This really seems to be a non-issue since Richard Dawkins is a weak or negative atheist.
Now, yes, he is weak and negative but these terms, within this context, do not refer to his prowess as an atheist pseudo-evangelist but to which Atheist denomination he adheres which is called “weak atheism” or “negative atheism” and means that he is, essentially, an agnostic since he does not positively affirm God’s non-existence (except one perhaps one occasion).
The headlines from the UK’s Telegraph proceeded forth hot off the press and declared Richard Dawkins: I can’t be sure God does not exist.
Well, this is, at least as of just over a half a decade, not news. The story focused on the fact that Richard Dawkins does not believe that God exists but takes the weak Atheist position in that he does not positively affirm God’s non-existence. This means that he does not believe that God exists but does not claim to know with 100% certainty that God does not, in fact, exist.
He made remarks to this affect in his book The God Delusion (which Dawkins has referred to as a funny book and an amusing book) and this also played a big role in Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed wherein the famous discussion took place between Dawkins and Ben Stein. That discussion had Dawkins grudgingly assert 97% certainty that God did not exist only to be asked how he knew, having him admit that he did not know. He was then asked if the percentage could be, say, 47% to which he said no, only to be asked how he know to which he again responded that he did not know and on it went.
Thus, the story is a non-story, at least for the initiate. Another essential non-story within the non-story is nevertheless interesting to revisit. This is that Richard Dawkins stated un-scientific and un-evidenced assertion that “life started from nothing.” This is clearly absolutely nothing but a “faith” based statement which he makes based on utterly nothing but his chosen Atheistic/materialistic/mechanistic/naturalistic worldview. He has further elucidated, again based on nothing but his propensity towards quaint Victorian Era Darwinian story telling that while “life started from nothing” it was started by…are you ready for this?…keep in mind that this is a scientist speaking…but not merely a scientist in general but a biologist in specific…he believes that “life started from nothing” but that it was started by “luck”:
It is as though, in our theory of how we came to exist, we are allowed to postulate a certain ration of luck. [The Blind Watchmaker, 1986 AD ed., p. 145]
to explain how the complex, improbable appearance of design in the universe arises…makes heavier demands on luck. [The God Delusion, 2006 AD ed., p. 121] Yet, furthermore, what Richard Dawkins claimed is:
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?
Clearly, this is an argument from aesthetics. Should we really believe in an un-scientific and un-evidenced origin of life “from nothing” just because Richard Dawkins chooses to consider this metaphysical assertion to be staggering, elegant and beautiful? If that is the case then all you have to do is cancel it out by stating that you do not find it staggering, elegant nor beautiful. From there it is a case of my aesthetics can beat up yours and may the fittest aesthetic win. Well, as surprising as it may be aesthetics does, indeed, play a big role in the realm of theory. What may also be either surprising or another non-story is that for Richard Dawkins his personal feelings about a theory is just about all he has going for him, consider his admission to holding to Darwinism/evolution/natural selection by “faith” and why he does so:
…there’s got to be a series of advantages all the way in the feather. If you can’t think of one then that’s your problem, not natural selection’s problem. Natural selection, um, well, I suppose that is a sort of matter of faith on my, on my part since the theory is so coherent and so powerful… [The Atheism Tapes, Part 4: “Richard Dawkins and Jonathan Miller,” emphasis added]
An interesting side note is that Jonathan Miller asked Dawkins, “So when, at the age of 16, you became acquainted with Darwin, was it because you were taught about Darwin, or you began reading The Origin of Species?” and Dawkins responded, “No, it was because I was taught” (perhaps this is a window into why Dawkins could not recall the full title/subtitle of his pseudo-Bible, Charles Darwin’s magnum opus).
Lastly, some interesting, though perhaps not detailed, data did proceed forth from the UK Telegraphs’ article. It contained a poll asking readers:
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
Now, who would read an article about Dawkins? Likely Atheists and Christians with a minority of miscellaneous. Perhaps more Atheists than Christians as they are quite taken with cult of personality hero worship. Perhaps more Atheists because it was, after all the UK’s Telegraph. Yet, it is on the world wide web so, who knows? The poll is not scientific as it does not ask your views but only reports results. Thus, let us consider the data as proceeding forth from the “for whatever it’s worth” files. The results are as follows (as of February 24, 2012 AD):
Yes, there is no place for religion in science 33.28% (8,068 votes)
No, a theory of creation is compatible with the Big Bang 66.72% (16,176 votes)
Total Votes: 24,244
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby. If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help out. Here is my donate/paypal page.
Due to robo-spaming, I had to close the comment sections. However, you can comment on my Facebook page.
Twitter: #RichardDawkins, #Atheism, #anostic
Facebook: #RichardDawkins, #Atheism, #anostic