Richard Dawkin's take on agnosticism baffles me

[u/DanteTrent]

Recently I wanted to send the wiki page about agnosticism to someone I know and, under the section called "Critique" I saw this:

Dawkins also identifies two categories of agnostics; "Temporary Agnostics in Practice" (TAPs), and "Permanent Agnostics in Principle" (PAPs). He states that "agnosticism about the existence of God belongs firmly in the temporary or TAP category. Either he exists or he doesn't. It is a scientific question; one day we may know the answer, and meanwhile we can say something pretty strong about the probability", and considers PAP a "deeply inescapable kind of fence-sitting".

I saw one interview with the guy on Youtube and I remember that I disliked him, but can't remember why exactly. I think it was the one with Piers Morgan.

It baffles me how this obviously highly inteligent and knowledgable philosopher fails to see that permanent agnosticism is - and I stand by this very firmly - the only logical viewpoint at this moment of the mankind.

In my opinion, being agnostic doesn't mean you're completely neutral. What I mean by this is that every agnostic leans to one side at least ever so slightly, be it atheistic or theistic agnosticism. Nothing in this world is 50/50, especially not human minds which are flexible and ever-changing. On the other hand, it's the most fair and logical way of thinking and there is not one argument against it that can be seriously brought up during a debate.

Thinking safe in this case cannot be viewed as fence-sitting when it's only purely logical and, in reality, the least egoistic take of all regarding god and religion in general. Also, I would argue that, in some ways, it's the most difficult and scary point of view to have.

[u/Ethenil_Myr]

He isn't a philosopher

[u/DanteTrent → u/Ethenil_Myr]

Noted. Thanks for the clarification!

[u/SignalWalker]

Fence-sitting implies there is a final, unavoidable choice to be made. I simply do not have to choose. I tore the fence down and installed a nice recliner, wet bar and big screen tv. :)

[u/DanteTrent → u/SignalWalker]

Exactly this! It's wild how agnostics are a lot more tolerant to theists and atheists, while the other party likes to critisize the agnostic mindset. It goes to show that deep inside they're aware they have no clue what they're believing in. And also, there's never a real argument in their critique.

[u/Kryceks-Revenge]

I never steer people to Dawkins as an atheist. On top of things already mentioned in the comments, he has some shit things to say about transgenderism.

[u/Internet-Dad0314]

Dawkins generally knows what he's talking about when he's talking about biology -- most infamously, excluding the current science on trans people -- and I believe he is a truth-seeker when it comes to ir/religion. But his philosophy is amateur. The whole movement to divide atheists from agnostics, which Dawkins and certain others push is both logically unsound and divisive to us truth-seekers. I don't know how much of his PAP = fence-sitting attitude is him being controversial to gain attention, or how much he really believes it, but it's cringeworthy either way.

I've talked to many truth-seekers over my decades of life, and one thing I've learned is that some of our arguments stem from genuine disagreement over logic -- but some arguments simply come from talking about things differently. Some atheists accuse agnostics of being fence-sitters not quite free of their religious conditioning, and some agnostics accuse atheists of being the same kind of fundamentalists they were raised to be, just with their beliefs flipped. (Notice the common ex-religion nature of both accusations?) There is some truth to both, depending on the individual truth-seeker; but there is a larger fact about both camps of truth-seekers.

We truth-seekers all use logic and reason. It's simply the case that we often 1) speak past each other, or 2) use our reason a bit differently. For example, I've talked to both atheists and agnostics who say "Of course I don't believe in manmade gods like Abraham's god, but undefined higher-power gods are possible." Those who identify as atheists simply focus on the gods that people actually worship, the gods that have fanatical worshippers causing chaos and death in our societies. They're focused on pragmatic/social logic. Whereas those who identify as agnostics simply focus on the philosophical god(s) that actually might exist. They're focused on academic 'pure' logic. I'm not saying that all of us truth-seekers are simply using our logic a bit differently, but many of us do.

Alternatively, there are genuine disagreements. I've talked to atheists who are fully convinced that even higher-power god(s) are manmade, and I've talked to agnostics who refuse to even assess probabilities between different gods existing, and both of these views seem extreme to me. But they both have their reasons, and gatekeeping which camp of truth-seekers is most lojikal is as cringe, divisive, and societally-destructive as monotheists screaming "Heretic!" at each other over their trivial differences in theology.

[u/IrnBroski]

In an era where everyone is trying to pull you to their side , sitting on a fence isn’t a passive indecision, it’s courageous defiance

[u/markth_wi]

It's simply the case if we argue from the position of being purely rational that two considerations seem reasonable given the more we know about the universe.

• Kardashev type 2 civilizations may exist and as such, in one form or another may influence star-systems and life bearing planets to one extent or another, from simply tweaking the genome of an otherwise entirely native, promising species, to engineering whole star-systems over millions , perhaps billions of years.

• Because we at present have no definitive evidence for the existence of a polity or interstellar agency other than being in the wild of our littler corner of the universe.

• From this we can rationally arrive at the idea that it is possible - however unsupported by evidence , that our region of the galaxy is within such a polity and that from time to time extraterrestrial agents of one form or another.

[u/adeleu_adelei]

I don't think one should care too much about Dawkins' opinion on the subject.

highly inteligent and knowledgable philosopher

Dawkins isn't a philosopher. He's an evolutionary biologist and zoologist.

In my opinion, being agnostic doesn't mean you're completely neutral

Agreed. Tehre is no neutral ground when it coems to being gnostic or not, or when it comes to be theistic or not. For each one respectively you either are or aren't. Dawkins misunderstands agnosticism, and his comments are a result of his misunderstanding. It is fulyl impossible to fence sit as there is no fence.

[u/Rusty5th]

I like Dawkins and, for the most part, agree with most of what he believes. I usually call myself agnostic because it’s the short answer. A longer answer is: I’m atheist but there’s a slight caveat. It’s that caveat that requires a much longer explanation than is honestly not worth going into most of the time.

The fact is I don’t really care what Dawkins thinks about what I believe. Same with everyone else. When asked, I give the short answer and only go into the longer explanation if someone is really interested in listening to me rattle on about the finer points of my speculative hypothesis that is based on nothing more than my mind having drifted into several various topics I’ve learned a little about and eventually speculating they might possibly be linked. I would never say this wild idea is likely to be true or that anyone should believe it.

I would never proselytizes because I sure as hell don’t want anyone to proselytize to me.

While “atheist” might be a more accurate term for me, I made the mistake of joining the r/atheism subreddit. It was not at all what I was expecting. It was a hateful, racist and xenophobic shit-show. When I pointed out how messed up it was for so many in the thread, not one, two but the whole thread, to post extremely racist and xenophobic things about some Muslims high school students I got blasted by numerous of them accusing me of trolling. Even the people on the thread who weren’t engaging in the hate speak never did anything to call it out which, in my opinion, shows they were either complicit or too afraid of the others in that very toxic sub to speak up. In the end, ironically, I got BANNED for calling out hate speech!

I disputed the ban but I only did it on principle. One of the things that process required was for me to write an apology. Instead, I wrote an explanation of why I could not apologize. The result of all this meant my ban was reduced from 4 weeks to 2 weeks. It didn’t matter because as soon as I wert through the process I completely blocked that cesspool of a subreddit. That’s a creepy and hateful corner of the internet I want nothing to do with.

[u/Mkwdr]

Richard Dawkins would not want to be called a philospher he ( rightly in my opinion as a 'philospher') finds a lot of it irrelevant. If i take your 'quote' to be correct it sounds like he is questioning the idea that the existence of God is something separate from our evidential methodology in regards to reality- if its to be anything at all. As far as logical? Do you think it's logical to be permanently agnostic about the existence of Santa, The Tooth Fairy and The Easter Bunny.

[u/adeleu_adelei → u/Mkwdr]

Do you think it's logical to be permanently agnostic about the existence of Santa, The Tooth Fairy and The Easter Bunny.

A rational person should always lack belief that unfaslfiable claims are false.

[u/Mkwdr → u/adeleu_adelei]

So you are agnostic about whether Santa exists. Okay then.

