Unreleased statement by Richard Dawkins on Christianity and the origin of science. In a moment, he contradicts decades of propaganda on faith incompatible with scientific thought.

---

 

Does old age play nasty tricks? Or does it bring wisdom?

Everyone chooses their preferred answer, but the fact is that Richard Dawkins has just disproved decades of apologetic battle against Christianity as the “enemy” of science.

In the interview in the history magazine of the “Reason Foundation” set to be published next month, he indeed acknowledged the fundamental role of Christian culture in fostering scientific thought.

Later in 2025, the renowned scientist not only surrendered to the evidence that science was born only within the Christian sphere but even stated that «it is possible that Christendom was the fertile ground for the birth of science».

 

Dawkins and Christianity, the conclusion of a journey

This surprising admission by Dawkins — which only we have caught at the moment — stems from his gradual personal path of reconsideration of Christianity.

No conversion, of course, despite not having yet digested those of his great mentor in 2004, the philosopher of science Antony Flew, and of his young and beloved protégé Josh Timonen, in 2023.

For Dawkins it is only a constant “repositioning” that began in 2012 when he said he was «agnostic» rather than atheist. A year later, he even defined himself as «culturally Christian».

In 2015 he intervened against a chain of British cinemas that had refused to show an advertisement containing the “Lord’s Prayer”, writing: «If someone feels “offended” by a prayer, then they deserve to be offended».

We arrive at 2018 when the “world’s most famous atheist” confessed to «listening to the splendid bells of Winchester, one of our great medieval cathedrals», judging them «much more beautiful than the aggressive “Allahu Akhbar”». He wondered whether this judgment was objective or emerged «only from my cultural upbringing?».

In the same year, he tweeted: «Before rejoicing at the spasms of the benign Christian religion, let’s not forget the saying: “Hold the nurse’s hand for fear of finding something worse”», referring once again to Islam.

Meanwhile, the well-known evolutionist has been interviewed by some Christian researchers who, like him, defend sexual binary and reject gender studies.

 

Is atheism sensible because it is growing?

Thus we arrive a few days ago when in the cited interview he talks about atheism and its being «simply sensible» because «if you look at polls in America and Western Europe, the number of people professing a religion is constantly declining. So this is part of the change in the spirit of the times».

Despite “repositioning” existentially, Dawkins evidently does not stop stepping on fallacious logic. The ad populum, which tries to prove the truth of an idea by its popularity, is among the most naive arguments one can resort to, because the statistical trend of a social phenomenon only reflects a cultural tendency, not a criterion of truth.

To say that atheism is “sensible” because it is growing in the West is equivalent to saying that “miracle” diets or American conservatism are sensible too, which are far more popular than atheism. It is like arguing that dialectical materialism was “sensible” in the Soviet Union or that imperial worship was “sensible” in ancient Rome, simply because most people adhered to it.

In another passage, Dawkins also hints at the “design” that seems to emerge in biological evolution — as argued by supporters of Intelligent Design, considering it «an incredibly powerful illusion of design», because animals are «wonderfully perfect, seemingly truly designed».

 

Dawkins and Christianity, the conclusion of a journey

And so we reach the key moment, which challenges all his decades-long work on the irrationality of Christianity.

«The fact that Christian society allows science to be free to do what it does is a matter for historians», says the biologist. «And they may be right. It is possible that Christendom was the fertile ground for the birth of science in the 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries».

In this original awareness of Dawkins we find a reflux of the important influence that the personal and cultural conversion of the renowned historian Tom Holland has had in the United Kingdom. About him we have already spoken.

Dawkins’ error is to assume that science was born in Christian society of the 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries. But this is false. As we have extensively demonstrated in our dedicated dossier, the medieval roots of scientific thought are found in the Middle Ages (not before and not after).

 

In any case, the British scientist had to reach 84 years to understand that no, Christian faith is not incompatible with science but actually allowed its birth and development.

Ironically, in the name of science Richard Dawkins spent decades fighting what he now recognizes as the cradle of science.

 

---

Check the dossier on Christianity and the origin of science.