The Dawkins Scale
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
19-08-2015, 09:33 AM
RE: The Dawkins Scale
(19-08-2015 09:23 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(19-08-2015 05:19 AM)Matt Finney Wrote:  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.

You're right, but that's why I make the point that the scale is biased.

If 2 entails strong belief in existence, then to be fair, would 6 also need to entail strong belief? Or, if 6 only entails the assumption that god is improbable, then shouldn't 2 only entail the assumption that god is probable?

Dawkins assigns strong belief to 2, but only belief in improbability for number 6, indicating his heavy bias in favor of atheism.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-08-2015, 09:37 AM
RE: The Dawkins Scale
Even so, could we at least agree that if a 1.1 requires burden of proof, then 6.9 should also require proof?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-08-2015, 09:42 AM (This post was last modified: 19-08-2015 09:45 AM by Free.)
RE: The Dawkins Scale
(19-08-2015 09:37 AM)Matt Finney Wrote:  Even so, could we at least agree that if a 1.1 requires burden of proof, then 6.9 should also require proof?

Yes.

Any rating from 1 - 6 necessarily implies varying degrees of belief from certainty to a small possibility in the existence of God.

A rating of 7 has no beliefs at all.

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, 09:47 AM
Smile RE: The Dawkins Scale
With respect to everyone's criteria for qualifying as a 1 or 7, I would still categorize myself as a 1.

If that annoys you, though, then you can count me as a 1.1. Smile
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-08-2015, 09:52 AM
RE: The Dawkins Scale
(19-08-2015 09:16 AM)Chas 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?

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.
No, I think you would benefit from reading what Carl Sagan actually says. Big Foot would also qualify as a garage dragon. The claimant offers no falsifiable claims, offers no evidence, doesn't tell you where to look for him.

Also many theists consider their god to be undetectable however they also insist it interceeds in our universe.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-08-2015, 09:55 AM
RE: The Dawkins Scale
(19-08-2015 09:21 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(19-08-2015 01:19 AM)Stevil Wrote:  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.
No its not. It just says that there is no evidence, all evidences can equally be used to explain either the described dragon or no dragon at all. It doessn't go that extra mile and state that the evidence is soley for no dragon.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-08-2015, 09:58 AM
RE: The Dawkins Scale
(19-08-2015 09:42 AM)Free Wrote:  
(19-08-2015 09:37 AM)Matt Finney Wrote:  Even so, could we at least agree that if a 1.1 requires burden of proof, then 6.9 should also require proof?

Yes.

Any rating from 1 - 6 necessarily implies varying degrees of belief from certainty to a small possibility in the existence of God.

A rating of 7 has no beliefs at all.

Wouldn't a 7 require the belief that god does not exist? Sure, the person would also think that their belief meets the criteria of knowledge, but isn't knowledge a subset of belief?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-08-2015, 09:59 AM
RE: The Dawkins Scale
(19-08-2015 09:33 AM)Matt Finney Wrote:  
(19-08-2015 09:23 AM)Chas Wrote:  Strawman presentation. Facepalm

Look at what #4 -#6 actually say.

You're right, but that's why I make the point that the scale is biased.

If 2 entails strong belief in existence, then to be fair, would 6 also need to entail strong belief?

Most definitely not. Above 3 is about not holding a belief.

Quote:Or, if 6 only entails the assumption that god is improbable, then shouldn't 2 only entail the assumption that god is probable?

Most definitely not. Below 3 is about holding a belief.

Quote:Dawkins assigns strong belief to 2, but only belief in improbability for number 6, indicating his heavy bias in favor of atheism.

It "reveals" no such thing. You misunderstand the scale.

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, 10:00 AM
RE: The Dawkins Scale
(19-08-2015 09:37 AM)Matt Finney Wrote:  Even so, could we at least agree that if a 1.1 requires burden of proof, then 6.9 should also require proof?

Most definitely not. Above 3, there is no claim being made, hence no proof is required.

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, 10:02 AM
RE: The Dawkins Scale
(19-08-2015 09:52 AM)Stevil Wrote:  
(19-08-2015 09:16 AM)Chas Wrote:  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.
No, I think you would benefit from reading what Carl Sagan actually says.

I read and quoted it.

Quote:Big Foot would also qualify as a garage dragon. The claimant offers no falsifiable claims, offers no evidence, doesn't tell you where to look for him.

Most definitely not. No one claims Big Foot is undetectable.

Quote:Also many theists consider their god to be undetectable however they also insist it interceeds in our universe.

And that is a contradiction.

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: