The Dawkins' Scale
Printed From: Progarchives.com
Category: Topics not related to music
Forum Name: General discussions
Forum Description: Discuss any topic at all that is not music-related
URL: http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=128553
Printed Date: February 03 2025 at 05:58
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: The Dawkins' Scale
Posted By: jamesbaldwin
Subject: The Dawkins' Scale
Date Posted: February 28 2022 at 14:24
|
Richard Dawkins is one of the most important scientist and a strong atheist. What do you think about his scale?  ------------- Amos Goldberg (professor of Genocide Studies at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem): Yes, it's genocide. It's so difficult and painful to admit it, but we can no longer avoid this conclusion. |
Replies:
Posted By: Man With Hat
Date Posted: February 28 2022 at 14:39
|
I always need to adjust it by 15 pounds because it's never calibrated correctly. ------------- Dig me...But don't...Bury me I'm running still, I shall until, one day, I hope that I'll arrive Warning: Listening to jazz excessively can cause a laxative effect. |
Posted By: Grumpyprogfan
Date Posted: February 28 2022 at 14:43
I had to look up what his scale is. I'm a 7. 
|
Posted By: Logan
Date Posted: February 28 2022 at 14:43
|
I think there is a spectrum of belief and disbelief. I have described myself as an agnostic atheist (a form of weak atheism or negative atheism) meaning that I don't believe in God but I also don't know that there is no God. I lack confidence in the existence of God, and don't believe the claim that God exists even though I would not claim that God does not exist. I got into that in a couple of topics of mine (one on the afterlife, which was meant more as an example, and one on Bertrand Russell). I have read and listened to loss of Dawkins (my favourite of the "new atheists" is Christopher Hitchens despite disagreements). Dawkins on his scale, from everything I remember, is not a strong atheist by his scale standards. He is a de-facto atheist, which is where I fall, or sometimes I'm more in the weak atheist camp according to his scale. At times I have said that I am like a 6.9999 one. He has said that he is not 100 percent sure, and one can't be absolutely certain. To my knowledge the God claim is an unfalsifiable proposition and cannot be tested, duplicated etc,. reliably. Here is a chart with his scale:  My scale would be rather different from his, I expect, but the basic idea works for me. |
Posted By: Archisorcerus
Date Posted: February 28 2022 at 14:54
|
I'm an apatheist. When I have to be "that" guy, I act like an atheist, I support atheists etc. I'm an apatheist, as I really don't care. Also, the atheists and theists can easily see themselves morally "adequate", just by being so. I don't think that the pivotal aspect of our (mankind's) morality is faith/belief, or the lack thereof. Also, this might be annoying for some, but I think that some mystic people might have intuitively gotten the cosmic order and its way of functioning, and could have named the central force governing it the God. I think this is possible. Anyway, I really don't care... |
Posted By: AFlowerKingCrimson
Date Posted: February 28 2022 at 15:20
I kind of think Dawkins is a bit of a hypocrite. He has this reputation of being a hardcore atheist and yet I read somewhere that he wouldn't bet his life on it.  So much for having a strong conviction. I personally have gone back and forth from not believing to believing. I'm settled somewhere in the middle although I do not believe in organized religion and don't like how "god" has been personified. Does god pee standing up or sitting down?
|
Posted By: Grumpyprogfan
Date Posted: February 28 2022 at 15:27
|
AFlowerKingCrimson wrote:Posted By: Logan
Date Posted: February 28 2022 at 15:31
|
I don't see why he is a hypocrite, he has never claimed to be absolutely certain that it there is no God to my knowledge, but thinks God claims (there are many God claims) improbable and thinks religion can be very problematic (I agree). He has an issue with religions and superstition and supports rationalism, empiricism (and humanist values I think). He also is opposed to astrology, but he probably wouldn't bet his life that there is no truth to that either. I don't think he would accept Pascal's wager, and I say fair enough. Like Bertrand Russell, if you were involved in that discussion, I forget, he lacks certainty and that's typical of the sciences. I do find him too strident and off-putting sometimes and he has alienated more people who are non-theists. It is true that he has a reputation for a being a hardcore hard atheist (7 on the scale) with many, but those are people who likely have not read or listened to him much. I even remember him once saying that the percentage has varied. As I said earlier, he generally falls in the de-facto atheist camp (6 on his scale). |
Posted By: kenethlevine
Date Posted: February 28 2022 at 15:31
| I'd say a weak atheist |
Posted By: Easy Money
Date Posted: February 28 2022 at 15:35
| De Facto Theist for me. |
Posted By: Nogbad_The_Bad
Date Posted: February 28 2022 at 15:36
|
6.5 ------------- Ian Host of the Post-Avant Jazzcore Happy Hour on Progrock.com https://podcasts.progrock.com/post-avant-jazzcore-happy-hour/ |
Posted By: Hugh Manatee
Date Posted: February 28 2022 at 15:45
|
I classify myself as an agnostic. I don't know how reality would look any different if their wasn't a capital "G" god but probability says that nothing can be 100% certain. ------------- I should have been a pair of ragged claws Scuttling across the floors of uncertain seas |
Posted By: JD
Date Posted: February 28 2022 at 15:51
|
I've heard better.  ------------- Thank you for supporting independently produced music |
Posted By: Psychedelic Paul
Date Posted: February 28 2022 at 15:58
I found it ironic that the Church of England said a collective prayer for Richard Dawkins after he suffered a stroke recently. 
|
Posted By: mathman0806
Date Posted: February 28 2022 at 17:02
| I think his scale is fine. I think it works best for people on the extreme ends. (I am a solid 7.) But I wonder how it works for people with different beliefs that sit outside a traditional monotheist system. If people can identify with some part of his scale, then it works. If someone looks at the scale and can't identify themselves, then it doesn't work. |
Posted By: jamesbaldwin
Date Posted: February 28 2022 at 17:25
|
Now you can see the Dawkins Scale on the first message. (Thanks to Logan) ------------- Amos Goldberg (professor of Genocide Studies at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem): Yes, it's genocide. It's so difficult and painful to admit it, but we can no longer avoid this conclusion. |
Posted By: JD
Date Posted: February 28 2022 at 17:36
|
The real problem with the whole concept, as I see it, is it's situational. I'm happy and health right now and have had plenty of spirited 'discussions' with evangelicals about the very idea. Not one of them has been able to refute my points or provide even the slightest point that would make me reconsider my position and they always fall back on the faith card. Hardly convincing in a debate. But If I found my self suddenly facing an existential crisis, I may just find that belief ain't such a ridiculous idea after all. I mean, at that point what have you got to loose. ------------- Thank you for supporting independently produced music |
Posted By: Hugh Manatee
Date Posted: February 28 2022 at 17:42
|
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 should have been a pair of ragged claws Scuttling across the floors of uncertain seas |
Posted By: progaardvark
Date Posted: March 01 2022 at 04:07
|
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. ------------- ---------- i'm shopping for a new oil-cured sinus bag that's a happy bag of lettuce this car smells like cartilage nothing beats a good video about fractions |
Posted By: Grumpyprogfan
Date Posted: March 01 2022 at 06:23
|
Posted By: chopper
Date Posted: March 01 2022 at 07:27
 |
Posted By: Logan
Date Posted: March 01 2022 at 07:30
^ 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.
