OMG! Dawkins Converts To Christianity!!!

“I think the probability of a supernatural creator existing is very very low.” – Richard Dawkins

Well, that’s what you’d think after reading some of the tripe that has hit the net, airwaves and radio over the past few days in response to the debate he had with the Archbishop of Canterbury. This is just another example of the mental gymnastics that are part and parcel of the believing mindset. You know, it always amazes me how the religious can vilify the concept of “doubt” when it is applied to their fairy tales, but when it is applied to an unbeliever, it is then used as irrefutable proof of why the unbeliever should abandon all logic, reason and the collective of human intelligence and embrace the divine.

Dawkins Has Changed…

On Page 50 of “The God Delusion,” Dr. Dawkins explains his “Spectrum Of Theistic Probability.” This is the scale from 1 to 7 that many of us are familiar with, which rates the level of belief (or lack thereof) of any given individual. Dawkins says, “the existence of God is a scientific hypothesis like any other.” He expounds on this via his proposal that there exists a continuous “spectrum of probabilities” between two extremes of opposite certainty, which can be represented by seven “milestones”. From his book, “The God Delusion“:

  1. Strong theist. 100 per cent probability of God. In the words of C.G. Jung: “I do not believe, I know.”
  2. De facto theist. Very high probability but short of 100 per cent. “I don’t know for certain, but I strongly believe in God and live my life on the assumption that he is there.”
  3. Leaning towards theism. Higher than 50 per cent but not very high. “I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God.”
  4. Completely impartial. Exactly 50 per cent. “God’s existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable.”
  5. Leaning towards atheism. Lower than 50 per cent but not very low. “I do not know whether God exists but I’m inclined to be skeptical.”
  6. De facto atheist. Very low probability, but short of zero. “I don’t know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there.”
  7. Strong atheist. “I know there is no God, with the same conviction as Jung knows there is one.”

Dawkins has stated on numerous occasions that there are many who would categorize themselves as a “1” due to their strong, fundamentalist beliefs, but most atheists would stop short somewhere shy of a total “7” due to the nature of the scientific method which would dictate that because atheism arises from a lack of evidence and evidence can always change a thinking person’s mind. In fact, Dawkins had originally identified as a “6,” but in recent years has furthered his unbelief to the level of 6.9.

Oh, The Dissonance Of It All…

This is the way of the righteous, such as they are. As I have already pointed out, the concept of doubt is a double-edged sword with the religious. I find it amusing that if an atheists acquiesces even a sliver of self-skepticism, then they must, must, must concede that all the myths, legends and fairy-tales – no matter how ridiculous – should receive the same treatment.

They posit that anyone who exhibits anything less than a complete 7 on the Dawkins scale is obligated to consider the possibility that everything else that comprises the bible and religious theology should, by default, be considered for debate. This mindset was the catalyst for all the batshit crazy stories that have been littering the ether and airwaves over the past few days that gist toward the theistification of Dr. Dawkins, when, in fact, over the years he has become an even stronger atheist.

 Teaching Calculus To A Toaster…

This is one of the reasons why debating a theist can be so aggravating. Presenting them with gobs and gobs of scientific evidence that debunks their ridiculous beliefs are consistently thrown asunder with a variety of replies that are just variances of the usual “God Said It, I Believe It and That Settles It.”  This is what the crux of every theistic argument comes down to, even the complicated, intricate arguments put forth by the most learned theologians.

While I enjoy a good debate, the fact that in this day and age we still have to defend science to the claims of the intellectually stunted beliefs of the theist is beyond sensible. Evolution and creationism are not on equal footing. Nor are any of the other doctrines as compared to scientific discovery. But, in spite of the ridiculousness of religious belief, we must continue having these debates. The ease of which it has been reported and believed by so many that Dr. Dawkins somehow had abandoned a lifetime of knowledge to embrace the existence of God is a prime example of this.

In Case You Missed It…

Here’s the video of the recent debate between Dawkins and the Archbishop:

If they bothered reading his books, particularly “The God Delusion,” they would understand the utter stupidity of their claims.

  34 comments for “OMG! Dawkins Converts To Christianity!!!

