From the article it seems Higgs for the most part agrees with Dawkins, he just doesn’t like his approach. Maybe Higgs wants to be seen as “good cop.”
Really?
Also
Does that really sound like Dawkins? Really?
Yes.
No it sounds more like Stephen J Gould and his separated magisteria bullshit.
BTW, good cop and bad cop don’t try to sound the same.
If you came away from that article believing anything other than the fact that Higgs wants to put as much distance between himself and dogmatists like Dawkins as possible, then I would suggest that you’re probably a bit too invested in whatever Dawkins is peddling. Of course that’s just my opinion.
I came away from it thinking that both of them don’t believe in God and both of them think that Christianity is irrational. One guy likes to make a big deal about it and the other guy wants to play nice.
I like Dawkin’s though. Always have. By the way you are characterizing him I would guess you are a bit too invested in some sort of invisible friend scenario that some preacher is pushing. Yes?
I figured you would think that but no, hardcore agnostic here (irony intended). I have equal disdain for dogmatism of all flavors, even the scientific kind. That said, I think it’s pretty clear from the article that Higgs sees no inherent inconsistency between religion and science whereas from what I know of Dawkins, that seems to be a central tenet of his ‘faith.’
Hardcore fence sitter, eh?
What fence? 
Why do you think atheism is dogmatic?
I don’t mind answering that, but we were already straying dangerously close to derailing the thread so I’m going to try to be brief but hopefully not cryptic. Also unless the mods deem it acceptable I probably won’t follow up - at least not here.
If my understanding of atheism is correct, and i’m willing to accept that for some people the definition may be something closer to agnosticism, then someone professing atheism is at least professing the negation of a proposition. So a theist would say at least that some higher power exists for example while at a minimum an atheist would affirmatively deny that possibility. An agnostic would hold no opinion for or against if he/she even recognized the question.
To my mind, that unqualified negation constitutes a dogmatic position.
so you are agnostic about Unicorns? Dragons? Fairies? Smurfs? A teapot in orbit around Venus? Every other god ever thought up by mankind in the history of mankind? Why are you agnostic about this one single thing that has less supporting evidence than Santa? If I tell you the Creation myth of Raven and how he created the world, how he put the sun and the moon in the sky, (then later in a separate event created the tides) will you also be agnostic about Raven as the Creator? If you cannot show even the tiniest supporting evidence for a higher power then you are making stuff up.
This is the flaw with agnostics, you are under the misguided idea that because a lot of people believe something is true it must have some merit. The reality is that all the evidence, Every single last shred of it, is on the side of God/s being man made. There is no logic behind giving this one preposterous idea merit and no others the same level of merit. It is also a side effect of the kind of flawed thinking that led me to make this thread in the first place.
That all sounds like you learned your definitions from a Christian book. Most atheists will simply tell you they don’t believe in any gods, the same as they don’t believe in any of those other mythical beasts that critical1 mentioned. Holding no opinion for or against any of such beasts sounds either silly or dishonest.
Disclosure: Agnostic. I consider the question unknowable at present time so don’t trouble myself with it. I can say that I disbelieve any of the existing religious theologies.
I’ve always hated that line of argument that God is comparable to unicorns and dragons. Are we fairly sure they’ve never existed here? Sure. Are we sure they’ve never existed anywhere? Absolutely not. Universe is a big place and all that. Alpha Centauri, or some other random heavenly body, may be teeming with the damn things for all we know.
But all that is besides the point. God, as a concept of the creater, (theoretically) wouldn’t be subject to the same limitations as us normal creatures and may exist completely outside of our universe, in another dimension, or somewhere we haven’t even thought of yet for all we know. Until more information is available to us about the creation of the universe and what, if anything, exists in the far reaches and outside the universe, the question is simply unanswerable. Kind of like, “Do aliens exist?” Maybe. Who knows?
That’s irrational.
Do you have any evidence at all, given the laws of the universe as we understand them, that even hints at the possibility that any deity from any religion has ever told anyone anything at any time? Just the littlest hint that the supernatural may exist someplace other than the insides of peoples heads?
Fire breathing, Flying dragons as typically portrayed are beyond the realm of physics. Simply not possible, But lets play that game and say you are correct, some where orbiting one of the trillions of stars there is a planet with dragons exactly as myth tells us they exist. We still have no evidence, nor do we have any way of knowing this. That the person who came up with the idea of dragons made it up is the only reasonable answer. Of course god is comparable to all the other fairy tales, he/she/it has the exact same supporting evidence.
Just out of curiosity, is there any silly, insanely outrageous claim about anything that you don’t think is possible or are agnostic about? or is it just this one thing?
The notion that god exists outside the universe is one that is unsupported by even the bible, (AFAIK) and is clearly made up to dodge the “Begging the question” fallacy that it is. Even if there is something outside of our universe, something that could have gotten things rolling in the beginning, There is still zero evidence to support this claim.
(Re Aliens) there is evidence that aliens CAN exist, we are here. So now that we know life is possible in this unfathomably immense universe, and given that the elements that gave rise to us are common in the universe, it is not a big leap to realize that there is certainly a chance that other life has begun in other parts of the universe. How big that chance is is up for debate, but we know beyond a shadow of a doubt that the possibility is there.
I feel like you’re getting bogged down by my examples.
My overall point was: No we don’t have current evidence. Yes it may still be possible however unlikely. My default status is to disregard the question until more evidence, yea or nay, is forthcoming.
I don’t trouble myself with the questions because I have absolutely no means of answering them.
As it stands, I work on the supposition that I’m on my own, but that’s by no means definitive, as human perception and technology is limited and there may be information that we don’t know that we don’t know. I thereby reserve the right to change opinions if more information becomes available, though I deem that unlikely.
It’s impossible to know that God does not exist, of course. It is a big universe. But if God came down and did whatever tricks required to convince you, wouldn’t you know that God does exist? If the Exodus story were true, I think Moses knew God existed.
And the only thing you need to be an atheist is to lack belief in unicorns because of the lack of evidence.
All well and good, but any God worthy of the name could make his presence known in a way we could sense it. All religions agree with this. If he hasn’t, either he doesn’t exist or he doesn’t give a crap about us. I can invent all sorts of things that are similar - are you agnostic about them also?
As for aliens, it is possible that they, not being god, can’t contact us. But I’m sure you agree that the existence of aliens is knowable, even if their nonexistence is not.
The sleight of hand practiced by religions is to say God has interacted with us to give us all kinds of rules, and then, when pressed, say God is hiding in some sort of other dimension and is unknowable. One or the other, guys.
I suppose you could call me a soft atheist, but I think agnostic fits the bill better. I see a firm statement that there is no creator as much of a supposition as positively saying there is a creator.
I can think of a half-dozen possible reasons why a God entity wouldn’t or couldn’t get involved with humans. So I can’t take that as evidence that there is no such entity.
Yes, I suppose you could say I’m agnostic on lots of things. I guess it could be said that I work on probabilities. There is a 99.99999% chance the sun will rise tomorrow. Will I say the sun will definitely rise tomorrow? Probably not if you pose that question. I’ll hedge that a number of occurrences could cause the sun to not rise tomorrow, no matter how infinitesimal their probability.
You probably couldn’t even get to me say that what I’m currently experiencing right now is a definite as I can think of situations (matrix like existence, perhaps I’m an incredibly vivid dream, etc) that could be possible. I work with the existing information at hand and respond appropriately. As I said previously, since I have no other information, I operate on the supposition that I’m on my own, but don’t discount the possibility that there could be much more than what our current understanding tell us. And I don’t let the question trouble me as I have no possible means of determining either yea or nay with present information.
I truly believe it is the very stupid or the very prejudiced who cannot understand science or cannot reconcile it with their own bigotry that has so many people come out as anti-science.
If what I believe and what science has proven conflicts, then it is up to me to change what I believe, not demonize science for what I think should be reality