Is Richard Dawkins a flip-flopper?

The egotistical Richard Dawkins is presently in the midst of writing a self-serving quasi autobiography while global atheism and global agnosticism continue to decline and face major threats on the horizon (See: Decline of global atheism).

Of course, given the barbarism that atheism has helped spawn in history and the lack of charitableness of the atheist community as a whole relative to Christians and theists, the world is not shedding many tears about the decline of atheism around the world.

In June of 2012, the Christian Post reported

Famed atheist and scientist Richard Dawkins has set out to write a new book that will focus on his own evolution toward the path of atheism.

"Dawkins will tell the story of his own intellectual evolution, explaining how his groundbreaking work as a scientist led to his work as an atheist," states Dawkins' new publisher HarperCollins' Ecco. The book has not yet been given a title, but is expected to be on bookshelves by 2014.

The publisher's notice of the upcoming book using the term "atheist" can be found on several other prominent internet properties besides the Christian Post such as Publishers Weekly, The Blaze, Christianity Today and Galleycat (Galleycat is on the Media Bistro domain).

First, Richard Dawkins has gone from being a militant atheist to being an agnostic.

Vox Day wrote about Dawkins' inconsistency when it comes to the issues of atheism and agnosticism.

Vox Day declared:  "While the fact that Dawkins declared himself a literal agnostic in the very book in which he declared the importance of atheist evangelism is both ironic and incoherent, it will surprise no one who has read the chapter of The Irrational Atheist entitled "Darwin's Judas".

Christians should call Dawkins on his disingenuous flip-flopping if his publisher continues to promote the book as a book focusing on his journey to atheism without mentioning the fact that Dawkins is presently an agnostic who has rejected atheism.

An author calling himself an atheist or a publisher giving the impression that someone is an atheist may sell more books as it is more provocative, but it isn't intellectually honest if the author has rejected atheism and is an agnostic. If Dawkins claims to be an agnostic who is unsure if God exist or not, then he should clearly communicate this to the public and so should his publisher. Dawkins has been unreasonable as far as his alleged agnosticism and I recommend reading the article Why does Richard Dawkins have such a high belief in the possibility of fairies being at the bottom of the garden?

Specifically, what is odd an inconsistent about Dawkins's alleged agnosticism is that he estimates there is about a 1% chance that God exist. However, at the same time he compares the existence of God to fairies being at the bottom of the garden. Of course, this means that Dawkins believes there is about a 1% chance of fairies being at the bottom of the garden using Dawkins' "logic".

Title of book The God Delusion displayed odd and inconsistent behavior

Another reason why Dawkins displays odd behavior in reference to the atheism and agnosticism issue is that he titled a recent book of his The God Delusion. Obviously, this is an odd title for an agnostic author to name a book - especially one who asserts there is about a 1% chance that God exist in his estimation. This odd behavior leads me to the conclusion that the reason the book was titled The God Delusion was for crass marketing reasons as it is more provocative title which would grab more press headlines and sell more books.

Think about it. If there was a 1% chance that something existed, would you call your neighbor delusional if he believed it existed? No, you would not. Sure, you would think the odds are against your neighbor in terms of his belief, but you would not think he is delusional. The term delusional is generally used in connection with ideas that are insane to believe due to there being overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

Given the weakness of his argumentation and the vitriol which often accompanies it, I agree with Dr. Don Batten of Creation Ministries International that the weight of the evidence points to Dawkins being a God-hater.

Ineffectiveness of Richard Dawkins and lack of significant accomplishment

What groundbreaking work as a scientists has Richard Dawkins done? He hasn't won any Nobel Prizes and even a fellow evolutionists, Professor Richard Lewontin, pointed out that Dawkins engages in pseudoscience.

In a March 10, 2008 USA Today article Stephen Prothero wrote that the New Atheism promoted by the Richard Dawkins and his fellow New Atheists had no discernible effect on the percentage of atheists in America.

Bottom line: An inconsistent flip-flopper whose works do not grow atheism in a significant way is not going to reverse the decline of global atheism. It is very improbably that anything will reverse the decline of atheism. In fact, the decline of atheism is expected to accelerate in coming years (see: Declline of atheism is expected to accelerate).

The decline of atheism is by no means a tragedy. Our Question Evolution! Campaign group has developed an initial 12 point plan for helping Christendom to further accelerate the decline of global atheism (see: A twelve point plan for accelerating the decline of global atheism).

Furthermore, there is the issue of Richard Dawkins' abrasive personality. This has caused divisions within atheism and also turns off many people in the general public. Anything Dawkins attempts to advance agnosticism or atheism is not going to be a game changer. Also, given that a large segment of the world population loathes atheism, Richard Dawkins tying evolutionism to atheism is going to be counterproductive to advancing evolutionism. This is fine by me as the evolutionary paradigm is pseudoscience.

Related post

Richard Dawkins and Rabbi Shmuley Boteach debate

Atheism is rudderless and unseaworthy

Other resources

Question Evolution! Campaign

15 questions for evolutionists

Responses to the 15 Questions: part 1 - Questions 1-3

Responses to the 15 Questions: part 2 - Questions 4–8

Responses to the 15 Questions: part 2 - Questions 9-15

Refuting evolution