The most clueless attack on Dawkins I’ve seen yet

This may not be the dumbest attack on Dawkins I’ve ever seen, but I think it wins the award for least-informed about the views Dawkins has been promoting for years now:

‘I can’t be sure God DOES NOT exist’: World’s most notorious atheist Richard Dawkins admits he is in fact agnostic

Professor Richard Dawkins today dismissed his hard-earned reputation as a militant atheist – admitting that he is actually agnostic as he can’t prove God doesn’t exist.

The country’s foremost champion of the Darwinist evolution, who wrote The God Delusion, stunned audience members when he made the confession during a lively debate on the origins of the universe with the Archbishop of Canterbury.

Professor Dawkins, the former Oxford Professor for the Public Understanding of Science, is a dedicated admirer of Charles Darwin, regarding the Victorian pioneer of evolution as the man who explained ‘everything we know about life’.

But when Archbishop Dr Rowan Williams suggested that Professor Darwin is often described as the world’s most famous atheist, the geneticist responded: ‘Not by me’.

He said: ‘On a scale of seven, where one means I know he exists, and seven I know he doesn’t, I call myself a six.’

Professor Dawkins went on to say he believed was a ‘6.9’, stating: ‘That doesn’t mean I’m absolutely confident, that I absolutely know, because I don’t.’

The funny thing about this that this is actually a stronger position than Dawkins took in The God Delusion–there, Dawkins contented himself with calling himself a 6. He also came down pretty hard on “agnosticism,” essentially saying it’s ridiculous to call yourself agnostic if you’re 99% certain God exists (see his comments on Russell’s Teapot, the Tooth Fairy, etc.)

I think journalism schools need to hammer this in to journalists, that if they’re writing about a public intellectual whose books are written at a level accessible to anyone with a college degree, you need to read their damn books before writing about them. Or else you make a fool of yourself by getting all excited about an “admission” they’ve made which is actually something they’ve been saying for years, just because it goes against your preconceptions about the writer in question.

"Atomsk - Yes, I think the way I feel about it is normal. I think ..."

Let’s talk about violent pornography
"The Scientific Method works by testing a hypothesis for implications, contradictions, and ridiculous/false results. You ..."

Pulling some devastating punches: a review ..."
"A bit OT: Found this article and it is imo closely related to the issue ..."

Let’s talk about violent pornography
"Just one thing for now, because it takes quite a bit of time to think ..."

Let’s talk about violent pornography

Browse Our Archives

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment