Why isn't Dawkins sure about his faith?

It is strange how few Christians understand the concept of null hypotheses.

When attempting to show a phenomenon, the initial assumption is that of nonexistence (the null hypothesis). If one can gather enough data to support existence, the null hypothesis is rejected.

But it doesn't worth the other way. Read the Black Swan if you're still confused.

It's not about not being sure. Nobody can say that god does or doesn't exist. What Richard Dawkins is stating with the 'probably' is a more honest view than any Theist who will ALL claim that god exists and a lot of Atheists who may say that god does not exist.

By the way, stating there is 'probably no god' is not Agnosticism, which is neutral on the question.

Nice of you to say that there are some ratiional Atheists. I would say that most Atheists are rationalists.

A belief in a supernatural - supreme being - creator of the universe - talking snakes - a boat with two of every species of every creature - and a book purporting to be the word of god.

Now, come on, thats irrational

On a news interview Dawkins was asked about the 'probably'. He stated that he did NOT choose the slogan, and if he could choose the slogan/caption it would say "There is most definitely ......". The reason why he can not say 'absolutely not' is because science equation does not allow it - not even for unicorns or fairies (Dawkins words - not mine!).

As for Atheist's being unhappy compared to god believers - I think you should avoid such generalist statements. Religion causes a permanent state of guilt - especially among the Catholics. Also, being part of religion inspires hatred and separation towards 'others' not of your clan. There would be many less wars if organized religion did not exist and that would be a hell of a lot less for the world/humanity to worry about as a WHOLE.

Not it is not foolish to live on a 'probably'. I will PROBABLY be alive tomorrow, so I will make plans today for tomorrow.

You sound religious and good luck to you - but before you enter into these arguments please get an education - it would help sounds less like a fundamentalist and your comments would not give your own kind a bad name.

Ok, quite a few misconceptions here.

First of all, atheism isn't a faith.

Secondly, Dawkins knows it is impossible to prove the non-existence of something. That means it would be irrational to say "there definitely isn't a god" unless you had proof. The way Dawkins puts it in The God Delusion is that, "there is almost certainly no god." This leaves open the theoretical possibility of a god in the same way there is a theoretical possibility for the invisible pink unicorn, the flying spaghetti monster and the celestial teapot. It is theoretically possible that you are merely a figment of my imagination. You cannot prove decisively that you are not so you say that it almost certainly, or probably, isn't true. I should hope that would be enough for you to not live under the assumption that you are just a figment of my imagination.

Regarding the ad campaign you referred to. Dawkins preferred the wording to be "there is almost certainly no god," which he saw as being more precise. Supposedly the British Humanist Association wanted to say "there is no god" however the advertising company refused to run that ad for legal reasons as it is an unsupportable claim.

Speaking of unsupportable claims, would you care to provide sources for this claim, "surveys have shown that believers tend to worry less and enjoy life more than unbelievers anyway!"

Richard Dawkins was not the instigator of this campaign. He has been willing to support it, but that doesn't mean it's his wording. The British Humanist Association is by no means as militantly anti-religion as Dawkins himself, and has this on their website, to explain the campaign: "The campaign, which is supported by the British Humanist Association and BHA Vice President Richard Dawkins, and in Scotland by the Humanist Society of Scotland, is a response to a series of evangelical Christian adverts running on buses in June 2008, which featured the URL of a website saying all non-Christians were going to hell. Comedy writer Ariane Sherine suggested the rational, positive slogan to reassure people who may have been scared by the evangelical adverts." [from http://www.humanism.org.uk/news/view/202 ]

I don't know what survey you are referring to showing believers to be less worried. Perhaps you could provide some reference. It goes against my experience (and I am quite willing to be proved wrong - but not on some random comment!). And to say 'probably' is largely indicating that it's not really a terribly important issue - that one can lead one's life without worrying about whether God exists or not. What matters is to truly live and to make the world a better place for everyone.

EDIT: lest anyone pounce on Dawkins being a Vice-President of the BHA, I just need to point out that they currently have 11 Vice-Presidents, and it was 12 until Bernard Crick died on 19 December 2008.

What is an "arch-atheist"? Does that mean that there are "arch-christians"?

Science uses probability in its arguments, so it is natural that the slogan would use "probably". But the probability of the existence of God, especially a personal God, is pretty close to zero. If you are honest, you have to admit that there is no scientific evidence for a God. If a God exists, it only exists in your wishes, faith, and beliefs.

Who is the foolish one?

1. Atheism is not a faith. It is a philosophy.

2. Dawkins was being intellectually honest, since the existence of any deity cannot be conclusively proven or disproven.

3. It would be wonderful if more religionists admitted their belief in God leaves room for doubt, as Dawkins did concerning his atheism. Again, this is intellectual honesty.

He supported the campaign. The campaign slogan said probably, not Dawkins. You are making an assumption based on a false premise.

Worried why? Because of something you believe Richard Dawkins might have said?

Well my world view does not revolve around the actions of Richard Dawkins. However, he is right in saying that there is probably no God, just as there are probably no invisible pink unicorns.

(((Balaam)))- Loved The Black Swan.

Being rational means that you have to consider the fact that you may be wrong, being totally convinced in that you are completely right is irrational since we don't have all the evidence for everything and can only make decisions with what evidence we have.

I read about this. They actually added the "probably" because of several proposed reasons including:

- getting around advertising legislation.

- using a bigger catchment term to sway "agnostics."

- because of semantic correctness.

http://bridgingschisms.org/2008/11/probably-an-ath...

What I can tell you is that they put alot of thought and reasoning into it.

No, it's not foolish. Atheists don't need to worry about attending church, praying over food and just before bed, all these rituals associated with births/deaths/marriage etc. We just do whatever makes us happy and don't have the burden of these rituals.