As a philosopher, if I were speaking to a purely philosophic audience I should say that I ought to describe myself as an Agnostic, because I do not think that there is a conclusive argument by which one prove that there is not a God. On the other hand, if I am to convey the right impression to the ordinary man in the street I think that I ought to say that I am an Atheist, because, when I say that I cannot prove that there is not a God, I ought to add equally that I cannot prove that there are not the Homeric gods.

When one admits that nothing is certain one must, I think, also admit that some things are much more nearly certain than others. It is much more nearly certain…

Change is one thing, progress is another. 'Change' is scientific, 'progress' is ethical; change is indubitable, whereas progress is a matter of controversy.

Not to be absolutely certain is, I think, one of the essential things in rationality.

I do know that there are some things that exist in this world that you just can't prove. That could be the case with God or whoever might be up there, but I do…

If I understand Dirac correctly, his meaning is this: there is no God, and Dirac is his Prophet.

Pantheism is said... to be merely atheism in disguise.