When Richard Dawkins, the world-famous evolutionary biologist, and Rowan Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury, took the stage at the United Kingdom's University of Oxford for a discussion over the origins of nature on Thursday, almost everyone thought the university had pitted an atheist against a Christian. Almost everyone was wrong.
Dawkins revealed that he is in fact not an atheist as he is not 100 percent sure God doesn't exist.
The discussion, titled "The Nature of Human Beings and the Question of Their Ultimate Origin," was moderated by philosopher and agnostic Sir Anthony Kenny....
Krik wrote: One day Richard will know the truth when he confronts Christ at his judgment. The look on his face will be a pretty picture.
Are you saying that you are looking forward to another human being burning forever in hell? I do not understand why you would think the face of anyone realizing their horrible error (an error which the Christian avoids solely by God's grace on them) before a holy God before He plunges them into just punishment of hell is something that you would find pretty. Albeit when we are with God in heaven, PERFECTED, we will rejoice when we see Him vindicated, because then we will be as He is. You sound as though you may have already arrived...
Now, I would say there are any Christians during that discussion, I thought the Archbishop of Canterbury was an agnostic at the very "best." E certainly not a Christian.Just one of many examples, The Archbishop and Sharia.
The Telegraph wrote: After months of soul-searching, Flew concluded that research into DNA had "shown, by the almost unbelievable complexity of the arrangements which are needed to produce life, that intelligence must have been involved". Moreover, though he accepted Darwinian evolution, he felt that it could not explain the beginnings of life. "I have been persuaded that it is simply out of the question that the first living matter evolved out of dead matter and then developed into an extraordinarily complicated creature," he said.
while most unfortunately Antony never became a Christian, he certainly came closer to what fan the two fellows that are subject of the SA article.
I expect what Dawkins said is being misunderstood. His book "The God Delusion" has a lengthy section where he explains "The Poverty of Agnosticism" which anyone interested in Dawkins' position needs to study. Dawkins writes in a rambling, word-salad style that is difficult to summarize, since Dawkins rarely makes clear points. His position is basically: "Either [God] exists or he doesn't. It is a scientific question; one day we may know the answer, and meanwhile we can say something pretty strong about the probability." Dawkins does not believe it is possible to say God does not exist (since that would be proving a negative), but the probability that God exists is, to Dawkins, so low that for all practical purposes he is an atheist. Almost a distinction without a difference.