Hard questions for hard readers! This is what I am asking - hardly.

On the one hand, there are the believers. They are people who have stuck with Him from day one, like limpets to a clam or a nail to a wall or one sticky thing to another thing which it is sticking to. On the other hand, there are the skeptics - the many disaffected people who have gradually become disillusioned with belief in Him, who have come to doubt the many myths told about Him, and who argue that it is possible - indeed, even vital - to lead a fulfilling life that is not centred around His words or deeds.

It's time we took up this controversial topic at Will Type For Food: does Richard Dawkins really exist?

Of course, it is true that Richard Dawkins appears to believe that Richard Dawkins exists. But is Richard Dawkins' faith in Richard Dawkins enough? What if Richard Dawkins' belief in Richard Dawkins turned out to be based on false premises? Who would we be able to turn to then?

On the other hand, many other believers in Richard Dawkins will point out that there needs to be an ultimate meaning behind the name Richard Dawkins, and if that meaning is not Richard Dawkins himself, well then, what are we left with? They will point to the many works of Richard Dawkins as evidence of his existence - the books, the television appearances. But can we trust this? What if it all turned out to be a coincidence?

It's a question to which there are no easy answers. Perhaps the most we can hope for these days is an honest agnosticism about the question of Richard Dawkins' existence - he may be out there, or he may not: but we need someone to fill a television program, and if not Richard Dawkins, then who?

But just suppose Richard Dawkins was proven not to exist. What would he do with his life then?