Jump to content
Burl

On modern substitutions for religion

Recommended Posts

Ok, I'll show compassionate care (since being is Love): Richard describes his scale and clearly states (see above) what #7 means. He then self describes as a 6.9 - and as discussed above 6.9 is close enough to be a 7. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then 1.1 is close enough to 1. 

And that you see 6.9 to be the same as 7 is your particular bias. So we are agreed nowhere in the video Dawkins says he knows god does not exist

He carefully explains that he is agnostic and what agnosticism means for him. You ignore Dawkins' caveats. I will ignore yours.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To get vaguely back on topic.

Routledge seems to imply that those that leave (or never had) faith get strange beliefs whether it be the likes of astrology or ghosts. He seems to think that this is a reflection of some deeper nature. But there is an argument that at least in part this is also due to nurture. To move towards secularity from a traditional religion must be difficult for many. I suspect many of the deistic type beliefs are this phenomenon … not being able to leave completely the comfort of some past belief.

Being secular the only belief that required some sort of 'magical' belief for me has been free will. And the moment (three weeks) I started thinking about it was something I could drop.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, romansh said:

Then 1.1 is close enough to 1. 

And that you see 6.9 to be the same as 7 is your particular bias. So we are agreed nowhere in the video Dawkins says he knows god does not exist

He carefully explains that he is agnostic and what agnosticism means for him. You ignore Dawkins' caveats. I will ignore yours.

Exactly, thought we covered that and that is why I made it 1.1 instead of 1 :+} 

Actually, if 1.1 is close enough to be a 1 (like you just said) then it follows that 6.9 is close enough to be a 7.

How odd, you provide the video and you are the one who ignores poor Richard's definition of what a #7 knows and that he is a 6.9 (close enough to be a 7). Very odd.

You ignore his very comments on the video in which he clearly stated the #7s: "I know God doesn't exist."  

I am the one who does not ignore Mr. Dawkins.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't ignore what is 7. Nor do I ignore the fact that 6.9 is not 7

As for 1.1 being the same as 1 … I was being perverse. The fact they are not the same seems to escape you.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, thormas said:

He gives his scale and that is what a 7 is ("I know God doesn't exist" ). He denies, actually tells the host he is wrong and that he (Dawkins) does not have a disproof of God) but this is what 7 means and he identifies as a 6.9. Good enough for most people.

Most people would take this as he can't say god does not exist but is close. And this would be good enough for most reasonable people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, romansh said:

Most people would take this as he can't say god does not exist but is close. And this would be good enough for most reasonable people.

Or, reasonable people would hear this interview and with his instant change to a 6.9 that he is not just close but so close he is, in effect, there.

So #7 is the atheist position, there is no 50/50 which he clearly rejects, he is a not at 90/10 which he rejects, he is at 99/1 - he is there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So we are agreed he did not say there is no god.

5 and 6 are also atheist positions. He just thinks it is extremely unlikely god [insert definition here] exists. 

It's not difficult for reasonable people here. 

I am not advocating here for his scale, I find it dumb to be honest. But I am trying to understand what he is trying to say and not put words into his mouth.

Edited by romansh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, romansh said:

So we are agreed he did not say there is no god.

5 and 6 are also atheist positions. He just thinks it is extremely unlikely god [insert definition here] exists. 

It's not difficult for reasonable people here. 

I am not advocating here for his scale, I find it dumb to be honest. But I am trying to understand what he is trying to say and not put words into his mouth.

It's just following the info Rom: here is what a 7 is and I am a 6.9 - so logically he is closer to 7 than 6 and would agree with this statement. I'm just listening to the words that are there!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

New Jersey is a lot closer to New York than say Los Angeles. That does not make New Jersey, New York, despite being a lot closer.

No one is debating that he is close to being a seven. He points that out himself. He also says clearly he is not a seven. What is difficult to understand about that?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, romansh said:

New Jersey is a lot closer to New York than say Los Angeles. That does not make New Jersey, New York, despite being a lot closer.

No one is debating that he is close to being a seven. He points that out himself. He also says clearly he is not a seven. What is difficult to understand about that?

Actually the better example is the Statue of Liberty which  is not only closer to NJ but in NJ waters yet claimed by NY with a NY address.

So the Statue in NY is in NJ thus NJ is not only closer than LA but has a NY address and the US Postal Service is never wrong! Thus NJ is NY or vice versa :+}

So California is a .9, NJ is a 6.9 and NYC a 7 except when NY is in NJ then NJ is a 7.

 

There is just not a lot of space between a 6.9 and a 7 even less than the  space required for the Holy Ghost that the old nuns insisted couples make room for when they slow danced.

So, after all this, if a 5, 6 and a 7 are atheist, Dawkins is definitely an atheist, not even the Spirit could wedge between his 6.9 and a 7. 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, romansh said:

To get vaguely back on topic.

Routledge seems to imply that those that leave (or never had) faith get strange beliefs whether it be the likes of astrology or ghosts. He seems to think that this is a reflection of some deeper nature. But there is an argument that at least in part this is also due to nurture. To move towards secularity from a traditional religion must be difficult for many. I suspect many of the deistic type beliefs are this phenomenon … not being able to leave completely the comfort of some past belief.

Being secular the only belief that required some sort of 'magical' belief for me has been free will. And the moment (three weeks) I started thinking about it was something I could drop.

 

There could very well be some truth to that Rom.  Perhaps those who have had religious faith are more likely to believe in other 'beliefs' due largely to their nurture and/or perhaps due to their genetic makeup.  My very general experience as an adult now 50 years of age is that most people I have worked with and gotten to known have almost one of two distinctly different trains of thought in this area - those who have had faith before but have moved on from that particular faith still seem to hold on to 'something', whereas those who did not grow up with faith seems to have no consideration at all for other 'speculative' beliefs (be it ghosts, other religions, spirituality, etc).  That's just my personal observation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rom's case is rock solid on this Dawkins' point and I'm not really sure why you feel you have to stick with your incorrect assumption/interpretation of Dawkins' video, Thormas.

It is black and white that Dawkins' point is that he is very confident God does not exist and currently sees no reason to believe in any sort of God, and that he leans very heavily towards 'knowing' there isn't any such thing a God, BUT, he admits he cannot prove that, so he leaves an appropriate amount of room between 'knowing' and 'not knowing'.

I believe he makes this clear distinction of not being a 7 precisely for the point that his integrity doesn't allow him to say he is a 7 because he knows he cannot prove that there isn't something called God that is yet to be revealed or understood.  Full marks for his integrity.  Not sure why you would spend your time defending a blatant misrepresentation of what Dawkins says.

I consider my self a reasonable person and I think what he says is quite reasonable without determining his 6.9 to mean 7.  It might be only be 0.1 but they are chasms apart and that's the point Rom has made.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Paul,

45 minutes ago, PaulS said:

It is black and white that Dawkins' point is that he is very confident God does not exist and currently sees no reason to believe in any sort of God, and that he leans very heavily towards 'knowing' there isn't any such thing a God, BUT, he admits he cannot prove that, so he leaves an appropriate amount of room between 'knowing' and 'not knowing'.

Well, Richard denies he has a disproof for God so it seems that on his scale one can 'know' God doesn't exist but there seemingly is no proof for or against God existing (again, he corrects the moderator on this very specific point).  Dawkins puts himself at a 6.9 and Rom said that is the atheist side of the scale. So he is an atheist without proof, can't be an agnostic since the true agnostic position is a 50/50 mix and he simply rejects that out of hand. So that would be a 4 and he is not a 5 and although he said he was a 6 he quickly disowned that and warped to 6.9. So, fully on the atheist end of the scale.

So his 'confident' is simply that he really, firmly, completely 'knows' (without proof) that God doesn't exist or as close to that as he can come with a very confident 6.9. Doesn't seem proof is part of his scale (in this video). There is no blatant misrepresentation simply a disagreement on what the man is saying (from this small video) and the relative indifference over .1.

BTW, what are these chasm that cover that supposed vast .1 difference? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, thormas said:

Well, Richard denies he has a disproof for God so it seems that on his scale one can 'know' God doesn't exist but there seemingly is no proof for or against God existing (again, he corrects the moderator on this very specific point). 

No, Dawkins does NOT say one 'can' know God exists but rather his scale is describing where one sits in relation to how certain one believes they are concerning the existence of God.  It's not about proof or disproof - it's about how convinced one is that they do or don't have proof. He states that a 1 represents those who say they KNOW a theistic God exists and a 7 represents those who say they KNOW a theistic God doesn't exist.  There is no relevance of 'can know' on his scale.

Quote

Dawkins puts himself at a 6.9 and Rom said that is the atheist side of the scale. So he is an atheist without proof, can't be an agnostic since the true agnostic position is a 50/50 mix and he simply rejects that out of hand. So that would be a 4 and he is not a 5 and although he said he was a 6 he quickly disowned that and warped to 6.9. So, fully on the atheist end of the scale.

Who says the 'true' agnostic position is a 50/50 mix?  Certainly not Dawkins and he doesn't say that in the video. Is this your interpretation? Dawkins is explaining his scale because he proposes that one can place estimates of probability on 'these things'.  Dawkins says he calls himself an agnostic, he simply says that he's definitely not the type of agnostic that has a 50/50 position on belief in God.  He may be at the atheist 'end of the scale' but he is clearly drawing a distinction between those who say they are 100% certain a theistic God exists and those who say they are 100% certain a theistic God doesn't exist.  Agnostics and atheists of varying degrees get placed along his scale.  Perhaps it might be clearer if you read his book the God Delusion and understand his scale further than just this video perhaps?  I've included a snippet of his scale below for further clarification.

20 hours ago, thormas said:

So his 'confident' is simply that he really, firmly, completely 'knows' (without proof) that God doesn't exist or as close to that as he can come with a very confident 6.9. Doesn't seem proof is part of his scale (in this video). There is no blatant misrepresentation simply a disagreement on what the man is saying (from this small video) and the relative indifference over .1.

BTW, what are these chasm that cover that supposed vast .1 difference? 

No, Dawkins simply is NOT saying he KNOWS God doesn't exist.  He makes it clear that he is very much up toward that end of the scale for sure, but he makes it very clear that by not putting himself at 7 he is acknowledging that he DOES NOT KNOW that God doesn't exist, he just thinks that on the scale of probability, he thinks it is very, very unlikely, almost all the way (but not quite) to the point where one says they KNOW God doesn't exist.

Out of interest, where do you think you sit on Dawkins' scale and your position for a Theistic God?

Dawkins' Scale:

1.00: Strong theist. 100 per cent possibility of God. In the words of C.G. Jung, 'I do not believe, I know.'

2.00: Very high probability but short of 100 per cent. De facto theist. 'I cannot know for certain, but I strongly believe in God and live my life on the assumption that he is there.'

3.00: Higher than 50 per cent but not very high. Technically agnostic but leaning towards theism. 'I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God.'

4.00: Exactly 50 per cent. Completely impartial agnostic. 'God's existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable.'

5.00: Lower than 50 per cent but not very low. Technically agnostic but leaning towards atheism. 'I don't know whether God exists but I'm inclined to be sceptical.'

6.00: Very low probability, but short of zero. De facto atheist. 'I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there.'

7:00: Strong atheist. 'I know there is no God, with the same conviction as Jung 'knows' there is one.'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Paul,

You are really going down a rabbit hole here assuming I am purposely, blatantly, mischaracterizing anything. You, once again, input bad motives with someone disagrees with you (this is becoming a pattern for you).

Plus, never said Dawkins said one 'can' know God, rather I said, accurately, that #7 is "I know there is no God or that God doesn't exist." 

You would have a point if Richard self designated as a 6 but he instantly changed to a 6.9 So rather than a 'de facto atheist' he is much closer on the scale to strong atheist: my point. 

I'm still waiting on the 'chasms' (multiple chasms) that fall between 6.9 and 7. Nada from you.

I'm not a theist, at least as classically understood and, as indicted in the dialogue with Rom, I do not use the word 'know.' One cannot know that God does or doesn't exist, one 'believes' he does or he doesn't. So I believe God IS. 

 

Edited by thormas

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you think Dawkins is 100 % sure that there is no god?

Or to phrase it more accurately Dawkins thinks it is 100 % probable there is no god … no uncertainty?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, thormas said:

 Dawkins puts himself at a 6.9 and Rom said that is the atheist side of the scale. So he is an atheist without proof, can't be an agnostic since the true agnostic position is a 50/50 mix

This goes back to your lack of knowledge or at least apparent lack. Oxford definition of atheist

  • A person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.

So anything above a 4 is an atheist by this definition. Of course someone actually disbelieves in god would be either a 6 or a 7 depending where they stand on knowledge bit. For example I cannot prove there are no fairies under my garden shed so I can't say I know they are not there, but I can say I am a 6.99999 on the fairy scale. Close to 7 but no bananas. And as you like Bertie:

Quote

[An agnostic's] attitude may be that which a careful philosopher would have towards the gods of ancient Greece. If I were asked to prove that Zeus and Poseidon and Hera and the rest of the Olympians do not exist, I should be at a loss to find conclusive arguments. An Agnostic may think the Christian God as improbable as the Olympians; in that case, he is, for practical purposes, at one with the atheists.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, thormas said:

BTW, what are these chasm that cover that supposed vast .1 difference?

It's called agnosticism.

Its the ability to say I am not completely sure, despite the fact the proposition makes no sense whatsoever. 

I find puzzling that you allow yourself this wiggle room

Quote

I do not use the word 'know.' One cannot know that God does or doesn't exist, one 'believes' he does or he doesn't. So I believe God IS. 

But you won't allow Dawkins the same space. Not puzzling really, more amazing.

Edited by romansh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, romansh said:

It's called agnosticism.

Its the ability to say I am not completely sure, despite the fact the proposition makes no sense whatsoever. 

I find puzzling that you allow yourself this wiggle room

But you won't allow Dawkins the same space. Not puzzling really, more amazing.

Rom, Paul used the plural so he should had had some rather specific chasms in mind. 

Wiggle room? If we are talking about know vs. belief, you have taken the liberty to say you hate(?) the scale and I have taken the liberty to disagree with the basic premise that one can 'know.' I am simply saying that no one knows if God exists or he doesn't. This is a belief statement.  In theology, discussed previously, God does not exist (like every thing else), God is the very possibility of anything existing at all. This is ............a belief statement.

However, within the limits of the scale I am saying there is no difference in reality and I am puzzled why you won't recognize that Richard is an atheist on this scale and the difference between 6.9 and 7 is negligible.  As above, #6: 'I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there.' 

This is the atheist position, one cannot know for certain yet, in spite of this, one lives assuming that God is not - there is no place else to go since there is no absolute certainty and no Jungian conviction that would follow.  

Unless you are saying that no one ever has been, ever will be or is presently an atheist because you agree with me that there is no certainty..........ever.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, thormas said:

Wiggle room? If we are talking about know vs. belief, you have taken the liberty to say you hate(?) the scale and I have taken the liberty to disagree with the basic premise that one can 'know.' I am simply saying that no one knows if God exists or he doesn't. This is a belief statement.  In theology, discussed previously, God does not exist (like every thing else), God is the very possibility of anything existing at all. This is ............a belief statement.

No one but no one is claiming otherwise. You seem to want to keep a distinction for yourself believing and knowing (1 vs 1.1) but won't accept the distinction on the other side.

37 minutes ago, thormas said:

However, within the limits of the scale I am saying there is no difference in reality and I am puzzled why you won't recognize that Richard is an atheist on this scale and the difference between 6.9 and 7 is negligible.  As above, #6: 'I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there.'

I do recognize Dawkins is an atheist. He just is not a gnostic atheist. The extra 0.9 is simply pointing at the preposterousness that he finds in the arguments for god. The difference between 6.9 and 7 is the same as 1.1 and 1. You live your life on the assumption there is a god. Me personally I don't assume there isn't a god but my life looks pretty godless. 

37 minutes ago, thormas said:

This is the atheist position, one cannot know for certain yet, in spite of this, one lives assuming that God is not - there is no place else to go since there is no absolute certainty and no Jungian conviction that would follow.  

No this is an atheist position. Agnosticism and atheism are not mutually exclusive, and for that matter neither are theism and agnosticism. Though the latter smacks of fideism.

And yet Jung claimed he knows there is a god.

37 minutes ago, thormas said:

Unless you are saying that no one ever has been, ever will be or is presently an atheist because you agree with me that there is no certainty..........ever.

Certainty in the sense of 100 % I agree, but that is irrelevant. But if I believe I can't be 100 % certain then there is a paradox here. How can I be 100 % certain of this? It's Cantor's self containing set. 

So ultimately I don't agree with you. Dawkins is someone who does not believe there is a god (possibly does believes there is no god), is aware he can't be certain and lives his accordingly as an atheist. Simple really.

Edited by romansh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, romansh said:

This goes back to your lack of knowledge or at least apparent lack. Oxford definition of atheist

  • A person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.

So anything above a 4 is an atheist by this definition. Of course someone actually disbelieves in god would be either a 6 or a 7 depending where they stand on knowledge bit. For example I cannot prove there are no fairies under my garden shed so I can't say I know they are not there, but I can say I am a 6.99999 on the fairy scale. Close to 7 but no bananas. And as you like Bertie:

Rom, Rom, Rom you are the one who said that 5, 6 & 7 on the scale are atheist positions so it's all about your 'mistake.'

 

6.00: 'I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there.'

7:00: 'I know there is no God, with the same conviction as Jung 'knows' there is one.'

 

So the Oxford (atheist lacks belief) disagrees with the Dawkin's scale (which is about knowing)? So you're not accusing Dawkins of a lack of knowledge given the Oxford dictionary. Really?

Who is right, is it about belief or knowing, including knowing for certain?

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, romansh said:

No one but no one is claiming otherwise. You seem to want to keep a distinction for yourself believing and knowing (1 vs 1.1) but won't accept the distinction on the other side.

Wrong again, see above.

1 or 1.1 are about belief not knowing (ala the scale). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, PaulS said:

1.00: Strong theist. 100 per cent possibility of God. In the words of C.G. Jung, 'I do not believe, I know.'

2.00: Very high probability but short of 100 per cent. De facto theist. 'I cannot know for certain, but I strongly believe in God and live my life on the assumption that he is there.'

1 is about knowing

1.1 is between 2 and 1 so it is about not being certain strongly believing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, thormas said:

you are the one who said that 5, 6 & 7 on the scale are atheist positions so it's all about your 'mistake.'

I don't see the mistake here … I stand by what I said.

8 minutes ago, thormas said:

So the Oxford (atheist lacks belief) disagrees with the Dawkin's scale (which is about knowing)? So you're not accusing Dawkins of a lack of knowledge given the Oxford dictionary. Really?

No the Oxford dictionary has two definitions …  the weak, soft, agnostic or implicit atheist … more or less equivalent to 5 and perhaps 6. The second 'believes not' definition is equivalent to strong, hard and explicit atheist positions … more less equivalent to 6 and perhaps 7. The Oxford definition does not include the gnostic atheist position knowing god does not exist ie 7.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×