The Dawkins Scale and Why I'm a Five

[Kilgore Trout]

I find scales, like most labels, to be too reductionist to tell you anything useful. My beliefs about god(s) are, largely, an off-shoot or subset of my beliefs about people, as well as an incidental result of being both rational and skeptical. Expounding on these subjects would tell you something useful about what my views are and their background and rationale. A single number on a god-belief scale tells you nothing substantive.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

What would evidence look like to you?

Like saying "you know the physical world exists" and then being asked to back up that claim, without using anything that your physical body can sense. Good luck!

I can't use anything my physical body can sense? So you want us to demonstrate the thing you assumed in the premises of the problem?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Or maybe because He's apparently too weak to show himself. Or perhaps such a God doesn't exist? I don't know, Bertrand Rusell's arguments sure do make sense...

Speaking of Russell, I can't help thinking that for many gods, evaluating their "likelihood" would be a lot like evaluating the "likelihood" that the present king of France is bald... i.e. they use mistakes of thinking that can't be captured with a simple numerical score.

 

[Acim]

I can't use anything my physical body can sense?

You can, it just wouldn't be objective, or independent of the alleged existence.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You can, it just wouldn't be objective, or independent of the alleged existence.

I think you missed my point: your condition only works if we assume that physical bodies - and therefore the physical world - exist.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Like some have already stated, I don't think a lot of these are mutually exclusive so identifying as one or the other is reductionist. I'm an agnostic atheist, but strongly atheistic towards some god concepts including the Abrahamic variety. I'm a apatheist because I don't believe that gods should inform morals and daily behaviors (I'm a utilitarian consequentialist) so whether or not there is a god is inconsequential to me. I'm an ignostic until a meaningful definition of gods can be established. And even though I can't know for sure there is some sort of gods, I'm a materialist and see no compelling reason to subscribe to the notion of souls or spirits.
That touches on a number in Dawkins list. A number of numbers, even.

 

[Acim]

I think you missed my point: your condition only works if we assume that physical bodies - and therefore the physical world - exist.

And my (earlier) point is that we do assume this, to the level (or point) that knowledge follows from such assumption. Or that (scientific) facts do. Take away the assumption and where are the so call facts, much less evidence of the physical?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

And my (earlier) point is that we do assume this, to the level (or point) that knowledge follows from such assumption. Or that (scientific) facts do. Take away the assumption and where are the so call facts, much less evidence of the physical?

The evidence is in what we see, hear, feel, and experience... which can't be counted as "physical" until we establish that the physical exists.

 

[Acim]

The evidence is in what we see, hear, feel, and experience... which can't be counted as "physical" until we establish that the physical exists.

With what are we seeing, hearing and feeling?

Would you say I have evidence of external existence in my night dreams, based on what I see, hear, feel and experience? Or is it entirely an internal existence?

 

[viole]

Disclaimer: This mostly focuses on monotheistic representations of God. It may not fit with you.

Just a warning before-hand, this is more subjective, and doesn't really contain any completely objective feelings toward God. And that reminds me. When I talk of God, I do mean a general deity or supreme being. Now, if you're still interested, here's some useless talk about my views.

If anyone is wondering about the Dawkins Scale, here it is:

Apparently the scale sooner or later extended to ten-point range.

(Beyond 110% sure there is no God)

There's apparently one between the two here.

(No God, no spirituality, yes morals, and thinks of the entire debate like a debate about a flat Earth)


So anyways. I'm a number five. I do not believe in God, but I believe we cannot know at all really. Nevertheless, I remain skeptical to the last. I do not make any claims on God, either as a fairy tale, or just plain non-existent. I don't believe that God is entirely improbable, just at the most unneeded, and I do not equate God to fairies or unicorns, because I don't believe the existence of a God is that impossible or ever, I DO believe that the claim of God is, at least in this current stage of scientific discovery, an un-falsifiable hypothesis. You certainly can't prove him, but you can't disprove him. I feel it definitely down-plays rationality, and that is why I don't believe. There's no evidence.

My answer to the question, "Do you believe in God?" would be something along the lines of, "Not really, no." "Are you open to proof?" "A definite yes, but I don't see the proof."

Just thought I would make this, because I see a lot of sixes and even a few sevens, but can't really find any fives. I know there are plenty of "Dawkins Scale" threads, but again, just wanted to explain my view.

-Jacob

I know there is no God, but I am not 100% sure there isn't any. At the same time, I have no need for that hypothesis.

What am I on that scale?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Animore]

I know there is no God, but I am not 100% sure there isn't any. At the same time, I have no need for that hypothesis.

What am I on that scale?

Ciao

- viole

One could say a mixture or hybrid, but one would have to elaborate to get a more accurate scaling.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I went with the majority, or 1. How can you not?

Easy. 6 me up, baby.

 

[Animore]

Easy. 6 me up, baby.

Starting to think that's a better position as well, yeah.

 

[Acim]

Easy. 6 me up, baby.

Weak

And I mean that in the most respectful way.

 

[arthra]

Numero Uno!