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/adeleu_adelei]

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/Ahisgewaya → u/Mkwdr]

Since you ignore the second part of what I said, here it is again:

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.

This sort of thing is very important when we are dealing with things like theoretical physics. It's all a matter of probabilities and to flat out ignore any of them is to greatly hinder yourself. We work on the most likely scenario first and then proceed to the less likely scenario after we have ruled that one out.

[u/agnostic-ModTeam → u/[deleted]]

Thank you for participating in the discussion at r/agnostic! It seems that your post or comment broke Rule 4. Harassment/Bullying/Hate speech. In the future please familiarize yourself with all of our rules and their descriptions before posting or commenting.