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. |
Posted By: Grumpyprogfan
Date Posted: March 01 2022 at 08:10
|
Very thoughtful post, Greg. I agree with all of it. There is too much suffering in the world and religious groups have caused too much war and death. I have mentally and physically disabled sister. She is now 68 and can do nothing for herself. It's heartbreaking to watch and because I've seen this deterioration my whole life it has firmly made me an atheist. |
Posted By: Mascodagama
Date Posted: March 01 2022 at 09:58
|
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. By his scale I'm a solid 6. ------------- Soldato of the Pan Head Mafia. We'll make you an offer you can't listen to. http://bandcamp.com/jpillbox" rel="nofollow - Bandcamp Profile |
Posted By: Icarium
Date Posted: March 01 2022 at 15:02
|
Dawkins is also the propreator of the ideom "meme" of which he describes as how ideas travels as genes through our 'system' of thoughts and ideas. How ideas eevolves like genomes, derived of the greek phrace memisis, as meme /gene, thpught patterns are inherreted yet through good nurturing it will evolve with the introduction of other ideas. One can not conclude to this without a thouroggh epistomological quiry. I would reccomemd Thomas Khun as a sparring partner to Dawkins. -------------  
|
Posted By: Hugh Manatee
Date Posted: March 01 2022 at 15:43
What I mean by the term is that, regardless of how a person might have come to their beliefs, they should understand that it is their belief. They can justify their belief as much as they like, but they should not try to enforce their belief on others or condemn others for not sharing their belief (or lack thereof). Badgering or condemning or criticizing usually ends up having the effect of increasing any divide and yes, even conflict. It probably would be a good thing if people had a deeper understanding of how they came to their beliefs or why they believe as they do, but once again this is a personal thing and depends on how much each individual is willing to go inward and examine their motivations. Questioning other peoples beliefs is a lot easier than questioning ones own beliefs after all.
------------- I should have been a pair of ragged claws Scuttling across the floors of uncertain seas |
Posted By: Logan
Date Posted: March 01 2022 at 17:20
|
As with oneself choosing a belief, I don't know how much one could or would force a belief in another (there are kinds of conditioning techniques). One can try to convince and one can lead people to changing their minds. And children are inculcated with belief systems on all manner of things. I think that it is useful that people can differentiate between what is a personal belief and what is a justified true belief (knowledge). I don't know how much we can force our beliefs on others, but as I was saying in that long post, people are expected to believe certain things and are being told not to believe things, and I don't think that's necessarily bad. Beliefs inform actions, and so beliefs can be seen as beneficial and a detriment. I have not forced my beliefs on my children, but I have tried to convince them of some mores (social norms). I would rather they believe that being nice to people is generally better than being cruel to people. I can't force them to believe me or agree with me, I can only try to convince them, and hopefully they will see the potential benefits to not only others but to themselves. If people have beliefs that I think are harmful, such as a religious belief that non-believers should be killed, then I would like to see people speak out against those beliefs. I would be more likely to condemn an action that I see as harmful or immoral (and I am a moral situationalist) than a belief system, but since I see beliefs informing action, I think questioning those beliefs including our own is indeed important. Badgering and criticising does tend to increase that divide. If you put people in the defensive then they are less likely to even listen. Trying hard to change people's minds usually won't go down well. I tend to prefer a dialectic approach to debate, which is non-adversarial and hopefully each one is learning from the other and gaining new perspectives. It is not always about what beliefs makes more sense objectively, it's a perspective thing. One of my beliefs has to do with trying to keep an open mind, but as Dawkins said (though he did not originate it), just not so open that my brains fall out. I find it relatively easy, methinks, questioning and adjusting my own beliefs as new info comes along, but then I am introspective and find it easier talking to myself than others. ;) Anyway, it's a bit of an aside. ----------------------- Here is a clip from the Dawkins' documentary Faith School Menace. I've enjoyed various of his documentaries. He can make me cringe at times, and he is often better when talking about natural selection and the like, but I find various of his documentaries interesting and I do tend to share his concerns. And he married Romana (Lalla Ward) from Doctor Who which is pretty cool even if Tom Baker had her first. ------------------ And thanks Will, and I'm sorry about your sister. Considerations of the problem of evil / the problem of suffering has been a stumbling block for various theists. Not every theist believes in an omnipotent (all-powerful) and all-good God. Some argue for Gods that are neither, and some make the claim that God set things up for life-lessons or set things up to stand back.... Yes, religious groups have caused too much war and depth. I think that religious beliefs have been used and continue to be used to justify many very bad things and too often lead people to do bad things. I could say that of various ideologies.... Anyway, I accept that people have beliefs but am less likely to be respectful of beliefs and belief systems that I think according to my beliefs are harmful. And sometimes some of the religious people we are asked to accept and tolerate are very intolerant. |
Posted By: Hugh Manatee
Date Posted: March 01 2022 at 17:34
|
Setting a good example is one thing. Evangelizing is another. ------------- I should have been a pair of ragged claws Scuttling across the floors of uncertain seas |
Posted By: Logan
Date Posted: March 01 2022 at 17:40
^ Hey, I'm all for progelytizing the masses. 
|
Posted By: Hugh Manatee
Date Posted: March 01 2022 at 17:56
|
^ Oh yeah, sure. I'd love more people to like the music I like. One thing I've realised over time is that there is no way to turn a person off a piece of music faster than sitting them down and saying "You've got to listen to this".
------------- I should have been a pair of ragged claws Scuttling across the floors of uncertain seas |
Posted By: The Dark Elf
Date Posted: March 01 2022 at 18:33
|
I would say that any deity that requires his/her creations to suffer and demands that he/she be worshipped while being completely indifferent to the aforementioned suffering is not the sort that I would want as my deity. There's enough narcissists in the world as it is -- we don't need a mythologized one. ------------- ...a vigorous circular motion hitherto unknown to the people of this area, but destined to take the place of the mud shark in your mythology... |
Posted By: Logan
Date Posted: March 01 2022 at 18:45
|
^ 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." |
Posted By: Hugh Manatee
Date Posted: March 01 2022 at 19:00
|
In the circles I move in my musical taste is seen as rather unconventional but on this site my musical tastes would be considered rather pedestrian. I've gone from weirdo to populist in the click of a mouse. As far as Dawkins' quote is concerned, he seems to consider the concept of the existence of God enough to allow his life to be affected by the probability of that Gods non-existence.
------------- I should have been a pair of ragged claws Scuttling across the floors of uncertain seas |
Posted By: Hrychu
Date Posted: March 01 2022 at 22:10
|
I think I'm 7. But tbh I don't care ------------- “On the day of my creation, I fell in love with education. And overcoming all frustration, a teacher I became.” — Ernest Vong |
Posted By: I prophesy disaster
Date Posted: March 02 2022 at 03:47
This. However, I think it is interesting to consider the nature of a creator based on the nature of the creation. For example, I consider it to be rather odd that the rare element iodine is an essential nutrient that is used by the body to form a hormone. I think it is reasonable to assume that good design principles would include only using rare materials for functions that cannot be performed otherwise. An even more revealing example is the genetic coding for the amino acid selenocysteine, which is not one of the 20 standard amino acids. The genetic code for the 20 standard amino acids occupies all of the 64 possible codons available for encoding amino acids, and thus selenocysteine requires a rather elaborate encoding mechanism, even though additional amino acids could have been encoded in the standard way. I interpret this as a lack of foresight in a designer as the rather elaborate encoding mechanism seems like a workaround solution. ------------- No, I know how to behave in the restaurant now, I don't tear at the meat with my hands. If I've become a man of the world somehow, that's not necessarily to say I'm a worldly man. |
Posted By: Logan
Date Posted: March 02 2022 at 06:50
|
^ 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. |
Posted By: chopper
Date Posted: March 02 2022 at 06:56
Sorry to hear that. I'm with Stephen Fry who said something like "if there is a God why did he make a beetle that burrows in children's eyeballs?".
|
Posted By: JD
Date Posted: March 02 2022 at 07:17
------------- Thank you for supporting independently produced music |
Posted By: Logan
Date Posted: March 02 2022 at 07:40
|
^ Sounds too much like the no true Scotsman fallacy there to me, JD, that no "true" theist believes that God could be imperfect and fallible. While I was thinking more of agnostic theists and people who rate lower than the six that I fall on the scale, and I thought it would amuse, I actually have heard a wider variety of views on God for theists (and deists), including the view that God is not all good and God is not all powerful. There are many belief systems, and individuals have different beliefs within a group. The strong theists who accept the classic Abrahamic God would I think be unlikely to accept that God is imperfect. I have spoken to people who consider themselves to be Christians and are not literalists. But I get your point, and I have had those kinds of discussions before too. On a tangential note to the no true theist point, some time back I was talking with a born again who was claiming that Catholics were not Christians. Funny me the non-Christian (well, I still consider myself to be a kind of cultural Christian) arguing this, but it offended me. He then claimed "not true Christians".... His definition of Christian is more exclusive than mine. I find that attitude arrogant, he made it clear that he and others like him is one of the chosen and all others will be damned. Well, damn him. |
Posted By: I prophesy disaster
Date Posted: March 02 2022 at 08:05
 ------------- No, I know how to behave in the restaurant now, I don't tear at the meat with my hands. If I've become a man of the world somehow, that's not necessarily to say I'm a worldly man. |
Posted By: Grumpyprogfan
Date Posted: March 02 2022 at 09:00
|
Posted By: JD
Date Posted: March 02 2022 at 09:27
------------- Thank you for supporting independently produced music |
Posted By: jamesbaldwin
Date Posted: March 08 2022 at 04:01
You are right, I have focused on other things and have given up on this thread. Here are my views in summary. 1) Richard Dawkins is a great evolutionary scientist but his militant atheism risks hurting science because he seems to get there (atheism) starting from the theory of evolution, as if science led to atheism 2) Having said that, he has every right to do propaganda for atheism. 3) This scale seems to me quite accurate on the positions one has in favor of the existence of God or in favor of his non-existence 4) I would make some considerations of a different nature. Step 1 and step 10 of the scale are in a certain sense equivalent, they represent those who have NO doubts, have a granite faith in God or in the NON-existence of him. I would say that in this sense, steps 1 and 10 are made by people who have given A definitive ANSWER to the mystery of existence. I therefore consider the atheists of step 10 to be the same as the believers of step 1. THEY ARE BOTH BELIEVERS: THEY BELIEVE IN GOD OR IN A UNIVERSE WITHOUT GOD. On the other steps there are those who believe but have more or less doubts As for the agnostics, which Dawkins puts 50% in favor and 50% against the idea of the existence of God, I believe that another issue needs to be specified. the agnostic, in my opinion, is usually a person who says he does NOT know. Gnosis: knowledge, A-Gnosis equal NOT knowledge. So while the BELIEVER AND THE ATHEIST (WHO I WOULD CALL BELIEVER IN THE NON-EXISTENCE OF GOD), think they can know whether or not God exists, for agnostics the problem is insoluble, but not because they believe that probability it's fifty fifty but because the agnostic knows they can never get to the possibility of knowing. The attitude of the agnostic, in short, as I see it, is very different from what Dawkins says, and distances itself from both atheism and believers in God. ------------- Amos Goldberg (professor of Genocide Studies at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem): Yes, it's genocide. It's so difficult and painful to admit it, but we can no longer avoid this conclusion. |
Posted By: SteveG
Date Posted: March 08 2022 at 05:04
|
I'm agnostic. And it makes no difference to me if God exits or not. The world is what it is either way. ------------- This message was brought to you by a proud supporter of the Deep State. |
Posted By: moshkito
Date Posted: March 08 2022 at 06:04
Hi, I just find it strange that we have ideas about this and that, and don't look at the "sky" and realize that it could all be gone in a second without a thought or worry about anything mankind has thought about or worried about for thousands of years ... how unimportant and worthless a lot of that gibberish would all of a sudden be ... but we have this idea that we are bigger than the universe! ------------- Music is not just for listening ... it is for LIVING ... you got to feel it to know what's it about! Not being told! www.pedrosena.com |
Posted By: Archisorcerus
Date Posted: March 08 2022 at 06:19
|
I just find it strange that after hearing the story of Mr. Redcandle, I began to believe in God. Here is the story: God was distributing brains to humanity. Mr. Redcandle misheard brains as drains, and he asked for a big, empty one. |
Posted By: SteveG
Date Posted: March 08 2022 at 06:51
------------- This message was brought to you by a proud supporter of the Deep State. |
Posted By: Lewian
Date Posted: March 08 2022 at 09:59
|
(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).
