Richard Dawkins quote regarding agnostics: "Fence-sitting, intellectual cowards

[Argent]

So with that as an explanation, how do you define agnosticism?

The belief that theists and atheists are too decisive.

 

[Frank Apisa]

Dawkins was an excellent biologist. He's also an asshole.


Unicorns do not exist. And yet, I know many facts about unicorns. E.g. they have a horn, they have hooves, they are a solid white color, they do not have wings.

There is no cognitive difference in the way a human brain stores facts about unicorns than it does facts about horses.

I.e. Saying "I know X" does not obligate me to believe that X is an actual, existing, physical object. This is mere sophistry, which does not even try to understand the agnostic's position.

Agnostics are not "cowards." They certainly don't get any social benefit from saying "I'm not sure." They just haven't made up their mind about what they believe, or think humans will never have the answer, and that's their choice.

I gave you a "Like" on this, Visbek...but it deserves a hell of a lot more.

I love it.

Beautiful reasoning and exposition.

Thank you.

 

[soylentgreen]

The humility of not knowing is a virtue IMO.

The opposite of a die hard atheist or true believer.

Reminds me of this quote from Socrates "all I know is that I know nothing".

Actually, all you are admitting there is that you do not know socrates. Otherwise you would not be printing an obvious paradox and suggesting its meaning is that no one can know anything.

Socrates also stated :
Socrates argued that knowledge is a virtue. Without understanding the true nature of things, it’s impossible to do good deeds, be brave, or act justly. So only through knowledge can we achieve virtuosity because it allows us to be aware of our actions.

He also aligned himself with the inscription in the Delphic temple: “know thyself”

There is nothing wrong with being a hard atheist or even a true believer on any subject let alone god. But only if the position is based on good reasoning. and knowledge.

 

[soylentgreen]

I do not even use descriptors any longer. Hours are spent explaining what atheist means...or what agnostic means.
I describe my position on the major issue:




I do not know if any GOD (or gods) exist or not;
I see no reason to suspect that gods cannot exist…that the existence of a GOD or gods is impossible;
I see no reason to suspect that at least one GOD must exist...that the existence of at least one GOD is needed to explain existence;
I do not see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess in either direction on whether any gods exist or not...so I don't.

(When I use the word "GOD or gods" here, I mean "The entity (or entities) responsible for the creation of what we humans call 'the physical universe'...IF SUCH AN ENTITY OR ENTITIES ACTUALLY EXIST.)

Most people who comment on it describe it as an agnostic take. Seems to me that it is.

You really do not understand the contradiction in your statements. The very fact that you cannot see a reason for the existence of a god is in itself a reason to consider gods do not exist.

 

[Frank Apisa]

You really do not understand the contradiction in your statements. The very fact that you cannot see a reason for the existence of a god is in itself a reason to consider gods do not exist.

Nonsense.

But you apparently do not understand how little sense that actually makes.

Whatever. The world will go on.

 

[watsup]

The belief that theists and atheists are too decisive.

That is a critique of atheists and theists, not a statement of the defintion of agnosticism indef which you operate.

 

[j brown's body]

Reminds me of a line from Catch-22,:

"But the God I don't believe in is a good God, a just God, a merciful God. He's not the mean and stupid God you make him out to be."

 

[Argent]

That is a critique of atheists and theists, not a statement of the defintion of agnosticism indef which you operate.

It is how I see agnostics. You want agnostics, who are indecisive, to be decisive about defining themselves. I doubt they can due to their indecisiveness.

When I searched "types of agnostics", I got a list of 7 types. When I searched "types of atheists", I got 4 types from one source and 7 from another. This is why I have a pet peeve about defining ourselves whatever the convo is about -- whatever definition we use boxes us in and brings along with it negative stereotypes associated with the label. I prefer instead to discuss, perhaps in boring detail, my opinions and avoid the labels as much as possible.

 

[soylentgreen]

Nonsense.

But you apparently do not understand how little sense that actually makes.

Whatever. The world will go on.

You have given yourself your own good reason not to believe in a god. And you don't even know it.

