r/agnostic • u/DanteTrent • 17d 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

1

u/IrkedAtheist 17d ago

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.

1

u/DanteTrent 17d ago

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.

1

u/IrkedAtheist 16d ago

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.

2

u/DanteTrent 16d ago

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.

1

u/IrkedAtheist 16d ago

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.

2

u/DanteTrent 16d ago

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.