• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Spectrum of theistic probability

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Pretty much this.

The article is poorly named. Dawkins' scale, while not particularly laudable, is clearly and explicitly meant to describe the degree of personal certainty of specific people. It does not at all attempt to describe actual probabilities of the existence of any deities.
I agree.
But I was in a pedantic mood when I posted.
 

Curious George

Veteran Member
Just curious as to where everyone assesses themselves to be on Dawkins' "spectrum of theistic probability." For those unfamiliar with the scale, a description of it can be found here: Spectrum of theistic probability - Wikipedia

I'm a devout agnostic, inclined toward skepticism, so would say I am around 5.5.
6.9 if we must.

Though I am not a fan of this scale, I find it interesting that so many people seem to object to it on an unreasonable basis.
 

David T

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Just curious as to where everyone assesses themselves to be on Dawkins' "spectrum of theistic probability." For those unfamiliar with the scale, a description of it can be found here: Spectrum of theistic probability - Wikipedia

I'm a devout agnostic, inclined toward skepticism, so would say I am around 5.5.
The problem with dawkins scale is dawkins actually. He is convinced the topic is bigfoot. The problem is his experts are young earth creationists intelligent designists etc.

So based on a bias such as that i would say thw scale is nonsense before it became a scale.
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
I have issues with the scale:

- it assumes not only monotheism, but only one god-claim. You really need one scale (or set of scales - see below) per purported god.

- it implies that as certainty of belief in a god decreases, certainty of belief in that god's non-existence increases, and vice versa. In reality, the claim that a god exists and the claim that the god doesn't exist are separate claims. They aren't connected in some sort of zero-sum game.

That being said, I live my life as if gods are irrelevant. Whether this means they don't exist at all or whether they exist and have no measurable impact on anything we can observe really doesn't matter to me.

Every purported god that I've been presented with has had no evidence for its existence (or rather, evidence for its existence and non-existence has been equally strong). If the theist who's proposing the god wants to argue that the god only seems to us like it doesn't exist... go ahead, but I still won't see how this leaves room for any religious claims to be justified.
 

sayak83

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
Just curious as to where everyone assesses themselves to be on Dawkins' "spectrum of theistic probability." For those unfamiliar with the scale, a description of it can be found here: Spectrum of theistic probability - Wikipedia

I'm a devout agnostic, inclined toward skepticism, so would say I am around 5.5.
1...regarding the existence of neutral monism of Brahman.
4....regarding the existence of god like beings that have emerged from Brahman and exist in some sort of reality.
7....regarding existence of creator god(s) that is answering prayers, punishing the wicked, sending people to heaven or hell etc.
 

Quintessence

Consults with Trees
Staff member
Premium Member
I remember taking a gander at some of Dawkin's writings on "religion" and finding them wanting because of its telescopic fixation on only certain religious and theological paradigms. This scale has the same issue, which others have already pointed out in this thread. It also suffers from the problem of approaching the issue probabilistically. Given existential questions are philosophical, it doesn't make sense to assess them in terms of mathematical (and by extension, quantifiable and objective) probabilities.

That said, I'm of the general sentiment that humans are not omniscient and are not omnipresent. Therefore, human knowledge is biased and limited. Any articulation of reality - of what exists and what does not - is a map of the territory and a construct. I consider it an important personal and cultural responsibility for humans to be mindful in their construct creation. Ask yourself why you paint your landscape in the way you do, and whether or not it reflects your personal or cultural values. Ask yourself how it impacts your day to day life and those of others around you. What does your declaration of being (a)theist actually mean to you? That is what matters.
For many, it doesn't mean much of anything. (A)theism isn't an important component of their personal or cultural identity and has little to no impact on their lives or those around them.
 

columbus

yawn <ignore> yawn
I remember taking a gander at some of Dawkin's writings on "religion" and finding them wanting because of its telescopic fixation on only certain religious and theological paradigms.
The thing is,
the world Dawkins(and his audience) live in is overwhelmingly dominated by Abrahamic monotheism. Such religionists are the ones doing the proselytizing and enforcing of primitive ethics and stymieing science and things like that. So, of course, that's the religious paradigms he generally refers to.
He could dilute his message with a million qualifiers, but why should he bother? If the shoe doesn't fit, then don't wear it.
Tom
 

Quintessence

Consults with Trees
Staff member
Premium Member
The thing is,
the world Dawkins(and his audience) live in is overwhelmingly dominated by Abrahamic monotheism. Such religionists are the ones doing the proselytizing and enforcing of primitive ethics and stymieing science and things like that. So, of course, that's the religious paradigms he generally refers to.
He could dilute his message with a million qualifiers, but why should he bother? If the shoe doesn't fit, then don't wear it.
Tom

Nah, he didn't need to dilute his message with qualifiers. Frankly, as a scientist, he is well aware of the importance of using correct and precise terminology, as well as the importance of outlining operational definitions for polysemic terms. Doing that wouldn't require toning down his language at all. Just better writing. To be fair, many scientists kind of are garbage writers, though, and Dawkin's writing was never the greatest (I had to read quite a few of his works in college while studying biological evolution). I expected too much of him, but it's frustrating all the same. :shrug:
 

GoodbyeDave

Well-Known Member
DigitalArtist and Quintessence hit the nail on the head: Dawkins failed (as he usually does) by confusing theism with monotheism. And Columbus failed (as he often does) by trying to give an atheist a free pass. Dawkins is supposed to be a scholar. He held a professorship. He trades on that. Therefore, he should address theism clearly and not just pick the tempting target.

