Richard Dawkins now slighty Agnostic

thephantom1

Though readers might be interested:
http://www.inquisitr.com/198162/atheist-richard-dawkins-slightly-agnostic-after-all/

robindch

thephantom1 wrote: »

Though readers might be interested:

That point has been made here quite often, in respect of Dawkins and many others. Dawkins also mentioned it years ago in The God Delusion and explained at some length why he holds that view.

Many people don't quite understand the two inputs into religious belief -- (a) whether the person believes a deity exists, and (b) how sure that person is about (a). The following diagram clarifies it, I hope:



Dawkins is an agnostic atheist, as are the majority of posters here in A+A.

Peregrinus

Nothing new here. Dawkins has always carefully qualified his atheism. IIRC, he was responsble for the "probably" in the "there's probably no God" bus slogan a couple of years back.

He calls himself an atheist, quite reasonably, because he lacks any belief in God. He'll admit to agnosticism in the sense that he concedes he cannot be certain that there is no God. There's no contradiction or shift there.

Penn

Belief and knowledge are two different things.

I don't believe in god(s). Can I be sure there is no god(s)? No, I just don't believe there are any.

thephantom1

fair enough. im of a similar standpoint but am pushing towards total agnosticism for the last while. im a new member, was just interested to see the responses

Michael Nugent

That's a very lazy article, as were several articles reporting on that discussion. Dawkins didn't 'admit' anything, or even say anything new.

He simply said what he has always said about atheism and agnosticism, and what he already explained in writing in The God Delusion.

Michael Nugent

ThePhantom1, I'm not sure what you mean by 'total agnosticism', but here is how I see it.

Once you are exposed to the idea that a god might exist, you either believe it to be true or you don't (unless for some reason you believe there is exactly 50/50 chance of it existing or not).

You might believe it with a great or small degree of doubt or certainty, or disbelieve it with a great or small degree of doubt or certainty, but you inevitably come down on one side or other.

That determines whether you are a theist or an atheist.

Regardless of whether you are a theist or an atheist, there is a separate question of whether you claim to be able to know if a god exists.

If you do not claim to be able to know that what you believe is true, then you are an agnostic on that question.

You can't just be an agnostic on its own, you have to be agnostic about a specific assertion, such as that a god exists.

im invisible

Just something that annoys me about that 'axis' diagram, and especially the other one that i cant link to, as im on my fone (the one that says the line atheist---agnostic---theist is wrong).

Surely its a line, with gnostic at either end, and a whole spectrum of agnostic in the middle??

Improbable

So you mean that the vertical axis should have gnostic at the top and bottom and agnostic in between? What would be the point of that? The bottom left and top left would be the same thing. As would the bottom right and top right.

Michael Nugent

im invisible wrote: »

Just something that annoys me about that 'axis' diagram, and especially the other one that i cant link to, as im on my fone (the one that says the line atheist---agnostic---theist is wrong).

Surely its a line, with gnostic at either end, and a whole spectrum of agnostic in the middle??

The difficulty with this type of discussion is that different people already have different meanings attached to the words in their minds, and we all have to get beyond that filter.

One way to look at that is to ignore the words atheism, theism, agnosticism and gnosticism (particularly gnosticism as it has another meaning related to an early Christian sect) and look at the concepts involved without putting labels on them.

Concept A: You believe, on the balance of evidence, that a god exists
Concept B: You believe that there is exactly a 50/50 chance of this
Concept C: You believe, on the balance of evidence, that no gods exist

Concept You believe it is possible to know whether a god exists
Concept E: You believe that there is exactly a 50/50 chance of this
Concept F: You believe it is not possible to know whether a god exists

Once you have been exposed to the idea that a god might exist, you form one belief from concepts A, B and C, and you form a separate belief from concepts D, E and F.

In practical terms, you probably believe either A or C rather than B, and you probably believe either D or F rather than E.

It s these concepts that are more important than what label people put on each of them.
.

im invisible

Its the second part, D-E-F, that i have a problem with, you either believe it can be known, or it can't be known, there is no spectrum inbetween (in my eyes, anyway) its an either/or

Improbable wrote: »

So you mean that the vertical axis should have gnostic at the top and bottom and agnostic in between? What would be the point of that? The bottom left and top left would be the same thing. As would the bottom right and top right.

and then it goes back down to just being a line, as i said

Ms Mustard

Thanks Michael

Michael Nugent

It's actually closer to two distinct points (or three if you count the theoretical 50/50 option which it would be eccentric to choose) than it is to a line.

It's not a spectrum. It's an either/or.

im invisible

Is there a spectrum between A, B and C? In my mind, there is, but not between D and F

Michael Nugent

In my opinion, strictly speaking, no.

There is spectrum of the strength with which you believe something (from certainty to with a lot of doubt), but not about whether or not you believe it.

Some people argue differently, based I presume on different interpretations of what belief means.

equivariant

robindch wrote: »

The following diagram clarifies it, I hope:



Dawkins is an agnostic atheist, as are the majority of posters here in A+A.

The diagram is useful I think, but also slightly misleading. It is useful in that it indicates the two dimensional nature of the situation and that gnosticism/agnosticism is not directly complarable with theism/atheism.

However, it is misleading in the way that it labels the axis. I think that it is better to say that the gnostic/agnostic coordinate measures your state of knowledge, whereas the theism/atheism coordinate measures your state of belief. Labelling this axis with "number of deities is misleading and irrelevant - a person who believes in 15 deities is no more of a theist than a person who believes in 2 deities.

Also, labels like "certain or believes that certainty is possible" seem to conflate two distinct concepts. I would say that a gnostic is a person who is certain. The question of whether or not "certainty is possible" is a question of epistemology and is a separate issue. You may well believe that certainty is possible without yourself being certain.

Galvasean

The article in the OP is slightly contradictory. It says Dawkins admits a slight agnosticism "for the first time", but then later explains how he has always held such a cautious position.
Ah well at least it was better than Walter's bit in the Daily Mail about a week ago where he claimed that Dawkins is no longer an atheist and implied that he is racist by association (with his slave owning ancestor and Charles Darwin).

RichieC

my flair on reddit is "gnostic atheist" - but only to annoy the creationists.

MisterEpicurus

robindch wrote: »

That point has been made here quite often, in respect of Dawkins and many others. Dawkins also mentioned it years ago in The God Delusion and explained at some length why he holds that view.

Many people don't quite understand the two inputs into religious belief -- (a) whether the person believes a deity exists, and (b) how sure that person is about (a). The following diagram clarifies it, I hope:



Dawkins is an agnostic atheist, as are the majority of posters here in A+A.

Exactly why I never understood why the forum was called 'Atheism & Agnosticism'. Why not 'Christianity & Agnosticism'?

Dades

MisterEpicurus wrote: »

Exactly why I never understood why the forum was called 'Atheism & Agnosticism'. Why not 'Christianity & Agnosticism'?

Ever heard of an agnostic Christian?

dead one

Dades wrote: »

Ever heard of an agnostic Christian?

Yes, Agnostic Christians means being a follower of Christ despite uncertainty about whether Bible teachings are true

Michael Nugent

MisterEpicurus wrote: »

Exactly why I never understood why the forum was called 'Atheism & Agnosticism'. Why not 'Christianity & Agnosticism'?

Because atheists are more open than Christians to accepting uncertainty?

Seriously, though, your question is reasonable and seems more relevant to the Christianity forum than to this one.

Michael Nugent

dead one wrote: »

Yes, Agnostic Christians means being a follower of Christ despite uncertainty about whether Bible teachings are true

Strictly speaking, an agnostic Christian would be someone who believes in Christ/Christianity but also believes it is impossible to know whether or not it is true.

Panrich

robindch wrote: »

That point has been made here quite often, in respect of Dawkins and many others. Dawkins also mentioned it years ago in The God Delusion and explained at some length why he holds that view.

Many people don't quite understand the two inputs into religious belief -- (a) whether the person believes a deity exists, and (b) how sure that person is about (a). The following diagram clarifies it, I hope:



Dawkins is an agnostic atheist, as are the majority of posters here in A+A.

This diagram is worded badly in my view (sorry Rob). Fully certain and Uncertain are not polar opposites.

Dades

dead one wrote: »

Yes, Agnostic Christians means being a follower of Christ despite uncertainty about whether Bible teachings are true

You mean those people who need the structure of religion despite not actually believing it?

the culture of deference

Michael Nugent wrote: »

Strictly speaking, an agnostic Christian would be someone who believes in Christ/Christianity but also believes it is impossible to know whether or not it is true.