|
Posted By: JD
Date Posted: March 08 2022 at 10:30
|
^Lewian's Three Laws of God. Asimov would be proud. ------------- Thank you for supporting independently produced music |
Posted By: omphaloskepsis
Date Posted: March 08 2022 at 11:26
| I'm a pantheist. |
Posted By: SteveG
Date Posted: March 08 2022 at 11:48
------------- This message was brought to you by a proud supporter of the Deep State. |
Posted By: richardh
Date Posted: March 08 2022 at 14:00
| I'm certainly a 2. but it doesn't give me any comfort to believe in God. I also believe in reincarnation and I don't much like that idea either. You come from somewhere and you go somewhere. It may sound ridiculous (but we're probably all or most going to be dead within 12 months the way things are going so I've not got much to lose really) but Kansas - Dust In The Wind sums up how I feel about stuff and how very little matters that is material. Someone will no doubt call me out as being 'depressed'. Probably true but I've been there a long time and cope. |
Posted By: Tapfret
Date Posted: March 08 2022 at 14:32
|
The whole concept, including Mr. Dawkins' list is rife with anthropocentricism. The problems include: 1. A very narrow definition of sentience. 2. A very narrow definition of animate vs inanimate. 3. A very narrow perception and attribution of scale in the scope of cosmic time and space. 4. A very narrow version of what constitutes a higher power. As far is what I believe in the context of the god vs no god debate, the premise that God is some version of this,  , is quite laughable. ------------- https://www.last.fm/user/Tapfret" rel="nofollow">  https://bandcamp.com/tapfret" rel="nofollow - Bandcamp |
Posted By: JD
Date Posted: March 08 2022 at 14:41
------------- Thank you for supporting independently produced music |
Posted By: jamesbaldwin
Date Posted: March 08 2022 at 15:25
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. ------------- Amos Goldberg (professor of Genocide Studies at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem): Yes, it's genocide. It's so difficult and painful to admit it, but we can no longer avoid this conclusion. |
Posted By: omphaloskepsis
Date Posted: March 08 2022 at 15:37
Yes! That's it. It is what it is, even when it isn't. |
Posted By: Hugh Manatee
Date Posted: March 08 2022 at 15:57
Hmm... according to Pascals Wager a bet on the existence of God can be/is cashed out on death. ------------- I should have been a pair of ragged claws Scuttling across the floors of uncertain seas |
Posted By: Lewian
Date Posted: March 08 2022 at 16:36
But what do you do with the cash then?
 (I actually know what Pascal thought he could do with it... let's hope for him that he was right... but even then subjective probability doesn't work with an infinite payout, as Pascal had in mind.) |
Posted By: Lewian
Date Posted: March 08 2022 at 16:36
No, I didn't know this. Very nice!
|
Posted By: Hugh Manatee
Date Posted: March 08 2022 at 17:03
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. ------------- I should have been a pair of ragged claws Scuttling across the floors of uncertain seas |
Posted By: Lewian
Date Posted: March 08 2022 at 17:53
Roughly stated, according to de Finetti, if you say that your personal probability for something is, say 30%, it means you are willing to pay up to 30$ for winning 100$ in case that this something later occurs, but you'd also pay up to 100-30=70$ for winning 100$ in case that this something does not occur. There is no probability in Pascal's wager; Pascal basically says you're better off siding with God because the payout will be infinite, regardless what the probability is. Of course nobody needs to be a de Finettian, one doesn't need to conceive subjective probabilities like this. What is really my point here is that it is pointless to talk about the probability of an existence or non-existence that can never be checked.
|
Posted By: Hugh Manatee
Date Posted: March 08 2022 at 18:02
Thank you for that. I fear that this argument has become a bit circular and therefore indeed somewhat pointless. Suffice it to say on my part that as far as I am concerned there is intrinsically nothing wrong with believing in whatever one choses to believe in unless that belief is utilized to manipulate or control others or to excuse otherwise unacceptable behavior.
