Most notable Atheist: : I can't be sure God does not exist

[Danno 1,228]

Richard Dawkins: I can't be sure God does not exist

He is regarded as the most famous atheist in the world but last night Professor Richard Dawkins admitted he could not be sure that God does not exist.

By John Bingham, Religious Affairs Editor7:19AM GMT 24 Feb 2012 5310 Comments

He told the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, that he preferred to call himself an agnostic rather than an atheist.

The two men were taking part in a public “dialogue” at Oxford University at the end of a week which has seen bitter debate about the role of religion in public life in Britain.

Last week Baroness Warsi, the Tory party chairman, warned of a tide of “militant secularism” challenging the religious foundations of British society.

The discussion, in Sir Christopher Wren’s Sheldonian Theatre, attracted attention from around the world.

As well as being relayed to two other theatres, it was streamed live on the internet and promoted fierce debate on the Twitter social network.

RELATED ARTICLES

Dawkins v the Archbishop 24 Feb 2012

For once, Richard Dawkins is lost for words 14 Feb 2012

Dawkins estate fortune: slave root 19 Feb 2012

Richard Dawkins questions whether David Cameron is actually a Christian 12 Dec 2011

For an hour and 20 minutes the two men politely discussed "The nature of human beings and the question of their ultimate origin" touching on the meaning of consciousness, the evolution of human language – and Dr Williams’s beard.

Does God "clutter up" explanations of how the universe began?

Yes, there is no place for religion in science

No, a theory of creation is compatible with the Big Bang

VoteView ResultsShare This

For much of the discussion the Archbishop sat quietly listening to Prof Dawkins’s explanations of human evolution.

At one point he told the professor that he was “inspired” by “elegance” of the professor’s explanation for the origins of life – and agreed with much of it.

Prof Dawkins told him: “What I can’t understand is why you can’t see the extraordinary beauty of the idea that life started from nothing – that is such a staggering, elegant, beautiful thing, why would you want to clutter it up with something so messy as a God?”

Dr Williams replied that he “entirely agreed” with the “beauty” of Prof Dawkins’s argument but added: “I’m not talking about God as an extra who you shoehorn on to that.”

There was surprise when Prof Dawkins acknowledged that he was less than 100 per cent certain of his conviction that there is no creator.

The philosopher Sir Anthony Kenny, who chaired the discussion, interjected: “Why don’t you call yourself an agnostic?” Prof Dawkins answered that he did.

An incredulous Sir Anthony replied: “You are described as the world’s most famous atheist.”

Prof Dawkins said that he was “6.9 out of seven” sure of his beliefs.

“I think the probability of a supernatural creator existing is very very low,” he added.

He also said that he believed it was highly likely that there was life on other planets.

At one point he discussion strayed onto the theoretical question of whether a traditional cut throat razor could be described as a more complicated thing than an electric shaver.<snip>

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/9102740/Richard-Dawkins-I-cant-be-sure-God-does-not-exist.html

[ready4ONE 5,400]

Certainly Mr. Dawkins understands the logical impossibility of proving a negative. Not exactly a ringing endorsement for the existance of God. The probability is "...very very low."

Edited February 26, 2012 by ready4ONE

[웃 910]

Richard Dawkins: I can't be sure God does not exist

He is regarded as the most famous atheist in the world but last night Professor Richard Dawkins admitted he could not be sure that God does not exist.

By John Bingham, Religious Affairs Editor7:19AM GMT 24 Feb 2012 5310 Comments

He told the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, that he preferred to call himself an agnostic rather than an atheist.

The two men were taking part in a public "dialogue" at Oxford University at the end of a week which has seen bitter debate about the role of religion in public life in Britain.

Last week Baroness Warsi, the Tory party chairman, warned of a tide of "militant secularism" challenging the religious foundations of British society.

The discussion, in Sir Christopher Wren's Sheldonian Theatre, attracted attention from around the world.

As well as being relayed to two other theatres, it was streamed live on the internet and promoted fierce debate on the Twitter social network.

RELATED ARTICLES

Dawkins v the Archbishop 24 Feb 2012

For once, Richard Dawkins is lost for words 14 Feb 2012

Dawkins estate fortune: slave root 19 Feb 2012

Richard Dawkins questions whether David Cameron is actually a Christian 12 Dec 2011

For an hour and 20 minutes the two men politely discussed "The nature of human beings and the question of their ultimate origin" touching on the meaning of consciousness, the evolution of human language – and Dr Williams's beard.

Does God "clutter up" explanations of how the universe began?

Yes, there is no place for religion in science

No, a theory of creation is compatible with the Big Bang

VoteView ResultsShare This

For much of the discussion the Archbishop sat quietly listening to Prof Dawkins's explanations of human evolution.

At one point he told the professor that he was "inspired" by "elegance" of the professor's explanation for the origins of life – and agreed with much of it.

Prof Dawkins told him: "What I can't understand is why you can't see the extraordinary beauty of the idea that life started from nothing – that is such a staggering, elegant, beautiful thing, why would you want to clutter it up with something so messy as a God?"

Dr Williams replied that he "entirely agreed" with the "beauty" of Prof Dawkins's argument but added: "I'm not talking about God as an extra who you shoehorn on to that."

There was surprise when Prof Dawkins acknowledged that he was less than 100 per cent certain of his conviction that there is no creator.

The philosopher Sir Anthony Kenny, who chaired the discussion, interjected: "Why don't you call yourself an agnostic?" Prof Dawkins answered that he did.

An incredulous Sir Anthony replied: "You are described as the world's most famous atheist."

Prof Dawkins said that he was "6.9 out of seven" sure of his beliefs.

"I think the probability of a supernatural creator existing is very very low," he added.

He also said that he believed it was highly likely that there was life on other planets.

At one point he discussion strayed onto the theoretical question of whether a traditional cut throat razor could be described as a more complicated thing than an electric shaver.<snip>

http://www.telegraph...-not-exist.html

[웃 910]

On a 7 point scale I think I'll place myself at a solid 8

More ludicrous misrepresentations of Dawkins

The journalistic backlash continues in both the UK and US against Richard Dawkins and his Foundation’s “Christianity poll.” After accusing Dawkins of profiting from slavery, the newspapers have yet another card up their sleeve.

This week Dawkins debated the Archbishop of Canterbury at Oxford. During that debate, Dawkins reiterated what he stated clearly in The God Delusion: he couldn’t be 100% sure that God doesn’t exist, but as a scientist felt that the odds are very much against it.

He then proposed a 7 point spectrum of theistic probability in which 1 represented complete assurance (“I know God exists”) and 7 represented complete atheistic certainty (“I know there is no God”). As I recall, Dawkins put himself at 6.5 on that scale (Wikipedia reports a 6, but I’m not sure as I don’t have the book at hand), for no scientist can know withabsolute conviction that anything doesn’t exist. (I’d put myself at 6.995 on that scale.)

In the debate, Dawkins reiterated that ranking explicitly, placing himself at a 6.9. This was reported by several newspapers, including the two below. But what headlines did they choose to use when reporting the debate? Wait for it:

From the Washington Post:

And the Daily Telegraph:

More dreadful journalism: hyped headlines, the revelation of something that’s been known for years, and a misunderstanding of how science operates.

I wonder what how the Archbishop would rank himself on that scale. Would he put himself at 1?

[Danno 1,228]

It appears your ringleader is even unsure, wanna rethink your absolutist position?

After your search for God has been extremely limited, you are certain he doesn't exist in places you have never been to..... even with a telescope.

Think about that.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Does it matter to YOU what he believes? It does not matter to me.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

It appears your ringleader is even unsure, wanna rethink your absolutist position?

After your search for God has been extremely limited, you are certain he doesn't exist in places you have never been to..... even with a telescope.

Think about that.

He is not my ringleader. My position is not based on anything he says or thinks (I did not know who he was) and I do not care if God exists.

[BishopM 114]

I puffyheart God

Blessings to Mr. Dawkins and all

B

[Dan J 277]

It appears your ringleader is even unsure, wanna rethink your absolutist position?

After your search for God has been extremely limited, you are certain he doesn't exist in places you have never been to..... even with a telescope.

Think about that.

Unlike organized religions, there is no ringleader. each person comes to atheism or agnosticism on their own free will.

Science can explain the how we exist, but not so much the why. You are going to get a point where you have to face this question. To many people, a simple answer that we just exist is too traumatizing and they need to assign meaning to it.

Humans are good at finding patterns in chaos even if they don't exist. A lottery is completely random, but many people try to find patterns and assign meaning to what numbers are selected. The same goes for religion. Its an answer the chaos that we see when we try to explain why we exist.

Personally I don't care what people believe. I understand why many people find their religion important. It saves them from having to face questions they can't handle. My only issue with religion is when people use religion as a basis to shape society beyond their own personal lives.

[X Factor 1,112]

Dawkings prognosis of the future is also bleak. He notes that the way the world is headed will lead to calamity in the future.

[Nagishkaw 510]

Dawkings prognosis of the future is also bleak. He notes that the way the world is headed will lead to calamity in the future.

It's Dawkins, not Dawkings. Did you even bother to read the article?

[james&olya 1,121]

I puffyheart God

Blessings to Mr. Dawkins and all

B

Bishop, you really have class! I don't agree with you that God exists but I appreciate the high class way in which you conduct yourself. Now if we could just get some other believers in the almighty to have similar class the world would be a lot nicer place!

[웃 910]

It appears your ringleader is even unsure, wanna rethink your absolutist position?

After your search for God has been extremely limited, you are certain he doesn't exist in places you have never been to..... even with a telescope.

Think about that.

[웃 910]

Does it matter to YOU what he believes? It does not matter to me.

[Dan and Judy 614]

If you do believe in God, there is no logical reason to believe there is only one.