The guardian of reason, the enemy of superstition, and the sharp-tongued debater.
An admirable soul, a humorous writer, a trustworthy guide.
41 essays showcasing Dawkins' diverse perspectives

A collection of 41 lectures, columns, and essays written over 30 years, including Dawkins' first published writings in the United States.
This is an anthology that provides the most three-dimensional glimpse into the human being Richard Dawkins, and is “a must-have for any Dawkins fan” (Kirkus Review).
What has Dawkins, one of the world's most influential science writers and evolutionary biologists, researched, written, and spoken about? And what does it mean to him to live as a scientist, a rational member of society, a global citizen and Earthling, and even as someone's disciple or family member? This book answers these questions by covering a wide range of topics, from Dawkins's usual topics (evolution, natural selection, religion, and the philosophy of science) to political, social, cultural, and personal issues, in a variety of formats.
Readers who know Richard Dawkins only through The Selfish Gene and as an aggressive atheist will see a different side of him through this book.

Instinctive emotions, even if they don't spring from the murky waters of xenophobia, misogyny, or other blind prejudices, should not enter the polls.
Until now, such dark feelings have largely remained beneath the surface.
But the political movements of 2016 on both sides of the Atlantic brought those feelings to the surface, allowing them to be expressed, if not respected, then at least publicly.
For half a century, people have been ashamed of their prejudices and have hidden them from view, but now, agitators are taking the lead and declaring that they can express them.

--- p.19~20, from the author's preface

…Why doesn't natural selection create bones so thick they can never break? We humans can, through artificial selection, create dog breeds with leg bones so strong they can never break.
Why doesn't nature do something like this? It's because of the cost, which implies a value system.
We don't ask engineers and architects to create unbreakable structures or impenetrable walls.
Instead, we give them a budget and ask them to do their best within certain constraints and meet the standards.
…
…Darwinian selection also pursues the optimum within economic limits, and in that sense, it can be said to have values.
John Maynard Smith said:
“If there were no constraints on what was possible, the best phenotype would live forever, never be eaten by predators, and lay eggs indefinitely.”
--- p.73~75, from “The Values ​​of Science and the Science of Values”

If you protest such talk, you will be accused of being 'elitist'.
That's a bad word.
But what if that wasn't such a bad thing? While exclusive superiority complex isn't something to be dismissed, efforts to help people raise their standards and solidify the elite are a completely different matter.
The worst thing you can do is deliberately lower your standards.
It is an attitude of looking down on the other person as if you are doing them a favor.
…
…true science may be difficult, but like classical literature and violin playing, it is worth the effort.

--- p.126~127, from “Science and Sensibility”

Darwin and Wallace may not have been the first to have a vague idea of ​​this.
But they were the first to understand that the problem was important, and that the solution they came up with separately and simultaneously was equally important.
This shows their level as scientists.
And the mutual tolerance they displayed in resolving the priority issue shows their level of humanity.

--- p.188, from “More Darwinian than Darwin”

Just as Darwin destroyed the mystical 'design' argument in the mid-19th century, and just as Watson and Crick destroyed all the mystical nonsense about genes in the mid-20th century, their successors in the mid-21st century will destroy the mystical absurdity of the soul being separated from the body.
…we do not understand consciousness.
Not yet.
But I believe we will understand before 2057.
And if that happens, it will undoubtedly be scientists, not mystics or theologians, who will solve this greatest riddle.
He may be a solitary genius like Darwin, but he is more likely to be a union of neuroscientists, computer scientists, and science-savvy philosophers.
At that time, Soul-1 will meet an untimely death at the hands of science, and in the process, Soul-2 will ascend to heights that no one could have imagined.

--- p.329~330, from “50 Years Later: Killing the Soul?”

“What is the survival of religion?” may be the wrong question.
The right question should be:
Only by rephrasing the question, “What is the survival value of some individual behavior or psychological trait, not yet specifically identified, that manifests itself as religion in appropriate circumstances?” can we find a reasonable answer.

--- p.388, from “The Science of Religion”

Essentialism confuses ethical debates such as abortion and euthanasia.
At what point in a brain-dead accident can a victim be defined as "dead"? At what point in development does a fetus become a "person"? Only a mind infected with essentialism would ask such questions.
Because an embryo develops gradually from a single-celled zygote into a newborn, there is no single moment that can be considered a 'human existence'.
The world is divided between those who understand this fact and those who plead, “But isn’t there a moment when the fetus becomes a human being?”
no.
Such moments do not actually exist.
It's like there's no day when a middle-aged person becomes old.
Although not ideal, it is better to say that the fetus goes through stages such as one-quarter human, one-half human, three-quarters human, etc.
The essentialist mind avoids such expressions and uses all sorts of threats to accuse me of denying the essence of humanity.

--- p.437~438, from “Plato’s Yoke”

Every page of this book sparkles with science, scientific wit, and science seen through the rainbow prism of a "first-rate imagination."
There is no trace of jaded sentimentality in Douglas's views of aye-ayes, kakapo, northern white rhinoceros, eko-parrots, or Komodo dragons.
Douglas understood well how slowly the millstone of natural selection turns.
He knew that it took millions of years for a mountain gorilla, a pink pigeon, or a Yangtze River dolphin to form.
He saw with his own eyes that such elaborate creatures, painstakingly crafted by evolution, could crumble in an instant and disappear into oblivion.
And he tried to do something about it.
We should do that too.
If only to commemorate a specimen that will never be repeated in Homo sapiens.
This time, I think they named it Homo sapiens well.

--- p.529, from "Farewell to the Dreaming Digital Elite"

Dawkins's "New Irrefutable Law"
God cannot be defeated.
Auxiliary Theorem 1: As understanding expands, God contracts.
But God then redefines himself and restores the phenomenon.
Auxiliary Theorem 2: When things go well, God gets the thanks.
When things go wrong, God is thanked for not making things worse.
Auxiliary Theorem 3: Belief in an afterlife can only be proven true, never false.
Auxiliary Theorem 4: The vehemence with which an unprovable belief is defended is inversely proportional to its defensibility.

--- p.581, from "Dawkins' Law"

In his newly written preface to this book, Dawkins writes, "Isn't science, beyond being the inspiration for great works of literature, a worthy subject for the best writers in its own right? And isn't the very quality that makes science so perhaps the closest thing to the meaning of 'soul'?" He writes that it's time for a scientist to receive the Nobel Prize in Literature.
The scientists he cited as worthy of such a title are, unfortunately, already deceased. But as Skeptic editor Michael Shermer, who singled out Dawkins as a Nobel Prize-worthy scientist, suggests, wouldn't Dawkins be able to do it? He's one of the few writers who can infuse a science book with not only information and entertainment, but also emotion, beauty, and even "soul."

--- p.628, from the “Translator’s Note”