  1. February 25, 2012 at 2:08 pm

    Spot on, Bro!! According to my math, 6.9/7 = 98.57% That is, Dawkins is nearly 99% certain there is no god. I might put the number higher than that, say 99.9999999999% certain. The strong atheist is 99.99999… = 100% = 7/7 certain (… means “goes on to an infinite number of 9s”). The fact that the media made something of this is just another example of media ignorance. Furthermore, most recipients of the media version of things are equally ignorant, so they don’t recognize BS when they see it, and would never think to question what they’re seeing/reading. To make it worse, there’s so much personal opinion in journalism these days, you literally can get different versions of the news, depending on what medium you choose as the one on which you rely.

    Great job of setting the record straight, Al! Of course, since you’re one of them evil atheists, no decent christian person would ever even read what you’ve written …

  2. Graham Martin-Royle
    February 25, 2012 at 2:19 pm

    All these people claiming that Dawkins has changed his mind are just proving that they have never read his books or listened to him, he hasn’t changed anything.

  3. February 25, 2012 at 2:24 pm

    It really is another example of the religious hearing what they want to hear. You said it well in your post, they defend doubt on their end, but accept none from our side. They also demand that we have every possible answer to every possible question at all times. “If you can’t tell me how a lemur evolved from other monkeys, right now mind you, then evolution must be crap.”—I am so tired of that type of reasoning from theists.

  4. February 25, 2012 at 2:42 pm

    The other thing is that, when asked if a (undefined, amorphous) god exists, it makes sense, scientifically, to go with a 6ish answer (I’m sure we could all imagine the existence of a deistic or pantheistic god who would be compatible with the evidence, but Occam’s razor leads us to avoid such fruitless speculation).

    However, if asked whether one of the biblical/Christian gods exist, well then, we can be much more certain. I would say I’m 7 certain that Yahweh* does not exist. Same goes for a supernatural Jesus, a Christos, or a Judaic version of the Platonic Logos. To me, the real existence of these are as likely as that we’re brains in vats or that the world was created yesterday with all of our memories of the past an illusion. Maybe even less likely, since we have historical and scientific evidence to support that conclusion, whereas we wouldn’t be able to find any evidence to contradict the proposition that the world we live in is completely illusory.

    *whether the henotheistic, monotheistic, or trinitarian version

    • Dave The Sandman
      February 26, 2012 at 3:30 am

      ‘kin hell….is there a “buy one get three free” day on at the Deepak Chopra Snake Oil Store this weekend?

      “all of our memories of the past an illusion. Maybe even less likely, since we have historical and scientific evidence to support that conclusion, whereas we wouldn’t be able to find any evidence to contradict the proposition that the world we live in is completely illusory.”

      Riiiiight….thats the sort of stoner wiffle I used to indulge in with my mates over a bong during my Universty days. Next you will be on about how theres a universe in the dirt under your finger nail.

  5. February 25, 2012 at 3:07 pm

    Funny how God is supposedly all into parlour tricks like making an oil spot that looks like Jesus appear in a Walmart parking lot. Yet he never makes a more impressive “miracle” happen, a prominent non-believer converting to Christianity in a spectacular way. Like say Tom Cruise announcing on a live broadcast he now believes Jesus is his personal saviour.

    • February 25, 2012 at 8:38 pm

      A credulous nutbar professing belief in a different crazy story than he has in the past? Doesn’t seem too miraculous to me.

      • Dave The Sandman
        February 26, 2012 at 3:34 am

        that credulous nutball professor you seem happy to slander is internationally recognised for his work, is a published author of respected research, and has a lifetime of accodlades under his belt.

        You on the other hand seem to adhere to a stoner phlosophy that all life is potentially an illusion dreamt up by brains in jars like some B grade Matrix movie.

        Uhhn huh.

        Please….carry on.

        • John Morales
          February 26, 2012 at 3:50 am

          Psst: that was sarcasm.

          (Ibis3 is rather cluey, unlike you)

  6. St4rlight
    February 25, 2012 at 3:55 pm

    Strangely enough as a Christian I’ve never had much issue reconciling science and God, but I guess it all depends on your interpretation of what you read in the bible.

