Dawkins\' Scale (Part One) (Agnosticism)

by romansh , Saturday, January 05, 2013, 18:32 (4342 days ago) @ dhw
edited by unknown, Saturday, January 05, 2013, 19:17

[dhw] As I see it, many of your questions and comments are a demand for objectivity in a field that can only be subjective.
Objectivity versus subjectivity is a whole another discussion. The way I see it Dawkins tried to make a behaviourly anchored rating scale to make this less subjective. I still suggest that the 'anchors' Dawkins uses are childish. -> [dhw] I would place myself in category 4,though at different times I fluctuate very slightly either way.
So you might move to a five if I were to suggest a literalist interpretation of a six thousand year old Earth? What a about a ten minute old Earth?-> [dhw] I don't see how the discussion can be about anything other than the existence of god(s). 
Speaking personally I don't care about literal gods, I might enter a conversation on the subject because that is the way the prevailing wind is blowing. -> [dhw] So, what constitutes a moderate, where do you draw the borderlines between moderates and fundamentalists
These are labels I try not to use. But I do use weak, strong, gnostic as they are philosophically speaking well defined. (I think).