So apparently Richard Dawkins, world renowned herald of Atheism, has admitted during a discussion with Rowan Williams (the Archbishop of Canterbury) that his certainty in atheism was not 100%.
There was surprise when Prof Dawkins acknowledged that he was less than 100 per cent certain of his conviction that there is no creator....
Prof Dawkins said that he was “6.9 out of seven” sure of his beliefs.
“I think the probability of a supernatural creator existing is very very low,” he added.This I can understand. I think that if you are going to hold that science is the only basis through which truth can be known, and science is a never ending process of acquiring a greater degree of knowledge, then the best one can hold to would be agnosticism as one could never say that science can never learn anything more about a certain subject; even God.
What I find more interesting is the stance of Rowan Williams, the head of the Church of England and believer in God, who said:
During a wide-ranging discussion the Archbishop also said that he believed that human beings had evolved from non-human ancestors but were nevertheless “in the image of God”.
He also said that the explanation for the creation of the world in the Book of Genesis could not be taken literally.I wonder what else he does not take literally? Is it merely held to the creation account? Even just a portion of the creation account?
Rowan Williams does not need to answer to me, but I would be interested to know what portions of the Bible he thinks are believable and which portions aren't.
