The Dawkins Scale
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
18-08-2015, 11:41 AM
RE: The Dawkins Scale
(18-08-2015 11:38 AM)Matt Finney Wrote:  KingsChosen, you are totally missing the point. This is about a claim of knowledge, not knowledge.

(18-08-2015 11:28 AM)kingschosen Wrote:  "But KC, knowledge as it's understood is equivalent to a very strong belief supported by evidence and a conscious decision that you cannot reach any other conclusion based on the observable."

Yeah, I know. But what you (me?) just described isn't "knowledge". It's you (me?) redefining knowledge to equivocate to very, very, very strong belief.

"Maybe, but the Dawkins Scale is talking about that very thing, not absolute knowledge."

No. Just no. That is the very reason why points 2-6 exist and why the words "know" and "believe" are used separately.

Reading is overrated.

Edit: Summary, no it isn't. The scale is about knowledge vs belief.

[Image: dog-shaking.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes kingschosen's post
18-08-2015, 11:41 AM
RE: The Dawkins Scale
(18-08-2015 11:28 AM)kingschosen Wrote:  I'll repeat, no human can be a #1 or a #7 on the Dawkins Scale. It is literally impossible within the realm of humanity. Only an omniscient being can "know"... anything. Absolute knowledge is not obtainable if you are a homo sapien.

<snip>

"Maybe, but the Dawkins Scale is talking about that very thing, not absolute knowledge."

No. Just no. That is the very reason why points 2-6 exist and why the words "know" and "believe" are used separately.

Your conclusion does not follow from the premise. That the scale differentiates between knowledge and belief does not in any way indicate that it was intended to use your unattainable definition of knowledge, which is more a semantic game than anything else.

(18-08-2015 08:38 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  A 1 or a 7 on a Dawkins Scale claims absolute knowledge....

No more so than it would be necessary to claim absolute knowledge when I say that Peter Pan does not exist.

Besides, you are making several presumptions about my position which are unwarranted, the largest of them being that I require any evidence at all to know that no god exists.

I've said this before in another thread: I am a gnostic atheist, because nothing that exists within the confines of this universe would meet the requirements for me to call it a god, rather than just being an extremely advanced alien. Meanwhile, things that exist outside this universe and do not directly interact with it define themselves out of existence; there is no functional definition of "exists" that can be applied to them. They are garage dragons.

I am a seven not because I claim absolute knowledge, but because the concept of gods is incoherent at its base.

"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, 11:43 AM
RE: The Dawkins Scale
Mr KC 1 and 7 describe illogical positions but since they describe people's *opinions* on matters, and not the actual facts (which in this case are unknowable by definition), it is perfectly possible to hold such opinions.

Just like I'm absolutely certain that you're actually a dog and the man in the pictures is a prop.

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like morondog's post
18-08-2015, 11:47 AM
RE: The Dawkins Scale
(18-08-2015 11:43 AM)morondog Wrote:  Mr KC 1 and 7 describe illogical positions but since they describe people's *opinions* on matters, and not the actual facts (which in this case are unknowable by definition), it is perfectly possible to hold such opinions.

There is actually an interesting discussion to be held on that front, as I don't think KC's justification for throwing out the possibility of ones or sevens is particularly compelling, as above, but it isn't actually relevant to my position.

It also isn't necessarily illogical to be a one. If a god did exist, and interacted directly with the universe and its worshipers, it would be possible to know that it existed. It doesn't, of course, but if a god did exist, it is feasibly possible for a one to be a tenable position in the same way that it is acceptable to state that you know Earth revolves around the sun.

It's also worth noting that the seven, at least as presented on this version of the scale, talks only of being sure, not of knowing. It is explicitly a question of belief.

"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, 11:52 AM
RE: The Dawkins Scale
(18-08-2015 11:41 AM)Unbeliever Wrote:  No more so than it would be necessary to claim absolute knowledge when I say that Peter Pan does not exist.

Okay, prove it. Show me that Peter Pan does not exist. Since you have absolute knowledge that he does not exist, show me where he doesn't exist in every realm, dimension, and place in this universe. I need testable, observable empirical evidence before the claim of knowing that Peter Pan doesn't exist to be true. Show me.

Quote:I am a seven not because I claim absolute knowledge, but because the concept of gods is incoherent at its base.

aka redefining the scale

[Image: dog-shaking.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes kingschosen's post
18-08-2015, 11:54 AM
RE: The Dawkins Scale
(18-08-2015 11:38 AM)Matt Finney Wrote:  KingsChosen, you are totally missing the point. This is about a claim of knowledge, not knowledge.

I find it hilarious that everyone seems to know the probability of god's existence. I'm curious to see the data set used to calculate the probability. Rather than make a factual claim that god is improbable (which makes you seem very silly since you didn't do any calculation), why not just say that it is your hypothesis is that god doesn't exist?

5 for me.

It is extremely improbable (though not impossible) that if I just bang on my keyboard for a few minutes without looking, I will produce a grammatically correct sentence/paragraph. It is extremely improbable (though not impossible) that an airplane will crash into my workplace within the next 5 minutes. It is extremely improbable (though not impossible) that I will win the lottery tonight (yes, I bought a ticket).

