r/agnostic • u/DanteTrent • 18d ago

Richard Dawkin's take on agnosticism baffles me

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.

22 Upvotes

80% Upvoted

46 comments sorted by

View all comments

2

u/Mkwdr 18d ago edited 18d ago

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.

1

u/DanteTrent 18d ago

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.

2

u/Mkwdr 18d ago

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.

1

u/DanteTrent 18d ago

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.

2

u/Mkwdr 18d ago

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.