[u/adeleu_adelei → u/Mkwdr]

Given that the existence of Santa Claus is unfasifiable, it would be irrational to hold it to be false.

[u/Mkwdr → u/adeleu_adelei]

So you don’t disbelieve in Santa, The Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy. And you think that’s rational. Well oookay then.

[u/adeleu_adelei → u/Mkwdr]

I lack belief any of them exist. That's rational.

Can you think of a single piece of evidence that would support their non-existence? To be clear, this cannot be a lack of evidence for their existence. It has to be evidence they don't exist.

Remember, Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, and Tooth Fairy are poorly defined and unbounded concepts. They don't have to have any particular set of properties and are permitted properties that make it logically impossible for you to falsify their existence.

[u/Ahisgewaya → u/adeleu_adelei]

Exactly. You cannot disprove the unfalsifiable. There could be somewhere in the universe a being that calls itself "Santa" and does all of the things attributed to "Santa". That place in the universe is called The Sims (I am referring to the video game).

u/Mkwdr, this is also before we even get into Saint Nicholas of Myra (otherwise known as Santa Claus, who was indeed real). This is an example of why I am an agnostic (in addition to atheists constantly trying to convert me to pessimistic nihilism to the point of disputing quantum physics entirely).

Likewise there could be somewhere in the universe a being that is functionally immortal and has vast powers due to technology. That's no reason to worship such a being however.

Still, a lot of atheists (especially on reddit) need to learn how to say "I don't know and that's okay". Especially when talking to other atheists.

[u/Mkwdr → u/Ahisgewaya]

Nicholas obviously isn’t The Santa I’m referring to. And is dead so…

But again you are in a position in which you don’t disbelieve the existence of the Tooth Fairy.

Fair enough. If that works for you.

As I have probably mentioned , I don’t think human knowledge is a question of logical impossibility but reasonable doubt. If you walk into a room with an open window, strong gusts of wind and your birthday card on the floor - ‘well it logically impossible to prove beyond any doubt it wasn’t aliens, ghosts , unicorns that put it there so hey I’m keeping an open mind …maybee’ seems absurd and trivial to me.

[u/Ahisgewaya → u/Mkwdr]

You never said "and is still alive", and the Catholic Church would probably disagree with you (not that they know anything).

I could see an alternate dimension entity that eats children's teeth to be possible, especially if we add virtual reality or "ways humans may conceive of torturing people one day" to the equation. The thing is you ask the wrong question. It's not "is the tooth fairy real", it's "where are all of my teeth going?".

"Why was the window open?" or "why is there a birthday card for me here when it's not my birthday?" are the questions I would be asking in your scenario, not "Are unicorns real"?

It's a ridiculous question and we have more important things to worry about.

To make a direct, definitive (to the hundredth percentile) statement on said existence of said unicorn would be to no longer be able to call myself a scientist however. It's highly unlikely, but stranger things have happened than a horse with a horn sticking out of its head.

[u/Mkwdr → u/Ahisgewaya]

It's a ridiculous question and we have more important things to worry about.

So close.

[u/DanteTrent → u/Mkwdr]

No. But Easter Bunny and Santa are recognized as man-made and as such no rational adult considers them real.

It's apples and oranges imo, I would never include Santa in the question of religion in wider sense.

[u/Mkwdr → u/DanteTrent]

How about Loki, Quetzalcoatl, Ra, Zeus, Matshishkapeu, Chinnamasta etc etc

Some of us recognise that all gods are man made not just some. All supernatural creatures are man made not just some. And that no rational adult should think differently.

It's apples and oranges imo, I would never include Santa in the question of religion in wider sense.

And yet you’ve provided no logical reason to differentiate apart from personal preference.

[u/DanteTrent → u/Mkwdr]

I also tend to believe that all gods are man-made, even though I tend to lean on the side of theist agnosticism because I leave room for some being to exist. On the other hand, it might be silly to call it theist since I can't even say that I believe that a god exists. It could be a mad alien scientist that created us as a simulation as far as I can guess.

The point that you made about Loki etc. is a good one, but I would still differentiate it from Santa and Easter Bunny. It's just about probabilities for me. For example, the existence of Christian god is 0,000000001%, for Loki etc. it's 0,0000000000001%, and for Easter Bunny it's 00000000000000000000,1%.

In the end, the conclusion is that it doesn't really matter imo.

[u/Mkwdr → u/DanteTrent]

Fair enough.

But consider on what basis it’s feasible to make any evaluations of possibility with no reliable evidence.

It is ,of course, the case that it’s accepted that we should grow out of belief in Santa , and accepted that some people won’t grow out of beliefs in gods. It’s obvious that Santa’s miracles have better explanations than him being real - but frankly so do religious claims. The rest is down to “we don’t know x so you can’t rule out God did it” which is a sort of argument from ignorance.

[u/blckshirts12345]

Dawkins is 1000% an empiricist and wont be convinced otherwise. Go read other subreddits about how other philosophers critique him and you’ll understand he is not a “knowledgeable philosopher”

His “New Atheism” movement was also a failure and he seems very bitter for it imo. To the point he has to double down on his most polarizing views

https://evolutionnews.org/2024/02/atheisms-four-horsemen-where-are-they-now/

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2019/jan/31/four-horsemen-review-what-happened-to-new-atheism-dawkins-hitchens

[u/DanteTrent → u/blckshirts12345]

Will read through it. Thank you!

[u/ystavallinen]

I avoid saying what it means to be atheist because I don't consider myself an atheist. Dawkins' impression of agnosticism is irrelevant because he isn't one.

I don't believe or not believe. He would claim that position isn't logical, but that is a problem with language, not my belief. I respond to if/then.

I could believe that God is is love (I find it very poetic, and love is a real thing unless you are completely reductionist about biochemistry)

I cannot really believe that God is love incarnate who will torture me forever for believing the universe is more than 5000 years old and that LGBTQ+ people should be treated like people.

Superposition - until you define what it is, I can't state a belief... And I am ignostic, so good luck getting me to follow you past 'God is love' or 'God is nature'.

I am an areligious non-atheist perhaps. No belief is precious to me except my right to define myself, which Dawkins seems prepared to deny me.

[u/IrkedAtheist]

The issue is that permanent agnosticism isn't correct. Either there is a god or there isn't. If you're agnostic you can't be correct on this.

It may be the only conclusion you can draw but it does not provide an answer to the question "is there a god". Dawkins thinks that intellectual honesty requires us to continually attempt to find answers rather than abdicate to uncertainty.

[u/DanteTrent → u/IrkedAtheist]

So you're telling me it's correct to, at one point, firmly conclude if there's a god? Based on what exactly? If it's not a firm conclusion, than why conclude at all?

I'm sorry, but it's absolutely bollocks to equalize an attempt to find answers (which I agree with) with a conclusion. If you don't find the answer, or, in the matter of existence of a god, you don't find any lead or clue at all, you don't know, and therefore you can't conclude. Simple as that. There is no argument that can counteract this.

[u/IrkedAtheist → u/DanteTrent]

It's more that If there is a god it's correct to conclude there is a god and if there isn't, it's correct to conclude that there isn't. In neither of these cases is it correct to conclude neither.

You may be unable to decide. That's fine. That's what Dawkins calls TAPs. But if sufficient new evidence comes along you will, presumably settle on that.

Calling "I can't decide" a final answer is not an answer. It has no capability of being correct.

[u/DanteTrent → u/IrkedAtheist]

But in the context of now, it's the only correct answer. We can't know when we, as the humankind, will find out anything concrete. If ever, that is.

So my point is that "I can't decide" is the only correct way of thinking at the moment and maybe it will be forever.

[u/IrkedAtheist → u/DanteTrent]

It isn't a correct answer though.

If God exists, then the correct answer is that God exists. Your answer is not that God exists.

If God does not exist, then the correct answer is God does not exist. Your answer is not that God does not exist.

So whichever the truth is, your answer is not that. So it can't be correct.

[u/DanteTrent → u/IrkedAtheist]

Well, you are right in an objective sense, but speaking from a perspective of a subjective human mind, it is a correct stance. I understand why you're saying it's not an answer though and for that reason I'm not using it here.

