Dawkins Scale

[dr no]

There is a fundamental principle of ethics -- if one has the ability and the opportunity to interfere to prevent a great evil, one is morally obliged to do so.

That to me is why I can't believe in a so called "God of Love" who doesn't intervene to stop great evil or tragedy,that to me is a being worthy of no respect from any right thinking person.

[aquatus1]

Hearsay like that, even from a moderator, underwhelms.

It's hardly a story that merits a great deal of supporting evidence. After all, these things happen, and no one has stated otherwise.

The point that the higher up the educational ladder you go, the less likely you are to associate yourself with organized religious beliefs, still stands.

[Leonardo]

Of course neutrality is a choice. Who said it wasn't? What I said was that making a choice, even if that choice is deliberately not to choose, means you are not being neutral; you are actively participating. If one doesn't make a choice because one doesn't take part in the debacle to begin with, one can truly claim to be neutral in the matter.

Here is what I wrote, with regards my argument...

Not making a choice is making a choice not to choose. The only possible scenario in which your version of "neutrality" is feasible, is if the concept is unknown.

Nonsense. All it implies is the knowledge of the concept of x. Whether or not x exists is irrelevant.

Claiming "I don't believe in Santa Claus" doesn't imply the existence of Santa Claus. All it implies is that you have heard of such a thing and don't believe in it.

And this is more-or-less the argument atheists make that, while the grammar is unsound, the meaning is the same as "believes x does not exist". It is the latter that "implies knowledge of the concept of x", while the former - the phrase we are arguing about - implies that x exists.

Correction. You are arguing the classification. No one else really cares and is perfectly happy playing along with the OP. You are the only one taking this seriously.

Dawkins has, rightly or wrongly, assumed the mantle of 'authority' (personally and when quoted) in matters of theistic debate. This is probably because of his perceived intellectual superiority - being a professor of biology - and his success in arguing evolution vs creationism. But the latter does not grant Dawkins authority in theistic matters, only in the specific arguments surrounding the EvC debate, and the former does not grant him immunity from being mistaken.

His "classifications" will, if left unchallenged, become a de-facto 'standard' that, imo, misrepresents the reality on the ground.

And being that this has nothing to do with science, I really feel no need to defend it in the slightest. Nor can I see how this is a grammar issue, and being that you have outright refused to explain how it is beyond repeating your belief and telling me to go ask someone else, I will simply go with my personal belief that you are incorrect (which is another option beyond doubting your motivation or truthfulness).

I have already said that this is a matter of classification, and if you think that classification is not important to science, then you are ignoring the ramifications of allowing classification to become a matter of personal opinion, rather than studied reason based on observation and evidence.

As for the issue of grammar - how have I "refused to explain"? The grammar of "does not believe in x", is there for anyone to examine. That you, apparently, are not familiar with the particulars of it do not make an argument that I have failed to explain my position.

[eight bits]

With respect, I think the core difficulty is that agnostic is a pair of homonyms - two words with different meanings, but identical spelling and pronunciation, like principal, the head of a school or the amount you borrowed in a loan. As the example illustrates, each member of the pair may have the same "root" (Latin princeps), but arrive in usage by different paths.

The older word agnostic named a philosophical position that in various ways denied the possibility of knowledge. That use has died out except maybe as jargon when Thomas Huxley coined its homonym to describe "agreement with Huxley's opinions on many subjects." The new word passed into the language with the meaning "neither professing the existence of a god nor professing that no god exists," a specific one of Huxley's opinions. After Huxley died, a Scottish theologian revived the defunct meaning of the word, in a hamfisted attempt to stifle one avenue of dissent from his theism. Some atheists apparently thought that stifling dissent was a fine idea. So, both homonyms are in current use in connection with the question of God, often as part of a bizaare argument that because one word exists, its homonym must not.

It is simply a fact that to profess is a modal activity. That is (among other things), there is an objectively verifiable distinction between, for any proposition P:

I do not profess that P is true.

I profess that P is not true.

The latter implies the former, but not vice versa, thus they are distinct, and both exclude

I profess that P is true.

Enter Dawkins, who may compare his life choices to other people's using whatever criteria he pleases. He has no authority to tell anybody else under what credal conditions that person may or must profess P. He has no authority to tell anybody else what thay may or must make of anybody's profession (another homonym) about P. He may, if he likes, use only atheist and theist for the professions of real people, by defining agnostic for his own use as a mental state like Shylock's predicament in Merchant of Venice, to cut a pound a flesh and shed not a drop of blood, something logically but not seriously possible.

Fine, then that leaves us with a meaningful distinction in behavior, one which is observed in real people, for which Dawkins lacks a word. Fortunately, the rest of the English speaking community has a word. The word is agnostic, the member of the homonym pair which entered the English language through the writing of Thomas Huxley in the 19th Century. That is not the other member of the pair that had fallen into utter disuse by Huxley's time, and which was revived after his time for the specific purpose of discrediting those who agreed with Huxley's approach to the question of God. The newer word has meant for the entire time of its existence not an atheist and not a theist.

I am an agnostic, and so necessarily I am not an atheist. Everybody, atheist, theist and agnostic alike is agnostic in the antiquated jargon sense of being uncertain about any contingent question, of which the question of God is one. I am not an atheist any more than I am a theist. I profess neither categorical answer to the question of God, but make a responsive answer just the same.

People who share my beliefs will not be word-lawyered out of existence.

Edited March 29, 2014 by eight bits

[aquatus1]

That is an interesting bit of history there.

[Frank Merton]

Thanks for that; it was well thought and I learned something. It remains that technically an a-theist is someone without God, so an agnostic as you define it would meet that criterion.

However, as I posted earlier, this is a nit and the real meaning of the word agnostic is someone who neither believes nor disbelieves. This is the way the word is used and usage trumps a word's history.

I think there are several types of agnostic. There are the "hard" ones who insist the question is unresolvable by finite minds, the "middling" ones who maintain they have seen lots of evidence pointing both ways and so are unable to decide, and the "soft" ones who refuse to bother with such topics.

[+Link of Hyrule]

Hearsay like that, even from a moderator, underwhelms.

Nice rationalisation you have going on. I'm sharing experience, write it off as "hearsay" if it helps you, but it doesn't invalidate it. Maybe life just happens to be different for you in Vietnam than it is for me in Australia.

And I'm not quite sure what my role as a moderator on this forum has to my opinion/commentary. Being tasked with forum responsibilities doesn't make me better or more qualified than anyone else in sharing my views.

[Mr Walker]

I really rather resent your taking my definite words and saying I said something else. Can't you read?

Yup. You are making choices but want to deny you are making a choice.

You said.

Sorry, and I know so many like you who have this wrong notion, but I am not an atheist by choice but out of intellectual honesty. I am such that when I know something does not exist, I am not able to fool myself otherwise. I have no choice but to go with the truth, and that so many are able to do otherwise amazes me.

Intellectual honesty is a choice you make. It might be that you are fooling yourself. I mean what is" intellectual honesty" in this area?

However, it is the way you have chosen to view your response to the question of god's existence. ie without proof of such existence you feel that the only intellectually honest response is to chose to disbelieve in god. The reasons you respond this way go back to your life experiences and learned values and logic. But they remain choices.

One problem with your statement is that it is not really intellectually honest. First you cannot know that god does not exist. That is impossible for you to know . You can only (very strongly) believe that god does not exist .

Given the impossibility of knowing god does not exist. there is nothing dishonest or dishonourable in either choice (believing in god or not believing in god) What "you" decide will not be based on any knowledge at all, but on other personal criteria gained from your life experiences. An intellectually honest person would admit to this. there is no fooling involved. "No one" knows for certain that god exists or not (unless they have met him)You cant fool yourself if you cannot know. You can only chose one of a number of belief positions.

[+Link of Hyrule]

It's hardly a story that merits a great deal of supporting evidence. After all, these things happen, and no one has stated otherwise.

The point that the higher up the educational ladder you go, the less likely you are to associate yourself with organized religious beliefs, still stands.

Though at least in Australia, 75% of church going adults either have or are studying for a university degree. Compare that to non-church going Australians, where only 25% off the same adult population either have or are studying for a university degree.

As always, I'll caveat this by clarifying that this doesn't deal with all Christians, just those who regularly attend church, but the number is still of particular interest to me.

Edited March 29, 2014 by Paranoid Android

[aquatus1]

Yes, well...I don't want to generalize the motivations of those who attend church services on a regular basis. My personal experience in the matter could be an aberration; I certainly didn't expect it. Most of the church-goers I know (knew) go not out of duty to their beliefs, but more out of obligation to their spouses or loved ones, and given a decent excuse, would have no problem skipping.

[+Link of Hyrule]

Yes, well...I don't want to generalize the motivations of those who attend church services on a regular basis. My personal experience in the matter could be an aberration; I certainly didn't expect it. Most of the church-goers I know (knew) go not out of duty to their beliefs, but more out of obligation to their spouses or loved ones, and given a decent excuse, would have no problem skipping.

I suppose I'm really referring to the statistics in Australia. And while I can't speak for all Australian churches, I can say that the quoted statistics that I've read from census details mirrors my experience with churches that I've been involved with. However, I can also say that I've met many professing Christians who don't go to church and don't have university education. I'm not sure why the statistics show this, though I do have several strong theories on the matter.

What I can say, though, is that very few Australian church-going Christians only go because of duty and look for any excuse to avoid it.

Edited March 29, 2014 by Paranoid Android

[Mr Walker]

Yes, well...I don't want to generalize the motivations of those who attend church services on a regular basis. My personal experience in the matter could be an aberration; I certainly didn't expect it. Most of the church-goers I know (knew) go not out of duty to their beliefs, but more out of obligation to their spouses or loved ones, and given a decent excuse, would have no problem skipping.

Logically this says something about the commonality between you and the church goers of whom you speak.

It is possible that you had little in common with committed church goers who went because they wanted to, and thus you were not exposed so much to their opinions and motivations.

I find that as people grow out of childhood and school, where they are artificially forced into homogeneous cohorts by age, they increasingly 'join" groups of similarity, and separate them selves from groups of difference.

Hence now, as a non drinker I mix with very few people for whom drinking is a important part of their life, whereas when I was a drinker they made up a fair percentage of my acquaintances and friends.

As a lover of books and movies I mix increasingly with others who have similar interests; meeting at libraries and book shops, going to homes to exchange movies and books etc. I have almost no connections to people who love football, but many friends who are church goers from many different religions and faiths, and others who like dogs and walking on the beach.

[J. K.]

Though at least in Australia, 75% of church going adults either have or are studying for a university degree. Compare that to non-church going Australians, where only 25% off the same adult population either have or are studying for a university degree.

As always, I'll caveat this by clarifying that this doesn't deal with all Christians, just those who regularly attend church, but the number is still of particular interest to me.

Hearsay? Hmm.

I was valedictorian of my high school class, ranked 17th in my college, and have a Master's degree. Still, I choose to live my life as a Christian. Like PA, I know many people similar to myself, as well as many with much more intelligence, who have chosen this lifestyle. Non-believers can hope all they want, but Christianity crosses all walks of life.

[Tiggs]

With respect, I think the core difficulty is that agnostic is a pair of homonyms - two words with different meanings, but identical spelling and pronunciation, like principal, the head of a school or the amount you borrowed in a loan. As the example illustrates, each member of the pair may have the same "root" (Latin princeps), but arrive in usage by different paths.

The older word agnostic named a philosophical position that in various ways denied the possibility of knowledge. That use has died out except maybe as jargon when Thomas Huxley coined its homonym to describe "agreement with Huxley's opinions on many subjects."

If it has died out - then why is it currently being taught at, say, Stanford University, as the correct definition of agnostic?

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agnosticism/

Enter Dawkins, who may compare his life choices to other people's using whatever criteria he pleases. He has no authority to tell anybody else under what credal conditions that person may or must profess P. He has no authority to tell anybody else what thay may or must make of anybody's profession (another homonym) about P. He may, if he likes, use only atheist and theist for the professions of real people, by defining agnostic for his own use as a mental state like Shylock's predicament in Merchant of Venice, to cut a pound a flesh and shed not a drop of blood, something logically but not seriously possible.

The vast majority of agnostics I've met claim that this is exactly what they are; people for whom a yes/no answer can never be obtained.

In your classification, what are they now called?

People who share my beliefs will not be word-lawyered out of existence.

But in order to do that, you appear to be labeling me an agnostic, in a world where most agnostics I have met tell me that I break all of the standard entry qualifications for being one.

[Davros of Skaro]

Here is a smaller scale for consideration.

There are four positions you can have in regards to god(s):

1. Gnostic Atheist - Knows and believes there is no god.

2. Agnostic Atheist - Lacks belief, but does not know there is no god.

3. Gnostic Theist - Knows and believes there is a god.

4. Agnostic Theist - Believes, but does not know there is a god.

I am #1 for all the world's Gods.I am #2 for possible things that defy our understanding.

I feel if there is a God then it's a label we would put on it than it considering it's self a God, and probably would not be interested in the Human concept of worship.

[SHaYap]

The concept of worshiping was created for the benefit of human kind in the first place, for profit and comfort ~ Man tried to make God in his own image ... that's when the failings started ~

~ and as such I don't think man (human race/civ) ever did succeed to such a lofty aspiration ~ I believe this is where zen philosophy and Tao comes closest ~ 'it' (God - the Gods ) is something beyond common comprehension and thus beyond definition within descriptive words ~ communication is tied and shackled to the 'reality' that is based on the temporal substance that is the common lived in 'reality' that every single thing caught in the stream of 'time' shared in co existence ~ while the concept of the 'higher, greater along the lines of the eternal' is beyond that.

[eight bits]

Tiggs

Greetings. It's been a while.

If it has died out - ...

I didn't quite follow how being revived after Huxley's death and being currently in use means the same as having died out.

... then why is it currently being taught at, say, Stanford University, as the correct definition of agnostic?

I wouldn't read a great deal into a diversity-respecting institution of higher learning hosting on one of its many websites a signed article of personal opinion by a then-retired and now-dead man. Professor Smart was entitled to his view, and Stanford is entitled to disseminate whatever materials it corporately pleases. Neither was or is legislative for correct Enlgish language usage.

The vast majority of agnostics I've met claim that this is exactly what they are; people for whom a yes/no answer can never be obtained.

In the passage you quoted, I was discussing Dawkins' remarks, which if taken as a universal definition would imply that every person is not an agnostic, in equipoise about the question of God, or agnostic and not purely so. None of the three describes me. How the agnostics you have met agree to explain why they answer the question of God as they do is a different concern than what answer they give. The attitude you meantion is prevalent among agnostics, but obviously isn't the only way to arrive at an agnostic answer to the question of God.

In your classification, what are they now called?

From your report of their partial explanation, they seem to be working their way to "I have no categorical answer" to the question of God, in which case, I say they are agnostics. But, then, again, they could just as well be heading for "I don't understand the question," which is admissible but unresponsive. It's fine with me for people to refrain from answering questions they don't understand. I find the three categories mutually exclusive, but not exhaustive.

But in order to do that, you appear to be labeling me an agnostic, in a world where most agnostics I have met tell me that I break all of the standard entry qualifications for being one.

As I recall your most recent explanation of your views addressed to me, insofar as you have pondered the possibilities for gods, you profess that none of those exists. One cannot demand more of any person than that they answer a question according to what they understand the terms used in the question to mean. That it might turn out that after you have answered, somebody later comes up with a god concept that is both new and appealing to you, then that's fine. Your answer here and now to QoG is no, to the same extent that you can answer responsively at all. You are an atheist, in my view.

And, of course, regardless of how I would classify you, I would respct your self-description, although I am not bound to follow it.

[Leonardo]

Here is a smaller scale for consideration.

There are four positions you can have in regards to god(s):

1. Gnostic Atheist - Knows and believes there is no god.

2. Agnostic Atheist - Lacks belief, but does not know there is no god.

3. Gnostic Theist - Knows and believes there is a god.

4. Agnostic Theist - Believes, but does not know there is a god.

I am #1 for all the world's Gods.I am #2 for possible things that defy our understanding.

I feel if there is a God then it's a label we would put on it than it considering it's self a God, and probably would not be interested in the Human concept of worship.

Which is why I argued that, if there is a 'sliding scale of belief', it is in the level of agnosticism a person professes - not the 'level' of theism or atheism. Each the latter are, by their very definition, a singular position of belief on the existence of dvinity.

[aquatus1]

When all is said and done, words by their very nature as part of a language have an inherent flexibility that allows then to be used in a variety of ways. It is precisely because of this that the standard format for submission includes requirements for definition of major terms, and why it is almost second nature to most writers of presentation narratives to include such. Dawkins made a scale and defined what aspects characterize the particular levels. If someone doesn't like that scale, they are free to make their own, and include their own definitions, and argue that their scale is more accurate (or, in this case, has better labels). Similarly, others are free to argue about the new scale, about the labels, about the definitions, or what have you.

The English language long ago cast away any pretense at having any one set of definitive rules regarding grammar, definition, or even consistent phonetics. It is probably the most dynamically evolving language on the planet. There will always be those arguing for one meaning and those arguing for a slightly different meaning, and those wondering what possible difference there could be between the two meanings and why it matters. Ultimately, the ones who win the contest are the ones who don't play the game, and instead clearly state what they mean with what word they use, and do so in a manner that most people are willing to give conditional acceptance to.

[Tiggs]

Tiggs

Greetings. It's been a while.

Indeed.

I didn't quite follow how being revived after Huxley's death and being currently in use means the same as having died out.

I was responding to your earlier claim of it's death, in particular - your sentence beginning with the words "That use has died out".

I wouldn't read a great deal into a diversity-respecting institution of higher learning hosting on one of its many websites a signed article of personal opinion by a then-retired and now-dead man. Professor Smart was entitled to his view, and Stanford is entitled to disseminate whatever materials it corporately pleases. Neither was or is legislative for correct Enlgish language usage.

Then which higher authority for correct English Language usage do you wish to claim? My personal favourite - the Oxford English Dictionary's current second edition, for example, also supplies a similar definition.

This "one of many" websites is the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, cited in several thousands of scholarly publications, and the only encyclopedia published online by Stanford.

In addition - the professor's article was peer-reviewed by a panel of experts prior to it's publication within the Encyclopedia.

It's hardly a casual blog post.

In any case - my objective was merely to illustrate that the original version is still currently in mainstream scholarly usage, which I believe I've accomplished.

In the passage you quoted, I was discussing Dawkins' remarks, which if taken as a universal definition would imply that every person is not an agnostic, in equipoise about the question of God, or agnostic and not purely so. None of the three describes me.

Whereas - I interpret the scale such that two propositions which have zero chance of being true are still equiprobable.

How the agnostics you have met agree to explain why they answer the question of God as they do is a different concern than what answer they give. The attitude you meantion is prevalent among agnostics, but obviously isn't the only way to arrive at an agnostic answer to the question of God.

From your report of their partial explanation, they seem to be working their way to "I have no categorical answer" to the question of God, in which case, I say they are agnostics. But, then, again, they could just as well be heading for "I don't understand the question," which is admissible but unresponsive. It's fine with me for people to refrain from answering questions they don't understand. I find the three categories mutually exclusive, but not exhaustive.

It's not just that they don't have a categorical answer; it's that they equally believe that it's absolutely impossible for anyone else to have a categorical answer..

However - at the end of the day - if you wish to describe all of the above positions as being agnostic, then I'm fine with that.

As I recall your most recent explanation of your views addressed to me, insofar as you have pondered the possibilities for gods, you profess that none of those exists. One cannot demand more of any person than that they answer a question according to what they understand the terms used in the question to mean. That it might turn out that after you have answered, somebody later comes up with a god concept that is both new and appealing to you, then that's fine. Your answer here and now to QoG is no, to the same extent that you can answer responsively at all. You are an atheist, in my view.

In mine, too.

[eight bits]

Tiggs

I was responding to your earlier claim of it's death, in particular - your sentence beginning with the words "That use has died out".

My apologies for a typo, then.

The older word agnostic named a philosophical position that in various ways denied the possibility of knowledge. That use Xhas died out except maybe as jargon when Thomas Huxley coined its homonym to describe "agreement with Huxley's opinions on many subjects."

Obviously, the sense of the sentence requires had not has. With or without the error, my testimony later in the post is that the former term was revived after Huxley's death, and that now the older homonym is sometimes applied specifically to the question of God.

Since the rest of your remarks on dictionaries and encyclopedias address this errant and overlooked keystroke, which error is now resolved (with my apologies once again for making the error, and my thanks for your pointing it out to me), I'll just skip down to:

Whereas - I interpret the scale such that two propositions which have zero chance of being true are still equiprobable.

OK. I interpret "God's existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable" as the two formally complementary propositions being offered as exclusive and exhaustive, in which case, if they are equiprobable, then 50% each is the unique solution. Other views are possible.

It's not just that they don't have a categorical answer; it's that they equally believe that it's absolutely impossible for anyone else to have a categorical answer..

That's fine, but it isn't what the question of God asks. As I mentioned, something like that is a popular view among people who answer the question of God in a certain way. That said (again), I have no idea why, since I have observed many people who do profess a categorical answer, I would think that to be impossible.

If I met one of your agnostic acquaintances, and she were so disposed, then I would debate her about the logical validity and heuristic appeal of the view you describe. Since she isn't here, and you are not here to argue on her behalf, and that discussion would have nothing whatsoever to do with Dawkins or his scale, then I'll just put that side issue where it belongs, aside.

Edited March 30, 2014 by eight bits

[Leonardo]

Whereas - I interpret the scale such that two propositions which have zero chance of being true are still equiprobable.

And just how does one assess the probability of something unknown?

To argue that agnosticism depends on the "probability of the existence of divinity", one has to put forward how one arrives at such probabilities. Dawkins does not that, and cannot do that, (neither can anyone else) but simply argues for probability based on whim - his.

Agnosticism depends not on an impossible-to-determine probability, but on uncertainty - which can only be measured in abstract terms of stronger vs weaker, not in absolute terms such as probability-by-numbers.

Edited March 30, 2014 by Leonardo

[Tiggs]

And just how does one assess the probability of something unknown?

By examining it's known phenomena, both necessary and otherwise.

If there are no footprints in the butter, then you don't have an invisible elephant living in your fridge.

To argue that agnosticism depends on the "probability of the existence of divinity", one has to put forward how one arrives at such probabilities. Dawkins does not that, and cannot do that, (neither can anyone else) but simply argues for probability based on whim - his.

See above. Only Math has absolute proofs. Everything else, Science included, has to deal with the balance of probabilities based on the available evidence.

Agnosticism depends not on an impossible-to-determine probability, but on uncertainty - which can only be measured in abstract terms of stronger vs weaker, not in absolute terms such as probability-by-numbers.

If you can distinguish positions that are stronger and weaker, then you have a relative scale. If you can't convert a scale into numbers, then maybe scales aren't for you.

[Tiggs]

My apologies for a typo, then.

My apologies for not catching it was a typo.

OK. I interpret "God's existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable" as the two formally complementary propositions being offered as exclusive and exhaustive, in which case, if they are equiprobable, then 50% each is the unique solution. Other views are possible.

They're only exclusive and exhaustive if you want them to be.

[Leonardo]

By examining it's known phenomena, both necessary and otherwise.

If there are no footprints in the butter, then you don't have an invisible elephant living in your fridge.

Excellent. So tell us, what are the 'footprints' of god - any imaginable, or unimaginable, god?

If you can distinguish positions that are stronger and weaker, then you have a relative scale. If you can't convert a scale into numbers, then maybe scales aren't for you.

Such a scale will only tell us how strong or weak a persons belief is relative to anothers. It will not give us a probability of the existence of the subject of that belief. The probability Dawkins uses in his 'scale' is of the existence of god/deity/divinity. If you wish to change the goalposts, be my guest, but then we will be debating different topics.

Edited March 30, 2014 by Leonardo