------------- I should have been a pair of ragged claws Scuttling across the floors of uncertain seas |
Posted By: CosmicVibration
Date Posted: March 08 2022 at 19:14
|
A judgmental and vindictive tyrant as depicted in ancient texts - hell no A singularity of unconditional love as pronounced in the same texts – yes |
Posted By: CosmicVibration
Date Posted: March 08 2022 at 19:19
The truth forever unfolds itself… Deep down inside everyone has the notion that they are bigger than the universe. The Soul experiences the entire universe as self, and immeasurably more. |
Posted By: Jaketejas
Date Posted: March 08 2022 at 21:58
| 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. |
Posted By: Hugh Manatee
Date Posted: March 09 2022 at 15:33
Oh, I don't know about that. Perhaps because these questions are complex some would prefer not to consider them at all and this sort of "simplification" begins that consideration for them. It's the beginning of a conversation, not the be all and end all. ------------- I should have been a pair of ragged claws Scuttling across the floors of uncertain seas |
Posted By: Jaketejas
Date Posted: March 09 2022 at 16:54
|
^ 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. |
Posted By: Hugh Manatee
Date Posted: March 09 2022 at 17:43
^ Yes, well if you're after an in depth discussion of these "deep and meaningful" topics a (prog) forum is probably not the ideal place to go looking for it. ------------- I should have been a pair of ragged claws Scuttling across the floors of uncertain seas |
Posted By: Jaketejas
Date Posted: March 09 2022 at 17:58
|
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. |
Posted By: Hugh Manatee
Date Posted: March 09 2022 at 18:14
Wow. I guess it comes down to the question "Is there an objective "good" and "evil". Otherwise it might well just boil down to a matter of upbringing and conditioning with a little bit of brain chemistry thrown in. ------------- I should have been a pair of ragged claws Scuttling across the floors of uncertain seas |
Posted By: Logan
Date Posted: March 09 2022 at 18:34
|
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). |
Posted By: Hugh Manatee
Date Posted: March 09 2022 at 18:46
|
^The question for me is not so much "What are your moral values?" (as commendable as they are) but more "How did you arrive at your moral values?". Further, what gives you the belief (certainty) that your moral values are "right"?
------------- I should have been a pair of ragged claws Scuttling across the floors of uncertain seas |
Posted By: Logan
Date Posted: March 09 2022 at 18:52
| 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. |
Posted By: Jaketejas
Date Posted: March 09 2022 at 18:54
|
Well, Hugh… the discussion is open. The moral relativists can certainly share their views, too. I’m just curious about the basis for what people think constitutes morality. Honestly, I’m very curious about the different views people espouse on this. If I’m not mistaken, Dawkins is the well known evolutionary biologist, right? Survival of the fittest, natural selection, DNA mutations, etc., etc. That may explain the rather clinical nature of this chart. If another DNA expert, Francis Collins, wrote it, it would probably look very different, as he calls DNA the Language of God. That’s the title of his book. Interesting that these two science-types would hold such different views. Of the two, Collins always seems so happy while Dawkins seems kind of like a gloomy-Gus. |
Posted By: Jaketejas
Date Posted: March 09 2022 at 18:56
| Thanks Logan. When you say "moral codes come from man," do you mean that laws come from man? I kind of see laws as being the lowest bar situation. For example, you might be obeying the laws, but that doesn't mean that what you are doing is of good moral character. |
Posted By: Jaketejas
Date Posted: March 09 2022 at 19:18
| I wonder. If we could stack and arrange identical atoms to mimic your molecular makeup, do you think that being would be just like you, with the same memories, thoughts, beliefs, and identity? My buddy says yes. I can’t put my finger on it, but I really don’t think so. Maybe one could call it soul or spirit or what-have-you, but I think evolutionary biology can only take one so far down this path. |
Posted By: Hugh Manatee
Date Posted: March 09 2022 at 19:54
I'm wondering if your characterisation has anything to do with the fact that Collins became a devout Christian while Dawkins is an avowed atheist.