So, rant over. What's my position? On theism, my rating is (1). On belief in "God", it's probably (5). See the difference?
 

columbus

yawn <ignore> yawn
Nah, he didn't need to dilute his message with qualifiers. Frankly, as a scientist, he is well aware of the importance of using correct and precise terminology, as well as the importance of outlining operational definitions for polysemic terms. Doing that wouldn't require toning down his language at all. Just better writing. To be fair, many scientists kind of are garbage writers, though, and Dawkin's writing was never the greatest (I had to read quite a few of his works in college while studying biological evolution). I expected too much of him, but it's frustrating all the same. :shrug:
But the majority of people aren't as sophisticated as you are. Dawkins isn't trying to reach people like you. You already get it.

When I first came to RF I had trouble viewing your worldview as "religious". It's just too rational and personal.
Tom
 

Yazata

Active Member
Just for the sake of producing an answer in this thread, I'll say that I'm probably a 6. I'm a de-facto atheist in the sense that deities don't play any role in my daily life.

But I agree with earlier posts that this doesn't have much to do with my estimate of the probability of a deity existing. That's going to be something that beings like ourselves might have little ability to estimate.

And a great deal depends on how we conceive of the deity. If 'God' means the figure who features so prominently in Judeo-Christian and Islamic tradition, then I just have a hard time believing that the ultimate principle of the universe and being itself would behave in such a way. So I kind of intuitively assign a very low probability to the deities of the monotheistic traditions. That's where I consider myself a 6.

But... if we conceive of 'God' as whatever fulfills the set of metaphysical functions traditionally referred to by natural theology, first-cause, source of cosmic order (the laws of physics), ground-of-being, and ultimately the reason why there is something rather than nothing, I have to admit that I don't have a clue what the answer to those questions might be, or even whether expecting an answer makes sense. (There may be problems of circularity when we seek an explanation for everything.) So I might be more of a 4 when it comes to natural theology.

I guess that I think of myself as an agnostic in Thomas Huxley's original sense.
 
Last edited:

Milton Platt

Well-Known Member
Just curious as to where everyone assesses themselves to be on Dawkins' "spectrum of theistic probability." For those unfamiliar with the scale, a description of it can be found here: Spectrum of theistic probability - Wikipedia

I'm a devout agnostic, inclined toward skepticism, so would say I am around 5.5.

It’s hard for me to place myself precisely on a scale. I am certainly very near the point at which I believe there are no gods. So very near the end of the scale towards believing no gods exist.

Certainly, I do,not believe any of the gods thus far proposed to me exist, as there is ample convincing evidence against them.
I do not state that there are no gods with absolute certainty, but absolutes for the most part do not exist with regard to anything we wish to ponder. But I see the probability as vanishingly small.
 

LuisDantas

Aura of atheification
Premium Member
The thing is,
the world Dawkins(and his audience) live in is overwhelmingly dominated by Abrahamic monotheism. Such religionists are the ones doing the proselytizing and enforcing of primitive ethics and stymieing science and things like that. So, of course, that's the religious paradigms he generally refers to.
He could dilute his message with a million qualifiers, but why should he bother? If the shoe doesn't fit, then don't wear it.
Tom
Accuracy is a good thing. And so is refusing to perpetuate the fairly serious mistake of conflating Abrahamic Monotheism with Theism proper, let alone with "the basis of religion".
 

LuisDantas

Aura of atheification
Premium Member
But the majority of people aren't as sophisticated as you are. Dawkins isn't trying to reach people like you. You already get it.

When I first came to RF I had trouble viewing your worldview as "religious". It's just too rational and personal.
Tom
You know, what you are saying sounds troubling similar to claims that some people are not sophisticated enough to be taught that maybe there is no God in the sky after all.
 

Windwalker

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Richard Dawkins weighing in on the subject of God, is like Donald Trump being viewed as an expert on Climate Change.
 

osgart

Nothing my eye, Something for sure
I know there are no Gods. Based on what is seen in nature i sure am glad none exist too. Im a 7 on it.

But a freaky, wild intelligent dimension of existence that i can believe.

Dawkins knows that much trouble in society comes from abrahamic religions. So he only concerns himself with the only religions that play a major influence on society.

Its quite obvious his focus is solely on abrahamic gods. I think that is deliberate.
 

Sunstone

De Diablo Del Fora
Premium Member
Like most things, this question really applies more to the abrahamic view of gods and not much else. My answer will change depending on what sorts of gods we are talking about. I would be 'lower than 50%' on the mere concept of 'supernatural,' but not all gods are defined to be supernatural. Plenty of things called gods do exist, I just do not ascribe the term or any particular significance to them.

Lately my answer to the big question of whether or not gods exist is largely falling on the 'apatheistic' spectrum. I am apathetic towards the question because I don't believe the question itself or any answers I could give is significant.


We're in substantial agreement here. Now, if you could only see as I do on the much more important issue of my being the most handsome of all men.
 

Rational Agnostic

Well-Known Member
I know there are no Gods. Based on what is seen in nature i sure am glad none exist too. Im a 7 on it.

But a freaky, wild intelligent dimension of existence that i can believe.

Dawkins knows that much trouble in society comes from abrahamic religions. So he only concerns himself with the only religions that play a major influence on society.

Its quite obvious his focus is solely on abrahamic gods. I think that is deliberate.

How do you know there are no gods?
 
Top