Is Richard Dawkins Abandoning Atheism?
Vic Gill | Dec 27, 2009 | Comments 13
Is it just me or is Richard Dawkins sounding more like a deist nowadays? I just watched ‘C4: Tsunami – Where Was God?’ (which was incidentally filmed in 2005) and made a small observation. Mark Dowd’s brief interview with the Oxford based atheist revealed some interesting truths. Dawkins, author of ‘The God Delusion’ and ‘The Selfish Gene’, interviewed in 2005 spoke about his views on the Tsunami. Dawkins commented:
“The kind of God that I would respect people for believing in, would be the kind of God of the deists, who set the universe up in the first place, who set up the laws of physics, perhaps in such a way that it would be likely to bring the conditions for evolution into existence. Something of that sort…”
Now, correct me if I am wrong, but has anyone picked up the fact that Richard Dawkins now ‘repsects’ the God of the deists? Is Richard Dawkins moving to the same position as Anthony Flew, who abandoned his staunch atheism in place for a more evidence based deism? This certainly is remarkable news, even if I’m four years late on this. Now, don’t get me wrong, I am not for one moment advocating the fact that he has abandoned atheism. Not at all. However, his tone towards a deistic God is much more sympathetic.
Like Dawkins, Anthony Flew back in his prime was the pitbull of atheism. He strongly advocated that unless evidence for God surfaced, atheism should be the presupposed worldview. In 2001 rumours began circulating that Flew had been convinced of a Creator God’s evidence. These rumours were quickly squashed by Flew. However, the evidence which Flew was looking for seemed to eventually surface, and in 2004 Anthony Flew publicly assumed his new title as a deist. Flew commented regarding the evidence:
“had to go where the evidence leads”
Could we be seeing the repeat of another ‘Flew’? Are we witnessing the darling of atheism coming to the belief that there is a God?
Is Richard Dawkins abandoning atheism? What do you think?
Filed Under: FAQs • Latest Article • Philosophy
Follow That I May Know Him on Twitter
All Dawkins is saying is that deists don’t make incredible claims about reality like other religions do. All deists say is that they believe in a god, but this god isn’t a personal one and doesn’t interfere with anything.
I’d love to hear about this ‘evidence’ that deism is based on..
But he still sounds quite sympathetic towards the deistic position, whatever he is inciting. If I remember Flew began doing this too.
Flew said “had to go where the evidence leads”
Absolutely not, he is just saying he can respect somebody that would believe in a God that put down the building blocks.
A person that believes in this type of God also accepts the evidence for evolution that is why he would have respect for that way of thinking.
It does not mean he is thinking that way.
I’ve thought for a long time now that Dawkins is on his way. The Hound of Heaven is running him to ground. Hope I don’t have to sit next to him in Church.
So, can it be said that Richard is no longer a classical atheist? I think in several interviews, Richard Dawkins has conceded some ground.
The image of Dawkins as the arrogant, intolerant atheist portrayed by both the media* and the religious** means that people who have heard little, if anything of his own words before, assume he’s toning it down or slowly moving away from atheism when he says something that doesn’t fit with their preconceived expectations, such as in this programme.
The more people hear Dawkins in uncut footage or in his books or in debates the less likely they will be shocked at what he said.
*sensationalizing
**defaming through ignorance or vindictivness
Smart thinking and well put Rich, but to me he still sounds like he is becoming less of an atheist. My two pence worth.
Flew is still an atheist. Deists are not theists. It depends on what ones personal view of ‘God’ is – i.e. what that word means in a fuzzy sort of way.
Interesting.
I agree with you bro. He does not sound like a militant atheist any more.
Peace to all.
@ Vic – Thank you. It’s your opinion which as we know is fine to hold, though I’m going to give arguments why he is not less of an atheist; if atheism is defined as somebody who is as certain as can be that no God exists.
Atheism is one of three stances, in contrast to:
- belief
- degree of uncertainty
As soon as there is doubt, the stance changes from the certainty of (un)belief to a degree of uncertainty.
Therefore the problem with Dawkins becoming ‘less of an atheist’ is that if he is doubting he becomes an agnostic straight away (albeit close to the athiest position)
If you share this definition of atheist and it was what you meant in the context of your reply then I have to disagree as ‘less of an atheist’ is an agnostic.
Dawkins doesn’t indicate any doubt in atheism in this interview, only holding respect for another belief, in this case deism. It does not mean that he is on the way over. I’m sure there are religious people who respect a different religion, but would not consider themselves slowly drifting away from their own faith.
However, possibly by ‘less of an athiest’ you meant he comes across as less outspoken or militant and more cautious and respectful. If so this is a question of his presentation of beliefs rather the beliefs themselves, though I don’t think this has changed in any case as he says something similiar in the God Delusion (printed 2006 I think)among other places.
So I hope thats done something to add weight to the reverse of the ‘Dawkins is less of an atheist’ opinion.
Anthony Flew is definately not an atheist, definately.
I think what we are all missing is the step away from strick atheism toward the acceptance of a ‘god that makes sense’ – to us that is! If I remember rightly, this ‘god’ will be introduced to the world as a great ‘peace-maker’ with an ‘off-sider’ who can perform great signs and wonders!
As to Dawkins himself – he is merely a pawn in the great battle of God versus evil, and the devil will move his pawns as best suits his plans!
I expect to see various positions changing – as we already are – to where ‘a being’ (or at least ‘beings) who, as Dawkins is quoted above as saying, “who set the universe up in the first place, who set up the laws of physics, perhaps in such a way that it would be likely to bring the conditions for evolution into existence” will be accepted. And of course, when he arrives and revealed, will be worshipped as ‘god’.
Amen to that Tim…
I believe in a very personal God, Yahweh, the One True God who not only changes the course of history, but also changes the hearts of men. I am praying for Dawkins.