Dawkins\' Scale (Part One) (Agnosticism)

by dhw, Friday, January 04, 2013, 12:54 (4343 days ago) @ romansh

Part One-(I think it's important to have Dawkins' scale and Romansh's comments here for reference, though it means a response in two parts. Sorry.)-1. Strong theist. 100 per cent probability of God. In the words of C.G. Jung: "I do not believe, I know."
ROM: This I think is fair enough, but I do think the choice of quote is horrible. The context I suspect completely misrepresents Jung's point of view in what we everyday conversation represent as god. For Jung god was very much a metaphor.-2. De facto theist. Very high probability but short of 100 per cent. "I don't know for certain, but I strongly believe in God and live my life on the assumption that he is there."
ROM: What's a very high probability? 75%? How do I measure the probability? This might be the way Dawkins' and your mind works (dhw) but it certainly is not the way my mind works.-3. Leaning towards theism. Higher than 50 per cent but not very high. "I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God."
ROM: Err what's not very high-4. Completely impartial. Exactly 50 per cent. "God's existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable."
ROM: This of course is not measurable from a scientific point of view. What are the error bars on this equiprobability? While I may have fallen into the same trap with my belief bubbles, agnosticism is not just about god. It is not just about the supposedly metaphysical. But it is about how we handle evidence.-5. Leaning towards atheism. Lower than 50 per cent but not very low. "I do not know whether God exists but I'm inclined to be skeptical."
ROM: So dhw are you a #4 agnostic? If so where would you fall on the scale when broached with a literalist interpretation of god, say when compared to Spinoza's god? So what do we have to do is get ratings for every conceivable god and run a Monte carlo simulation to get a probability?-6. De facto atheist. Very low probability, but short of zero. "I don't know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there."
ROM: So do you live your life as there is a god dhw? If so which one and how would it differ from Dawkins' life lived?-7. Strong atheist. "I know there is no God, with the same conviction as Jung knows there is one."
ROM: Fair enough - just the Jung context bugs me.-As I see it, many of your questions and comments are a demand for objectivity in a field that can only be subjective. We all know you can't measure belief any more than you can measure happiness, love, beauty etc., and Dawkins has allowed for this with his little "quotes": within the framework of 100, 50/50, 100, each individual "I" decides his own degree of probability, which god(s) he does/doesn't believe in, what role his beliefs/non beliefs/disbeliefs play in his life. You have used the adjectives weak and strong in your own posts (see below), and I actually find Dawkins' categories helpful in understanding what you are trying to say.-In answer to your personal questions, I would place myself in category 4,though at different times I fluctuate very slightly either way. I do not have any precise concept of a god, and so I live my life in accordance with my own subjective principles which do not involve any type of god, and I am in no position to know how it differs from Dawkins' life or anybody else's, apart perhaps from my immediate family.-In the context of mutual exclusion between atheism (disbelief in god(s))/theism (belief in god(s)) and agnosticism (non-belief in god(s)), I don't see how the discussion can be about anything other than the existence of god(s). How we handle evidence is the process leading to atheism/theism/agnosticism, which again will vary from individual to individual.-Your questions are, of course, perfectly fair, but you could just as well turn your technique on your own arguments, as follows:
Dhw: As I see it, agnosticism and theism/atheism can only be mutually exclusive for fundamentalists on either side.
ROM: I disagree dhw ... they can be mutually exclusive for moderates who hold on their definitions too tightly as well. A fundamentalist (strong) atheist might be open to having weak atheists and some agnostics fall within the atheist definition. -So, what constitutes a moderate, where do you draw the borderlines between moderates and fundamentalists, how tightly is too tightly, who judges what is tight and too tight, how do you define a fundamentalist/strong/weak atheist, how does a fundamentalist define a weak atheist, why "some agnostics", how do you differentiate between agnostic and agnostic, what is "the" atheist definition? There is no end to this game, and communication eventually becomes impossible.