ills to "religion" in one guise or another. The word 'religion' isn't one I entirely feel comfortable with because it is hardly a Biblical word at all and it is a word which often brings a lot of preconceived notions in tow which I don't believe are very helpful. I am a Christian but I do not consider myself "religious"! But for the sake of argument let's stick with the word Hitchens uses.

Hitchens is another shrill voice in a recent spate of attacks upon religion. There seems to be an element of panic within the intelligentsia which once confidently predicted the extinction of all religions and anticipated the inevitable dawn of a new rationalist era. The resurgence of religion as a force on the world stage has left these complacent opinion shapers non-plussed and fearful for the future of humanity. History is not following their script.

Hitchens appears to attribute all evil to religion and all good to the Humanist cause. To this end he conveniently redefines the secular ideologies of Hitler and Stalin as "religions" and dragoons Christians like Martin Luther King and Dietrich Bonhoeffer into the ranks of the Humanists! So much special pleading will cause even the most ardent Hitchens' fan some pause for thought surely! It seems to me a rather desperate expedient which causes him to twist the facts to fit his ideologically driven argument... and surely it is the ideologue's desire to rewrite history we all should beware! It is the natural default setting of humans to "otherise" evil - to attribute all that is wrong with the world to some outgroup and to make out that one's own tribe is on the side of the angels. And surely it is that condemnation of the innocent with the guilty for ideological reasons that is the real cause of evil.... Hitchens has fallen head first into that trap.... secularists are all good, religionists are all bad in a 'cowboys and indians' argument.

There is one aspect of Hitchens' argument which does bear some consideration. The means by which he redefines Nazism and Stalinism as "religions" is their "messianic" and utopian pretentions. And in that regard he is not wrong. But it is precisely those pretentions which caused thoughtful (as opposed to duped)Christians at the time to see these ideologies as anti-thetical to the Gospel of Jesus Christ.... in a very real sense these belief systems were "Anti-Christ" systems. The Bible already had a category for critiquing such movements when history shows that it took a good deal longer for the intelligentsia to realise these idols had feet of clay. As astonishing as it seems now there were many western secularists and humanists who defended Stalin and the Soviet system as a force for good. At the time the Stalinist and the Nazi would have argued that their beliefs were firmly founded on scientific rationalism - Marxist economics and Social Darwinism respectively, each claiming the imprimatur of scientific certainty. They certainly would never have regarded these as matters of 'faith'! And certainly not faith in God! Given that historical background, the question is how can you ever know whether your beliefs are truly rational? And if Hitchens' idea is correct how can you ever know if your beliefs are even truly secular?

Applying Hitchens' criteria Humanism is a "religion" because it has a utopian vision of mankind and even if it lacks a specific "messiah" figure it certainly exalts the human spirit so that each individual is their own saviour. Oh and it even has its own heresy hunters too!

In the final anaysis it is only the Gospel which accurately describes the world as it truly is. Quite why it is assumed that people like me make irrational "leaps of faith" rather than weigh up which viewpoint actually describes the world as it really is is a mystery to me, the truth is I never could make the credulous "leap of faith" required by humanist doctrine! When such dogma repeatedly misdiagnoses the human condition and Jesus gets it unerringly right everytime I don't consider that much of a 'leap' at all!

The solution to all anti-christ ideologies is not secularism (whatever that now means!) but Jesus - the real Christ.

THE GOD DELUSION.

As a prelude to the Christmas season can I make a plea
to all my fans out there in blog-world? Please do not put
a copy of Richard Dawkins' "The God Delusion" in my
Christmas stocking!

It seems to me that this guy has achieved a prominence
way beyond his abilities by making a career out of winding
up Christians like myself. Our protestations of innocence at
his anti-religion scattergun diatribes only boost his notoriety
and his subsequent book sales. The real challenge Dawkins
presents us with is not his huffing and puffing but our own
internal urge to rise to his bait!

The best thing to do is ignore him. So my New Year's
Resolution is; his name will not appear again in this blog.

For Richard Dawkins' fans out there let me pose a challenge
to you. In "The Sunday Telegraph" review section 'Seven'
published in the UK on 17th the Dawkins' line about religion
is repeated that killing is 'something you might well do if
you've been taught from babyhood upwards that your God
will approve of such behaviour. You don't have to produce
evidence to support your belief. You simply say, "It's my
faith", and are blind to any argument. If part of your faith is
the righteousness of killing infidels or apostates, then that
does seem to me to go further than the ordinary aggression
which you [the interviewer] attribute to humans anyway.'

Well I suppose you might think that given such a scenario
- just as any secular demagogue did with their dissidents.
The issue is; is the nature of religious faith inherently evil
in a way that, say, totalitarianism is not? Apparently
Dawkins would say 'yes'. I don't rate his chances at having
a cosy chat with the likes of Robespierre, Stalin or Pol Pot....
but hey what do I know? I suspect that what Dawkins really
means is not that rational argument is impossible with those
of a religious persuasion, but that such a dialogue is
impossible for him! And that is quite a different matter.
Dawkins may well lack the empathy required for reasoned
discussion but it is illogical to conclude that no-one else can
do it either. To have a rational argument requires making
some attempt to understand the other person's rationale and
just because it is not his rationale does not mean that there
is not a rationale; Dawkins doesn't have to agree with it to
try to understand it. At least you and I are managing to have
a reasonable discussion right now aren't we?

I don't know why I take this so personally because I don't
recognise Dawkins' caricature - maybe I'm more sensitive
than most. Okay the challenge is this: let's get down to
cases, search my blog and find some evidence for the
notion that I advocate killing people. Go a step further -
search the audio library of my church - there are several
decades worth of talks there - where is the evidence that
anyone there has ever urged violence? http://www.shmedia.org.uk/
He says it's from babyhood - okay; check out the Sunday
School material at http://www.tntministries.org.uk/ - where is the
proof that children are being taught to kill in God's name?
And remember - in all of this - we are not discussing
whether Christians fail to live by the principles they advocate,
but whether those principles are themselves inherently evil
....that is the 'Dawkins Doctrine'.

The Christian position is that God alone has the right to
judge an individuals' heart - I cannot do it because I do
not know what God knows. Not only that but I have no
right to do this in God's name because I too am a sinner,
who will be judged against the measure I use! And there's
the rub - one would have to construe God's deferred
judgement as a present day mandate. The Gospel requires
me to forgive others on the basis that God in Christ has
forgiven me. The petty grievances I nurture must be
relinquished in the light of the forgiveness of God I've
received. Those of you who have suffered some dreadful
crime must also seek to forgive but that ability to forgive
one's enemies is not founded upon a shrug of the shoulders
in a "it doesn't matter", vague, sort of way. It is founded on
the ability to commit our deepest wounds to a just God, who
sees all our hurts and who judges wisely, and to whom we
and our assailants will one day be required to give a full
account. Furthermore as a Christian I cannot despise a fellow
sinner because 'there but for the grace of God go I!' God's
love is expressed in two ways - his love of mercy and his love
of justice. I cannot see how he'll square that circle - but I
trust that he can do it - and in reality that is what 'faith' is,
trusting in the character of God revealed in Christ.

If you find this murderous evidence I'll join you on your side
of the barricade - and you know who else will be there?
Jesus! You might not have heard that he taught his disciples
to 'turn the other cheek' and 'love your enemies' etc and
the apostle Paul also concurs in Romans 12v14-21. [I do not
mean to be patronising in saying all this; if you source your
information from the likes of Dawkins you may well not know
that it is upon Jesus that the Christian attitude to others is
to be founded]. Of course you will find 'crack pots' if
you look hard enough [you find them in every society] but
it is entirely disingenuous to talk up these examples as
representative.

In fact there is an interesting scrap between Jesus and
his disciples in Luke chapter 9 v51-56 which is very inform-
ative. Jesus is en route to Jerusalem and is passing through
a Samaritan village which rejects him; his disciples ask if
he wants them to call down fire from heaven on the villagers.
Jesus rebukes his apostles and continues his weary way to
The Cross.







tagline: Richard Dawkins. The God Delusion. Dawkins' God Delusion.

Postscript: for further reading can I recommend Alister McGrath's
"Dawkins' God". Blackwell Publishing ISBN-13: 978-11-4051-2538-3.

RICHARD DAWKINS: but is it
"life as we know it"?

September 2006's thought from my agnostic calendar is;

"If we want to postulate a deity capable of engineering
all the organized complexity in the world, either instant-
aneously or by guiding evolution, that deity must already
have been vastly complex in the first place. The creationist,
whether a naive Bible-thumper or an educated bishop,
simply postulates an already existing being of prodigious
intelligence and complexity. If we are going to allow
ourselves the luxury of postulating organized complexity
without offering an explanation, we might as well make a
job of it and simply postulate the existence of life as we
know it!" Richard Dawkins.