Wouldn't that be all christians / religions then.

How do other christians and religions feel about the RCC, and their views that they are the one true church?

If the logical point is that atheists cannot be sure there is no god, then the religious must be the same.

Michael Nugent

the culture of deference wrote: »

Wouldn't that be all christians / religions then... If the logical point is that atheists cannot be sure there is no god, then the religious must be the same.

Strictly speaking, we should all be agnostic about everything. In practice, that would make it impossible to function sanely.

However, many people place a higher standard of required knowledge on the issue of believing that gods do not exist, than they place on many other assertions that they are happy to claim to know.

Yellowknife

Dawkins is coming to the National Concert Hall in June so buy a ticket and maybe we can ask the man himself!

MagicMarker

Yellowknife wrote: »

Dawkins is coming to the National Concert Hall in June so buy a ticket and maybe we can ask the man himself!

Had to google this, found this in the IT. I really hope someone was just trying to be funny...

(The Dawkins portion only makes a small bit of the whole ''article'' so I think it's fine to quote)

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/weekend/2012/0310/1224313088468.html

Dawkins to spread the word in Dublin

An appearance by the controversial author, evolutionary biologist and humanist Richard Dawkins is to be one of the highlights of the 2012 Dublin Writers Festival, which will run from Monday, June 4th, to Sunday, June 10th. Dawkins, a high priest of atheism, will be in conversation at the National Concert Hall on Tuesday, June 5th, in association with the year-long Dublin City of Science festival, and tickets, priced at €18 and €20, are on sale from today at nch.ie.

From his first book, The Selfish Gene (1976), to what is probably his most famous work, the bestselling The God Delusion (2006), Dawkins has seen his task as one of helping nonscientists to understand difficult scientific concepts.

edit: I'll start a new thread, I'd say there'd be a lot of interest in this.

edit2: thread

im invisible

im invisible wrote: »

Just something that annoys me about that 'axis' diagram, and especially the other one that i cant link to, as im on my fone (the one that says the line atheist---agnostic---theist is wrong).

Surely its a line, with gnostic at either end, and a whole spectrum of agnostic in the middle??

resurecting an old thread to make an old point, again

Surely its a line, with gnostic at either end, and a whole spectrum of agnostic in the middle??

edit pic in link

dd972

robindch wrote: »

That point has been made here quite often, in respect of Dawkins and many others. Dawkins also mentioned it years ago in The God Delusion and explained at some length why he holds that view.

Many people don't quite understand the two inputs into religious belief -- (a) whether the person believes a deity exists, and (b) how sure that person is about (a). The following diagram clarifies it, I hope:



Dawkins is an agnostic atheist, as are the majority of posters here in A+A.

Think the face in the middle of the illustration with the ''f**ked if I know'' expression says more than the statements surrounding it about the mysteries of God

Zombrex

im invisible wrote: »

resurecting an old thread to make an old point, again

Surely its a line, with gnostic at either end, and a whole spectrum of agnostic in the middle??

edit pic in link

True, there are not degrees of gnostic. Though that is harder to draw :P

ShooterSF

dd972 wrote: »

Think the face in the middle of the illustration with the ''f**ked if I know'' expression says more than the statements surrounding it about the mysteries of God

How very monotheistic of you.

im invisible

Zombrex wrote: »

True, there are not degrees of gnostic. Though that is harder to draw :P

not really, 10 mins in photoshop (MSPaint)

Zombrex

im invisible wrote: »

not really, 10 mins in photoshop (MSPaint)

I stand corrected, what'cha what, a medal :P

Mark Hamill

im invisible wrote: »

not really, 10 mins in photoshop (MSPaint)

I dont see how thats correct, thats implying that agnostic atheist and agnostic theist are next to each other, and that you can be agnostic without being theistic/atheistic.

Michael Nugent

Another way of looking at it....

Agnostic and gnostic have to be applied to something.

You can't just be agnostic as an abstract position (unless you mean you are agnostic about everything).

Both 'scales' are actually binary positions.

Either you are atheist or else you are not atheist.

Either you are agnostic or else you are not agnostic (about being atheist or not being atheist).

