In a recent debate with Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams, Richard Dawkins stirred some controversy by conceding that he wasn't completely certain that God doesn't exist.
The archbishop prodded Dawkins by suggesting that the Oxford evolutionary biologist believed he had "disproved God," a claim Dawkins then denied. Dawkins responded by noting he considered himself a "6.9 out of 7" on a scale from "I know God exists" to "I know God doesn't exist," a statement which prompted headlines such as "Richard Dawkins Reveals He is Agnostic" from the Christian Post. In fact, the general reporting of the event seems to give the impression that Dawkins's statement amounts to the world's foremost atheist losing his edge with growing age.
But Dawkins said nothing new in that debate a few nights ago. He has never claimed to be 100 percent certain that God did not exist, and if he did, surely those making much ado about his "concession" would be jumping down his throat for the hubris of that position, instead. Many do, already.
In "The God Delusion," Dawkins lays out his scale for nonbelief. A "six" refers to a de facto atheist who believes that the existence of God is "very improbable," living as though God does not exist. Someone who is a "seven" on Dawkins' scale holds that he "knows there is no God, with the same conviction as Jung 'knows' there is one."
A 6.9 on this scale doesn't meaningfully sound like an agnostic to me. Personally, I'd consider myself somewhat lower on the scale, perhaps a 6.5, but even that feels bizarre to label with "agnosticism."
If only a shred of doubt in one's conviction is necessary to be termed an agnostic, how many Christians would be forced to identify as an agnostic, too? Mother Teresa very famously struggled with doubt. But when this news came to light, there were no headlines announcing that Mother Teresa was really an agnostic all along. It's hard not to feel as if there is some double-standard at play.
This isn't the only instance where Dawkins has been receiving an unfair storm of media attention. The Sunday Telegraph recently reported that Dawkins' ancestors hundreds of years ago owned slaves. The story treated the issue as if it were some grand controversy, but how many of Dawkins' accusers could better fare the Lord jealously "punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation?" It may even be the case that First Lady Michelle Obama's ancestors may have owned slaves. Not that any of this excuses our ancestors, but if our nation was founded by a group of slave owners, then how outraged can we really be?
Prominent atheists such as Dawkins are understandably sources of controversy. But even though I don't quite see eye-to-eye with Dawkins on every issue, I can still recognize that he doesn't deserve to be a needless target for manufactured controversy. Whether you agree with his writings on religion or not, the work he has done as an evolutionary biologist and science educator deserves greater respect from the media than he's been shown.
Follow Vlad Chituc on Twitter: www.twitter.com/vladchituc
Your own self consciousness (a.k.a. 'the way I lead my life and view the world in which I live') is an intellectual construct, too, but you don't recognize it as moot. When you gravitate all the way to nihilism, you will have settled into an integrated position that can rival the hardcore theists and antithesists.
Or maybe you really do care.
He is not the 50/50 type of agnostic but the sort who leans strongly to the atheistic side - the term is known as an agnostic atheist.
Unknown is not the same as unknowable.
To nitpick, every person who doesn't believe in God is 100% atheist. 100% *certainty* has nothing to do with "100% atheism" as atheism is a statement on their state of belief not their state of knowledge.
But yes, the vast majority of atheist are atheist agnostics, as is only reasonable considering the fact that "God Exists" is an inherently unfalsifiable hypothesis.
This would include Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens.
pride is a double edge sword. One side arrogance and ignorance and the other side taking some pride in our search for perfection.
humble can be very enlightening but difficult to attain.
the ego loves proud and will resist humble.
if you want to believe there is no purpose and meaning to your life so be it.
if you want to belief you exist due to a cosmic accident so be it.
if you want to believe that materialistic science is not without error so be it.
but your first sentence is very revealing as you have come to know that the god the religious worship does not exist but they need such a god to worship. materialism thing.
we are all a work in process even a work in progress towards greater and greater awareness of reality and materialism science is one of those paths.
What would life be with choice?
Figure the odds.
You are still young try not to buy into any form of religion including materialistic science. Find out for yourself what Thoreau meant when he stated there is more religion in men's science than science in their religion. Those were profound words of understanding about the human condition.
Study and research all the great teachers and religions and evidence for the paranormal and the afterlife. Don’t eliminate anything to study that is being taught into these mysteries of life.
Be very alert as to how we can reject new data before any investigation as the paradigm effect is that powerful.
Once we identify with one aspect of a system of beliefs, it is pretty much over in our life for attaining new information and discoveries.
Religious teachings are full of dogma but some of it can also contain some profound wisdom about life. Every path is unique; try not to jump on a bandwagon too fast. There is much comfort to join the herd but comfort is of the ego, not the seeker of truths.
Expect much rejection because the status quo of the group will want you to be in one camp or another.
:-)
"Eternal life"... what an oxymoron that is.
From all of the miracles in the bible it's hard not to believe that the whole thing is man's invention for what they hope for after the lights go out.
7.0 plus 0.1 for knowing that believing in a god is on average bad for you and bad for society.
However, evolutionary psychology has a good answer. The whole "god" meme evolved because it had beneficial effects for cohesion in early tribes. So it's in the same class as racism - that also evolved because it was beneficial in early societies ("us" vs "them") but has the opposite effect today.