[R]eductionism' is one of those things, like sin, that is only mentioned by people who are against it. To call oneself a reductionist will sound, in some circles, a bit like admitting to eating babies. But, just as nobody actually eats babies, so nobody is really a reductionist in any sense worth being against.

Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think.

The hypothesis of God offers no worthwhile explanation for anything, for it simply postulates what we are trying to explain.

There is another kind of altruism that seems to go beyond that, a kind of super-altruism, which humans appear to have. And I think that does need a Darwinian explanation.

Words are our servants, not our masters. For different purposes, we find it convenient to use words in different senses.

The Universe does not owe us meaning.

Gould carried the art of bending over backward to positively supine lengths. Why shouldn't we comment on God, as scientists? ... A universe with a creative superintendent would be a very different kind of universe from one without. Why is that not a scientific matter?