 

[Frank Apisa]

You have given yourself your own good reason not to believe in a god. And you don't even know it.

What I said is: It is possible there are no gods and it is possible there is at least one.

If you think that is flawed, you are wrong.

As I said, there is nothing wrong with you being wrong...or with you insisting that you are not.

So...have at it.

 

[soylentgreen]

What I said is: It is possible there are no gods and it is possible there is at least one.

If you think that is flawed, you are wrong.

As I said, there is nothing wrong with you being wrong...or with you insisting that you are not.

So...have at it.

An absurdity. It is either there is a god or there is not. Not both there is and is not a god.
There is plenty wrong with you trying to pass off an absurdity as reason.

 

[WillyPete]

Possibly I'm missing something , but this has always seemed simple enough to me.

I don't believe in god but I can't prove it to my own satisfaction, so as a nod to that possibility, and because we have only a limited view of reality, I call myself an agnostic.

If some contorted notion that because a concept exists, then the reality necessarily exists floats your boat, have fun with that.

But that's is not satisfactory for my purposes. Reality doesn't play word games.

 

[Frank Apisa]

An absurdity.

Nothing absurd about it at all.

It is either there is a god or there is not.

Either no gods exist...or at least one exists.

We agree on that.

Not both there is and is not a god.

There IS the POSSIBILITY that no gods exist...

AND there IS the POSSIBILITY that at least one god exists.

There is plenty wrong with you trying to pass off an absurdity as reason.

Not sure why you are having so much problem with this, but there is nothing absurd about my statements...and both are logical.

 

[watsup]

Nothing absurd about it at all.



Either no gods exist...or at least one exists.

We agree on that.



There IS the POSSIBILITY that no gods exist...

AND there IS the POSSIBILITY that at least one god exists.


Not sure why you are having so much problem with this, but there is nothing absurd about my statements...and both are logical.

Can you be any more boring? I’m sure you can.

 

[Phys251]

Who cares what a contemptible piece of shit like Dawkins thinks? Good grief.

I agree, but the opposite extreme of a wrong thing is not necessarily a right thing.

 

[soylentgreen]

Nothing absurd about it at all.



Either no gods exist...or at least one exists.

We agree on that.



There IS the POSSIBILITY that no gods exist...

AND there IS the POSSIBILITY that at least one god exists.


Not sure why you are having so much problem with this, but there is nothing absurd about my statements...and both are logical.

Repeating your absurdity does not make it any better. You can choose between there is or there is not. Not you can claim both are equal choices.
Both are logical as independent choices. they are an absurdity when claiming they are both the choice you make.

 

[watsup]

Word salad.

Having a word for an idea and knowing what that idea represents is entirely different from knowing whether that idea reflects reality.

What are you saying reflects reality?

 

[watsup]

"Intellectual coward"? Not an agnostic, but cannot fathom the goal of the nasty and overly aggressive name-calling over philosophy.

If some prefer to leave the question open, why should anyone else care? Does anyone really think you can argue and browbeat someone else into changing their beliefs? No one ever got their mind changed by someone else. I wouldn't want to live in a world where they could.

I am just trying to figure out what exactly it is that agnostics claim cannot be known. If they give the item that can’t be known a name, then aren’t they already admitting that it can at least be known in some manner through the definition or description associated with that name? And if they can’t name what it is that can’t be known, then how do they know that it can’t be known? The whole thing just seems like an exercise in contradictions and, like so much of philosophy, leads exactly nowhere except right back where it started.

 

[watsup]

Yeah, I'm a skeptic, but I think even Dawkins has admitted at times that we can't be absolutely sure a God does NOT exist. Sure it may be highly improbable. But to get all dogmatic about it? Not sure that's necessary, or a good thing.

Dawkins said a lot of things and even often contradicted himself, so which Dawkins are we talking about?

 

[watsup]

It is how I see agnostics. You want agnostics, who are indecisive, to be decisive about defining themselves. I doubt they can due to their indecisiveness.

When I searched "types of agnostics", I got a list of 7 types. When I searched "types of atheists", I got 4 types from one source and 7 from another. This is why I have a pet peeve about defining ourselves whatever the convo is about -- whatever definition we use boxes us in and brings along with it negative stereotypes associated with the label. I prefer instead to discuss, perhaps in boring detail, my opinions and avoid the labels as much as possible.

