Are you an atheist or theist? Do you believe in God; or do you not? Or are you an agnostic who believes at this time we can neither know of the existence or non-existence of God, but we may know later in time? May you even say that knowing the existence/non-existence of God is forever unreachable?
These are all brilliant questions to ponder. However is agnosticism justified and is being on the fence of belief really a safe position? In this article I wrestle with the formality of Professor Dawkins argument against agnosticism in his NYT bestseller "The God Delusion".
In "The God Dilusion", Richard Dawkins makes some excellent points when comes agnosticism. He acknowledges that it does have somewhat of a case when looked at in a present tense. Like when Carl Sagan said that he was "agnostic about if there is life outside of this Universe". Now this was a intelligent question to ask and when it came to knowing the answer he didn't presently know, but that doesn't mean that we will never know.
Dawkins also says that their are only two types agnostics; TAP (temporary agnostic in practice) and the least loved PAP (permanent agnostic in principle). Now he acknowledges that being a "TAP" is a fine position, but dismisses PAP as arrogance, because we may not know. However we may know later in time when we will build up more evidence. It is also a silly argument to go on the assumption of being a permanent agnostic, because it is either one way or the other, and science may later find out the definitive answer.
Later in his chapter he speaks of a 7 type spectrum of belief in God.
One is absolutely certain there is a God
Two is quite certain there is a God (de facto theist)
Three is not for certain but more likely to believe
Four (he says) is neither believe or disbelieve (on the fence)
Five is also not for certain but more likely to disbelieve
Six is again quite certain but leaning toward nonbelief or reverse of two (de facto atheist)
And last, but not least; Seven is absolutely know there is no god above us!
Richard classifies himself as six, but leaning toward seven; I'm quite certain there is no God but would be inclined to be more certain then a "de facto atheist".
Lastly Dawkins qoutes the great Bertand Russell for his celestial teapot parable to show us how silly the "God Hypothesis" really is. He presents the point that most people would consider the idea too crazy to be true and that although we can't disprove the idea right now; we are likely to be teapot agnostics or even more likely a-teapotist.
This has been a review of the points made in Richard Dawkins book "The God Dilusion" and is provided to better understand the question of "Is Atheism Justified" by James Tangen.
