Richard Dawkins’ Net Worth

Did you know that Richard Dawkins is not merely rich, but Super Rich?

Richard Dawkins is an English ethologist, evolutionary biologist, and author who has an estimated net worth of $135 million ($100 euro) according to the Sunday Times in 2012. He has earned his net worth due to book sales, science career and his television and film appearances.

$135 million dollars strengthens my previous case outlining the deceptive nature of Dawkins’ public image as a “lover of science:”

Retirement is a time in a person’s life when you finally get to focus all your time and attention on your true passion. This is especially true if the person who retires is both healthy and wealthy. Dawkins is all three – he has retired, he is healthy, and he is very wealthy. If his true love really was science, he would use all this free time and money to pursue scientific quests. For the first time in his life, he could focus on any unanswered question he wanted to. He would not need to write grants or go to meetings, or play any other of the social games needed to pursue his scientific passion. He could just go out there and do the experiments and make the observations! But alas, he has continued to be the man he has always been – a man with little interest in actually doing any science. Instead, his love for atheism has emerged in all its glorious splendor. Dawkins, the wealthy, retired scientist, invests all his time and money on atheist activism.

When I noted he was wealthy, I envisioned him as having a couple of million. Never did I imagine he had $135 million dollars. A man with that much money and free time who refuses to do science is a man who does not truly love science.

Oh, that article forgot to mention another source of Dawkins’s net worth: he is descended from slave owners and his family estate was bought with a fortune partly created by forced labour.

He has railed against the evils of religion, and lectured the world on the virtues of atheism.
Now Richard Dawkins, the secularist campaigner against “intolerance and suffering”, must face an awkward revelation: he is descended from slave owners and his family estate was bought with a fortune partly created by forced labour.

One of his direct ancestors, Henry Dawkins, amassed such wealth that his family owned 1,013 slaves in Jamaica by the time of his death in 1744.

The Dawkins family estate, consisting of 400 acres near Chipping Norton, Oxfordshire, was bought at least in part with wealth amassed through sugar plantation and slave ownership.

Dawkins tries to defend himself:

He quoted Scripture – disparagingly – to insist: “I condemn slavery with the utmost vehemence, but the fact that my remote ancestors may have been involved in it is nothing to do with me.

“One of the most disagreeable verses of the Bible – amid strong competition – says the sins of the father shall be visited on the children until the third or fourth generation.”

Audibly irritated, he added: “You need a genetics lecture. Do you realise that probably only about 1 in 512 of my genes come from Henry Dawkins?
[…]
He insisted: “The estate is now a very small farm, struggling to make its way, and worth peanuts. The family fortune was frittered away in the 19th Century. Such money as I have is scarcely inherited at all.”

He inherited a farm that makes him around $20,000 dollars a year and he calls it all “peanuts.” The Super Rich can afford to be snobs.

Here’s an idea. Why doesn’t Dawkins sell off his farm and give all the money to the poor? After all, a man with $135 million dollars can afford it.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Richard Dawkins and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

13 Responses to Richard Dawkins’ Net Worth

  1. Dhay says:

    Richard Dawkins is probably using the money to fund the neuroscience research promised by Sam Harris, into “How Science Can Determine Human Values”.

    If so, good man, Dawkins, benefactor of us all.

    Mind you, I am deeply suspicious of Harris’ abilities, so I look forward to evaluating Harris’ methods, results and conclusions.

  2. Ilíon says:

    Isn’t Dawkins also a leftist, at least for pubic consumption.

  3. stcordova says:

    Being that rich, makes me wonder why Dawkins was slumming with that porn star in the Rational Response Squad.

  4. Dhay says:

    Ilion > Isn’t Dawkins also a leftist, at least for pubic consumption.

    I assess Richard Dawkins as definitely towards the centre, rather than the fringes, of the Bell Curve of British political and social opinion. Move along, folks, nothing to see here.

  5. Josh says:

    Today (26/05/15), Dawkins tweeted:

    “I am fed up with seeing a so-called ‘estimate’ of my wealth as £135 million. It is a total lie: a more than 2000 percent overestimate.”

  6. Michael says:

    LOL. And did Dawkins supply something called….EVIDENCE? Or does he expect everyone to accept his tweeting on faith?

  7. TFBW says:

    Maybe he put his hand on a copy of The Origin of Species, and swore, “so help me nothing.” Probably not, though.

  8. TFBW says:

    Huh. I just did a little search to see if he’d followed up that tweet with any supporting evidence, and found that he hadn’t — that one tweet was it. He did, however, make several tweets earlier in the same day (May 26, 2015) on the theme of, “believing is not something you can decide to do.” To drive the point home, he follows up the initial tweet with three that end, “but you can’t decide to believe.” Judging by the repetition-for-emphasis, he actually believes this, but never decided to believe it — it’s just an assertion that came, unbidden, into his noggin, and established itself there as unassailable fact. Or, if that’s wrong, then what in the name of epistemology is he talking about? I swear, that man lives in a tiny, opaque, self-inconsistent philosophical bubble of his own construction.

  9. Billy Squibs says:

    Poor chap. One can’t decide to live in a tiny, opaque, self-inconsistent philosophical bubble of your own construction. It just happens.

  10. MS says:

    Richard Dawkins is probably very rich because of his previous job at Oxford and because of his book sales. But I also must mention that Richarf Dawkins is agnostic, not an atheist. Like most rational thinking scientists Dawkins sees the fact that one can neither 100% prove or deny the existence of a god. Dawkins devotes more of his time to promoting a scientific world-view and way of thinking than promoting atheism or agnosticism. Even though Richard Dawkins isn’t involved in scientific research as much as he used to be, he is still working on projects in the sciences and sharing is knowledge with the world.

  11. Kevin says:

    Are you referring to the same Richard Dawkins that we are?

  12. TFBW says:

    Nah, he’s talking about some agnostic dude called “Richarf Dawkins”, no relation.

  13. Dhay says:

    MS > Richarf Dawkins is agnostic, not an atheist

    From earlier posts: In Richard Dawkins book, The God Delusion, he gives a 1-7 scale, with 1 being absolute belief and 7 being absolute disbelief. In print, Dawkins self-identified as a ‘6’, though when interviewed by Bill Maher and later by Anthony Kenny, he suggested ‘6.9’ to be more accurate.

    As Michael has pointed out, Dawkins’ 6.9 is a score that would be declared by a fully committed atheist unprepared to change their mind but wishing to give the impression they are reasonable enough that they possibly might. Agnostic Dawkins ain’t.

    > Dawkins devotes more of his time to promoting a scientific world-view and way of thinking than promoting atheism or agnosticism. Even though Richard Dawkins isn’t involved in scientific research as much as he used to be, he is still working on projects in the sciences and sharing is knowledge with the world.

    Dawkins has done very, very little actual scientific research (especially when compared with eg Francis Collins) and most of what little he did was done early on in his career. When he was appointed Simonyi Professor for the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford his research became just the literature searching, and the gathering and collation of other peoples’ results necessary for a successful science writer.

    Dawkins continued to write his books on genes and evolution, but so far as I (a Briton) can recall or discover Dawkins did two-thirds of bugger all to advance the public understanding of the sciences in general; his immediate successor showed much more missionary zeal, and did more to promote science in general in his first few months than Dawkins did in his tenure.

    Perhaps you will share with us which projects in the sciences Dawkins is still working on; also what knowledge Dawkins is still sharing with the world — I have read his recent criticisms of Wilson’s group selection theory, which are interesting but not extensive — is there anything else?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s