That is why I invited my agnostic friends to engage the thread, because there are quite a few very smart people on this forum from whom I have learned a lot.

 

[ataraxia]

Dawkins said a lot of things and even often contradicted himself, so which Dawkins are we talking about?

I know. I tend to agree more with the Dawkins in that video link I posted. God could exist, Allah COULD exist, Shinto gods COULD exist, Santa COULD exist, parallel universes COULD exist, Bigfoot COULD exist, a teapot orbiting Saturn COULD exist (that's Dawkins' own example, as you may know, BTW), string theory COULD be true, etc, etc....



It COULD be that everything we know as reality is just some evil alien scientists doing an experiment on us by inputting sensory input into our brains, which are really just sitting in a vat in a lab hooked up to some electrodes somewhere out in some alien extrasolar planet, a little like the Matrix movies or something. Who really knows?

I would not deny any of those things COULD exist. I'm open to any possibilities. As puny mortal humans, we are always limited by only our latest observations and experiences- and they are always limited and fallible. So it's best to always be open to new observations and paradigms, even if they may be uncomfortable and make us have to reevaluate everything we thought we knew. It's the PROCESS of always being open to experience and new ideas and learning and growing that's important, not the final destination or Ultimate Truth (which I don't think we could ever reach, and even if we did we could never be sure it's the final one anyway...).

But now if someone asks me what are the ODDS of those things being true, like Dawkins in that video, I would say based on what we know now miniscule and negligible. And what I would definitely start getting alarmed over is if someone would tell me that those things existing mean particular social policy, ethical, or political positions. I draw the line there. I firmly believe those types of questions can be answered on their own merit entirely, and not at all dependent on the potential existence of any of those other things.

 

[eman623]

I am just trying to figure out what exactly it is that agnostics claim cannot be known. If they give the item that can’t be known a name, then aren’t they already admitting that it can at least be known in some manner through the definition or description associated with that name? And if they can’t name what it is that can’t be known, then how do they know that it can’t be known? The whole thing just seems like an exercise in contradictions and, like so much of philosophy, leads exactly nowhere except right back where it started.

Again, not an agnostic, but agnostics basically argue the burden of proof is on the person making the claim. This is true for those who say there is a God and those who say there is not a God.

Of course atheists will point to Occam's Razor, which is not a proof, only a rule of thumb. The simplest solution is not always the correct one.

Generally I find such discussions boring now. I've been all over the map on this. I was raised Jehovah's Witness, then became a atheist for while, then was an agnostic. Been there done that.

Nowadays I take an entirely different approach to belief. I eschew logic, observations, faith, any and all reasons. There are no reasons. I put reasons aside, looked within myself and found that I believe in God. Regardless whether He actually exists or not.

 

[AConcernedCitizen]

Either no gods exist...or at least one exists.

Or 1/2 a god exists. Or 3/16 of a god. There is actually an infinite quantity of possible gods that don't fall into either of those categories.

 

[AConcernedCitizen]

Again, not an agnostic, but agnostics basically argue the burden of proof is on the person making the claim. This is true for those who say there is a God and those who say there is not a God.

That is where the special pleading of those sorts of agnostics shows its colours. They assume the nonexistence of an infinite number or possibilities every moment of every day based on a lack of evidence for them, but make a special exception when it comes to gods.

You don't see agnostics swerving to avoid an invisible elephant in the road that may or may not be there just in case it is. They assume that there is not an invisible elephant in the road because they haven't been given any reason to believe that there is.

Everyone in this forum is staking their very life on the nonexistence of a deadly curse on their keyboard every time they touch it.

 

[AConcernedCitizen]

There IS the POSSIBILITY that no gods exist...

Maybe. But there might also be the possibility that there is no possibility that that no gods exits.

AND there IS the POSSIBILITY that at least one god exists.

Do you have any evidence for that claim? If there is proof that it is impossible that at least one god exists, then there is no possibility that at least one god exists.