The Dawkins Scale
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
18-08-2015, 08:01 PM
RE: The Dawkins Scale
(18-08-2015 07:34 PM)Matt Finney Wrote:  
(18-08-2015 04:07 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  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?

Or rather a guess? A belief is kinda a guess in this context. But I don't know if different wording would make a lick of difference in changing peoples minds or if that was even the intention of it. It seems to me these are just created to help conversation have some basis to utilize.

To say why I don't think I have something qualified as knowledge I would post like Girlyman & throw out some conversation or more links towards the problem of induction and other qualms about knowing if we have or can have justified true belief. Like talk about the Gettier problem but I feel I've done that too much in the past to want to keep doing it.

For one I don't proclaim certain knowledge of much, pretty much just some tautologies or labels. So it boils down from that already skeptical stance to where I would go on this scale idea.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-08-2015, 08:06 PM
RE: The Dawkins Scale
I don't care much for the semantics here. "God" is, as of now, only an imaginary entity or thing. Even those who claim to be a 1 vary in their ideas and none can provide an honest physically description of this "thing". Should I be required to place myself on a belief scale for every imaginable "thing" any human can possibly imagine?

Considering all the half-cocked imaginations that have so poorly been defined and laid at our feet, I'll claim a 7. As for the infinite rest, we'll imagine that bridge when we get there.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Fodder_From_The_Truth's post
18-08-2015, 08:24 PM
RE: The Dawkins Scale
(18-08-2015 07:49 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
(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.
You're stretching it too far.
Who has mentioned an entity with no interaction with existence?
Are you arguing a Deist type god?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-08-2015, 08:45 PM
RE: The Dawkins Scale
(18-08-2015 08:24 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(18-08-2015 07:49 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  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.
You're stretching it too far.
Who has mentioned an entity with no interaction with existence?
Are you arguing a Deist type god?

A deist type god is basically the one type of distinction that causes people to make a 6.9999... case over a 7.0 case on the scale.

If it existed or not would literally change nothing nor have any effect but that's about how it goes.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-08-2015, 08:52 PM
RE: The Dawkins Scale
(18-08-2015 08:45 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  
(18-08-2015 08:24 PM)Stevil Wrote:  You're stretching it too far.
Who has mentioned an entity with no interaction with existence?
Are you arguing a Deist type god?

A deist type god is basically the one type of distinction that causes people to make a 6.9999... case over a 7.0 case on the scale.

If it existed or not would literally change nothing nor have any effect but that's about how it goes.

If Deism were to be considered evidence that could cause anyone to not be 7.0, then anything else we could imagine could cause anyone to be any number on the scale.

The imagination alone is not enough. Applying reason with the natural world does not create a reality from the imagination.

Having problems with your computer? Visit our Free Tech Support thread for help!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-08-2015, 09:00 PM
RE: The Dawkins Scale
(18-08-2015 08:24 PM)Stevil Wrote:  You're stretching it too far.

No, I'm not. You're not paying attention to what I'm saying.

(18-08-2015 08:24 PM)Stevil Wrote:  Who has mentioned an entity with no interaction with existence?
Are you arguing a Deist type god?

Let's start from the beginning.

To exist is to interact with other entities. Anything that does not interact with another entity is not real; there is no functional distinction that can be made between it and something completely imaginary.

Entities which are defined in such a way that they do not interact with other entities are garage dragons.

The universe is the set of all entities which interact with one another. You may substitute "multiverse" for "universe", if you prefer.

Any god that interacts with the universe necessarily enters it. As an entity which interacts with other entities, it is by definition part of the set. In this case, it is an alien.

Any god that "lives outside the universe" must, by necessity, not interact with it. Doing so would mean that both the god and the place that it resides are now part of the universal set, because there is interaction, at which point it falls under the "alien" category. But the only way to not interact with anything in the universal set is to not interact with anything, which makes it, by definition, a garage dragon.

In brief, if it interacts with the universe, it's an alien. If it doesn't, it's imaginary. Either way, it's not a god.

"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, 09:01 PM
RE: The Dawkins Scale
(18-08-2015 08:45 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  A deist type god is basically the one type of distinction that causes people to make a 6.9999... case over a 7.0 case on the scale.

If it existed or not would literally change nothing nor have any effect

In which case it is, by definition, not real.

Because it's 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
18-08-2015, 09:04 PM
RE: The Dawkins Scale
(18-08-2015 08:45 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  A deist type god is basically the one type of distinction that causes people to make a 6.9999... case over a 7.0 case on the scale.

If it existed or not would literally change nothing nor have any effect but that's about how it goes.
Yeah well, it's fine to look at specific scriptures such as the bible and assess that it is contradictory and basic rubbish and say well Yhwh don't exist, neither does Allah, neither does Tane, neither does Zeus etc. But we aren't talking about any specific god. Atheism is a rejection of gods in general. Sure deism amount to atheism on any practical level.

But really we ought to reject 7 on the grounds that the god concept isn't sufficiently formulated in order to verify or assess. We cannot falsify it so we cannot claim 7.

We can't claim 6,5,4,3,2,1 either though, so the Dawkins scale is lacking.

The only honest answer is to request a sufficiently formulated claim before we can thus make an assessment.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-08-2015, 10:35 PM (This post was last modified: 19-08-2015 12:21 AM by GirlyMan.)
RE: The Dawkins Scale
(18-08-2015 06:53 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
(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.

Nope. I do pretty damn good on my returns for a game I don't believe in. Not that that means shit. Just mrans I can play the game. Tongue

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-08-2015, 10:58 PM
RE: The Dawkins Scale
Unbeliever - Nice reference to The Demon-Haunted World, by the way. I love the chapter on the invisible dragon in his garage.

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: