The Dawkins' Scale

progaardvark wrote: The problem I see with this scale is it lacks context. What is God according to this scale? Is it the Biblical God, Jupiter, Thor, or some other anthropomorphized super-being? I would be a 7 on that scale. If it's "the source" noted in past-life regressions (which is a stretch calling it "God" because it might be better defined in consciousness terms, whatever those may be; I don't know, I've only recently been reading on this topic), then I think I'd be more in the middle, like 4-5? The world is in many shades of gray, and although this scale covers some of those grays, it seems flat like it needs more dimensions.

^ Interesting post, and yes, depending on the conception of a God or God, I would fall in different places in the scale. I think one way to use a scale of that is for a person to define/ describe what they think of as a God or gods and then apply the scale to that. Of course one might have many idea on that. There are some more nebulous ideas of a deity which seem more likely to me than more specific conception of a God. And some people use the God term meaning nature, and I believe in nature, although I also can reject that definition. One can define God into existence. Spectrums of "belief: make sense to me, which is where I see that chart and others like it as useful things to think about.

Hugh Manatee wrote: Belief or lack thereof is a personal choice and should remain so. The real problems begin when someone tries to force their beliefs (or indeed lack of belief) on others or criticize others for not sharing their belief system. This applies regardless of where anyone positions themselves on the scale IMHO.

I'm not convinced that belief or lack thereof is a personal choice (maybe in some cases it can be and in others not), but I guess it depends upon how you're using the terms. I think of belief as more of a result due to environmental and hereditary factors than a choice to be convinced and therefore believe in something. Not a free choice, and I am a determinist, but for me choice isn't the choicest of terms, but I don't want to turn this into free will vs. determinism.

People are inculcated with belief systems from an early age and what you believe depends so much on your community, where you grew up, your parents and your genetics (nature and nurture). I like the basic idea you're trying to convey but belief systems are being instilled and expected of people all the time (some good and some bad by my reckoning). I've tried to convince my kids to believe in certain things (not of a supernatural quality) because I think it's going to beneficial to them, some of those are of a safety nature, some are in the moral/ ethics dimension. I often don't care that much about what someone believes as long as it doesn't inform what I believe to be bad actions.   I know that parents who instill their children with the fear of hell might well be thinking of the welfare of their children. Their beliefs mean that they are trying to instill beliefs that might save them form everlasting pain and provide them with eternal salvation. There are people who moved away from those belief systems but can't shake the fear and can't disbelieve in hell as they wish to. Once instilled, it can be very hard to shake a belief. People believe what I consider to be abhorrent things and act on those beliefs. Sometimes we grow up with beliefs and just accept them, and often our beliefs depend on how compelling we find the evidence and arguments. If you presented what I think to be very uncompelling evidence that my neighbor is really a sasquatch, say a photo of him at a furry convention, I would either be convinced or not. I don't think that I truly could choose which I believe, that he is or isn't a sasquatch. It would depend on how compelling the evidence (and arguments) would be and my rationality (biases, personality traits, experience, scepticism) would come into play. One person might be convinced and another not but that is due to so many factors. I think it can be hard to force

I think it's okay to question your own and others beliefs and belief systems, and in many cases to try to convince them otherwise or at least help to get them to question those beliefs. Some beliefs really can lead to bad actions both of a religious and non-religious nature. Some beliefs and belief systems are potentially more dangerous/ harmful than others and some beliefs I believe to be beneficial. I tend to believe that a world which maximises well-being and minimises suffering would tend to be better than one which maximises suffering and minimises well-being, and my belief would more likely lead to what I think is better world than my contrarian. I also tend to think it's better (subjective) if one's beliefs seem more likely to comport with reality than not. If I believe that that car coming at me and my kids while crossing the road at 100 miles per hour is an angel come to bestow it's love on us, that might be a problem. Some beliefs will be seen to be the products of a deranged mind, and others, while perhaps equally implausible and lacking proper evidence seem to be accepted wholeheartedly by many.

I like Dawkins' writings on evolution, but when he gets onto the subject of religion he comes off as something of an arrogant dick. Also a bit of a bore.

Logan wrote:   I'm not convinced that belief or lack thereof is a personal choice (maybe in some cases it can be and in others not), but I guess it depends upon how you're using the terms.

Edited by Hugh Manatee - March 01 2022 at 15:49

^ Oh yeah, sure. I'd love more people to like the music I like.

Edited by Hugh Manatee - March 01 2022 at 18:46

^ Christopher Hitchens, who was one of the so-called new atheists and four horseman, has said much the same thing as I recall. I would feel the same of such a god.

^^ It seems that I can't get even get many Proggers to appreciate the Proggy things I like. :) I don't like reviews that say such things either. I find statements such as "You've got to listen to this!" and "You need to buy this now!" very off-putting. When I would put on music around friends, I might comment on the qualities of the music, but I wouldn't comment on the quality (how good it is) of the music. Each person can be the judge of that. I have often said, "Because you like such-ad-such, you might appreciate this" and then let the music speak for itself, so to speak -- music speaks rather differently to each individual.

We could make a Proggins' Scale of Prog Belief: A Spectrum of Progistic Probability

1. Strong Progist: 100 percent certainty that Fripp or some other musician depending on your religious or spiritual affiliation is a God of Prog.*
...
7. Strong Atheist: I may not believe in the Godz of Progz, but I am 100 percent certain that Atheist belongs in the Tech/Extreme Prog Metal category.

And by the way, Dawkins says, "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."

Edited by Logan - March 01 2022 at 18:52

I think I'm 7. But tbh I don't care

^ Some of a more theistic bent than I might say that an imperfect designer led to imperfect designs and imperfect conceptions of God. :)

^^ Certainly the God belief in others is very important to him due to the affect that he sees of religions and superstitious beliefs. I'm sure he has an interesting history with the religious and religion from an early age. Ignoring God, or concepts of God, would have been much easier for him had he been able to ignore superstitious people. It's not surprising that he would want to turn around anti-evolutionists and anti-science people, or at east maybe have some effect in getting those to question their beliefs and promote rationalism and scepticism. He can't force them to believe what he wants, and in fact I would say that those he is trying to get through to have dealt with far heavier indoctrination by the religious, and have an echo chamber effect to confirm their own views/ biases from their communities. I don't like belittling people, but promoting rationalism and empiricism is I think beneficial, and one is up against a lot of opposition.   I would hate to see atheists burning people at the stake for their theism. Don't think many atheists would be willing to organise and blow themselves up with others for their noble cause, or, as evolutionists, murder cartoonists for their depictions of Charles Darwin. I mention that because it was with the Charlie Hebdo massacre and later Paris attacks that I gained a much bigger concern over the potential harmfulness of religions. Where I live is obviously getting more and more religious, and before that I was faced with my wife's friends. I have never told them about my lack of belief in God, but they talk about God a lot and have some views that to me are odious and arrogant in a way.

-----------------------

By the way, some have been confused when I have referred to myself as an atheist since I am also agnostic and actually have told me that I am confused and I am just agnostic. Atheism means without theism, and I fall into that as I lack belief in God, and I am agnostic on a great many things including lacking knowledge if God exists. It's an interesting and poignant issue for me particularly because of my experience with the religious having being raised Anglican, and having married a Pentecostal Christian -- my wife would probably be a two on the scale. She was pretty hardcore I think but not as full-on as her friends, and she did lots of missions. That she married me says something, although she claims that it was only for my body. :( Some are atheists because we have not been exposed to theism or are not that exposed to theistic thinking - ignorance of theism rather than rejecting theism.

First post before I had my coffee, and I'm not inclined to edit, if it seems even more rambling than usual.