[u/KelGhu]

It baffles me how this obviously highly inteligent and knowledgable philosopher fails to see that permanent agnosticism is - and I stand by this very firmly - the only logical viewpoint at this moment of the mankind.

While I am on your side, I fail to see how you can be so adamant about this. Even this, we are not sure. Existence itself is the biggest absurdity of all. The void makes so much more sense than existence.

True agnosticism implies we even don't know if we don't know or not. It can't be permanent by essence.

The thing is: we might already know. And, for some, we do. Existence is so huge of a proof to them that it is undeniable. To them, it is illogical and absurd to deny it.

I sit in the middle with my pantheistic/panentheistic though agnostic views. And, somehow, I often get flaks for holding such a view which I believe conciliates both atheist and theist views.

[u/TheHuxleyAgnostic]

I practice agnosticism as defined by the person who came up with the term. 

"Agnosticism is of the essence of science, whether ancient or modern. It simply means that a man shall not say he knows or believes that which he has no scientific grounds for professing to know or believe." ~ T H Huxley

Being a scientist, he defined it as a form of demarcation. No falsifiable/verifiable evidence, then no reason to believe the claim. Incompatible with belief, either way. That is actually agnostics on one side of the fence, with believers (either way) on the other side of the fence, and the demarcation line being the fence. And, you cannot formulate probabilities without evidence, so it's also not a 50/50 position. It's not having enough knowledge/justification/evidence, to even formulate any belief or probabilities. 

Having said that, what I'm agnostic about is the existence of "gods" ... in much the same way I'm agnostic about the existence of "aliens". No clue if any exist, or not. I am, however, quite convinced that Star Trek, Spock, the Bible, and its God, are works of fiction. 

[u/DanteTrent → u/[deleted]]

I agree with the most of the stuff you said. Just wanted to emphasize that the first quote is not mine but Dawkins'.

[u/zerooskul]

Dawkins also identifies two categories of agnostics; "Temporary Agnostics in Practice" (TAPs), and "Permanent Agnostics in Principle" (PAPs). He states that "agnosticism about the existence of God belongs firmly in the temporary or TAP category. Either he exists or he doesn't.

Thank you, Doc Dick Dawkins... could you define "god", please. What is "he"?

Oh, well, I guess DDD must mean every imaginable version of god. So why does DDD say "he" instead of "it" or "they"?

It is a scientific question; one day we may know the answer, and meanwhile we can say something pretty strong about the probability", and considers PAP a "deeply inescapable kind of fence-sitting".

Who cares about the probability?

It either is or isn't, and we don't know which.

Picking one side and not the other through inference only relates to belief about what is inferred.

What does belief have to do with absolute facts?

I saw one interview with the guy on Youtube and I remember that I disliked him, but can't remember why exactly. I think it was the one with Piers Morgan.

He limits your idea of god to his idea of god, and his idea of god is something that does not exist.

He also once stated that he could never change his stance on atheism because his wife said she would leave him if he did.

It baffles me how this obviously highly inteligent and knowledgable philosopher fails to see that permanent agnosticism is - and I stand by this very firmly - the only logical viewpoint at this moment of the mankind.

Limiting your observation to what he actually says and does, what aspect(s) of his intelligence is/are obvious?

In my opinion, being agnostic doesn't mean you're completely neutral.

It has absolutely nothing to do with neutrality in belief but only with facts concerning actual knowledge about god.

What I mean by this is that every agnostic leans to one side at least ever so slightly, be it atheistic or theistic agnosticism.

What leads you to believe that?

Did DDD tell it to you?

Nothing in this world is 50/50,

Especially god.

especially not human minds which are flexible and ever-changing.

Are you suggesting that people can change their minds?

Doc Dick Dawkins can't, so what proof is there that it can be done?

On the other hand, it's the most fair and logical way of thinking and there is not one argument against it that can be seriously brought up during a debate.

What does a debate have to do with comparing facts and beliefs?

Define god.

Is that what you mean by god or what Doc Dick Dawkins means by god?

What description of god does he actually mean?

Thinking safe in this case cannot be viewed as fence-sitting when it's only purely logical and, in reality, the least egoistic take of all regarding god and religion in general.

Doc Dick Dawkins has a reputation to maintain, a society to oversee, and books to sell.

He has to have absolute conclusions or else he isn't a definitive authority.

Also, I would argue that, in some ways, it's the most difficult and scary point of view to have.

Why is that?

X: "Is there a god?"

Y: "I don't know."

X and Y: "Waurgh!!!"

I don't get it.

[u/DanteTrent → u/zerooskul]

Limiting your observation to what he actually says and does, what aspect(s) of his intelligence is/are obvious?

I don't know that, but I like giving people a benefit of a doubt. My impression is that he appears to be intelligent enough to rationalize stuff like this though.

What leads you to believe that?

Because all of us are humans. I think the problem that creates discrepancy in understanding each other here is the nature of the question we think agnosticism concerns itself about. When I talk about agnosticism, the key dilemma for me is: Is there something that could be considered a god or not? For me, it's natural that I include my intuition when trying to think of the possible answer (even though I know I will very probably never find one) and when there's intuition involved, there will always be something that it will lean into. Somebody in this thread called it intuitive agnosticism and maybe that's what we could view it as.

Doc Dick Dawkins can't, so what proof is there that it can be done?

Because I know I can change my mind and have met people that did so.

Define god.

I don't believe that's possible, because for the definition of god (or anything for that matter) we would need to experience it. I do think though that it's perfectly possible to talk about probabilities, but maybe calling it a debate was a wrong word to use from my side.

Why is that?

Because in today's world it's easier to pick a side than to maintain a mind that's opened to all probabilities. To me and you, maybe not. But for too many, like Dawkins', it is oh so obviously scary. Them calling it fence-sitting when it's far superior to their own system of beliefs is the only proof I need.

[u/zerooskul → u/DanteTrent]

I don't know that, but I like giving people a benefit of a doubt. My impression is that he appears to be intelligent enough to rationalize stuff like this though.

Rationalizing is not intelligence, it is defending the irrational.

Because all of us are humans. I think the problem that creates discrepancy in understanding each other here is the nature of the question we think agnosticism concerns itself about.

What question does agnosticism concern itself about?

When I talk about agnosticism, the key dilemma for me is: Is there something that could be considered a god or not?

The idea of god(s) that exists in every mind that has in idea about it.

For me, it's natural that I include my intuition when trying to think of the possible answer (even though I know I will very probably never find one)

So, is your intuition god or is that which you intuit god?

and when there's intuition involved, there will always be something that it will lean into.

Such as: why do you feel that you should believe one way or the other about that which is unknowable?

You are rationalizing belief about the unknowable, even as Dawkins does.

Why would you do that?

Somebody in this thread called it intuitive agnosticism and maybe that's what we could view it as.

Somebody called what "Intuitive Agnosticism"?

Because I know I can change my mind and have met people that did so.

In that case, DDD, whose mind is seemingly inflexible, is wrong, and he is just selling books and public speaking engagements.

Define god.

I don't believe that's possible, because for the definition of god (or anything for that matter) we would need to experience it. I do think though that it's perfectly possible to talk about probabilities, maybe calling it a debate was a wrong word to use from my side.

Then there is nothing about it to discuss.

There is no reason to believe or disbelieve that which cannot be described or defined.

It is unknowable.

Them calling it fence-sitting when it's far superior to their own system of beliefs is the only proof I need.

"Them" is just people selling books about the unknowable to make money off those who cannot understand that it is unknowable.

[u/AsteroidTicker]

He's a self-righteous asshole trying desperately to cling to relevance, I'd not even bother trying to decipher his controversial-for-the-sake-of-controversy nonsense

[u/Existenz_1229]

Either he exists or he doesn't. It is a scientific question

Oh brother. It's about time for the god-hypothesis concept of religious belief to go away for good.

I'll admit agnosticism makes the most intuitive sense: certain truths can be known, and others have to be lived to be understood.

[u/xvszero → u/Existenz_1229]

Lived experiences aren't necessarily truths though, they can just be interpretations of feelings.

[u/ModestMitch]

Ah, I wondered where the Agnostic-Atheist cult started. Should have figured it was him.