1. Darwin not using the word apes did not negate his theory that we shared common ancestors with other primates. Not a bombshell at all.
2. If Dawkins likes to call himself an "agnostic" it still does not change the fact that he does not hold a belief in any god. I think he needs to adjust to the term "agnostic atheist".
When a scientist or atheist agrees that we "cant know anything with 100% certainty", that is not the same meaning as a layperson uses. In science and good use of logic you speak in terms of statistical probability.
I am sure that Dawkins would put the possibility of a god existing at 0.000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 probability. Especially not all currently held god claims.
So the "cant know" merely is a semantic statement referring to any possible future discoveries.
2. If Dawkins likes to call himself an "agnostic" it still does not change the fact that he does not hold a belief in any god. I think he needs to adjust to the term "agnostic atheist".
When a scientist or atheist agrees that we "cant know anything with 100% certainty", that is not the same meaning as a layperson uses. In science and good use of logic you speak in terms of statistical probability.
I am sure that Dawkins would put the possibility of a god existing at 0.000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 probability. Especially not all currently held god claims.
So the "cant know" merely is a semantic statement referring to any possible future discoveries.
