The Dawkins' Scale

I think it's largely based in nature and nurture, upbringing and conditioning and being exposed to and thinking about ideas. I have empathy and think about the kind of world that I would like and how how would I like to be treated, and what values would support that and extend that to others. I work on the base assumption that well-being is better than suffering, and how can we maximise well-being and minimise suffering. A sado-masochist might hate the kind of world I would like. And I have no certainty, I have levels of confidence depending on desired outcomes and the like.

Edited by Logan - March 09 2022 at 18:55

My wife is two on this scale (Pentecostal) and I am a six (born into the Anglican church) and we both seem to share the same basic moral values (we have differences, such as I tend to see Veganism as more morally virtuous if one is not reliant on meat). We both have empathy, and its based on the kind of world that we would like for ourselves, for our family, for our friends and for people generally. It has to do with how we would like to be treated and would like to see others treated. No doubt some of our shared mores come from religious thinkers, from non-religious philosophers and so on. I work on the assumption that a world where suffering is minimised and well-being is maximised is better.   I loosely fall into the Humanist camp and would call myself a moral situationalist. Different people within greater religions (meaning not the sects within it) as well as from different religions have different values on all sorts of things, For instance, I've known many Christians who are pro death penalty, but I am against it in principle (one could find exceptions), And I know Anglicans who are anti-death penalty. To me it's not that interesting a question as I see all moral codes as coming from "man", and having some basis in nature and nurture.

As for the scale, I think it can be a useful starting point for some to think about spectrums of belief even if it is simplistic. It is a chart that is part of a much greater text, and one can think of it as an illustration of a concept in much the same that one might add some graphs to an academic paper. The God assertion is not something that this agnostic atheist would or could assign a probability to, and then it would also depend on the God claims (the qualities of the God or Gods). If one's God is nature as some say, well, I believe in nature, but I don't just define God as nature, and am not certain of anything (I am reasonably sure of many things).

Edited by Logan - March 09 2022 at 18:38

Especially if we don’t want TapFret to come in and lock it down. Politics and religion! Have to tread more lightly.

I think a more interesting discussion is, after selecting where you stand on this scale, what then is a person’s basis for right and wrong, good versus evil, morality, etc.

^ Yeah, I probably overreacted. For some reason, it reminded me of a consumer goods survey put together by a bot.

Do you believe you use fluoride in your toothpaste?

A. Yes, I know I use fluoride in my toothpaste
B. Doesn’t all toothpaste have fluoride in it?
C. I think my toothpaste has fluoride in it, but I’m not sure.
D. Etc.

It is obviously slanted to a particular view. I think there are more interesting questions, but I guess we live in this sort of society now. On a scale of 1 to 10, blah blah blah

If life starts getting reduced to this sort of bean counting treatment, might want to hug a koala or write a song or something to give a juice kick to the spirit.

Edited by Jaketejas - March 09 2022 at 17:30

Have you ever been wronged? Treated unfairly? Has anyone ever shown compassion or empathy towards you? If you said yes to any of those questions, then you probably have some moral compass. That is, you probably have some idea of what is good versus what is evil. If so, then how do you rationalize that? That is a conundrum for the human mind. Because, once you admit that there is good and evil in the world, then you immediately have a logic problem. That is, what is your basis for that? Or, you can try to ignore it, but at some point I’m guessing that it’s going to gnaw at you. Humans are inherently different from other creatures on this planet in part for this very reason. So, no, I don’t particularly like this scale. It turns complex questions of the heart that people should consider into an overly simplistic and shallow multiple choice survey.

A judgmental and vindictive tyrant as depicted in ancient texts - hell no

A singularity of unconditional love as pronounced in the same texts – yes

Hugh Manatee wrote: Lewian wrote: ... but even then subjective probability doesn't work with an infinite payout, as Pascal had in mind.) I'm not sure I understand what you are getting at here, i.e. your insistence that some kind of payout is necessary in order to formulate an opinion based on subjective probability.  I wonder if you would mind expanding on this particular assertion.

jamesbaldwin wrote: I don't know if you know this faact: in the Russia of the years between the nineteenth and twentieth centuries there was the movement of the "Seekers of God" which then evolved, thanks to the writer Maksim Gorkij and the politician Anatolj Lunacarskij in the "Movement for the Construction of God ", of which the two were supporters during their stage in Italy, on the island of Capri, where they founded the Revolutionary School of Capri. According to this movement, Bolshevism should have built a religion from below where it was the proletariat who built God. Lenin opposed this pseudo-transcendent movement. The movement failed with the failure of the Capri school, but Gorky wrote a book about it: Confession.

Lewian wrote: (1) According to subjectivist statistician Bruno de Finetti, probabilities should be put on future events the occurrence of which can at some point in time be evaluated (because in that case a bet can pay out that is placed according to your probabilities). The existence of god is no such event. At no point in time can a bet on God's existence be cashed out, therefore probabilities do not apply.

Lewian wrote: (1) According to subjectivist statistician Bruno de Finetti, probabilities should be put on future events the occurrence of which can at some point in time be evaluated (because in that case a bet can pay out that is placed according to your probabilities). The existence of god is no such event. At no point in time can a bet on God's existence be cashed out, therefore probabilities do not apply. (2) For sure God exists as a human idea that has implications on human actions. This looks rather trivial, however it may be questioned whether there is any better existence than this at all. (3) As a philosophical constructivist I tend to say that God exists by means of construction for the people who construct God, i.e., their belief in God makes God exist, but I'm not one of them (which I do realise is in conflict with (2); also those who construct God probably don't want this kind of existence but rather a different one).