Ah, but that is the question isn't it? Is it really an explanation for
"life as we know it"? Dawkins view of "life" is that 'fish are machines
for replicating DNA in the sea, birds are machines for replicating
DNA in the air and people are machines for replicating DNA on land'.
The question that is crying out to be answered is; is this an adequate
description for "life as we know it"? It is akin to someone saying
that they have a blueprint of an aircraft and assure you that this
tells them everything there is to know about flying! It has all the
lucid simplicity of the madman - I doubt that you would have faith
in such a person to fly an aircraft you were aboard that's for sure!
[And we all put our trust in other people at some time or other].

What am I driving at? Sure DNA helps replicate creatures, I don't
deny that. What I do deny is that this explains everything about
"life as we know it". Dawkins uses the word "life" to mean 'bio-mass'
and nothing else because a materialist is blind to the non material
dimensions of "LIFE" in all its fullness. "LIFE as we know it" is
much more richly textured and the non-material things we
experience are just as real; imagination, creativity, justice, love
(and hate), good (and evil), joy (and sadness) all make up a fuller
picture of "life as it exists".

Dawkins once wrote "in a universe of blind physical forces and genetic
replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going
to get lucky, and we won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any
justice. The universe [has] no design, no purpose, no evil, no good;
nothing but blind pitiless indifference. DNA neither knows, nor cares.
DNA just is, and we dance to its music." As an explanation for LIFE
is this adequate? To a materialist with a minimalist abstract notion
of life; yes.

But it seems to me that there are universal principles of justice as if
there is a natural law written into the fabric of the Cosmos - and
such law makes little sense without a law-giver. We care about the
suffering of those involved in natural or manmade disasters when
Dawkins' abstractions logically require indifference. DNA doesn't
care but personal beings do. Bafflingly even Dawkins uses words like
"evil" and "wicked" to describe those people [like me] he does not
approve of, as if even he is compelled at a subconscious level to
acknowledge that such categories exist [as with all such barrackroom
moralists his anger is peppered indiscriminately about - nonetheless
even he is a grudging witness to the reality of non-material values].
Why should I think that Dawkins is any more perceptive about LIFE?

All moralists [whether they realise it or not] have a simple formula
in their heads and it goes like this "the world would be a far
better place without.................people in it
(fill in the blank space)"."Evil" is always a
description of someone other than ourselves; it is
only the Christian who recognises that it is their name that should
be there! This is what Christians call "repentance" - the
acknowledgement of ones own evil, indeed it is this which makes a
Christian Christian (and is not to be confused with those who are only
notionally "christian").

Dawkins postulates life as an abstraction but LIFE as it is actually
lived [beyond the lucidity of the madman] is not an abstraction
LIFE is personal. From these thoughts I would argue that there is
adequate evidence of a cosmic creative lawgiver; one who is
personal; one who has nothing to learn from us about love and justice
- and thus is someone to whom I am accountable for the evil [aka
abscence of love & justice] which infests my heart and in whom I,
as a Christian, trust to pilot me home safely because I know that
I cannot do it.

I don't postulate I observe.



tagline: Calendar of Doom. swiftypete. swiftypete. the swiftypete. the
swiftypete blog. Peter Swift is swiftypete. life. existence. meaning.
reductionism. versus. christianity. richard dawkins. Peter Swift
is the swiftypete. The God Delusion.

post-script: I had intended to talk about "Cosmic Fine Tuning" as material
evidence of a creator but I've written enough already and it will have to wait
for another day.
post-post-script: There are some good articles on Genesis and Science in the
October 06 edition of "The Briefing" [issue 337]. Back issues can be obtained
from http://www.thegoodbook.co.uk/ or http://www.matthiasmedia.com.au/

The Path of Brighteousness.

Richard Dawkins coined the term "bright"
as a noun to describe those people who have
a naturalistic world view; perhaps he was
also alluding to "The Enlightenment" as his
source of inspiration, one which denies the
existence of the spiritual.

Brights reading this blog will have already
concluded that I am a "dull" because I don't
buy into the reductionist interpretation of
life.But before any brights verbally lynch me
let me flesh out where I am coming from, I
don't mind being insulted provided you get
your facts right!

