Why does Professor Dawkins continually promote a fundamentalist Atheist Agenda?

Question

When if pushed on the matter, he will actually admit that he is an Agnostic (as any true Scientist must surely be)
Where are the Fundamental Agnostics promoting their Agenda thats what i want to know.?

Fred: You have made an incorrect judgement. I have NO specific religoius belief whatsoever! Hold back on your judgement.

Farien: Nope not confused at all, I phrased the question exactly as i intended. Definitions are always a problem but we can't stop that from allowing us to ask or say the things we need to say. The sentence ' I do not believe in God' makes as little sense as the sentence 'I do believe in God' precisely because there is not accepted definition for the word God.

Answer 1

Dawkins, to put it briefly is simply reacting to a host of writers in the scientific world to promote the existence of God. Paul Davis, for example, uses a mixture of cosmology and St. Thomas Aquinas to show how physics can prove the existence of God. PD writes well and his arguments are good and worth reading even if only to understand more about cosmology though Aquinas is a bit specious. Science has always developed through debate though, of course, there can simply, in this argument, be no proof either way.

Answer 2

There is a definitional problem going on. You see, some people like to separate atheists into a bunch of sub-groups or perhaps rate their degree of atheism on a spectrum.

At one end of the spectrum are the 'strong atheists', the strongest of which wouldn't believe in or worship a god EVEN IF they were provided with ample proof of such an entities' existance. At the other end are people who may simply have never been introduced to theistic ideas (babies, etc) or people who don't follow any particular set of theistic beliefs of practices.

As you can see, just about anyone who was agnostic would probably fit under a definition of 'weak atheism' by the above standard. And that's our problem - different people are calling the same set of ideas by completely different names. Some of the people who you or I might think of as agnostics, then, may instead self-identify as atheists. And vice versa.

There ARE actually some agnostic political action groups, but I don't know of any that are so strong that they specifically exclude even strong atheists from their ranks. Nor am I sure they should - so long as they agree on what they're doing, there's no reason not to allow even completely faithful theists to help them out (and some who prefer the separation of church and state DO help out such groups). So though you may find an organization whose mission statement doesn't include an overt statement of the nonexistance of the Divine, I doubt you'll find one without atheists and theists in it!

Links 2 and 3 are at least one example - the 'Freedom From Religion Foundation'. It may be one of the larger organizations with political motivations that at least overtly includes 'agnostics' in their goals.

Answer 3

Dawkins is a scientist and therefore can not except the existence of a god as he sees no scientific proof for the existence of this god (you have to ask the question what is scientific proof). However dawkins has little time for philosophy and yet uses language simular to that of a religious man when writing-see the God delusion. He steals many ideas from "berty" Russell an atheist who could only except that things exist and you should be grateful for that and it is just brute fact. He steals his analogy of the fact that god can prove to the same extent that it can be proved that there is a red tea pot in orbit around mars!"

Answer 4

F C could not be more wrong. I am an Atheist, and not because of anger. Get your facts straight before commenting. There are no logical answers to the existence of a god. A true scientist does not have to be agnostic. I know many that are believers, agnostics, and atheists. He can do what he wants.

Answer 5

I thought i was an atheist until i read Sophists description. I'll believe in god, just give me the proof, without it, its just fanciful thinking. I thought an Agnostic stood on the fence, sort of like not commiting one way or the other. I've committed one way, and that's to say there is no god because there's no proof. But i still have an out, i'll believe...just give me the proof.

Answer 6

The only difference between an atheist and an agnostic is the the atheist say, "There is no God" while the agnostic says, "If you prove it to me, I'll believe it." That is the only difference in their fundamentalist agenda.

Answer 7

He's not fundamentalist. Just because he's passionate doesn't mean he's fundamentalist. It's important to understand the content.. the definition of the word fundamentalist. Fundamentalism is closed-mindnedness.. a belief in something so fervent that you will not change your mind.. no matter how much contrary evidence you're presented with. He's not a fundamentalist because, as he and Sam Harris have said, they know what it would take to change their respective minds.

He says he's agnostic because you can't definitively PROVE a negative. Strictly speaking (as he always says) you also have to be "agnostic" about zeus and unicorns and the flying spaghetti monster. Can you "prove" that those things "don't" exist? How do you go about "proving" that something "doesn't exist," anyway? It's shades of gray.. it's reasons for believing.. and reasons for disbelieving.. on a sliding scale. Those who refuse to see shades of gray are fundamentalists. I'll admit that Dawkins does not do much to acknowledge the many relatively open-minded liberal christians. But, as Sam Harris says, that's not the god that's getting people killed. And their criticism of moderates is.. I mean they say that when you get too much into this feel-good diplomatic "well everyone has their beliefs and no one's are any better than anyone else's".. that you're actually defending people who really do have insanely literalistic interpretations of scripture.

As Sam Harris has said, it would only take a few minutes for God or Jesus to demonstrate to his satisfaction that he really is a god.. and really does have all these magical superpowers that people claim for him. But he doesn't see that. What he sees is nothing that can't be better explained in the language of science. "But I can't believe everything that happens to me is just chance." Well that's really superstitious and it's really self-centered. The world doesn't revolve around you, asshole. Things happen.. good things happen that make us happy.. and things happen that cause us suffering. What Dawkins, Harris, and I see is a world without God.. with the religious bending over backwards to rationalize suffering.. to rationalize fear of death.. to rationalize fear of having to really think about morality.. to rationalize the absence of God. If something happens, and you say that shows God's power.. and then the exact opposite happens.. and you say that that Also demonstrates God's power.. a fundamentalist flag should be thrown. If there is nothing that can happen that would dissuade you from your belief in god (or in anything else).. then your belief is, by definition, out of touch with reality.. and fundamentalist.

If God came out of heaven and appeared to Dawkins and did all sorts of magic tricks.. and it was shown to a reasonable certainty that he wasn't suffering some neurological impairment.. and he insisted that he still doesn't believe.,. then he might be said to be fundamentalist.. if he rejected clear-cut evidence for God.. just because it contradicted a deeply held previous belief of his.

"But," you will object, "God just doesn't show himself with displays of magic.. he wants us to seek him." Really? I think that's a rationalization. I think this "hide and seek" God looks a lot like a God that isn't really there at all in the first place.

Answer 8

Hi there..
you are wrong about Dawkins, he will NEVER admit to agnostic. There is no room in the universe for anything bigger than his ego and that is the way he is.
Atheism is his religion and he bangs on about it to publicise himself and to win converts, pure and simple.
I have read his book and although a competent scientist he is no great thinker - his language slips into the slack language of bombast and rigidity that he accuses religious folks of following, with huge gaps just as large that can only be met in the same way - by faith, in his case a huge faith that he is right that has no proof (and is inherently unproveable).
Cheers, Steve.

Answer 9

Gosh, that was one vague, cumbersome question. Which is it you're asking about, 'fundamentalist atheists' or 'fundamentalist agnostics'? (Neither of which actually exist). And what is it exactly you want to know? You want to know why Dawkins publishes his viewpoint? Or do you want to know why agnostics DON'T publish THEIR viewpoints? What the hell? Why does ANYONE publish or promote their viewpoints? Because they feel strongly about that viewpoint. Is this some kind of surprise to you for some reason? Are you feeling ok?

Answer 10

He, like most atheists or agnostics, see bad things in the world and come to the conclusion that there must not be a god, or at least one that is as good as believers claim. They are angry at what they see, and in Hawkins' situation, he is angry at his own misfortune. They deny the existence of God through this anger, as though their denial can condemn Him into non existence.