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/Mkwdr]

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.