The Dawkins Scale
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
18-08-2015, 06:01 PM
RE: The Dawkins Scale
I was 7. Now I am 2.

English is my second language.
I AM DEPLORABLE AND IRREDEEMABLE
SHE PERSISTED WE RESISTED
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-08-2015, 06:02 PM
RE: The Dawkins Scale
(18-08-2015 05:25 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(18-08-2015 03:20 PM)Stevil Wrote:  Let's get one thing straight, knowledge is a subset of belief therefore knowledge is a belief.

No. Just no. It's not. It's something entirely different from belief.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xYfdTNkmGE
1:18-1:28

https://youtu.be/tg2itM5-cdM
0:42-2:26

http://alochonaa.com/2014/04/23/what-is-...knowledge/
"Plato, in his writings described knowledge as “true belief with an account (logos).”
we can assume that, there are three minimum conditions for knowledge. They are, 1. True (it must be true) 2. Believe (we must actually believe it. Belief must be consciously held), 3. Justification is present (there must be sufficient evidence for it)."

http://www.centerforinquiry.net/forums/viewthread/5183/
"(1) To know something you do not need to be certain about it. You simply need to have a firm belief. (Unless by “certainty” you simply mean “firm belief”).

(2) To believe something firmly, first you need to believe it. Belief is not replaced by knowledge, rather, knowledge is a subset of belief."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-08-2015, 06:15 PM
RE: The Dawkins Scale
(18-08-2015 05:28 PM)Matt Finney Wrote:  As far as I can tell, he's talking about nature, not what we're all talking about, and by our definition of god, he would be an atheist.

Panentheism. Not naturalism because natural laws are just an aspect of God, nature is in God but God is bigger than naturalism..

There is only one really serious philosophical question, and that is suicide. -Camus
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-08-2015, 06:49 PM
RE: The Dawkins Scale
(18-08-2015 04:38 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(18-08-2015 04:20 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  In the case of more deific gods, I reiterate my previous points: there is no difference between the proposed "gods" existing within the bounds of this universe and sufficiently advanced aliens, which renders the term meaningless. Gods that exist "outside" of the universe are garage dragons, and define themselves out of existence.
They don't define themselves out of existence.

Yes, they do.

Unless the entity in question has an actual, detectable interaction with the universe (in which case they fall under the former category, being sufficiently advanced aliens), they are garage dragons. Garage dragons, by definition, do not exist, because, also by definition, they have no effect on the universe. There is no meaningful definition of the word "exists" that can apply to them.

That is the whole point of the garage dragon analogy as originally phrased by Carl Sagan. Entities which do not in any way interact with anything else do not exist.

(18-08-2015 04:38 PM)Stevil Wrote:  Merely pointing to "garage dragon" does not support your case it actually also shows that your own case is also a "garage dragon"

No, it isn't. Do you understand what a garage dragon is?

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-08-2015, 06:53 PM
RE: The Dawkins Scale
(18-08-2015 04:39 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  Good example. I'm a 3 on the solipsism scale. And it doesn't ignore the definition of "is" so much as it diminishes it.

Yes. It renders it entirely useless, in fact.


(18-08-2015 04:39 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  Makes no practical difference though.

Quite right. And that's why solipsism is incoherent; if there is literally no difference between an "illusion" and the thing being imitated, it isn't an illusion.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Unbeliever's post
18-08-2015, 07:00 PM
RE: The Dawkins Scale
(18-08-2015 06:15 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(18-08-2015 05:28 PM)Matt Finney Wrote:  As far as I can tell, he's talking about nature, not what we're all talking about, and by our definition of god, he would be an atheist.

Panentheism. Not naturalism because natural laws are just an aspect of God, nature is in God but God is bigger than naturalism..

I see your point. We do have to make sure that we all know what we're talking about when we say god. If Spinoza believed in a supernatural god, then I would say he was a theist even by our modern day definition.

As I said, I'm no expert what Spinoza believed, but it's still very simple.

theist = believes it's true that god exists

atheist = everybody else
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-08-2015, 07:12 PM
RE: The Dawkins Scale
(18-08-2015 06:01 PM)Alla Wrote:  I was 7. Now I am 2.

Interesting....

Do you think anyone knows whether or not god exists?

Why do you believe that god exists even though you think you don't know it? In other words, why does your belief not meet the criteria of knowledge?

Do you believe that your belief in god is not justified?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-08-2015, 07:27 PM
RE: The Dawkins Scale
(18-08-2015 06:49 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  Unless the entity in question has an actual, detectable interaction with the universe (in which case they fall under the former category, being sufficiently advanced aliens), they are garage dragons. Garage dragons, by definition, do not exist, because, also by definition, they have no effect on the universe. There is no meaningful definition of the word "exists" that can apply to them.

That is the whole point of the garage dragon analogy as originally phrased by Carl Sagan. Entities which do not in any way interact with anything else do not exist.



No, it isn't. Do you understand what a garage dragon is?
I read the RationalWiki article that you provided a link to.
It states that the claim makes no falsifiable criteria, makes no claims to any observations.

At no point does it state that the "dragon" is outside of existence and doesn't interact with existence.

Quote:The main thrust of how Sagan develops the garage-dwelling dragon example is that the proponent employs increasingly ad hoc reasoning to describe their belief in the face of further questions. Eventually, the goalposts are moved in such a way as to render the initial assertion practically unfalsifiable.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-08-2015, 07:34 PM (This post was last modified: 18-08-2015 07:39 PM by Matt Finney.)
RE: The Dawkins Scale
(18-08-2015 04:07 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  
(18-08-2015 04:04 PM)Matt Finney Wrote:  You're right. The way I said that was very abrasive and I apologize to everyone who might have taken offense to that.

Regarding ignosticism, I suppose I could be describe my position as ignostic.

My main problem with Dawkin's scale is that positions 2-7 are consistent with atheism. I would argue that everyone is either a theist or an atheist. I think Dawkin's scale only serves to muddy the waters. You might ask why I think this way, or what my scale is. For me it's very simple. We can look at the claim "god exists." You either accept this claim, or you don't. You either think it's true that god exists or you don't. If you think you're uncertain as to whether or not god exists, then you don't hold the belief that god exists. Anyone who doesn't believe that god exists is an atheist.

We can ask one very simple question to find out if someone is a theist or an atheist.

Do you believe that god exists?

Anything but an "yes" indicates atheism.

But a 2-3 would say Yes... so I don't get what your objection is.

That brings me to another criticism of Dawkin's scale. His wording choice gives favoritism to the atheist side of the spectrum. If the scale was unbiased, 5 and 6 would read:

5. I am very uncertain but I'm inclined to believe that god does not exist.

6. I cannot know for certain but I strongly believe that god does not exist.

If Dawkins had worded them this way, I wonder how many might change their mind.

For those who would remain at 6 or above, I would ask the same question I asked of alla. Why do you think that your belief doesn't qualify as knowledge? You must think the belief is not justified? Or is it not really a belief at all, but rather a guess?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-08-2015, 07:49 PM
RE: The Dawkins Scale
(18-08-2015 07:27 PM)Stevil Wrote:  I read the RationalWiki article that you provided a link to.
It states that the claim makes no falsifiable criteria, makes no claims to any observations.

At no point does it state that the "dragon" is outside of existence and doesn't interact with existence.

Yes. Now think it through: what falsifiable claims or observations does an entity with no interaction with existence make?

The answer is "none". It is a garage dragon.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Unbeliever's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: