Richard Dawkins "The most famous..... Agnostic?"

[swordpath]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/natio...doesnt-exist/2012/02/24/gIQA7496XR_story.html

 

[Totenkindly]

I don't believe it!
Or maybe I do!

... oh bother.


^^ Agnosticism. This conditions afflicts many modern humans, leaving us confused about the nature of the world, or even feeling like it doesn't matter. Won't you please help? Send money, fast.

EDIT:

In a 100-minute debate with Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams on Thursday (Feb. 23), Richard Dawkins surprised his online and theater audiences by conceding a personal chink of doubt about his conviction that there is no such thing as a creator.

But, to the amusement of the archbishop and others, the evolutionary biologist swiftly added that he was “6.9 out of seven” certain of his long-standing atheist beliefs.

Replying to moderator Anthony Kenny, a noted English philosopher, Dawkins said, “I think the probability of a supernatural creator existing (is) very, very low...

That sounds fair. I'm also not sure whether 100% atheism is rationally viable. I mean, we can't really be sure of anything, so there's always a minute possibility that someone could be wrong about something that cannot be observed or experienced fully, correct? Perhaps atheism should be definied more like Dawkins -- slim possibility that someone is wrong, but the chances are very very slim to them. Agnosticism seems more like a concession that the odds are bigger and thus the answer more ambiguous?

 

[swordpath]

So the degree to which one doubts is the determiner to whether one is an atheist or agnostic? Hrrmmm.

 

[Totenkindly]

So the degree to which one doubts is the determiner to whether one is an atheist or agnostic? Hrrmmm.

Well... we can draw a hard line at the choice to not believe 100%... but is that rationally feasible? Just curious. Even integrals are considered an "approximation under the curve" -- they are close to exact, but not exact.

I'm not really hung up on the definition, I'm simply saying there is always at least a small gap between knowing something for sure vs it not being entirely defined, and it takes at least a smidgen of faith to leap across the gap.

 

[swordpath]

So an agnostic wants to believe but can't fully, and an atheist not only can't believe, but doesn't want to? I'm just trying to figure out what separates the two titles. An atheist is more intellectual than an agnostic? Does an Atheist ACTUALLY know more than an Agnostic?

 

[Totenkindly]

So an agnostic wants to believe but can't fully, and an atheist not only can't believe, but doesn't want to? I'm just trying to figure out what separates the two titles. An atheist is more intellectual than an agnostic?

I'm not sure where you got the last part.

I think it's dishonest for someone to say that they KNOW there isn't a god, considering our faculties are not calibrated to be that accurate. It's more honest to state either that one believes that there is no (nor seems likely to be) god, or that one is less sure.

Unless that amount of uncertainty is acceptable enough to gloss over. *shrug*

In any case, that's why this article even exists -- Dawkins has been so hard-line that him admitting there's a modicum of possibility God might exist now is making the news. It really shouldn't have even been newsworthy, except his stance was so self-ceertain to start with.

 

[swordpath]

Makes sense.

 

[FunnyDigestion]

Somebody paid him off.

 

[swordpath]

To me it seems he's just being a little bit honest to himself/others for a change. When it comes to questions of God/existence (for or against), who really believes anything "beyond the shadow of a doubt"?

 

[FunnyDigestion]

Yeah. If there really is a god, & you end up standing before him one day, you'd probably feel a bit stupid if you'd written books on earth saying you were 100% certain he didn't exist. He'd probably beat the shit out of you too. So yeah, leave that 0.2% out for yourself.

 

[FigerPuppet]

I'm so tired of the way some "agnostics" separate themselves from other atheists in these discussions; as if they on a higher ground than the latter. You cannot label yourself as an "agnostic" without adding what you are agnostic ABOUT. There are 4 categories of people - all people can be boxed into one of these, whether you like it or not. Sorted after strength of belief (although some would argue that it takes at least as much faith to have a complete belief in God's non-existence as it does having a complete belief in His existence):

Gnostic theist
Agnostic theist
Agnostic atheist (Dawkins, and most other "reasonable" atheists - despite of Dawkins having lapses, probably due to his age)
Gnostic atheist (fanatic)

Most atheists fall into the third.

Let's look at the definition of agnosticism:

Agnosticism is the view that the truth value of certain claims—especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, but also other religious and metaphysical claims—is unknown or unknowable.[1][2]

As you can see, it says nothing about your actual belief in the thing's existence. That's why it's almost a non sequitur simply answering "I'm agnostic" to the question "Do you believe in God?"

The definition of gnosticism is a bit more difficult to tie down, but it's by definition the opposite of agnosticism - so a gnostic person possesses actual knowledge about the thing's (non-)existence, ie. "I know God exists." These people are usually perceived as crazy.

 

[FunnyDigestion]

^ Yeah, I mean that just makes sense. It would be just as idiotic to say "I completely believe there isn't a crazy gorilla at the center of the universe" as to say you believe there is one.

 

[Lark]

I predict a death bed conversion in someones future.

 

[Totenkindly]

Kind of like Charles Darwin's?

("Reports of my conversion were extremely exaggerated.")

 

[Red Herring]

Kind of like Charles Darwin's?

("Reports of my conversion were extremely exaggerated.")

 

[Orangey]

Wait...isn't this exactly what he's always said?

Actually, that's not a question. It IS what he's always said. Or did you guys think, up until this point, that he was advocating the a priori assumption that God doesn't exist? I mean, that's why he's always going on and on about evidence...

 

[Nicodemus]

I find that those who call themselves agnostics are usually inconsistent in their reluctance to believe one thing or the other. In their everday lives, they claim to know that pigs cannot fly, relying only on fallible human knowledge; but when it comes to this question, they suddenly give great seriousness to argumentative abortions that, in matters of pig, would certainly be lauged off.

Yes, this topic has the potential to raise interesting questions about epistemology and logic in general, but, at the end of the day, we do feel comfortable saying that pigs cannot fly. So the hesitance to say as much about (the christian) god suggests, I venture to guess, a fear of the audience rather than an honest mind.

 

[iwakar]

I'm so tired of the way some "agnostics" separate themselves from other atheists in these discussions; as if they on a higher ground than the latter. You cannot label yourself as an "agnostic" without adding what you are agnostic ABOUT. There are 4 categories of people - all people can be boxed into one of these, whether you like it or not. Sorted after strength of belief (although some would argue that it takes at least as much faith to have a complete belief in God's non-existence as it does having a complete belief in His existence):

Gnostic theist
Agnostic theist
Agnostic atheist (Dawkins, and most other "reasonable" atheists - despite of Dawkins having lapses, probably due to his age)
Gnostic atheist (fanatic)

Prepare to be more weary. Having reread the definitions, I don't feel comfortable using any label more specific than 'agnostic' because it wouldn't be accurate.

 

[FigerPuppet]

Prepare to be more weary. Having reread the definitions, I don't feel comfortable using any label more specific than 'agnostic' because it wouldn't be accurate.

You'll have to expand on that.

 

[Sniffles]

Gnostic theist
Agnostic theist
Agnostic atheist (Dawkins, and most other "reasonable" atheists - despite of Dawkins having lapses, probably due to his age)
Gnostic atheist (fanatic)

I have some severe reservations of how helpful this distinction truely is - not least of because "gnostic" is often used to identify a particular kind of religious belief system that is distinguish from other religious systems like Christianity in most cases. There are issues of mixing up different concepts here too.