Agnosticism and other related labels (Agnosticism)

by David Turell , Sunday, April 27, 2014, 16:15 (3642 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: ....by definition Dawkins is a weak agnostic.
> 
> dhw: I am unable to get the article you were referring to, and so I have no idea how it defines 'weak' agnostic. However, in the Wikipedia article to which Romansh referred me, the definition of weak agnostic is as follows:
> 
> Weak agnosticism (also called "soft", "open", "empirical", or "temporal agnosticism")
> The view that the existence or nonexistence of any deities is currently unknown but is not necessarily unknowable; therefore, one will withhold judgment until evidence, if any, becomes available. A weak agnostic would say, "I don't know whether any deities exist or not, but maybe one day, if there is evidence, we can find something out.-The newspaper search mechanism is weak. If you played with the index offer, the article can be found. What Dawkins said is exactly the Wiki you quoted above. 
> 
> dhw: I have not seen or heard any evidence to suggest that Dawkins has changed his position since writing The God Delusion, and I would suggest that his 6.9 out of seven certainty concerning his beliefs does not suggest that he is withholding judgement.-It was his response of 6.9 that raised the issue. A very slight sliver of an open mind.
> 
> DAVID: I find a 'weak' agnostic is an honest and strong thinker. At least he is open minded and not acting like a fundamentalist. We will never know is not a proper answer.
> 
> dhw:This is a little ambiguous. May I assume that you do not accept the claim that Dawkins is a weak agnostic?-He likes to claim he is. And I'm willing to accept it.