Comments on: Is Richard Dawkins Abandoning Atheism?

By: Andy Dempsey

Andy Dempsey — Sat, 04 Jun 2011 20:23:36 +0000

I’d be surprised if Dawkins was moving from a position that has brought him world wide noteriety and an inflated bank balance. Either way though it is faith in Christ that is essential and not some deistic or even theistic world view. Lets all pray for richard!

By: Vic Gill

Vic Gill — Mon, 28 Dec 2009 21:43:01 +0000

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.

By: Tim Bunch

Tim Bunch — Mon, 28 Dec 2009 21:21:08 +0000

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’.

By: Vic Gill

Vic Gill — Mon, 28 Dec 2009 10:55:18 +0000

Anthony Flew is definately not an atheist, definately.

By: Rich Ed

Rich Ed — Mon, 28 Dec 2009 00:50:30 +0000

@ 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.

By: Sonny Simak

Sonny Simak — Sun, 27 Dec 2009 23:48:25 +0000

Interesting.

I agree with you bro. He does not sound like a militant atheist any more.

Peace to all.

By: John

John — Sun, 27 Dec 2009 23:32:52 +0000

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.

By: Vic Gill

Vic Gill — Sun, 27 Dec 2009 22:59:53 +0000

Smart thinking and well put Rich, but to me he still sounds like he is becoming less of an atheist. My two pence worth.

By: Rich Ed

Rich Ed — Sun, 27 Dec 2009 22:53:35 +0000

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

By: Vic Gill

Vic Gill — Sun, 27 Dec 2009 22:29:27 +0000

So, can it be said that Richard is no longer a classical atheist? I think in several interviews, Richard Dawkins has conceded some ground.