Dawkins\' Scale (Part Two) (Agnosticism)

by dhw, Friday, January 04, 2013, 13:02 (4343 days ago) @ dhw

Part Two-ROMANSH: Regarding gnostic agnosticism (I know we cannot know). Speaking personally I have to keep reminding myself that all I can truly say is "I don't know". If I add "but I believe" then am I not committing the sin of fideism?-I don't know why you regard fideism as a sin. Ultimately, religious belief like belief in the creative powers of chance has to rest on faith, since no-one knows the ultimate truth. In my view, having faith is no more a sin than not having faith. Personally, I do not see reason (or science) as the only reliable guide to truth.-dhw: For me, a moderate atheist would be one who is not TOTALLY convinced of God's non-existence, in which case he is allowing for some possibility that God does exist, so there is no mutual exclusion between atheism and agnosticism. 
ROMANSH: Then by your definition Dawkins is a moderate, is he not?-Fair comment. I should have stuck to Dawkins' excellent scale of probabilities. A moderate would be his category 5. However, I will stick to my claim that mutual exclusion only applies to 100% conviction. If you want concrete figures here, I can provide them, though I would regard the exercise as "childish" (your epithet ... very unjust in my view ... for Dawkins' scale). I take "mutually exclusive" to be an absolute, and I will use "compatible" for its opposite. Therefore atheism/theism and agnosticism are mutually exclusive when the former are 100%. If an atheist claims 99% certainty, his beliefs are 1% compatible with theism and agnosticism, and hence we do not have mutual exclusion. If you do not consider "mutually exclusive" to be an absolute, its relativity will be in accordance with the percentages each individual allots to his convictions. (I too can play games!)-Dhw: I likened Dawkins' arrogant intolerance to that of the religious fundamentalists he attacks.
ROMANSH: You are missing my point here dhw. In what light should I perceive your attacks on Dawkins?-I have explained that by "arrogant intolerance" I mean an approach that ridicules or threatens other people and their beliefs on the grounds that the speaker is convinced that he knows the truth. Dawkins ridicules religious beliefs, calls believers "deluded" and advocates the eradication of their faith. I regard that as arrogant intolerance. If I've missed your point, do please put me right.