The scales apply to the degrees of confidence or doubt with which you hold your positions on atheism, or your positions on agnosticism.

robindch

dd972 wrote: »

Think the face in the middle of the illustration with the ''f**ked if I know'' expression says more than the statements surrounding it about the mysteries of God

Very much what I was trying to convey

SeanW

I think the "cross" scale can be useful, but only if it does not try to pigeon-hole people into double-barrelled religious descriptions, such as Agnostic-Atheist or Agnostic-Theist or Gnostic whatever as you will find many people reject such labels as over-complications. The scale can be useful provided it allows people to take singular positions from it where they deem it so appropriate.

For example, if someone accepts the tenets of a particular faith, they could be simply described (and accept the simple description of) theist, or Christian or Buddhist or whatever. The scale posted here works if it allows that.

Another person who believes the negative, i.e. "there is nothing outside the physical realm" might, rightly or wrongly, describe themselves simply as Atheist, though the correct term might be Gnostic Atheist ... or something.

For me, I'm not really interested in God (I consider it a secondary, at best supporting question) more whether there is any kind of spiritual realm outside the physical world that we percieve. On that point, I am evenly split between "Yes" and "No."

For that reason, I consider myself to be agnostic, with no further qualification being either needed or helpful.

[Jackass]

Penn wrote: »

Belief and knowledge are two different things.

I don't believe in god(s). Can I be sure there is no god(s)? No, I just don't believe there are any.

Sometimes, the more absurd the claim, the more difficult it is to disprove.

And that is what I have learned from my experiences with time travel (and you can't prove that I haven't time traveled no matter how unlikely or impossible it may sound!)

ShooterSF

SeanW wrote: »

For me, I'm not really interested in God (I consider it a secondary, at best supporting question) more whether there is any kind of spiritual realm outside the physical world that we percieve. On that point, I am evenly split between "Yes" and "No."

For that reason, I consider myself to be agnostic, with no further qualification being either needed or helpful.

But if someone wanted to know your view on the likelihood of gods major religions follow existing rather than an unspecified possibly non-interfering spirituality how would you describe yourself?

frozenfrozen

I had to explain this to Bishop Trevor Williams last week when he visited my school. He was taking questions and somebody said something to the effect of "with science religion isn't relevant" and he talked around his answer to it, didn't really say much and then started talking about scientists, namely Richard Dawkins who he said was "a terrible scientist" because he "denies the existence of any God(s), and as a scientist you can't make a claim like that." And as a scientist he should hold an agnostic view, and not be an atheist like he is. And he went on and said that about 5 different ways, trying his hardest to talk down about him, and once he had finished I just put up my hand and just quietly said: "Richard Dawkins is agnostic. He labelled himself a stage 7 agnostic so in the same way he doesn't deny the existence of any Gods, he equally doesn't deny the existence of aliens, but would believe in anything if there was real scientific evidence" (As claimed by Dawkins in his book 'The God Delusion.')
And he just said; "Oh. I seem to have misrepresented him." And then there were about 20 seconds of awkward complete silence, followed by some laughter and then he awkwardly moved on.




He said "good boy" as I walked by him on my way out. Brilliant.

robindch

frozenfrozen wrote: »

And he just said; "Oh. I seem to have misrepresented him." And then there were about 20 seconds of awkward complete silence, followed by some laughter and then he awkwardly moved on. He said "good boy" as I walked by him on my way out. Brilliant.

Bully for Trevor. I think most people wouldn't be brave enough to admit in public they'd misrepresented somebody, especially somebody on the other side of a contentious debate.

SeanW

ShooterSF wrote: »

But if someone wanted to know your view on the likelihood of gods major religions follow existing rather than an unspecified possibly non-interfering spirituality how would you describe yourself?

On the matter of the Abrahamic God, I am in fact rather certain that He does not exist. Why?

Having been raised in the Catholic faith and been taught stories of (for example) the prodigal son, I see that the Abrahamic faiths, especially Christianity and Islam, are very heavy on recruitment and bringing people "into the fold" as it were, and very light on things such as proof, and evidence.

I can therefore conclude that the Abrahamic God is man-made.

im invisible

Mark Hamill wrote: »

I dont see how thats correct, thats implying that agnostic atheist and agnostic theist are next to each other, and that you can be agnostic without being theistic/atheistic.

yes..

