|
Clearly this debate has been going on for some time. Arguably centuries. However, Dawkins and others, are doing their best to bring the discussion to the mainstream. So not new, but new to many.
As for his position. I have seen him speak and what he is saying is that as a scientist he isn't willing to be an absolutist without absolute proof. As such he is willing to concede that there is a minute chance that God exists but that it is such a slim margin that it should be clear there is no God. To me, that's a reasonable argument.
As for him suggesting that he would be happier if there was a God waiting when he dies, he is suggesting that in his point of view when he dies there is nothing else. He doesn't seek comfort for this inevitability by creating a myth to make himself feel better. He faces that fact that there will be nothing with equanimity. However, he does say that if the myth is true and there is a God, that's great. Who wouldn't want to go on to eternal life? He follows that with the point that we also would like to believe in Santa Claus but the truth is there is no Fat man in a suit dropping presents off.
I don't see it as leap of faith at all to suggest there is no Deity. There is no faith required in non-belief. The onus of provability is on the religion.
__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke
|