Dawkins is no atheist - he's agnostic

[ska invita]

Personally, as a comitted 'model agnostic' ( http://brandnewparadigm.blogspot.com/2007/11/model-agnosticism.html ) - a position which rejects theism and atheism - i get a bit wound up by Dawkins promoting his so-called atheism. He himself said in one of his books that he is a 'de-facto agnostic' because, ultimately you can never know, and he is willing to entertain that there is a 1% chance of there being 'something out-there' (paraphrase).

His bus ad reinforces his de-facto agnosticism:

Note the word probably.

The atheist position is always hogging the limelight, and detracting from interesting debates about the possibilities of human comprehension that agnosticism throws up. WE live in a tedious world of absolute ideologies - its high time we re-embraced a bit of mystery, and humbelled ourselves to the limits of our knowledge. Ignoracne is a great leveler, and as socrates might have said, real intelligence is knowing how little we know.

Dawkins is an agnostic, and should stand up and say so! If he's going to go on an atheist campaign, then he should have the courage of his convictions and be more concrete about his position.

 

[danny la rouge]

It isn't his bus ad.

 

[phildwyer]

I don't think Dawkins has the first idea what he is. He lacks the philosophical literacy to express himself coherently.

 

[Crispy]

It isn't his bus ad.

quite.

in this case, I think I agree with phil - he's as blinkered and arrogant as the madder dangling loonberries off the tree of religion that he hates so much.

although he's much better on evolution - 'Climbing Mount Improbable' is best, in my mind.

 

[Kid_Eternity]

The word probably was used due to advertising guidelines on buses.

 

[smmudge]

I don't think Dawkins has the first idea what he is. He lacks the philosophical literacy to express himself coherently.

Absofeckinlutely. And if by chance you do understand what he's saying you realise he is only reiterating what people worked out 200 years ago!

 

[danny la rouge]

quite.

in this case, I think I agree with phil - he's as blinkered and arrogant as the madder dangling loonberries off the tree of religion that he hates so much.

I've always thought him polite, mild-mannered, and hopelessly wishywashy.

 

[Crispy]

maybe that's his character.
but when it comes to religion, I don't think he really understands how it works in real peoples' lives.

but then, I haven't actually read The God Delusion, so I'm not really speaking from a position of authority

 

[danny la rouge]

but then, I haven't actually read The God Delusion, so I'm not really speaking from a position of authority

You should.

It isn't his best book, though.

 

[Hi-ASL]

Dawkins is an agnostic, and should stand up and say so! If he's going to go on an atheist campaign, then he should have the courage of his convictions and be more concrete about his position.

If you have anything less than a positive belief in God(s) you're a de facto atheist. It's fine to not know for sure too though. The two terms aren't mutually exclusive - indeed, some would say that to combine the two (the absence of belief and the not knowing) is the only valid and honourable position.

 

[quimcunx]

maybe that's his character.
but when it comes to religion, I don't think he really understands how it works in real peoples' lives.

but then, I haven't actually read The God Delusion, so I'm not really speaking from a position of authority

At the start of The God Delusion I thought he came across as very defensive and it annoyed me a bit But I suppose that he had to answer his detractors.

The book improves considerably, IMO.

I prefer Unweaving The Rainbow.

 

[N_igma]

Didn't Dawkins say to be agnostic you'd need to have a fairly balanced view on both sides in order for that to be the case? In his eyes, there might be a 1% chance of God to exist but that doesn't equate a balanced chance, therefore he's not agnostic.

 

[onemonkey]

there's probably no god. and the probability is as near to one as makes no odds, but it can never be exactly one because one can never be certain of anything (outside of the complex tautologies of mathematics )

 

[Jon-of-arc]

He does say in his book that he doesnt deny 100% the possibility of there being a god (just 99.99999999%). By my understanding of the term, I suppose this leaves him as slightly agnostic. But my understanding is that he is still technically "without god" (the literal translation of atheism, I am told), as is anyone who is agnostic (in that they are not sure if he exists, so cannot really be "with god"), so this is more acknowledging the fact that he himself does not have omnipotent insight into the universe.