As a Christian (and one who works in a
science based field)I have no need necessarily
to deny the naturalistic description of the
Cosmos. After all, all truth is God's truth.
The bright's worldview may be "the truth and
nothing but the truth" but I don't believe
for one minute that it is "the whole truth"!
Nor do I accept that to explain something is
the same as explaining it away. To allude to
CS Lewis, Richard Dawkins and all the other
brights 'describe a city and think they've
described the world!'

In turn I will, no doubt, be called a Creation-
ist and a Christian Fundamentalist. Guilty as
charged. I do believe God created the cosmos so
that would make me a creationist, wouldn't it?
(Although "creationist" has now acquired
connotations of "Young Earth Creationism"
which I do not buy into!) I do believe
in the fundamental doctrines of the Christian
faith so I must be a fundamentalist; which is
what that phrase originally meant in the early
20th Century. However I'm not altogether happy
with some of the baggage both these appellations
now bring in tow. Even before the word "fundament-
alist" became associated with terrorism I was
already more than a little uneasy about the anti-
intellectual connotations it brought with it.

As if this wasn't bad enough "Fundamentalism"
has also since come to require an acceptance
of a Pre-millennialist interpretation of the
Bible. For what it is worth I, and many like
me, are amillennialist. This will seem an
esoteric quibble until one grasps that upon
this millennial [kingdom] question our under-
standing of the nature of The Kingdom of God
turns. Amillennialism as a term is a misnomer
because those who hold to it believe that the
Kingdom of God was realised by Jesus (realised
in the sense of made a reality, albeit yet to
come in all its fulness when Christ returns).
The premillennialists believe that the Kingdom
has yet to come. To cut to the chase this means
that a significant constituency within this
group called 'dispensationlists' have a
particular interpretation of the "End Times"
[which effectively means an interest in
'conspiracy theories'] and an exalted role for
the modern state of Israel which has major
implications for how they interpret the middle
eastern conflict. 'Dispensationalism' has a
disproportionate influence upon the church in
the USA. I do not share their convictions on
these issues and I do share some of Dawkins
reservations about the role religion plays in
fuelling violence; though I believe the issue
is human nature not religion per se (because
people will always find a host of excuses for
first despising and then seeking to destroy
other people): the secular ideologies have
blood on their hands too! Murder is certainly
nothing to do with the Gospel of Jesus, because
The Kingdom Jesus founded cannot be advanced by
the bullet or the bomb, indeed such methods are
fundamentally antithetical to its nature.

To conclude; the tele-evangelist Pat Robertson
describes amillennialism as "the end time
apostasy" no less! So I'm not convinced that
the fundamentalists Dawkins despises would
recognise me as one of their own, even if
Dawkins would!

So am I a fundamentalist or not? And am I a bright or a dull?
And are people that easily pigeonholed anyway?

It's a funny old world isn't it?



tagline: Dawkins. Fundamentalism. Reductionism.
Bright. Naturalism. versus. The Bible. Philosophy.
Religion. Science. Pat Robertson. Calendar of Doom.
Evangelical. Evangelicalism. Tele-evangelism.
Tele-evangelist. Creation. Secularism. Dull. New.
Premillennialism. Amillennialism. Postmillennialism. Realised
Millennialism. Christian Counter Culture. Church. State. Israel.
Morality. Grace. Dispensation. Dispensationalism. Theocracy.
Theonomy. Eschatology. Eschatalogical. End Times. Left Behind.
Richard Dawkins. The God Delusion.


postscript for postmillennialism! This theology
suggests that there is to be a glorious 'church
age' establishing the kingdom of God on Earth
after which Jesus will return. In its brashest
form this is also known as "Dominion" or
"Reconstructionist" theology. In my view, these
have a theocratic political agenda which by its
very nature stresses moralism as its driving
force rather than the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
They also stress raw political power as a means
to bring in the kingdom and I suspect that this
too is antithetical to Jesus' Gospel message.

RICHARD DAWKINS'S LATEST
ATTACK ON RELIGION IS AN
INTELLECTUALLY LAZY POLEMIC
NOT WORTHY OF A GREAT
SCIENTIST.

In today's Guardian newspaper in the UK there is an
excellent article by Madeleine Bunting:-

"On Monday, it's Richard Dawkins's turn (yet again)
to take up the cudgels against religious faith in a
two-part Channel 4 programme [in the UK], "The Root of
All Evil?" His voice is one of the loudest in an increasingly
shrill chorus of atheist humanists; something has got them
badly rattled. They even turned their bitter invective on
Narnia. By all means let's have a serious debate about
religious belief, one of the most complex and fascinating
phenomena on the planet, but the suspicion is that it's
not what this chorus wants. Behind unsubstantiated
assertions, sweeping generalisations and random
anecdotal evidence, there's an unmistakable whiff of
panic; they fear religion is on the march again."

My best guess is that Dawkins's worldview is
dominated by his concepts of evolutionary biology.
It isn't just that he believes this to be true, it is also
that his evolutionary worldview requires this
concept to prevail and vanquish all other contenders.

Bunting continues:-
"There's an aggrieved frustration that they've been
short-changed by history; we were supposed to be all
atheist rationalists by now. Secularisation was
supposed to be an inextricable part of progress. Even
more grating, what secularisation there has been has
been is accompanied by the growth of weird
irrationalities from crystals to ley lines. As
GK Chesterton pointed out, the problem when
people don't believe in God is not that they believe
nothing, it is that they believe anything".

Bunting makes some telling comments about
Dawkins's lack of understanding and charges him
with the very same "hidebound certainty" of which
he accuses believers.

It seems to me that all of us have the capacity to
demonise other people - that is actually the
problem with human nature. We all "otherise
evil" don't we? In Dawkins' case he demonises
anyone with a religious faith as if the secular
ideologies do not also have blood on their hands.
It is that ability to dissociate ourselves from evil
and attribute it exclusively to the "other" which
is actually the first step along the road to doing
something evil ourselves. Any cause can be used
and abused in this way. "The Terror" of the
French revolution which arose out of Enlightement
values is a case in point. Dawkins says that religion
is a means of inducing good people to do evil things
- I will not seek to defend the evil which has been
done in the name of Christ, but it is foolish to
attribute that evil to Christ. In my experience the
Gospel requires me to look inside my own heart and
recognise my capacity for evil. Jesus does not permit
me to "otherise" it but to confront it in myself. And
that is the blindspot in Dawkins's argument - no
atheist can ever say "there but for the grace of God
go I."

Bunting concludes:-
"Let's be clear:it's absolutely right that religion should
be subjected to a vigorous critique, but let's have one
that doesn't waste time knocking down straw men".

The full article can be found on page 30 of
THE GUARDIAN Saturday 7-January-06

Post-Script. Wednesday, 18th January 2006.
It has been put to me since writing this blog that I am
engaging in an "analogous" argument, that is "Evil by A
is okay because B does the the same". That is exactly
what I am NOT saying. So let me take another run at
it. The starting point of this discussion is "The Root of
All Evil?" and Dawkins attributes this evil to those
with a religious faith. By pointing out the evil done by
those without a religious faith I was simply making
the point that Dawkins was making an argument
based on "selective observation" that's all. I was not
seeking to excuse one evil by pointing out another.

Post-Post-Script. Friday, 27th January 2006.
"Nothing returns one quicker to God than the sight
of a scientist with no imagination, no vocabulary,
no sympathy, no comprehension of metaphor, and
no wit, looking soulless and forlorn amid the wonders
of nature." Howard Jacobson on Richard Dawkins,
in The Independent.

Addendum. Sunday, 29th January 2006.
I posted this Jacobson quote [without any additional
words from me] in the comments box of a pro-Dawkins
blog naively assuming that even die-hard Dawkins fans
would find it amusing and, perhaps, even insightful. My
motivation was more mischievous rather than malicious.
I returned later to discover that I had really rattled the
cage of the blogger in question. He had gone through
the quote point by point - at some considerable length
I might add - seeking to defend his hero. First up; if you
are that blogger reading this; it was not my intention to
wind you up so I'm sorry if my comment caused you
grief. But the ironic thing is this cheerless reaction has
actually proven Jacobson correct hasn't it? It does
seem that thorough going materialists are indeed
rather humourless, one dimensional, uncomprehending
people fired up with an irrational anger.... not unlike....
well.... the very fundamentalists they claim to despise!

tag-line.Richard Dawkins, Richard Dawkins, Richard
Dawkins, Richard Dawkins, Richard Dawkins, Richard
Dawkins,Richard Dawkins, Richard Dawkins, Richard
Dawkins, Richard Dawkins, Richard Dawkins.