------------- I should have been a pair of ragged claws Scuttling across the floors of uncertain seas |
Posted By: Grumpyprogfan
Date Posted: March 09 2022 at 20:21
|
Posted By: Jaketejas
Date Posted: March 09 2022 at 20:29
| ^^ It was merely an observation. I've listened to both of them speak, and I have enjoyed listening to their views. They are both very well respected in their fields. But, if you listen to them, Collins always seems so cheerful. Dawkins not so much. Have you ever noticed that? |
Posted By: Jaketejas
Date Posted: March 09 2022 at 20:37
Yes, but do you think that if you arranged the atoms in just the way that you are made, that being would automatically have all your memories, thoughts, views, experiences, morals, etc.? Do you think that this arrangement of identical atoms would actually be you? I don't believe so. I think each person has a spirit or whatever you want to call it that cannot be mimicked simply through molecular arrangement. |
Posted By: Hugh Manatee
Date Posted: March 09 2022 at 20:38
|
^ 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.
------------- I should have been a pair of ragged claws Scuttling across the floors of uncertain seas |
Posted By: Jaketejas
Date Posted: March 09 2022 at 20:50
I think it was just an interesting observation about their personalities. I was trying to think of someone who was also an expert on DNA but on the other side of the "Dawkins Scale" and Collins came to mind. I read his book and listened to him a few times. He just seems like a happy joyful person. Dawkins seems to be on the offensive every time I listen to him, well prepared for a lively debate but not really ... happy. |
Posted By: Jaketejas
Date Posted: March 10 2022 at 10:03
| Another interesting observation is that one was once a theist who changed to atheism while the other was an atheist who became a theist. |
Posted By: Jaketejas
Date Posted: March 10 2022 at 10:21
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”. |
Posted By: Logan
Date Posted: March 10 2022 at 10:56
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). |
Posted By: Jaketejas
Date Posted: March 10 2022 at 12:40
| Updated below |
Posted By: Jaketejas
Date Posted: March 10 2022 at 12:42
|
^ 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. |
Posted By: dr wu23
Date Posted: March 10 2022 at 13:25
Agnostic....., as was said above it's pointless to argue for or against the probability for God...it can never be checked. It's an exercise of futility. ------------- One does nothing yet nothing is left undone. Haquin |
Posted By: Hugh Manatee
Date Posted: March 10 2022 at 16:01
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 should have been a pair of ragged claws Scuttling across the floors of uncertain seas |
Posted By: Hugh Manatee
Date Posted: March 10 2022 at 16:11
I am in total agreement with you concerning your opinions of "free will". As far as a comparison of science and religion, it is my opinion that science deals more with "how' and religion deals more with "why". ------------- I should have been a pair of ragged claws Scuttling across the floors of uncertain seas |
Posted By: Jaketejas
Date Posted: March 10 2022 at 16:26
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. |
Posted By: Hugh Manatee
Date Posted: March 10 2022 at 17:27
|
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. ------------- I should have been a pair of ragged claws Scuttling across the floors of uncertain seas |
Posted By: Jaketejas
Date Posted: March 10 2022 at 17:48
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. |
Posted By: Mirakaze
Date Posted: March 11 2022 at 01:43
|
I'd say I'm close to 7, although not all the way; as has been pointed out, it's impossible to be 100% sure of the falsity of an unfalsifiable hypothesis which is what the existence of God is, but I see the probability of it as so low that I just discard it entirely and don't even think about it. I feel the same way about anything supernatural or spiritual: believing in any such thing just feels alien to me now, even though I was raised in a churchgoing household (dropped off at around age 10 once I started giving it any conscious thought) ------------- https://mirasnelder.wordpress.com/" rel="nofollow - Freelance composer, accepting commissions | https://mirasnelder.bandcamp.com/album/altered-acuity" rel="nofollow - Bandcamp page |