With the rise of modern science around the 17th century "agnosticism" has evolved. Agnosticism means that people are not sure about the existence of God; it is a route for side-stepping issues relating to religion; Agnostics (be they scientists or lay people) claim that they cannot comment one way or the other on the existence of God.

But Atheists of the Dawkins brand argue that there is no God at all. Even in the official atheist countries - notably the communist ones - real atheism is very rare. Even at the height of the Cold War more people per capita were going to church in Moscow than in London.

Atheism is a form of belief. Ironically communist Russia made the body of Lenin into an idol and a place of veneration. When I last saw Lenin (who died about 80 years ago) he was looking very sick, so to speak. The preservatives were wearing out. But the Russian authorities - despite the end of the Cold War - are still reluctant to give him a proper burial.

"If this book works as I intend, religious readers who open it will be atheists when they put it down" he claims. This is an angry book: he is settling a number of scores with people that many mainstream Christians are not too fussed about.

But he often overstates his case. For example, religion is not necessarily an explanation of violence: the main suicide bombers are Marxist Tamils in Sri Lanka. All of the 20th century's biggest mass murderers were atheists/agnostics (and certainly not Christians) - Stalin, Chairman Mao, Hitler, and Pol Pot.

Dawkins has confidence that eventually science will explain everything. But the more scientists "know" the less confident they feel about their claims. Indeed most scientists now have a greater sense of wonder. For example, the creation of the universe was done at 100 billion degrees Centigrade (and Earth's laws of physics do not apply at that temperature).

Meanwhile it is worth noting that scientific research has not disproved the Bible. On the contrary, it seems only to confirm it (such as archaeology in the Holy Land).

Science can explain how something occurred - but not why it happened. The more scientists learn about the universe, the more they learn that there is still much more to learn.

Dawkins argues from the assumption that there is no God and therefore those that believe there is God, must prove it. But an equally valid starting point is to say that God exists and so it is for Dawkins to prove that God doesn't exist.

Some of us argue that we see the impact of God in the lives of people all the time, such as the miracle work done by the Mission's Serenity Farm in changing peoples' lives from alcohol and homelessness.

Also Dawkins fails to acknowledge the role of Christianity in the motivation for good (for example, 2007 is the 200th anniversary of the Christian British campaign to end the slave trade). By contrast, Atheists (eg Humanist Societies) don't provide charities.

Finally, does God believe in Richard Dawkins? Yes: that is why he sent Jesus. Dawkins may not believe in God - but God still believes in him.

---Keith Suter, Consultant for Social Policy Broadcast 27 July 2007 on Radio 2GB's "Brian Wilshire Programme" at 9pm.