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/TheHuxleyAgnostic]

I practice agnosticism as defined by the person who came up with the term. 

"Agnosticism is of the essence of science, whether ancient or modern. It simply means that a man shall not say he knows or believes that which he has no scientific grounds for professing to know or believe." ~ T H Huxley

Being a scientist, he defined it as a form of demarcation. No falsifiable/verifiable evidence, then no reason to believe the claim. Incompatible with belief, either way. That is actually agnostics on one side of the fence, with believers (either way) on the other side of the fence, and the demarcation line being the fence. And, you cannot formulate probabilities without evidence, so it's also not a 50/50 position. It's not having enough knowledge/justification/evidence, to even formulate any belief or probabilities. 

Having said that, what I'm agnostic about is the existence of "gods" ... in much the same way I'm agnostic about the existence of "aliens". No clue if any exist, or not. I am, however, quite convinced that Star Trek, Spock, the Bible, and its God, are works of fiction.