Question (Agnosticism)

by dhw, Sunday, May 08, 2011, 12:29 (4948 days ago) @ Nolander

NOLANDER: I wanted to make a clarification on the quote you took from The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins. 
You mentioned,
"Dawkins, astonishingly, maintains that "atheists do not have faith" (p. 51), and yet it is his belief that science will one day come up with the answer, and the answer will be "no God". Since this entails the miracles of life (we shall discuss these later) having come into existence by sheer chance, he believes in the miraculous powers of chance as well as the ability of science to answer all the questions. "
I read through the book and have seen many of his Q&A meetings, and Dawkins doesn't imply atheists have no faith in his book or in his more recent meetings / documentaries with people. The quote is taken out of context on this webpage, since he was referring to Jung, which was just as fanatic as the strong theist for believing in total and absolute knowledge. Dawkins already mentioned on the same page that he would be quite surprised to meet someone in the 7 category of this spectrum, but yet he finds many people in category 1, and 2 which make up a large category in today's world. I, personally, have yet to find someone who falls into category 7 too, if it is possible to do so. Dawkins broke up the categories to define where people stand on a topic of god. The quote you took tried to imply that atheist have absolute knowledge or god like knowledge where you appeared to be trying to distort the basis of the book.-First of all, welcome to the forum. I'm both sorry and surprised that you should feel I have taken Dawkins' statement out of context, which is a serious charge. Here is the context of Dawkins' remark (p. 51 in my hardback edition), category 7 being the strong atheist who "knows" there is no God, just as Jung "knows" there is oneAWKINS: I'd be surprised to meet many people in category 7, but I include it for symmetry with category 1, which is well populated. It is in the nature of faith that one is capable, like Jung, of holding a belief without adequate reason to do so (Jung also believed that particular books on his shelf spontaneously exploded with a loud bang). Atheists do not have faith; and reason alone could not propel one to total conviction that anything definitely does not exist.-The statement that atheists do not have faith is made by Dawkins, denigrating Jung ... and in the context I can't see how this can be interpreted as meaning anything other than atheists do not hold "a belief without adequate reason to do so". The fact that atheists can't say they "know" - though I am acquainted with some who do! - does not mean that the beliefs of Category 6 are not just as faith-based as those of Category 2, and having faith does not automatically mean claiming knowledge. In company with many atheists, Dawkins does not recognize that belief in science coming up with the answers, and in the ability of chance to assemble the mechanisms of life and evolution, constitutes faith just as he has defined it. This faith is precisely what underlies his "assumption" that God is not there (p. 51).I don't know how you can interpret this as my twisting Dawkins' statement to mean that atheists have absolute knowledge - or have I misunderstood your comment? Perhaps you can explain, or provide me with a quote to that effect. Meanwhile, what I have quoted is not even an implication. It is as explicit as can be. It is possible that Dawkins has moderated his tone in "more recent" meetings. The God Delusion was published in 2006, and I wrote my reply in 2007. I'd be grateful if you could supply us with a statement in which he now acknowledges that atheists do have faith. -NOLANDER: The Greek word, gnostic, translates "to know" and vice versa for agnostic meaning "to not know." I think you are comparing apples to oranges by trying to put atheism-theism, and agnosticism on the same plain. It also makes no sense, because where are the gnostics or gnosticism? -I don't understand what part of my text you're referring to here. The Greek derivation is hardly relevant in the modern context. Huxley coined the term "agnosticism" as meaning the impossibility of knowing whether or not God exists. Epistemology has taught us that absolute knowledge is impossible anyway (I'm with Dawkins on this), and current use of the term has expanded it to mean an inability to decide whether God exists or not, i.e. to embrace belief or disbelief. As for Gnostics, they could never agree among themselves what did and didn't constitute knowledge, which is scarcely surprising, but I would argue that all three categories (theism, atheism and agnosticism) are concerned with belief, disbelief and non-belief, and not with knowledge. My apologies, though, if I've misunderstood this section of your post.-A note to David: I am not "hiding"! Nolander posted the question on Saturday at 19.30. I didn't see it till Sunday morning, and am replying as quickly as domestic commitments will allow. Please remember the time difference between GB and USA!