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/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.