    • February 25, 2012 at 5:02 pm

      Just how do you reconcile them? Religion is based firmly on belief in the absence of evidence, whereas science is based firmly on evidence.

    • Dave The Sandman
      February 26, 2012 at 3:21 am

      What I read in the Old Testament are a bunch of contradictory foundation myths and prayers and poetry badly plagarised from earlier more developed cultures such as the Egyptians and Assyrians, wrapped up in the propoganda of a nation that was considered little better than pack of barbaric goat herders by all around them. In the New Testament I read the same sort of stuff plagarised from Roman sources such as Virgil and Hellenic sources such as Aesop and the greek phlosophers, their words stolen and placed in the mouth of a cargo cult cut out character called Yehuda and his band of merry men, who also seem to be as non historical and unlikely as the main one. I read about the earth stopping its rotation, the sun going round the earth, the earth being flat and supported at its four corners on pillars, and the world being run at the whim of some form of divine merry prankster who can somehow subvert all laws of physics, geology, chemistry, climatology and common sense. The book ends with the mad drug addled allegorical anti-Nero Era Roman Empire rantings and sado-masochistic wet dreams of an Ergot raddled castout from a monastary in the arse end of nowhere.

      Are we by chance reading different books?

    • steve oberski
      February 26, 2012 at 12:37 pm

      Then you’re doing one of them (xtianity or science) wrong.

      Belief in whatever your particular flavour of xtianity professes in the absence of evidence and in the face of massive contradictory evidence is the antithesis of science.

      • February 26, 2012 at 1:53 pm

        He may be doing one of them wrong, but another logical possibility exists: he’s “compartmentalizing”. That is, he does science properly using rational analysis of the evidence, and he does religion “properly” (according to the rules of religion) by accepting everything on faith, in the total absence of tangible, credible evidence.

        What I find so hard to understand is how someone can be so willing to suspend all the effective mechanisms associated with rational empiricism when it comes to accepting the tenets of an irrational religious belief system. If you are doing science, you don’t accept anything on faith! So why accept this clearly ridiculous story (e.g., christianity) on faith? To me, such compartmentalization represents an extreme case of a split personality disorder.

        • steve oberski
          February 26, 2012 at 9:42 pm

          Believers will point out that there are scientists who believe in invisible beings therefore faith and science are compatible.

          This is like saying that because some married people have affairs then marriage and infidelity are compatible or because some parents beat their children or withhold medical treatment due to a belief in bronze age mythology then parenting and child abuse are compatible.

          As a non believer I don’t claim to be immune to this sort of behaviour but I hope that should I be presented with evidence that showed that my position on a certain matter was in error I would be willing to change my mind.

  7. nothere
    February 25, 2012 at 4:04 pm

    What amazes me about the religious is how easily they get from “I wonder if a higher power created the universe?” to “Don’t eat bacon!”

    • February 25, 2012 at 10:47 pm

      Or even worse, don’t eat a cheeseburger!

  8. davidct
    February 25, 2012 at 4:44 pm

    I think Dawkins puts his position on the scale he is only allowing for the possibility that there could be some yet undiscovered intelligence in the universe that could be called a god. When it comes to the god of the bible, or Thor his position moves up the scale to 7. As a skeptic he is committed to being persuaded by evidence, but some things are too ridiculous to worry about.

  9. Norman Lycan
    February 26, 2012 at 12:46 am

    Actually, in his book, “The god Delusion” Mr. Dawkins considered himself a six out of seven atheist. In his interview with Bill Maher, Mr. Dawkins recalculated the percentage to nine out of ten. And he glibbly stated that it was because he could not prove that fairies don’t exist. I have a great deal of respect for Mr. Dawkins because of his outspoken demeanor on the subject of religion. But, at the same time, I think he was being more honest when he said he was six out of seven, because so am I. But, it is not a question of whether or not you can prove that fairies don’t exist, that was lame. The actual question that is left to be answered is if the universe is an accident. Atheists tend to say, “of course, god is a myth”, I say, “of course, religion is myth, but until you scientifically establish how the universe sprang out of nothing, atheism is just another religion.” Does that make any sense to anyone out there, or are you all just fixated? NL

    • John Morales
      February 26, 2012 at 1:32 am

      The actual question that is left to be answered is if the universe is an accident.

