The Dawkins' Scale

^ I'm a bit at a loss here. I'm not quite sure what Collins and Dawkins publicly displayed demeanors as you characterise them have to do with anything.

Edited by Hugh Manatee - March 09 2022 at 20:39

Another interesting observation is that one was once a theist who changed to atheism while the other was an atheist who became a theist.

Jaketejas wrote: Logan wrote: 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). The problem I have with the scale is that, and this is realizing that it was crafted by an evolutionary biologist, I find it is somewhat misleading in that it fails to define belief. Knowing a bit about, for example, Christianity, we all probably know the account in the scriptures regarding “doubting Thomas”. The scripture is essentially declaring that you cannot prove Christianity. Yes, a religion that tells you up front that you aren’t going to be able to prove it based on sensing. Christianity has, then, nothing to do with scientific proof/belief and everything to do with the heart. 99.999% of people question their beliefs, so the scale is kind of useless on that point as well. The question of “God” is then, in the case of Christians, entirely a leap of faith. An analogy might be … we guess anti-matter exists. We can’t see it. We can’t turn on our anti-matter detector and measure it. But, we can see some behavior in galaxies that allows us to infer that it might be there. We have some faith that it’s there. Here, I would argue that we can sense that we are not just pre-programmed biological computers, a cluster of atoms that is predestined to behave a certain way. Conscience, empathy, free will, forgiveness, etc., allow me to infer that there is something else in addition to our limitations from DNA. Alexa or Siri are tremendous troves of information, and may be able to tell you the latest estimate on the number of stars in our galaxy, but they don’t really help in matters of the heart (at least I hope not). Faith has nothing to do with scientific belief like “I know that sodium carbonate plus acetic acid evolves CO2.” I believe it because I see the bubbles and detect it on my mass spectrometer. Rather, it is purely a matter of faith in the unseen. One infers it based on, in part, what is seen in the response of others, and how the heart changes through faith. Not by using the latest Geiger counter or DNA sequencer. Also, no one knows if there are other dimensions. We can sort of infer that other dimensions may exist from tesseract to cube to square to line to dot projections, but since we can only perceive 3 spatial dimensions (and perhaps suggest but not prove a 4th), then we may be infinitely limited by our infinitesimally small capabilities of detection. That’s where I think faith can help provide some comfort and purpose. I’m not sure where I fall on the scale. I can’t BELIEVE in a higher power from scientific deduction. I can at least have a modicum of faith in a higher power if I choose to do so of my own free will. Almost everyone with functioning gray cells, I think, questions the existence of a higher entity. That’s part of the vibrant human experience. As far as this chart goes, in my opinion the text seems chilly, and the graphic, for some reason, gives off kind of a creepy Monty Python vibe. I am terribly concerned about how people rationalize morality regardless of where they appear on the “Dawkins scale”.

Interesting post, and I do enjoy reading your thoughts. We come to different conclusions and make different inferences but I like your demeanor, which feels warm and casual. It's a lot to unpack. First, I don't believe in free will (I'm a determinist who holds that causal chains, hereditary and environmental factors "force" outcomes/ decisions) and I am the ultimate agnostic (from my point of view even if, like Dawkins I am a six on that scale) as I don't claim to know anything with certainty and instead have degrees of confidence and live my life assuming certain things exist and are true. Religion and science employ inference. Some ancients saw lightning and inferred that some powerful being must be behind that. Later, there was a scientific explanation for it. Many of us question if God exists (especially the more they have been exposed to concepts of a God or gods) and the nature of reality.
Faith can be comforting, but it's not a reliable way to get to truth writ large, as it is belief without sufficient evidence. I think it's fine to say that ultimately "I don't know". I too am concerned how people rationalise morality and where their morality derives from. I don't seen religious texts as being particularly good places to get one's morality from, and people of different religions, as I said, arrive at different moral conclusions. To some not only is homosexuality immoral, but they feel that it is right for such people to be killed, I certainly have problems with divine command theory and don't think the morals came from a God or gods.

Anyway, despite the chart not working altogether well for me, I like the basic idea of demonstrating spectrums of belief. One can apply such things to all manners of beliefs.

One of my favourites quotes that relates to being uncertain is from Bertrand Russell (often referred to for Russel's teapot, which Gong references)

"The fundamental cause of the trouble is that in the modern world the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt" (Bertrand Russell).

Here is Russell' teapot analogy, incidentally:

"If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time" (Bertrand Russell).




Edited by Logan - March 10 2022 at 11:00

^ I enjoy listening to your views, too. Probably you are more certain of what you believe than I am in what I hold to, but it’s good to hear other points of view and try to see things from other perspectives.

I think there are limits to what science can tell us, although I definitely think it is a worthy cause to continue to seek objective truths. I just don’t think that science and religion are at odds with each other because I believe they deal with entirely different concepts. Also, I tend to doubt we as limited humans will ever be able to prove the existence of a higher power or other dimensions (despite cleverly titled articles about the “God” particle).

I have wondered about the predestination/Freewill issue. For some reason, autocorrect capitalized that, so I’m guessing it may be a Rush fan. The reason why I think there is freewill is that we see people do incredible acts of kindness every day, and sometimes at incredible risk. We’ve all probably now heard about the horrible tragedy that wiped out a family on the bridge in Irpin. What is often a side note in the story is that a “churchgoer” was helping them and was also killed. The thing that strikes me is, besides the horrific nature of this senseless and brutal act, that this helper had already gotten his family out of the city. But, instead of fleeing, he turns right around, heads back into the fray, and goes back for others. That selfless act, to me, goes completely against evolutionary self-preservation. It is, I would say, a very moral, decent, and good thing that he did, despite the fact that no one survived. I think that is representative of what the Christianity of Collins is about. I’m not going to get into false representations of Christianity too much but I think we’re seeing that at work, too. I like phrases like “let whoever is without sin cast the first stone” which I think is obviously very different from indiscriminate lobbing of missiles on innocent people partly in the name of a misrepresentation of a particular religion.

Collins has mentioned CS Lewis writings and the predestination/Freewill issue (there it goes again with capitalizing it), and that’s where Lewis used dimensional aspects to possibly explain that. To be honest, as a three dimensional being with limited IQ, I’m not sure I completely understand it, but I’ll do my level best. The idea is that a higher power may exist at all times rather than on our uniaxial time axis or perhaps vector is a better word (I think that comes from the first lines of John, which kind of look like the first lines of Genesis). In that case, the entity may know all that has happened, will happen, and is happening … but still imbue freewill for us to make choices, since if we were completely pre-programmed automatons, that wouldn’t make for very interesting company. Anyway, I think that’s the gist of it, or at least what I could glean.

That was a lot of typing. I think I’m going to need that cup of tea Russell was talking about, but hopefully it isn’t infinitesimally small or there are going to be some disappointed people. I think a certain amount of doubt is both healthy and normal, but a little bit of faith is not bad, either. I’ve been told it can move mountains.

Jaketejas wrote:   The problem I have with the scale is that, and this is realizing that it was crafted by an evolutionary biologist, I find it is somewhat misleading in that it fails to define belief. Knowing a bit about, for example, Christianity, we all probably know the account in the scriptures regarding “doubting Thomas”. The scripture is essentially declaring that you cannot prove Christianity. Yes, a religion that tells you up front that you aren’t going to be able to prove it based on sensing. Christianity has, then, nothing to do with scientific proof/belief and everything to do with the heart. 99.999% of people question their beliefs, so the scale is kind of useless on that point as well. The question of “God” is then, in the case of Christians, entirely a leap of faith. An analogy might be … we guess anti-matter exists. We can’t see it. We can’t turn on our anti-matter detector and measure it. But, we can see some behavior in galaxies that allows us to infer that it might be there. We have some faith that it’s there. Here, I would argue that we can sense that we are not just pre-programmed biological computers, a cluster of atoms that is predestined to behave a certain way. Conscience, empathy, free will, forgiveness, etc., allow me to infer that there is something else in addition to our limitations from DNA. Alexa or Siri are tremendous troves of information, and may be able to tell you the latest estimate on the number of stars in our galaxy, but they don’t really help in matters of the heart (at least I hope not). Faith has nothing to do with scientific belief like “I know that sodium carbonate plus acetic acid evolves CO2.” I believe it because I see the bubbles and detect it on my mass spectrometer. Rather, it is purely a matter of faith in the unseen. One infers it based on, in part, what is seen in the response of others, and how the heart changes through faith. Not by using the latest Geiger counter or DNA sequencer. Also, no one knows if there are other dimensions. We can sort of infer that other dimensions may exist from tesseract to cube to square to line to dot projections, but since we can only perceive 3 spatial dimensions (and perhaps suggest but not prove a 4th), then we may be infinitely limited by our infinitesimally small capabilities of detection. That’s where I think faith can help provide some comfort and purpose. I’m not sure where I fall on the scale. I can’t BELIEVE in a higher power from scientific deduction. I can at least have a modicum of faith in a higher power if I choose to do so of my own free will. Almost everyone with functioning gray cells, I think, questions the existence of a higher entity. That’s part of the vibrant human experience. As far as this chart goes, in my opinion the text seems chilly, and the graphic, for some reason, gives off kind of a creepy Monty Python vibe. I am terribly concerned about how people rationalize morality regardless of where they appear on the “Dawkins scale”.

Edited by Hugh Manatee - March 10 2022 at 16:03

Hugh Manatee wrote: Jaketejas wrote:   The problem I have with the scale is that, and this is realizing that it was crafted by an evolutionary biologist, I find it is somewhat misleading in that it fails to define belief. Knowing a bit about, for example, Christianity, we all probably know the account in the scriptures regarding “doubting Thomas”. The scripture is essentially declaring that you cannot prove Christianity. Yes, a religion that tells you up front that you aren’t going to be able to prove it based on sensing. Christianity has, then, nothing to do with scientific proof/belief and everything to do with the heart. 99.999% of people question their beliefs, so the scale is kind of useless on that point as well. The question of “God” is then, in the case of Christians, entirely a leap of faith. An analogy might be … we guess anti-matter exists. We can’t see it. We can’t turn on our anti-matter detector and measure it. But, we can see some behavior in galaxies that allows us to infer that it might be there. We have some faith that it’s there. Here, I would argue that we can sense that we are not just pre-programmed biological computers, a cluster of atoms that is predestined to behave a certain way. Conscience, empathy, free will, forgiveness, etc., allow me to infer that there is something else in addition to our limitations from DNA. Alexa or Siri are tremendous troves of information, and may be able to tell you the latest estimate on the number of stars in our galaxy, but they don’t really help in matters of the heart (at least I hope not). Faith has nothing to do with scientific belief like “I know that sodium carbonate plus acetic acid evolves CO2.” I believe it because I see the bubbles and detect it on my mass spectrometer. Rather, it is purely a matter of faith in the unseen. One infers it based on, in part, what is seen in the response of others, and how the heart changes through faith. Not by using the latest Geiger counter or DNA sequencer. Also, no one knows if there are other dimensions. We can sort of infer that other dimensions may exist from tesseract to cube to square to line to dot projections, but since we can only perceive 3 spatial dimensions (and perhaps suggest but not prove a 4th), then we may be infinitely limited by our infinitesimally small capabilities of detection. That’s where I think faith can help provide some comfort and purpose. I’m not sure where I fall on the scale. I can’t BELIEVE in a higher power from scientific deduction. I can at least have a modicum of faith in a higher power if I choose to do so of my own free will. Almost everyone with functioning gray cells, I think, questions the existence of a higher entity. That’s part of the vibrant human experience. As far as this chart goes, in my opinion the text seems chilly, and the graphic, for some reason, gives off kind of a creepy Monty Python vibe. I am terribly concerned about how people rationalize morality regardless of where they appear on the “Dawkins scale”. OK, I get it. You have a problem with the Dawkins aspect of the scale. Personally I think that is largely irrelevant but that's just me. You are entitled to your distaste for all things Dawkins. He certainly doesn't seem to be about making himself lovable or endearing. I have a different interpretation of the "parable" of doubting Thomas than you. To me it seems that it is an admonition to all those who require proof in order to accept a belief. It is a condemnation of those who are not willing to take that leap of faith, a justification for blind faith as it were. In the final analysis for me pure faith offers certainty while science is the death of certainty. It is this constant questioning that science is built on that is a threat to the rigid authoritarian aspects of religion and the main reason that fundamentalists are directed to ignore science to the extent that they are. This is one of the main issues that makes (organised) religion so threatening IMHO.

I think you might be trying to put words in my mouth. I do not have a distaste for all things Dawkins. I think I said I found both men interesting to listen to. I just do not particularly like the table. If you go to the beginning of the thread, I believe that was the question being asked. I don’t think I ever stated that I was into organized religion. In fact, I’m not. Calm down bud.

Believe me. The tenuous faith I’ve tried to hang onto is about as disorganized as it could possibly get.

I think most levelheaded people can see that the message in the Sermon on the Mount is quite different from the Spanish Inquisition or even the strange justification for the current situation. To equate the two is doing a grave disservice to people like Collins, who finds no issues between science and faith whatsoever. If anything, based on his book, he finds them to be complementary. Even the parts about evolution (DNA mutations, etc.). He has spoken out against those fundamentalists who try to do what you are alluding to. Let’s keep things in perspective.

Edited by Jaketejas - March 10 2022 at 17:10

Hugh Manatee wrote: Well, it seems that I have aggravated you, which was certainly not my aim, so I think it is time for me to bow out of this exchange. All the best and I hope you find what you're looking for.

Not at all. I appreciate your comments in fact. I hope I didn’t offend you, as it wasn’t my intention. If I did, I apologize. Really, I’m just curious as to the different perspectives on how people of different beliefs view morality, good versus evil, right and wrong, or however one defines it (if you do think about it differently, then please define). How does a theist (of varying faiths), agnostic, or an atheist rationalize that? I want to have a polite conversation without bashing anyone’s views or having it go off the rails.