These statements are all correct, and I did not have to do a single calculation to make them. You are overdefining the common use of the word probability. It exists, and can often be estimated whether or not we can precisely calculate it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Grasshopper's post
18-08-2015, 11:56 AM
RE: The Dawkins Scale
(18-08-2015 11:43 AM)morondog Wrote:  Mr KC 1 and 7 describe illogical positions but since they describe people's *opinions* on matters, and not the actual facts (which in this case are unknowable by definition), it is perfectly possible to hold such opinions.

Just like I'm absolutely certain that you're actually a dog and the man in the pictures is a prop.

Never mind. That's T-Sauce. Senior moment.

[Image: dog-shaking.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-08-2015, 12:04 PM
RE: The Dawkins Scale
(18-08-2015 11:52 AM)kingschosen Wrote:  
(18-08-2015 11:41 AM)Unbeliever Wrote:  No more so than it would be necessary to claim absolute knowledge when I say that Peter Pan does not exist.

Okay, prove it. Show me that Peter Pan does not exist. Since you have absolute knowledge that he does not exist, show me where he doesn't exist in every realm, dimension, and place in this universe. I need testable, observable empirical evidence before the claim of knowing that Peter Pan doesn't exist to be true. Show me.

This is rather my point.

You seem to want absolute proof that some vaguely-defined thing called "Peter Pan" does not exist, but that isn't what I claim to know. I know that the Peter Pan, as in the character explicitly defined within the story, does not exist. We know that he does not exist, because that is what fiction means.

Perhaps there is another, extremely similar boy out there somewhere. Perhaps his name is even Peter. But he is not, and never will be, the fictional Peter Pan, because that Peter Pan is explicitly not real. It is part of the definition of the character. It is inherent in his nature as a fictional character.

Having a coherent definition for the entities being discussed is a necessity for any kind of logical discussion, which is why I brought it up. When attempting to define gods, you have only two options, one of which defines them as indistinguishable from aliens and renders the term "god" useless and the other which defines them right out of existence.

In neither case can any sort of coherent argument be made for the existence of gods.

(18-08-2015 11:52 AM)kingschosen Wrote:  
Quote:I am a seven not because I claim absolute knowledge, but because the concept of gods is incoherent at its base.

aka redefining the scale

I have not redefined the scale in any way, shape, or form.

"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
18-08-2015, 12:06 PM
RE: The Dawkins Scale
(18-08-2015 11:47 AM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
(18-08-2015 11:43 AM)morondog Wrote:  Mr KC 1 and 7 describe illogical positions but since they describe people's *opinions* on matters, and not the actual facts (which in this case are unknowable by definition), it is perfectly possible to hold such opinions.

There is actually an interesting discussion to be held on that front, as I don't think KC's justification for throwing out the possibility of ones or sevens is particularly compelling, as above, but it isn't actually relevant to my position.

It also isn't necessarily illogical to be a one. If a god did exist, and interacted directly with the universe and its worshipers, it would be possible to know that it existed. It doesn't, of course, but if a god did exist, it is feasibly possible for a one to be a tenable position in the same way that it is acceptable to state that you know Earth revolves around the sun.

It's also worth noting that the seven, at least as presented on this version of the scale, talks only of being sure, not of knowing. It is explicitly a question of belief.

Well, it comes down to semantics in the end. Let's talk about your 1. So God exists and does all the shit like it says on the tin (or in the Bible). Buuuut... we could still be living in a matrix-reality, a fake-universe. Not really useful in terms of practical stuff but still impossible to be sure...

But then of course we run into the problem of what does it mean to exist anyway.

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes morondog's post
18-08-2015, 12:15 PM
RE: The Dawkins Scale
(18-08-2015 12:06 PM)morondog Wrote:  
(18-08-2015 11:47 AM)Unbeliever Wrote:  There is actually an interesting discussion to be held on that front, as I don't think KC's justification for throwing out the possibility of ones or sevens is particularly compelling, as above, but it isn't actually relevant to my position.

It also isn't necessarily illogical to be a one. If a god did exist, and interacted directly with the universe and its worshipers, it would be possible to know that it existed. It doesn't, of course, but if a god did exist, it is feasibly possible for a one to be a tenable position in the same way that it is acceptable to state that you know Earth revolves around the sun.

It's also worth noting that the seven, at least as presented on this version of the scale, talks only of being sure, not of knowing. It is explicitly a question of belief.

Well, it comes down to semantics in the end. Let's talk about your 1. So God exists and does all the shit like it says on the tin (or in the Bible). Buuuut... we could still be living in a matrix-reality, a fake-universe. Not really useful in terms of practical stuff but still impossible to be sure...

But then of course we run into the problem of what does it mean to exist anyway.

Semantics.... The only way that two people can argue the same thing and still think the other is wrong.

Excuse me, I'm making perfect sense. You're just not keeping up.

"Let me give you some advice, bastard: never forget what you are. The rest of the world will not. Wear it like armor, and it can never be used to hurt you." - Tyrion Lannister
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like itsnotmeitsyou's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: