Atheist or Agnostic

Richard Dawkins is one of the world's most famous atheists, except that recently he said he's not an atheist. During a discussion on religion, he said he prefers to be called an agnostic. While that's not a profession of faith, it's certainly an interesting leap forward, especially for people who follow Dawkins.

A lot of people may not understand the subtle difference between the two. An Atheist, of course, believes there is no God. An Atheist, essentially, believes in nothing — at least from a spiritual standpoint. They would like believe in science or the morality and general goodness of man.

An Agnostic probably doesn't believe in God, but is someone who admits they aren't sure. That might seem like a small distinction, but to me it's huge. This is what Dawkins said of his position — "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." Again, some of you out there probably aren't that impressed by his statement. He basically said he doesn't believe in God. And that is one way of looking at it.

Another way of looking at it is that Dawkins left the door open, if just a crack, and that's where God works best. He said he is 6.9 out of 7 sure, but that means he leaves open a .1 chance that God is there and working, that God alone is the sovereign creator of the universe. And that .1 chance is all God needs to blow a door wide open.

I'm not saying he will, but it's amazing that there seems to be an opening. I've often said it takes a lot of faith to be an Atheist. You have to be certain that there is no one and nothing responsible for the world. You have to believe everything is random, or luck, and you have to create your own hope. Clearly, Dawkins isn't ready to live in a world like that. Thankfully, he doesn't have to.