      You are not just obtuse and monomaniacal, but tedious.

      To reiterate: in the sense in which you apparently employ it, an ‘accident’ refers to a mishap, which is meaningless outside intent (which itself requires (and therefore implies) an intentional agency).

      In the more general sense, an ‘accident’ refers to an event without an apparent cause or to a property something happens to have but that it could lack.

      So, you are either employing a hardly-disguised version of the cosmological argument*, or making a vacuous objection.

      * Fine, let’s say the universe is not an accident — do you not realise that can be applied to its putative causal agency?

    • Dave The Sandman
      February 26, 2012 at 3:06 am

      I was going to be polite, and explain that I have seen Prof D explain the position on the 7 point scale. He is a scientist, and as it is impossible to use science to prove or disprove the existance of god, then as a scientist he can not be a 7. If you understand the way science works you would also understand that his position is the only honest one he can maintain given what he is. As I said…I was going to be polite….then you typed this:

      “I say, “of course, religion is myth, but until you scientifically establish how the universe sprang out of nothing, atheism is just another religion.””

      And so now I say: Here is the class dunce hat. You stick it on that big fat empty melon you call a head and go sit at the back with the rest of the trolls, woo woo f*cktards and wilfully ignorant cretins.

      Atheism is a reactionary position to the claim that there is a supernatural being or beings commonly termed gods. It is answering that question “NO”….and that is ALL that atheism is. It is not a religion, and it can never be a religion because it requires NO belief. Religion requires faith. Faith requires belief. Atheism is the total absence of belief.

      BALD is not a hair style. OFF is not a TV channel. So….ATHEISM is not a religion.

      Second….the posited orign of the Universe doesnt propose it came from “nothing”. Even Big Bang theory posits its start as a ball of matter that exploded. The clue is in the name…”nothing” doesnt go bang. You need something for the bang happen. More recent proposals include bubble universes…or havent you been watching Discovery Sci Channel? This something from nothing marks you out for what you are…a CreoTard of the Hovind school of stoopid.

      There….do YOU get that or are YOU fixated?

      Now…shuffle off back under the bridge and mull on that while you wait for the billy goats to come along.

      • davidct
        February 26, 2012 at 11:28 am

        “BALD is not a hair style. OFF is not a TV channel. So….ATHEISM is not a religion.”

        AND god magiced the universe into existence is not an explanation.
        Not believing in a sociopathic sky fairy does not require anyone to explain the origin of the universe.

    • steve oberski
      February 26, 2012 at 12:43 pm

      Your argument seems to boil down to Dawkins is being honest when he agrees with you and dishonest when he does not.

    • Chuck Doswell
      February 26, 2012 at 4:36 pm

      So our choice is either that we agree with you that atheism is a religion – because it can’t explain the origination of the universe – or else we’re “fixated”? Sounds to me as if you may be pretty fixated yourself.

      Science is presently unable to “explain” the creation of the universe although there is considerable evidence to support the idea that the universe with which we’re familiar (and can probe with various observing systems) emerged in an immense explosion (i.e., the Big Bang). We know nothing about what may have happened prior to that or “outside” our known universe, although speculation abounds. Until we can develop means of obtaining evidence to confirm or deny these speculative ideas, they remain outside the realm of science and are irrelevant to this topic.

      The “explanation” posited by religious believers is that “God did it!” – which is not really an explanation at all. It says absolutely nothing about the how or the why of the universe’s creation, and there’s absolutely no tangible, credible evidence that it was the work of some supernatural deity. Science is very much honest about what it can and can’t “explain”. Given the instant of the Big Bang, the rest of the evolution of the universe is consistent with our current scientific understanding of the natural world.

      So why and how does that absence of an explantion for the creation of the universe make atheism a religion? How do YOU define “religion”? Atheism is NOT a belief system … it’s the ABSENCE of belief in theism.

      Atheism is under no obligation to explain everything that’s “explained” in religious belief systems. As for your statement that “The actual question that is left to be answered is if the universe is an accident.” – that’s YOUR opinion. I think there’s an infinite number of scientific questions left to be answered. That science has developed evidence-based explanations for many of the myths that earlier humans invented to “explain” the natural world is evidence of progress – we now understand things as a result of science that we didn’t understand before. Many of those phenomena “explained” in religious myths are now understood in a way that fits the evidence, very much unlike those religious myths. The “gaps” in scientific understanding into which some sort of god had been put are being eliminated as science progresses. There will always be such gaps, and if you want to insert a supernatural deity in there to fill some or all of them … that’s your choice, although making such a choice isn’t very rational. Atheists choose not to perpetuate the notion of a deity to fill those gaps, and are content to be able to explain things well enough with science to develop practical new technologies based on that understanding.

      • Norman Lycan
        February 26, 2012 at 10:28 pm

        This a reply to all the replies, because it rings with the same tone, which in turn undeniably proves my point.
        Atheists strike out at religious fundamentalists because they have “faith”. Because they believe in a butt load of implausible myths that are totally unsupported by scientific fact. I don’t call myself an atheist (because I’m a freethinker), but I am with you 100 percent. Religion is a collection of invented answers to the human question, “what is the meaning of life, and why am I here.” Add a dose of afterlife, and you can sell that snake oil to any goat herder.
        But, now we are scientists, beginning to understand how the universe really works. To those not encumbered by brainwash, the gods of the past are ridiculous. But, while we discovered that the earth is not the center of the universe, we also discovered the universe is so fucking huge, the human mind cannot even comprehend it. As well we discovered we can manipulate matter, using caustics and oxidizers and hyraulic presses we can invent chemical compounds and alloys that have never existed in nature, and even before they exist, we have the intellect to accurately predict their properties. But, here’s the rub. Even a bottom of the class chemistry student can tell you, YOU CAN’T MAKE SOMETHING OUT OF NOTHING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Now, myself, I can entertain the idea that if time and space began at the “big bang” that previous to that event that all matter existed at the same point, and all time past present and future shared it. Perhaps the breach of containment was inevitable. But, the atheists add that special ingredient to THEIR snake oil, and imply that life will spontaneously generate where ever conditions allow. Wow! We couldn’t have a universe of dead rocks?
        But what I really want to say to you is that if you want to believe that the universe is an accident, I cannot prove you’re wrong. But, much more important than that is that you cannot prove your are right, yet you believe anyway. That makes you religious. But, more than that, the general tone of all of your responses was not logical debate, it was distain and vitreol. The same treatment I have always recieved from atheists. And you may not believe this, but you are your own worst enemy. Instead claiming to be a freethinker, you need to become one.

        • February 27, 2012 at 12:40 am

          You evidently just don’t know about or understand the concepts associated with the Big Bang and the subsequent evolution of the universe, to include the development of life.

          There’s no faith involved in any of these ideas. To the extent that we have evidence to support them, faith is completely unnecessary. Neither atheism nor science are religions if this is your criterion defining a religion. That science can’t explain the creation of the universe and has no validated ideas about how life began doesn’t require us to call science a religion! What is unexplained remains so in the view of science. Speculation (and/or a belief in the validity of speculative ideas) generally is not considered to be a part of science. Most of the speculation in physics is done via mathematics and is therefore rational, but if its predictions can’t be tested, those ideas must remain speculative.

          Once energy (and matter) entered our universe via the Big Bang, the rest of its evolution to the present is consistent with known physical laws. Once life began, its development into existing forms also is consistent with known physical laws and the principles of biological evolution. Thus, given the as-yet unexplained beginnings, we have pretty useful explanations for how we came to the present. No faith is involved.

          You, on the other hand, seem to have a tremendous amount of FAITH in your hypothesis that “something can’t emerge from nothing” – which you claim to be common knowledge, even by students at the bottom of a chemistry class (Why chemistry?). To my knowledge, there’s no scientific principle that says this is impossible, and the Big Bang seems to require it, in fact. If there was “something” prior to the Big Bang, science can as yet know nothing about it. On the scale of quantum theory, ‘virtual’ particles are constantly forming and annihilating each other even in a vacuum, and this seemingly impossible creation of something from the “empty” vacuum of space is apparently not just speculation but instead is consistent with empirical observations and quantum mechanical principles.

