I read recently an article (Gazeta Wyborcza weekend march 3-4 2012),about 'a man who stopped Dawkins', i.e. the archbishop Rowan Williams. Who would think that GW wolud so strongly support religious side in the discussion about (non)existence of god...
During the discussion with Williams, Richard Dawkins agreed, that one cannot be sure if our concience is a god's work, and that we cannot deny - with absolute certainty (being absolutely certain is not scientific) - the existence of god. By saying this he meant marely that on the scale from 0 to 10 (0 - absolute theism, 10- absulute atheism), he choses to be on the position of 6.9, therefore he is an agnostic. But Dawkins also wrote in one of his articles that the archbishop is also an agnostic 9of course much closer to 0).
The GW journalist concluded, that the archbishop triumphed over his adversary, becouse Dawkins agreed to his motion about concience. But what this had to do with all Dawkins' work?
Atheists get no money from syaing that there's no god, the Church and all orginised religion is doing it all the time. So its the religious who should proof the necessity of the existence of cult and religion, becouse we wolud like to know why we sholud continue to feed those proud institiutions with money...
Dawkins has proofs that religion is not helping peaple in they everyday struggle, Hitschens wrote that it is anachronic, and often harmful, as moste of the political conflicts started on religious basis.
Even if god exists, so what? We are not sure enough about its existance, to take all the trouble of attending to all the duties of "good christian", so why not get over it and be free?
Is 'GW' totally for PO-catholics, and forgotten about milions of those who are fed up with shurches and its claims?