Richard Dawkins, Famous Atheist, Not Entirely Sure God Doesn't Exist

By AL WEBB
c. 2012 Religion News Service

LONDON (RNS) A controversial Oxford University professor billed by many as the world's "most famous atheist" now says he is not 100 percent sure that God doesn't exist -- but just barely.

In a 100-minute debate with Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams, Richard Dawkins surprised his online and theater audiences by conceding a personal chink of doubt about his conviction that there is no such thing as a creator.

But, to the amusement of the archbishop and others, the evolutionary biologist swiftly added that he was "6.9 out of seven" certain of his long-standing atheist beliefs.

Replying to moderator Anthony Kenny, a noted English philosopher, Dawkins said, "I think the probability of a supernatural creator existing (is) very, very low."

Dawkins, author of "The God Delusion" and other best-sellers, is a leader of the "New Atheist" movement that aggressively challenges belief in God and criticizes harm done in the name of religion.

"What I can't understand is why you can't see (that life started from nothing and) is such a staggering, elegant, beautiful thing, why would you want to clutter it up with something so messy as a God," Dawkins told Williams, according to The Daily Telegraph account.

The archbishop, who heads both the Church of England and the worldwide Anglican Communion, replied that he "entirely agreed" with the "beauty" part of Dawkins' statement -- but said "I'm not talking about God as an extra who you can shoehorn onto that."

Richard Dawkins & Rowan Williams The Archbishop of Canterbury discuss Human Beings & Ultimate Origin, 23rd February, Oxford, moderated by Anthony Kenny.

Comments

[trevorthompson]

01:56 AM on 04/26/2013

HAHA....ETC

[Abraham Whitman]

06:49 PM on 12/23/2012

Why are there always so many atheists posting on internet sites? Is it just that there's no where for all of you to hang out? And always such anger...I've read the New Testament and it is clearly pointing towards a way of life, modes of making decisions, love and dignity of every individual. Science can offer nothing in the way of ethics. Dawkins next book is called, "The Love Delusion"..he also wants all imaginative literature banned.

[NightlyCitizen]

03:00 AM on 05/04/2012

The real story will be when this journalist actually does his research. Dawkins position hasn't changed.

[NightlyCitizen]

02:54 AM on 05/04/2012

This is nothing new. This article is a joke. This has been his position all along.

[AmosKnows]

12:29 AM on 04/15/2012

I have no problem with anyone believing anything - the problem I have is when they try and trust their views on other people (like myself) or they use their belief system to justify atrocities. I find it incredulous that people need to control and moralize the behavior of other people beyond the social contract. Outside the social contract, I think everyone is responsible for their own behavior and that they may have to deal with the consequences of that behavior.

[HatakeSC]

01:49 PM on 03/22/2012

Just got done reading "The God Delusion" and this (that the presence of a God is highly unlikely) is pretty much what he had written in that book. It would actually be quite unscientific to state categorically that God does not exist which really doesn't seem to be his style.

If you've not read it, it's very interesting!

[Oliver Rowland]

10:51 AM on 03/17/2012

Dawkins has said before, including in The God Delusion, as he says here, that he can't be 100% sure there is no god, as you can't prove a negative. He just thinks there is almost certainly no god. There's nothing revolutionary here

[AmosKnows]

12:30 AM on 04/15/2012

All of that said, it depends exclusively on your definition of god. Otherwise these statements make no sense.

[Oliver Rowland]

04:48 AM on 04/15/2012

That's true. As far as I recall his view is he is 100% atheist about the Biblical god but feels that it is not possible to say with certainty there could not be some other kind of higher power as you can't prove something (invisible and undetectable) doesn't exist. Not sure what his definition of this vague kind of god would be. I suppose that it would have to have been responsible for the creation of our universe in some way.

[REVLAC]

03:46 PM on 03/16/2012

What a AWFUL let down to all those devout Atheist followers, well, well, at last he's being more honest, I guess because times running out as it will for everyone.

[James L Farmer]

08:27 PM on 04/06/2012

If you notice he is still claiming what he always has . He still rejects the notion of needing a God . Scientifically he can not rule it out , that is all there is to it . Nothing has changed for him or the Atheist .

[REVLAC]

07:30 AM on 04/07/2012

Reading Dawkins latest comments shows he's beginning to accept the probability of there not being God extremely low also, given the enormous complexity of the Universe and laws at the sub atomic level now being revealed.

As many scientists are working hard to understand all these things towards God, than against him. And quoting from one famous intellectual Nobel Prize Scientist which Dawkins isn’t “Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.- Albert Einstein

I have said before an Agnostic is far more genuine in my books and I accept a lot of people are.

Atheism is a negative religion, (and it IS a religion) as proof is not there for it anymore than for other Faith's. But the wisdom behind the New Testament reveals a lot of truth and stands the test of time.

There will be many "false profits" proclaiming all the answers, Dawkins is no exception but, in the meanwhile he's making a lot of money for himself and notoriety; never misses an opportunity to bring attention in the media to himself with programmes or books,and were not getting a balance view and thats bad!, and its got to change in a tolerant society.

[Oliver Rowland]

04:51 AM on 04/15/2012

As commenter Amosknows said, it depends on your definition of God as well. Science certainly reveals no likelihood that there is any God resembling the one with the specific characteristics described in the Old and New Testaments.

[Paul Junior]

06:46 AM on 03/08/2012

Richard Dawkins, "ethologist (study of animal behavior) and "evolutionary biologist" (study of theoretical but unproven processes of biology) (Wikipedia)... meaning he has very little qualification in serious sciences:) His credentials are grossly exaggerated and he would do well furthering his knowledge of the relationship of Holy Scriptures and the sciences. He, and others here who question the validity of the Bible as being a centuries old Reference Book on history, anthropology, astronomy, astrology, genetics, physics, zoology, botany, psychology, anatomy, reproduction, etc... etc... etc... might visit this site for an introduction to Advanced Studies BEYOND Sunday School... :)

http://www.pruittfamily.com/paul/biblphys.htm

[Bradley Thomas Horton]

08:39 AM on 03/05/2012

I am stating with 100 % confidence and proof... there is no god and it is that simple.. godf is a scam and the people who follow this scam are just pathetic... period

[AmosKnows]

12:23 AM on 04/15/2012

What's your definition of god? That would help qualify this statement.

[Oliver Rowland]

06:27 AM on 04/15/2012

On this subject of the definition again, it is important, especially when you hear some liberal Christians on their idea of God. Some liberal theologians, for example, say god is just "beingness" or "is-ness". They are really stretching the point though. Jesus said he accepted the Old Testament and its ("god-given") laws, and from what he reportedly said in the gospels he also clearly believed in a father/creator god who takes an interest in humans and has plans for us and with whom you can communicate in prayer.

[JusticeIsWhere]

01:09 AM on 03/05/2012

I think being only 98.6% sure there is no God, stops short of denying the god man has created in his own image. That uncertainty represents the 1.4% of sectarian zealots that have actually affected change that can be scientifically documented by the number of people that god has influenced to harm another person. Disclaimer: The above proclamation is only a belief with a certainty of 98.6% with an error probability of +/- 1.4%

[Doobie Snacks]

01:58 PM on 03/03/2012

Here is an excellent video playlist by Thunderf00t on, "why do people laugh at creationists."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BS5vid4GkEY&feature=results_main&playnext=1&list=PLAC3481305829426D

Enjoy.

[CabinAgue]

03:05 PM on 03/03/2012

"perfectly spherical orbit"

LOL -- awesome, thanks.

[Doobie Snacks]

03:20 PM on 03/03/2012

No problem.

[lookbuzz]

09:44 PM on 03/04/2012

Great links, thanks!

[Doobie Snacks]

12:58 AM on 03/05/2012

No problem.

[Keith Jigleeottee]

08:21 PM on 03/02/2012

Ok atheism is NOT a Religion like many of you are saying. Atheists are also not trying to convert you, we are trying to keep things free for EVERYONE. We do not want belief systems pushed into our lives or the lives of others, for example garbage religious right stuff.

Atheist believe in Science, Reason, Logic, Progress and Equality for all....and yes that includes religious people.

Here is an example that might help. If you collect football cards that is your hobby. If you do not collect football cards you don't say my hobby is not collecting football cards.

None of us are trying to take away your personal beliefs what so ever, that's media driven garbage, we are simply saying belief in a creator (God) is not in our belief system but we will still protect everyone's rights to any belief as long as it does not hurt humanity (others). I mentioned earlier most of us would even protect religious people, they are not the enemy they are fellow humans and we all have to get along to progress.

Freedom is choice, choice for everyone. We also don't hate God, you can't hate something you don't believe exists....we believe man is responsible for our over all well being.

Atheists are very misunderstood. I seem aggressive and I am because it's hard to tolerate certain religions, we do not tolerate anti gay, women, semite etc.

compassion does not need a book it just needs a heart.

[Tazzie]

08:52 PM on 03/02/2012

Wonderfully articulated Keith. Fanned and Faved.

[Andres64]

09:03 PM on 03/02/2012

F&F

[Stephen Hines]

06:35 PM on 03/02/2012

So he's admitting that there is no absolute certainty in life? What a surprise. Just because any form of religious deity seems entirely improbable, and the chances that one of this planet's multitudinous religions may actually be right even more improbable, there is always a chance.

You cannot prove a negative - which is not saying "therefore the negative must be the case".

[Keith Jigleeottee]

08:46 PM on 03/02/2012

Exactly, well said I wish I could be so short and sweet at times.

It's like Santa Claus, we laugh about his existence as we get older but there is no way to disprove him.

[Tazzie]

08:53 PM on 03/02/2012

I said early in the thread this isn't a new idea from Professor Dawkins. You've summed it up beautifully.

[Devout Skeptic]

06:12 PM on 03/02/2012

I thought this was an interesting paradox. God can't be omniscient and have free will. If god knows what will happen in the future, he knows what he will do in the future. If god had free will he could change his mind about what he was going to do in the future but then he wouldn't be omniscient.

[CabinAgue]

06:38 PM on 03/02/2012

I also think it would mean that WE have no free will.  If he already knows everything we will do, how is that free will?

It would almost be like a giant, fixed maze of lab rats.  Except entirely predicted.  Hard to imagine the point.

[lookbuzz]

07:23 PM on 03/02/2012

One of the major challenges for Calvinism - Predestination.

On the other hand, there is an interesting approach to the problem found in 'The Consolation of Philosophy' by the ancient christian writer Boethius.

[Devout Skeptic]

01:54 AM on 03/03/2012

Free will is a difficult concept for me. I always believed that we had it and I still do but it is hardly clear to me when I listen to people who argue that we don't. I had thought something similar to the unpredictability of things like the weather and quantum mechanics might be at play in our psychology and it may be but that would just make the the things we decide to do aleatory. I guess it wouldn't be so horrible to not have free will because even if I don't I still feel as though I have it.

[theshortladders]

07:45 PM on 03/02/2012

What is the nature of the future though? To God, what if it were a broad sea of possibilities for humans rather than a fixed predetermined reality. This doesn't compromise God's omniscience merely qualifies the nature of the future that God knows. Wouldn't it be far more impressive to see God as knowing every potentiality while we retain free will. (Think "Choose Your Own Adventure"). Check out Greg Boyd on the subject of Open Theism in God of the Possible.

[CabinAgue]

08:46 PM on 03/02/2012

If it is a "broad sea of possibilities", then that is not omniscience.  Either you say that God knows all or that He doesn't.

It's fine to define Him any way you like -- I am only pointing out that saying He is omniscient doesn't make sense to me.  (It's not the only aspect of many definitions of Him that make no sense to me, btw.)