          • Norman Lycan
            February 27, 2012 at 10:33 pm

            It is the process of science to develop a theory first, then put it to controlled test. Before the results of those tests come in, there is nothing wrong with a person feeling an optimism about the outcome. But, when, a person believes in the outcome, and then preaches it to the world, that is religion.
            I quote you: “Most of the speculation in physics is done via mathematics and is therefore rational, but if its predictions can’t be tested, those ideas must remain speculative.”
            EXACTLY!!! And thank you. And when atheists speculate that the universe is an accident, they may be right. But they have failed to learn the lesson of humility that our bondage to religion has taught us. “Believe nothing unproven by science” or risk falling into the same abyss. Its freethinker procedure and protocol. I hope you get what I’m saying, because atheists have made themselves the assholes of liberal thinkers by doing the same thing fundamentalist religion does, treat anyone who challenges their belief on any level as being deceived by Satan (that’s a metaphor).

        • John Morales
          February 27, 2012 at 3:27 am

          Atheists strike out at religious fundamentalists because they have “faith”.

          Oh, for goodness’ sake!

          You seem to have a very jaundiced view of atheists, and gnus in particular.

          (Not because they have faith, but as a response to the behaviour that particular cognitive sickness elicits!)

        • John Morales
          February 27, 2012 at 3:38 am

          Even a bottom of the class chemistry student can tell you, YOU CAN’T MAKE SOMETHING OUT OF NOTHING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

          But gods can, apparently.

          I wonder why?

        • steve oberski
          February 27, 2012 at 8:06 am

          YOU CAN’T MAKE SOMETHING OUT OF NOTHING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

          Actually yes you can.

          According to current science, something is far more probable than nothing and as usual it has nothing to do with god.

          Just because you don’t understand something does not mean that others can not understand something and that we might not some day understand something.

          Not to say that there won’t be things that we will never understand. But that does not prove god.

          You do however appear to understand nothing.

          • Norman Lycan
            February 27, 2012 at 11:08 pm

            And as soon as someone proves that something CAN!!!! be created from nothing, I’m sure it will be a secret that only atheists know about, right??? Until then, freethinkers will only imagine that atheism is religion, despite all evidence to the contrary.

            You attack me because I think diffently from you. I do that because I learned a lesson you haven’t. To NEVER!!!! believe ANYTHING!!!! unproven by science. That keeps me religion free. That puts you dead center of one.

          • John Morales
            February 28, 2012 at 5:03 am

            And as soon as someone proves that something CAN!!!! be created from nothing, I’m sure it will be a secret that only atheists know about, right???

            Wrong — this is the very claim of the Abrahamic goddists. 😉

            (Which is why they call it the ‘Creator’)

  10. Norman Lycan
    February 28, 2012 at 8:26 pm

    That is very true, and an actual constructive input to the conversation. The dillema is universal. Atheists can’t prove how the universe began, and fundamentalists can’t prove how god began. Therefore, anyone who truly rejects religion, is left with one honest answer. “I DON’T KNOW, BECAUSE IT CANNOT BE KNOWN!!!” But, that’s not an atheist answer, it’s an agnostic answer, a freethinker answer. And you can delude yourself that you can change the tide of the world with atheism. You are failing and you will continue to fail, until atheism becomes “freethought” and your attitudes toward those who are ahead of you in self honesty, by lightyears ahead of you in public relations, are accepted into your circle. My circle has been reaching out to you for years, you are the intellectual snobs shooting yourself in the foot. Wake up.

    • February 28, 2012 at 9:26 pm

      I don’t know that it CANNOT be known at all. Rather, all that I know right now is that it isn’t known. To say it CANNOT be known is an unfounded, illogical assumption. I consider myself an atheist, although perhaps my atheism doesn’t meet YOUR definition (which seems to me to go beyond my definition – the absence of a belief in a deity – to the ‘hard’ position of an absolute belief that a deity doesn’t exist. Like Dawkins, I have very high confidence that the deity of abrahamic religions doesn’t exist, but I can’t offer ABSOLUTE proof, for the simple reason that proving a negative via logic alone isn’t possible.

Leave a Reply