Richard Dawkins Admits Atheism Is a Delusion

100% My Lord and My God.

In an embarrassing (for the Atheists) and rare show of common sense, Richard Dawkins admitted to be only sure to 6.9 sevenths (which, to you and I who do not have a book to promote, means around 98.6%) God does not exist. This leaves only space for the conclusion (as in such things tertium non datur) Dawkins considers the existence of God a 1.4% probability.

In my book, this means Dawkins not only maintains he is not an atheists, but maintains Atheists are wrong. Always in my book, a 1.4% probability of being wrong in your supposition qualifies you as an agnostic, albeit of a rather obdurate sort.

The moderator of this debate seems to have reached the same conclusion, and to his surprise Dawkins said he is called an atheists by other people, but “not by himself”.

Now, before someone starts the soppy song of the “pleasant surprise” Dawkins might have after he kicks the bucket, let me tell you that however your percentage estimations you can’t write a book called “The God Delusion” and think – bar an always welcome repentance, of course – you’ll get an entry card. What the exchange tells me is that Dawkins has, in fact, admitted the bankruptcy of the atheist argument. If you admit you can’t reach 100% certainty you’re right, you can’t say to believers they are wrong. And, by the way, you should still be very afraid.

Contrast this with, say, myself:

I am absolutely certain God exists. Not to 6.9 sevenths, not even to 6.99 sevenths. I am 100% certain, period.

Therefore, the following is demonstrated:

1) I can criticise atheists as “wrong” and be deemed coherent, he can’t criticise believers as “wrong” and make the same claim. Not as atheist, not as agnostic.

2) The real delusion here is – says Dawkins, though not in so many words – the one of the atheists. You can’t call a belief “false” which you know has a 1.4% probability of being true, and you must call atheism a delusion if you believe atheism has a 1.4% probability of being wrong; because in this case it can never qualify as a belief and must be called, coherently, a delusion.

Mundabor

 

Posted on March 4, 2012, in Catholicism and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink. 3 Comments.

  1. Sure, you can’t say something’s false when it has a 1.4% chance of being true. Which is why we can bet on a horse and be justified in believing we’re going to win the bet.

    Except that most people don’t win the bet.

    In any case, Dawkins makes an excellent argument to justify his belief that God is extremely improbable (far more improbable than the 1.4% that a 6.9 at his qualitative scale would lead one to believe). Can you justify your belief that the probability of God is 100%?

    And that’s Dawkins’ point. Believers can’t adequately justify their degree of belief, in the same way that nobody buys a lottery ticket and starts spending the money they don’t yet have under the conviction that they’re going to win.

    • Yes, I can.
      In order to understand this, you must know the hisrory of Jesus, and be able to put it in the appropriate historical context.

      If you can do this, you are either a believer or one who believes Jesus was either mad or evil.

      If you cannot do this, well you should.

      M

  2. Sorry, I think you haven’t been paying attention during your English lessons.

    It seems Dawkins hasn’t been paying attention to you, either.

    M

%d bloggers like this: