Dawkins Scale

[+Liquid Gardens]

Atheism is, as I have argued many times in the past, the belief there exists no deity or deities. There is no such animal as a "weak atheist", as Dawkins suggests is #5 in his 'scale', because the "weak athiest" - who is uncertain as to the existence of any deity, or deities - is actually an agnostic. This means #6 is also agnostic - rather than atheist.

"Being sceptical" or "being uncertain" does not mean "believing a deity, or deities, do not exist", but means "I'm waiting on the evidence before I give any claim credence".

So, the only position on Dawkins 'scale' which is actually atheist, is #7

So it's semantics, thanks for the clarification. I disagree, 'atheist' can just mean 'does not believe in God' as there really isn't much meaningful difference in the largest religions concerning whether you are certain or not there is not a God, and in my experience the people that are #7s are not very numerous; if Dawkins himself isn't actually an atheist since he's not a 7, then I don't think your stricter definition of the term really has much practical use. I disagree that there is no weak atheism, you just defined atheism as 'the belief there exists no deities', and belief does not require certainty, so it then seems inconsistent that only a 7 is really an atheist. It's a little weird also because you just referred to Dawkins' 'atheistic beliefs' and your comment as I took it was that he's trying to lend his beliefs more rationality, but apparently given your definition of atheism you actually weren't talking about him or the vast majority of atheists in the first place since he and most are not 7s. I do mostly agree with your more general point that the certainty that there is no God isn't significantly more rational than the certainty there is though.

[Leonardo]

So it's semantics, thanks for the clarification. I disagree, 'atheist' can just mean 'does not believe in God'...

How is that definition meaningfully different to my own, albeit slightly wordier, definition?

"Not believing in God" does not mean "is unsure whether God exists", it means "is sure God does not exist."

So it is not "just semantics", but comprehension.

My argument is not about what Dawkins believes of himself, but what he believes about categorising others. His categories take the rationale (and rationality) of uncertainty that belongs to agnosticism, and grants that instead to atheism. While he might profess agnosticism of himself, his anti-theist attitude is revealed through this misrepresentation.

Edited March 27, 2014 by Leonardo

[Euphorbia]

How is that definition meaningfully different to my own, albeit slightly wordier, definition?

"Not believing in God" does not mean "is unsure whether God exists", it means "is sure God does not exist."

So it is not "just semantics", but comprehension.

My argument is not about what Dawkins believes of himself, but what he believes about categorising others. His categories take the rationale (and rationality) of uncertainty that belongs to agnosticism, and grants that instead to atheism. While he might profess agnosticism of himself, his anti-theist attitude is revealed through this misrepresentation.

You're making things too black and white here. I do not believe in god and never have (I'm a 6.999 myself). I do not personally know any atheists that proclaim they are 100% sure that god doesn't exist. After all, nobody can prove god doesn't exist.

Does that make me or anyone else like me less of an atheist for being, well, less than a 7? Nobody can logically say that god definitely doesn't exist, so one does not have to be 100% sure to be an atheist. By your logic, there are very few actual atheists in the world...

[Leonardo]

You're making things too black and white here. I do not believe in god and never have (I'm a 6.999 myself). I do not personally know any atheists that proclaim they are 100% sure that god doesn't exist. After all, nobody can prove god doesn't exist.

Does that make me or anyone else like me less of an atheist for being, well, less than a 7? Nobody can logically say that god definitely doesn't exist, so one does not have to be 100% sure to be an atheist. By your logic, there are very few actual atheists in the world...

Atheist is the antonym of theist. If theist is "someone who believes god, or gods, exist" then atheist must be "someone who does not believe god, or gods, exist" - if it is to be considered the antonym it is.

The co-opting of "rational uncertainty" to describe atheism is simply a move by anti-theists (not atheists) to portray atheism as the opposite of what they perceive as "the irrationality of theism."

As for 'proving' god does not exist, that has never been the atheist position (as proving a negative is logically impossible). That position is simply that there is no evidence that god exists, ergo god does not exist.

Edited March 27, 2014 by Leonardo

[+Liquid Gardens]

How is that definition meaningfully different to my own, albeit slightly wordier, definition?

Mine doesn't require absolute certainty.

"Not believing in God" does not mean "is unsure whether God exists", it means "is sure God does not exist."

If by 'sure' you mean #7/certain, then no, that's just one specific definition of 'belief'. Some of the definitions I've looked up use the word 'confidence' that what you think is true, and confidence is not restricted to certainty, you can be 90% confident and still believe.

So it is not "just semantics", but comprehension.

Leo: "I find Mr Dawkins guilty of attempting to 'redraw' the map of "theist-agnostic-atheist" - perhaps to grant his own [atheistic] beliefs a greater degree of 'rationality' than atheism actually warrants."

Leo: "So, the only position on Dawkins 'scale' which is actually atheist, is #7"

Dawkins: I am not a #7.

So did you mistakenly use the word 'atheistic' to describe Dawkins beliefs, or were you just maybe unaware that Dawkins is not a #7? Again, a definition of 'atheism' that excludes of all people Dawkins seems to not be very useful or reflect how the word is used typically.

My argument is not about what Dawkins believes of himself, but what he believes about categorising others. His categories take the rationale (and rationality) of uncertainty that belongs to agnosticism, and grants that instead to atheism. While he might profess agnosticism of himself, his anti-theist attitude is revealed through this misrepresentation.

I'm missing where his categories here take the rationality of uncertainty and grants it to atheism; his categories as stated are exact mirror images of each other on the spectrum from theism-agnosticism-atheism, where does the wording in these categories favor atheism? Let's take these two propositions (I'm borrowing from what you said to Euphorbia):

1) There is no good evidence that god exists, ergo I believe god does not exist.

2) There is no good evidence that god exists, but I believe god exists anyway.

Are these entirely equal rationally? 'Rationality' isn't the most concrete term I grant, but I think there is an argument using some definitions of rationality, which may not agree with your personal one, where 1 is more rational. If I change 'god' to 'subterranean gremlins living in a cave 1000 feet under my street', I at least see 1 as more rational; ymmv.

If we go with how Dawkins, and lots of others, define theism and atheism, his point is not to grant atheism the rationality of agnosticism, it is to point out that many theists will identify as 1 but not as many atheists will identify as a 7. This seems to line up pretty well with the notion I think you have that agnosticism is the most rational position, it appears that more hardcore atheists are actually being more rational than hardcore theists in a relative sense. He grants perhaps in general that atheists are more rational in general than theists, which seems somewhat supported unless you disagree that having uncertainty is more rational in this case than absolute certainty, or unless you disagree that Dawkins is wrong about how theists and atheists would rank themselves.

[Tiggs]

Atheist is the antonym of theist. If theist is "someone who believes god, or gods, exist" then atheist must be "someone who does not believe god, or gods, exist" - if it is to be considered the antonym it is.

Alternately, a theist is anyone who believes that the likelihood of a God existing is higher than not. Antonym that.

Y'know - I don't see you in a mad rush to declare all those church going 2's and 3's as agnostics, either.

Edited March 27, 2014 by Tiggs
Because Commas are not Full stops.

[markdohle]

I am 2 for sure.

[Grandpa Greenman]

I don't know. I'm a Pantheist, so I am either a 1 or a 6 depending on how you define what God is.

[Marcus Aurelius]

Interesting, and a flaw in the scale, to note that most Buddhists would probably have to put themselves in 6.

I think that is a bit of a misrepresentation of Buddhism and is far too general of a statement to be regarded as factual. I would be more inclined to put them at a 4 (arguably some would be close to a 3) rather than a 6 and I say this because in various Suttas the Buddha rebukes both his followers and those who sought him out not for belief in a god or gods; but because it was irrelevant. People would ask him how the universe began or whether the personality or the "I" survives beyond death or if the Vedic gods were real and his response was usually the same: he didn't confirm OR deny any of those things; but rather said it was impertinent to his teaching, which was to "end suffering in the present moment" and therefore it was "useless" to speculate about such things.

Historically, the view on god or gods also depends largely upon the specific school of Buddhism that the individual follows. I've read Buddhist scriptures where the Buddha is actually teaching gods, spirits and devas; indeed, even the gods praised his teaching. Now in this view, largely held by schools such as Mahayana and Tibetan Buddhism, supernatural and higher realms are in fact said to exist; but the beings that exist there are subject to Samsara just as we are. Therefore, they too benefit from the Dhamma. Mahayana Buddhists take this a step further in that they believe in an eternal Buddhahood, that he was and is a supreme reality that came to the earth in human form out of compassion to raise humanity from the depths of suffering and Samsara. Thus, there are highly devotional elements to Mahayana Buddhism. He is NOT seen as a creator god, however. In all of the Buddhist schools the universe is seen as having no beginning or end.

It could be said that the Theravada school of Buddhism is the most "atheistic." In that school, the Buddha was simply a human being who attained to enlightenment and Nirvana.

Ultimately, though as I said from the onset; it is safer to say that Buddhism is agnostic rather than atheist. I have read the entire Pali Canon as well as numerous other Buddhist Scriptures, and nowhere does the Buddha himself say "there is no god." And while most schools of Buddhism affirm that the universe has no beginning or end, it is clear that some schools of Buddhism do accept a kind of Absolute, a higher reality, and a kind of eternal consciousness of the Buddha himself.

But the overarching point here is that the Buddha himself grounds the basis of his teaching not on eternal principles or concepts of deity; but the human condition and present reality. The 4 Noble Truths and the Noble Eightfold Path make up the essence of ALL Buddhism; and when we start from the premise that 1. Life is suffering and 2. Suffering comes from attachment; theistic belief in a creator god can be seen as an attachment that also leads to suffering because as he says in various Suttas; it can distract us from the reality of our suffering in the present moment. Even IF a god DID exist; says Buddhism, we are STILL suffering in the present moment; therefore the subject is irrelevant. The goal of Buddhism is the cessation of suffering. But to say that it is irrelevant, as I said, is not to say that a god does or does not exist; therefore, Buddhism is far more agnostic than it is atheistic.

Edited March 27, 2014 by Marcus Aurelius

[Leonardo]

Alternately, a theist is anyone who believes that the likelihood of a God existing is higher than not. Antonym that.

Y'know - I don't see you in a mad rush to declare all those church going 2's and 3's as agnostics, either.

How on earth can a theist be "someone who believes god might, or might not, exist"?

Any person who is undecided as to the existence of god/deity/divinity is agnostic. How they choose to behave in their agnosticism - go to church or avoid it - is immaterial to that. An agnostic might lean towards theism, or towards atheism - but they are not "weak theists" or "weak atheists" as a result. Their indecision regarding the existence of deity still marks them as agnostic.

Funnily enough, I haven't seen such a 'scale' proposed by a theist which claims indecision regarding the existence of god as being a theistic trait. This scale is put forward by Dawkins, an anti-theist, and is - to my reading - very innaccurate in how it describes theism, agnosticism and atheism.

[spartan max2]

Im in no way Chrisitan which seems to be what the scale is talking about. And I read darwkins "god delusion" book. I don't like him he is way too condescending it entirely takes away from what he says he just wants to sell books it seems.

I range between 3-4

[Leonardo]

Mine doesn't require absolute certainty.

My definition: "the belief there exists no deity or deities."

Your definition: "does not believe in God."

How is your definition "any less certain" than my own?

So did you mistakenly use the word 'atheistic' to describe Dawkins beliefs, or were you just maybe unaware that Dawkins is not a #7? Again, a definition of 'atheism' that excludes of all people Dawkins seems to not be very useful or reflect how the word is used typically.

Dawkins claims agnosticism, but argues for atheism as a rational perspective in opposition to irrational theism. As an agnostic, I hold both theism and atheism as equally rational/irrational - and I don't see how any agnostic could argue either was "more rational" than the other. For all Dawkins' claims of agnosticism, I see him as more atheist (i.e. 'atheistic')- a defender of and apologiser for, atheism - than agnostic.

[Tiggs]

How on earth can a theist be "someone who believes god might, or might not, exist"?

See "The vast majority of people who believe that a God probably exists but aren't sure enough to jump off a cliff" for details.

[aquatus1]

Most atheists do not disbelieve in God. They simply lack a belief in God.

One is a rather strict and inflexible interpretation. The other is the one that people actually use.

[Tiggs]

Funnily enough, I haven't seen such a 'scale' proposed by a theist which claims indecision regarding the existence of god as being a theistic trait.

I think you'll find that scale is commonly referred to as Faith.

[+Liquid Gardens]

My definition: "the belief there exists no deity or deities."

That's not how you phrased it before, just a little while ago it was '100% certainty that no deities exist', and for the majority of common usage, 'belief' <> '100% certain'.

Dawkins claims agnosticism, but argues for atheism as a rational perspective in opposition to irrational theism. As an agnostic, I hold both theism and atheism as equally rational/irrational - and I don't see how any agnostic could argue either was "more rational" than the other. For all Dawkins' claims of agnosticism, I see him as more atheist (i.e. 'atheistic')- a defender of and apologiser for, atheism - than agnostic.

No, Dawkins claims atheism not agnosticism, he's just using more common definitions than you are. He does think it's extremely unlikely that he is wrong, but is not certain; a speck of doubt does not an agnostic make for most people.

[Mr Walker]

In the "God Delusion" Richard Dawkins made a scale to assess your beliefs or lack of them ,how do you rate your self

1. Strong Theist: I do not question the existence of God, I KNOW he exists.
   
2. De-facto Theist: I cannot know for certain but I strongly believe in God and I live my life on the assumption that he is there.
   
3. Weak Theist: I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God.
   
4. Pure Agnostic: God’s existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable.
   
5. Weak Atheist: I do not know whether God exists but I’m inclined to be skeptical.
   
6. De-facto Atheist: I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable and I live my life under the assumption that he is not there.
   
7. Strong Atheist: I am 100% sure that there is no God.
   

If ayone is interested I am a No 6 and No I haven't read the book

fullywired

Put me in at 0 although the scale is a bit misleading. Number 1 seems to still equate knowledge with a form of (absolute)belief

One can only really know god exists if one knows god as one knows the existence of all other physical things in the world. ie through physical encounter and interaction.

[Mr Walker]

Never read the book, never will but Im a definite 7 because God in any culture is a delusion.

Or alternatively the failure to see/perceive god is the delusionary position. It seems strange that in the modern world and even among educated human beings, 80% of humans would be deluded while less than 10 % would be seeing the truth. this is not the case with any other facet of human life Why would so few get it right about god being non existent?

No single person can correctly maintain that the existence of god is a delusion, while even one other single person knows god as a real physical and powerful being who interacts physically with humans and their environment. The position of the first person is a belief position, not knowledge.

[Mr Walker]

#6

There was a multi panel debate where Dawkins said "The inteligencia knows there is no God", and the audience let out a collective gasp.I think it would make a humorous ring tone.

Man made God in Man's own image.

If this is correctly attributed to dawkins then it is one of the few factual errors he has made. Intelligence does not proof a person against belief in god, and can often lead a person to god. No one can KNOW that god does not exist, and I am sure mr dawkins is aware of this.

[Frank Merton]

I dunno; every smart person I know all around the world tends to be an atheist or at least grin when you mention God. I guess a few people who think they are smart think otherwise, but it is hard for me to credit.

[Mr Walker]

Atheist is the antonym of theist. If theist is "someone who believes god, or gods, exist" then atheist must be "someone who does not believe god, or gods, exist" - if it is to be considered the antonym it is.

The co-opting of "rational uncertainty" to describe atheism is simply a move by anti-theists (not atheists) to portray atheism as the opposite of what they perceive as "the irrationality of theism."

As for 'proving' god does not exist, that has never been the atheist position (as proving a negative is logically impossible). That position is simply that there is no evidence that god exists, ergo god does not exist.

Actually the correct way to state the opposite or antonym would be "Someone who believes that god or gods do not exist" This is a critically different sentence with a very different meaning..

Atheism is, and must be defined as, a conscious positive choice to disbelieve in the existence of god/gods, because theism is defined as a conscious choice to believe in the existence of a god or gods.

A person who has never considered the existence of god is not an atheist, just because they do not believe in god. They do not disbelieve either, they have just never had to make up their mind.

[Frank Merton]

I guess I'm a 7 type atheist when it comes to the "Abrahamic" God and a 5 or 6 when it comes to people like Brahma and Zeus and Thor. I might be a 3 but more likely am a 4 when it comes to Bodhisattvas and the Tao,

[Mr Walker]

Most atheists do not disbelieve in God. They simply lack a belief in God.

One is a rather strict and inflexible interpretation. The other is the one that people actually use.

One is the correct, and thus only usable, definition of atheist. An atheist is a person who has made a conscious decision that god(s) do not exist and holds that position consciously as a belief. A young child or someone who has never heard of gods is NOT an atheist. See my post above. This goes to the construction of belief in human beings; the only entities we know of who can form and hold beliefs.

To be a theist an individual must construct and hold onto a belief that god(s) exist.To be an atheist an individual must construct and hold onto a belief that god(s) do not exist

An agnostic is any person who formally declares their refusal to construct and hold either a theistic or atheistic belief, but says simply," I do not know and I chose not to believe/disbelieve.

Another position is, "I know god exists, and hence both belief and disbelief are impossible constructs for me to form and hold onto" This is also, strangely, a form of agnosticism. For example I am agnostic in my belief about my parents existence. I hold no belief on that, because I know they exist.

There might even be some lone individual around the world who is none of the above, and has never thought about god in his/her entire life, but I doubt it. Humans construct god beliefs individually from birth, and have to deconstruct them later on in life, so there is probably no human being anywhere, who has never considered the question of the existence of gods.

Edited March 28, 2014 by Mr Walker

[Leonardo]

Most atheists do not disbelieve in God. They simply lack a belief in God.

One is a rather strict and inflexible interpretation. The other is the one that people actually use.

First, both your descriptions are essentially identical. Both lack grammatical sense in the same manner - i.e. they presuppose the existence of God, then suggest the atheist does not "believe" in that entity. I prefer "believing there is no God" - which is much sounder grammar. Regardless, neither of the descriptions you use are less, or more, 'inflexible' than the other.

Second, it is impossible to "lack belief". When questioned regarding the existence of a deity with the expectation of a "Yes or No" answer, the atheist will answer "No. God does not exist." To answer in this manner implies the atheist must believe God does not exist and does not "lack belief".

Lastly, I have, in the past, argued against using "disbelieving in God" as a description for atheism, because the phrase is grammatically unsound. However, those who referred to themselves as atheist argued that it meant the same as "believing there is no God" - even if it wasn't as accurate in grammar.

So, are you arguing against atheists?

I think you'll find that scale is commonly referred to as Faith.

As much as the actions of the agnostic (or atheist) is immaterial to their stance on whether they believe the divine exists, so are the actions of theists immaterial to their belief. A person either believes the divine exists (theist), believes there is nothing divine (atheist), or is undecided (agnostic). There is no "sliding scale" in this - except, perhaps, in the degree of agnosticism one holds to.

Edited March 28, 2014 by Leonardo

[willowdreams]

i would say I am at the edge of 5 and 6. sitting on the line. But some days, many days.. i sit on the line between 6 and 7.

You know what? I have never read any of dawkins books, nor have I even listened to him on youtube, I know next to nothing of him other then that he is overly aggressive in his views, and THAT i get from reading other peoples opinions on him

Edited March 28, 2014 by willowdreams