The Dawkins Scale
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
19-08-2015, 02:43 AM
RE: The Dawkins Scale
I am a 2.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-08-2015, 05:19 AM
RE: The Dawkins Scale
(19-08-2015 12:00 AM)pablo Wrote:  6. I don't want that pesky burden of proof around my neck. Big Grin

(6000th post)

You'd have just as much burden of proof as those in number 2, wouldn't you?

If you don't have proof that god doesn't exist but you believe it anyways, then wouldn't we call that faith?

If we agree that faith = belief without proof

"a belief not based on proof" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faith

If you think that position 6 six has no burden of proof, but that number 2 does, then you must agree that the scale is biased.

As I suggested in an earlier post, this scale is not symmetrical. If we wanted remove the bias from the scale, we could arrive at one of these 2 options.

We could leave 5, and 6 the way they are but change 2 and 3 to read:

2. I cannot know for certain, but I think god is very probable.

3. I do not know whether or not god exists, but I'm inclined to be skeptical.

This would give symmetry to the scale. The other option is to leave 2 and 3, but change 5 and 6 to read:

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

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

If you still fall into category number 6 under the second option, then would you agree that both 6 and 2 escape the burden of proof? It seems most of our theists on this site are claiming position 2, do they escape the burden of proof?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-08-2015, 05:32 AM
RE: The Dawkins Scale
I would place myself at 7, but only due to the fact that my definition of a God is extremely restrictive and cannot exist in our universe since it's logically impossible.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-08-2015, 06:08 AM
RE: The Dawkins Scale
(18-08-2015 04:46 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  I seriously doubt that Dawkins defines belief as >50% likelihood. Believing that a lightly biased coin with probability 51% for heads and 49% for tails will show up heads is absurd. That's a naive and simplistic criteria for "belief".

He explicitly does so for 2 and 3 on his scale. And defines know as a 100% certain. Belief and knowledge corresponds to the confidence in one's position, according to Dawkins:

2.) Very high probability but short of 100 per cent. De facto theist. 'I cannot know for certain, but I strongly believe in God and live my life on the assumption that he is there.'


3.) Higher than 50 per cent but not very high. Technically agnostic but leaning towards theism. 'I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God.'

You can be very uncertain, and yet be inclined to believe.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-08-2015, 07:12 AM
RE: The Dawkins Scale
(18-08-2015 08:44 AM)jennybee Wrote:  Where are you on the Dawkins Scale?

6.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-08-2015, 07:14 AM
RE: The Dawkins Scale
(18-08-2015 11:23 PM)Shadow Fox Wrote:  
(18-08-2015 08:44 AM)jennybee Wrote:  A recent post referenced the (Richard) Dawkins Scale. I'm not sure if someone posted this before-so if it's a repeat thread, sorry Big Grin

Where are you on the Dawkins Scale? I was originally a 1, now a 6 (although, lean toward 7). I did make a pit stop at each of the points on my way to 6/7.

[Image: dawkins-scale.png]

Most people are about a 6. It would be very strange to find anyone who is delusional or ignorant enough to be the strongest on either side and be completely honest about it.

Why would it be ignorant or delusional to be a 7? I can understand a 1, but a 7?

Why?

How can anyone become an atheist when we are all born with no beliefs in the first place? We are atheists because we were born this way.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-08-2015, 09:09 AM
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 those are English words that form a grammatical sentence, but no meaning is apparent. Consider

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-08-2015, 09:16 AM
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?

I think you don't understand the garage dragon example.
The claimant denies every means of detection proffered, leading inexorably to the conclusion that the dragon in the garage is undetectable because it does not interact with reality.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
19-08-2015, 09:21 AM
RE: The Dawkins Scale
(19-08-2015 01:19 AM)Stevil Wrote:  
(19-08-2015 12:40 AM)Unbeliever Wrote:  The former part - and the one that applies to my argument - is one wherein no evidence is advanced in the favor of the garage dragon's existence:

So, sorry, I'm missing the bit where he says that he has proof that the dragon doesn't exist.

He clearly states that the claim should be rejected.

The rhetorical question, "Now, what's the difference between an invisible, incorporeal, floating dragon who spits heatless fire and no dragon at all?" is the statement that it doesn't exist.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-08-2015, 09:23 AM
RE: The Dawkins Scale
(19-08-2015 05:19 AM)Matt Finney Wrote:  
(19-08-2015 12:00 AM)pablo Wrote:  6. I don't want that pesky burden of proof around my neck. Big Grin

(6000th post)

You'd have just as much burden of proof as those in number 2, wouldn't you?

If you don't have proof that god doesn't exist but you believe it anyways, then wouldn't we call that faith?

If we agree that faith = belief without proof

"a belief not based on proof" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faith

If you think that position 6 six has no burden of proof, but that number 2 does, then you must agree that the scale is biased.

As I suggested in an earlier post, this scale is not symmetrical. If we wanted remove the bias from the scale, we could arrive at one of these 2 options.

We could leave 5, and 6 the way they are but change 2 and 3 to read:

2. I cannot know for certain, but I think god is very probable.

3. I do not know whether or not god exists, but I'm inclined to be skeptical.

This would give symmetry to the scale. The other option is to leave 2 and 3, but change 5 and 6 to read:

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

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

If you still fall into category number 6 under the second option, then would you agree that both 6 and 2 escape the burden of proof? It seems most of our theists on this site are claiming position 2, do they escape the burden of proof?

Strawman presentation. Facepalm

Look at what #4 -#6 actually say.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: