Dawkins the Agnostic?

During the course of his discussion with the archbishop of Canterbury, Richard Dawkins described himself as an agnostic (i.e he doesn't know whether or not God exists). Superficially this is a fine sentiment to have. The agnostic position is somewhat distorted nowadays because it is used by those with a sense of humility towards knowledge (such as Richard Dawkins) and those who simply do not want to express an opinion or be held to having to prove their case.

Agnosticism was intellectually invented by T.H. Huxley. Formerly the position that Huxley used it to describe was called negative atheism. Negative atheism is the position that there is no evidence for the existence of God. One holds it by expressing a view that all the arguments for the existence of God are inconclusive. However, it does leave open the possibility of new evidence changing that assessment. So it is effectively a 'provisional undecided' vote.

What I found disheartening about the subsequent comments was that there was no firm line drawn between a particular conception of God (in this case, Christian views) and the broad notion of a "supernatural creator". I say above that agnosticism is superficially fine because if it were the most general notion that were in debate it would be impossible to totally refute the claim that the universe was created by a being outside of nature. This does not translate to not being able to disprove particular beliefs or conceptions though. There is ample evidence that the God of Christianity (and the various deities of other faiths) are mythological constructions. Therefore one could rightly challenge the assertion of a particular God's existence with the purpose of disproving that claim.