Michael Nugent wrote: »

Another way of looking at it....
Agnostic and gnostic have to be applied to something.
You can't just be agnostic as an abstract position (unless you mean you are agnostic about everything).
Both 'scales' are actually binary positions.
Either you are atheist or else you are not atheist.
Either you are agnostic or else you are not agnostic (about being atheist or not being atheist).
The scales apply to the degrees of confidence or doubt with which you hold your positions on atheism, or your positions on agnosticism.

no, still not convinced, as i said earlier (was going to quote the post, but i just realised it was you i was arguing with before)


two things about this forum (the people in it?) really annoy me, one is the above, the other is

ShooterSF wrote: »

But if someone wanted to know your view on the likelihood of gods major religions follow existing rather than an unspecified possibly non-interfering spirituality how would you describe yourself?

someone saying 'duh, you dont believe in x, y, z, i just dont believe in one more god than you' thinking that thats somehow, i dont know, enlightened, that someone will realise 'oh gosh, you're right, how could i have been so stupid'

i mean if you dont understand that every religion on earth, is man trying to understand God/ to make sense of the god question/ whatever, and that just because they're all wrong, dosn't mean that this thing that we're trying to understand dosn't exist, well i dont know

Mark Hamill

im invisible wrote: »

yes..

So are you agreeing with me or disagreeing with me?

im invisible wrote: »

someone saying 'duh, you dont believe in x, y, z, i just dont believe in one more god than you' thinking that thats somehow, i dont know, enlightened, that someone will realise 'oh gosh, you're right, how could i have been so stupid'

i mean if you dont understand that every religion on earth, is man trying to understand God/ to make sense of the god question/ whatever, and that just because they're all wrong, dosn't mean that this thing that we're trying to understand dosn't exist, well i dont know

Thats not the point of the 'i just dont believe in one more god than you' argument. The point of the 'i just dont believe in one more god than you' argument is that the criteria that believers use to disregard other gods besides their own, actually apply to their own god as well. If they were being honest in their application of that criteria, they should disregard\their own god as well.

ShooterSF

im invisible wrote: »

yes..

someone saying 'duh, you dont believe in x, y, z, i just dont believe in one more god than you' thinking that thats somehow, i dont know, enlightened, that someone will realise 'oh gosh, you're right, how could i have been so stupid'

i mean if you dont understand that every religion on earth, is man trying to understand God/ to make sense of the god question/ whatever, and that just because they're all wrong, dosn't mean that this thing that we're trying to understand dosn't exist, well i dont know

While Mark did a great job responding I felt it best if I get back to you personally. I'm not that interested in if there is a non-descript god out there that no one understands. It's the most likely version of a "god" in my eyes; Rhough I don't believe in it myself. My issue is with the people who think their religion is right and they need to impose it on me and even then I won't go so far as you to say "they're all wrong" though I believe that statement to be very likely.

B9K9

I consider it helpful to state one's disbelief: in all proposed gods thus far, thereby saying no ruling out some future explanation that might/could stand to reason. This makes me gnostic atheist in the present, while being open to some amazing revelation or insight sometime hence. First question to that putative plausible being: "kindly explain your silence and implied lack of concern over past millennia"

Zombrex

im invisible wrote: »

someone saying 'duh, you dont believe in x, y, z, i just dont believe in one more god than you' thinking that thats somehow, i dont know, enlightened, that someone will realise 'oh gosh, you're right, how could i have been so stupid'

i mean if you dont understand that every religion on earth, is man trying to understand God/ to make sense of the god question/ whatever, and that just because they're all wrong, dosn't mean that this thing that we're trying to understand dosn't exist, well i dont know

This thing we are trying to understand does exist, it is called "theory of mind" and "hyperactive agency detection", and is an evolutionary quirk in humans that causes them to imagine that there are agents in nature causing different things to happen.

It is sort of like a much more elaborate example of the stare at a white page trick (which itself is a quirk of the human vision)

For most of human history we have explained this habit of humans imagining agents in nature through the use of the notion of gods and other supernatural beings. We now know different, that these things don't actually exist but we know why we imagine them anyway. We know why humans invent them, why inventing them makes humans happier and makes it easier for them to process the world around them.

Like so many things in life the actual answer ends up explaining things so much better than previous attempts.