Dawkins\' Scale (Part Two) (Agnosticism)

by dhw, Sunday, January 06, 2013, 12:32 (4341 days ago) @ romansh

Part Two-dhw: 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.
ROM: Now personally I happen to think 'chance' is a better model of evolution, no matter how much some of us may misrepresent or misunderstand the concept of 'chance'. Regarding 'sin' - it was meant to be a joke.-My reference to chance was to the belief that the almost unfathomably complex mechanisms for life, reproduction, adaptation and innovation assembled themselves spontaneously. It suits some atheistic evolutionists to "misrepresent or misunderstand" this concept of 'chance' by focusing on evolution itself and not on the problem of origins. Sorry I missed the joke, but in that case, what was the point of your question about fideism?
 
ROM: yes strong and gnostic atheism I would agree are incompatible with agnosticism. it was not a game for me, but clarity. If a weak atheist can say I do not disbelieve in god then this individual might also be an agnostic. -For me atheism is disbelief in god(s). If someone says I do not believe or disbelieve in god(s), by my definition he is an agnostic, not an atheist. I find Dawkins' "technically agnostic but leaning towards theism/atheism" far less confusing than your weak atheist who might ALSO be an agnostic. -ROM: By some definitions we are atheists.-Which of course makes nonsense of your reference earlier to "THE atheist definition", and to the suggestion that "subjectivity versus objectivity is whole other discussion". It all depends on which definition people use (= subjectivity).-Dhw: 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.
ROM: So you have defined what "arrogant intolerance" is for you. Can you cite one instance where Dawkins has threatened another person? Because that is what your definition implies.-I very carefully used the word "or", and very carefully stressed that Dawkins "ridicules". My use of "threaten" was a reference to the religions which D. attacks (see my post of 02 January at 11.46 under 'Rabbi Sacks', where this discussion originated), all of which at one time or another have advocated violence against those who do not share their brand of faith. In other posts I have gone out of my way to point out that D. does NOT advocate violence (e.g. 1 January at 20.08 under 'Rabbi Sacks').-ROM: That Dawkins might go in with both feet and studs showing on religions that promote say female circumscision is far better to me, in my way of thinking, than being an apologist because we can never know the ultimate truth.-You don't have to be a militant atheist to abhor female circumcision, sexual discrimination, the ban on contraception, fatwahs or suicide bombers. My criticism of Dawkins has nothing whatsoever to do with his humanist principles, which I share, but with his ridicule of explanations which are no more and no less irrational than his own.-ROM: I have mentioned before agnosticism is not about being stuck up on some fence thinking we can see further because we understand there is ultimate truth. It is about being in the mud and the dirt.-I myself am stuck on the fence because I haven't a clue what the ultimate truth is. What you call the strong theists/atheists think they have, and one or other of them may be right. Because of my self-confessed ignorance I argue for tolerance, and I think it is a sign of arrogant intolerance if one party ridicules or threatens another party that has a different view from their own. However, if my subjective view of what constitutes ridicule, arrogance and intolerance is different from yours, we shall just have to agree to disagree.