 

[danny la rouge]

I'm never very sure why non religious people take against Dawkins. He comes across to me as what he is: an Oxbridge don from a privileged liberal-patrician background, with a technical background in evolutionary genetics (so there's no point expecting him to write his popular science with the same tools as, say, Simon Blackburn writes popular philosophy - and, by the way, vice versa).

He holds a particular viewpoint, but he's courteous and personable, and, in my view, reasonable. Really; get to know the atheist 'community' - try reading Freethinker, for example, and you'll see strident scorn.

When reading something like the God Delusion, it's worth keeping in mind that his primary audience is American. While we may have a growing fundamentalist Christian/ Christian right, it has nothing like the power and influence of its American counterpart. And there's no point pussyfooting around that kind of power: it has to be addressed head-on.

Watch him in action here, talking to American students: . I can't see anything other than polite reason. He even towards the end, when somebody tells him something he hadn't considered, says something like "wow - I'd hadn't thought of it like that".

In the end, though, I guess we all just have personality things with people; some we like, some we don't.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

At the start of The God Delusion I thought he came across as very defensive and it annoyed me a bit But I suppose that he had to answer his detractors.

The book improves considerably, IMO.

I prefer Unweaving The Rainbow.

It sold a million copies.

 

[El Jefe]

i think the use of the word 'probably' is essential, for the reasons onemonkey states. Because surely the atheist position is one that is open to evidence to the contrary, unlike the theist.

 

[Knotted]

I agree that Dawkins doesn't understand religion, but I think his attitude is nevertheless spot on. I particularly like the fact he has no time for cultural relativism. I wish more evolutionary biologists were willing to take a stand against creationism like Dawkins does. He has the right idea even if it is executed poorly.

 

[JTG]

i think the use of the word 'probably' is essential, for the reasons onemonkey states. Because surely the atheist position is one that is open to evidence to the contrary, unlike the theist.

ime of theists, that isn't true

 

[El Jefe]

ime of theists, that isn't true

You think theists are open to new evidence and ideas?

 

[JTG]

yes

 

[kyser_soze]

Theists accept on faith what atheists demand evidence for, that's the essential difference between the two groups, surely?

Brilliant how the OP manages to completely misread what this campaigns about by about a zillion miles tho...

 

[El Jefe]

yes

You've been very very lucky, IMO.

 

[girasol]

there's probably no god. and the probability is as near to one as makes no odds, but it can never be exactly one because one can never be certain of anything (outside of the complex tautologies of mathematics )

Just like there's probably no life after death

or fairies

or ghosts

 

[weltweit]

I recall the last time I was in church, for harvest festival in which my child's school was taking part, I asked myself why am I humouring all these fools that believe there is a god! they are all misguided, then I remembered ah yes it is so that my child has a decent education in their school !

Were it not for that, I would not have been in the church at all.

There's probably no god!

no

There is no god!

 

[scifisam]

Personally, as a comitted 'model agnostic' ( http://brandnewparadigm.blogspot.com/2007/11/model-agnosticism.html ) - a position which rejects theism and atheism - i get a bit wound up by Dawkins promoting his so-called atheism.

You've thought about it that deeply, but still don't know what 'atheist' means? All it means is 'not a theist,' i.e. someone who doesn't believe in any God. It doesn't have to mean 'someone who says there definitely cannot be any God wherever by any definition nevernevernever so there!' Dawkins doesn't believe in any God, ergo he's an atheist.

 

[dilute micro]

I don't think Dawkins has the first idea what he is. He lacks the philosophical literacy to express himself coherently.

Dawkins is a special person.

 

[dilute micro]

You think theists are open to new evidence and ideas?

They are. Where have you been?

 

[Gromit]

I''ve borrowed God Delusion but have to finish a Stephen King novel first.

Which says something about my priorities

 

[JTG]

You've been very very lucky, IMO.

you're just not open to new ideas