Richard Dawkins: Nothing can Prove the Existence of God

The renowned atheist and mathematician, Bertrand Russell, had once been asked:

·       Bertrand, what would you say to God if you encounter him after you die and he asks, “Bertrand, why didn’t you believe?”

Russell confidently responded, “There just wasn’t enough evidence,” as if to say: 

•  I am a rational person and rational people require evidence. The fault, therefore, wasn’t with me but with you!

Richard Dawkins, perhaps the most famous atheist today, has taken it one step further, claiming that no evidence is possible to support belief in God! In an interview with hosted by Peter Boghossian, Dawkins was asked:

•  What would it take for you to believe in God?

Dawkins dismissed the possibility that any evidence is possible – that even if Christ returned, he would have no way of knowing whether this was an hallucination or not. However, if Dawkins were to use this logic consistently, he also would deprive himself of any evidence of the existence of the universe. It might only be a dream or hallucination.

Besides, Dawkins seems haunted by the idea that his dismissal of all possible evidence doesn’t line up with the logic of science. After all, if a theory can be falsified by the evidence, it should also be amenable to evidential proof. Perhaps he senses that he is playing fast-and-loose with the concept of evidence and of science.

Perhaps he has stacked-this-deck with only the cards that will prove his point – that the natural explanation is the only possible one. But where did the natural come from? Doesn’t this question require a super-natural explanation? And is there any proof that causation is natural? While we all believe in the laws of science, perhaps these laws are best explained transcendentally, emanating from the mind of God?