Dawkins' Spectrum of God's Existence

[Jorghnassen]

I'm an atheist because I cannot come up with a satisfactory definition of God for which I can find evidence. So I guess that makes me a 6 on that spectrum. But I refuse to put a subjective probability on an (un/ill-/fuzzily)defined concept, so planet X gets my vote.

 

[CFLarsen]

I am actually a little surprised about how many people are choosing the one before strong atheist.

Is there actually any reason at all to consider the existence of God? Why then add ANY probability to the supposition? Do you do the same with fairies and orbiting teapots.

Yes. Because that's the skeptical stance: We are inching (centimetering!) closer and closer to the truth about god, fairies and orbiting teapots - but we can't, as skeptics, completely rule them out.

Remember that skepticism as we use it here is scientific skepticism: We use science as the foundation. When we say "The scientific evidence shows that X is correct", we mean "...until new conflicting data appears". And, of course, if new data appears that confirms that X is correct, we say "The scientific evidence that X is correct just got stronger".

When I say "There is no god", I mean it the same way I say "Nobody can communicate with dead people": There is no evidence in favor of god or psychics. But, as a skeptic, I am willing to admit I was wrong, if new conflicting data appears.

If I say "Not a chance", then I have closed my mind to the possibility of a god. I may then be a strong atheist - but a skeptic I'm not.

 

[Alric]

Remember that skepticism as we use it here is scientific skepticism

Scientific skepticism does not assign probability to the unknown. Specially if there is no evidence or possible mechanism for what you are proposing.

Only when you propose a hypothesis with existing preliminary data you can assert there is a probability the hypothesis is correct. Before that is just an idea and is not part of the natural world.

I would stop being a strong atheist only if there was any evidence or possible mechanism for the existence of God. Otherwise is just wishful thinking, or in other words, imagining a possible probability where there is none.

I propose you can be a skeptic. Accept reality the way it is and keep your open mind. There is nothing contradictory about understanding reality with the available data and also being a skeptic.

 

[volatile]

I'm with PixyMisa on this one - I'm actually slightly beyond 6 but not all the way to 7. I voted 7 because as soon as a specific God is defined, that's how I feel.

I am 100% convinced that no Gods as defined by any religions, current or past, exist.

 

[CFLarsen]

Scientific skepticism does not assign probability to the unknown. Specially if there is no evidence or possible mechanism for what you are proposing.

Only when you propose a hypothesis with existing preliminary data you can assert there is a probability the hypothesis is correct. Before that is just an idea and is not part of the natural world.

I would stop being a strong atheist only if there was any evidence or possible mechanism for the existence of God. Otherwise is just wishful thinking, or in other words, imagining a possible probability where there is none.

The problem with your argument is that you have already decided what mechanisms are possible. You don't know that: There could be an unknown mechanism that could explain God, and still be within of what we know as science. In which case, God wouldn't be supernatural, of course.

There could also be an unknown mechanism that could explain God but is outside of what we know as science. That would mean that God is supernatural.

What we can say is that with the mechanisms known today, there is no reason to posit a God. But we can't say that we won't ever discover a mechanism in the future that seem impossible today.

I propose you can be a skeptic. Accept reality the way it is and keep your open mind. There is nothing contradictory about understanding reality with the available data and also being a skeptic.

I am a skeptic. The evidence is there.

 

[blobru]

Emotionally (weekdays) atheist: 6.9.

Intellectually (weekends) agnostic: 5.5.

Dawkins'_Spectral_Mean(blobby) = 6.9 x 5 + 5.5 x 2 = 45.5 / 7 = 6.5... *****! -- flips loonie -- tails, I'm weak (sure that info was enervatin' for everyone - y'all).

 

[Michael C]

The fact that seemingly every human civilisation has created some sort of religion with a belief in a creator/superior being/supreme authority leads me to consider the God hypothesis more seriously than the flying teapot hypothesis or the fairies at the bottom of my garden hypothesis.

The fact that no evidence has been found to support the God hypothesis leads me to answer 6 (de-facto atheist) on this poll.

 

[Alric]

The problem with your argument is that you have already decided what mechanisms are possible.

I a skeptic, an atheist and I am also willing to change my mind on the dime if any evidence or possible mechanism for the existence of God is found.

None of those terms are mutually exclusive.

 

[CFLarsen]

I a skeptic, an atheist and I am also willing to change my mind on the dime if any evidence or possible mechanism for the existence of God is found.

None of those terms are mutually exclusive.

Then, your position is not 7, but 6.

 

[Alric]

Then, your position is not 7, but 6.

Nope. At this point the probability of its existence is essentially zero.

 

[H3LL]

I shifted from 6 to 7 when I decided that there must be a limit to how improbable something must be to consider it (im)possible.

"Flying to Jupiter on a pencil" is highly improbable, but not impossible as we know a great deal about the construction of both objects and, I'm told, that all the component parts could simultaneously move in the same direction. To move the millions of miles to Jupiter is pushing it a bit...highly improbable ...but not impossible.

All of the gods I've seen described are more improbable than the above as we know nothing about them and no two interpretations are the same.

I have set a limit to what I consider sensible:

I cannot fly to Jupiter on a pencil.

There are no Gods.

All you 6's out there seem to think you can probably fly to Jupiter on pencils.


.

 

[Sceptic Realist]

I shifted from 6 to 7 when I decided that there must be a limit to how improbable something must be to consider it impossible.

"Flying to Jupiter on a pencil" is highly improbable, but not impossible as we know a great deal about the construction of both objects and, I'm told, that all the component parts could simultaneously move in the same direction. To move the millions of miles to Jupiter is pushing it a bit...highly improbable ...but not impossible.

All of the gods I've seen described are more improbable than the above as we know nothing about them and no two interpretations are the same.

I have set a limit to what I consider sensible:

I cannot fly to Jupiter on a pencil.

There are no Gods.

All you 6's out there seem to think you can probably fly to Jupiter on pencils.


.

You're lumping two things together that do not nessesarily have the same principles. Either a god or gods do exist or they do not, but one of them is, and has always been, true. Flying to Jupiter on a pencil has never been tried, and further, it is possible (however unlikely) that someone will develop a method in which this is possible. (actually, if I really wanted to be a jacka**, I could point out that someone could suit up in a space shuttle, grab a pencil, and kick off toward Jupiter's gravitational pull during a mission over Earth, or I could fly there in a space shuttle while standing on a pencil). My point is, if you really did start flying toward Jupiter, you have a chance to hit and a chance to miss (or a chance for your suit to malfunction, or a thousand other things), whereas the existance of a god or gods is either true or false, and is not based on probability. I would modify your statements to the following:

I don't want to try to fly to Jupiter because at the moment, it's very risky.

I don't think there is a god.

Retorts welcome .

 

[quixotecoyote]

As mentioned there is this whole 'definition' bit that renders the question nearly meaningless, but to reflect my views in the best way possible I went with 50-50/Completely impartial. Sometimes it seems some people seriously don't believe this is a valid viewpoint, which I completely fail to understand. It's enough being tugged at by both sides trying to declare you theist or atheist without getting complaints about that you "can't" think as you do.


Anti-theism is an opinion about belief in God, not your own beliefs, or lack thereof, in God. So it really isn't within the scope of the poll.


It's important to know the difference, but the poll is does not exactly misuse the word. It's true that "Technically agnostic but leaning towards theism/atheism" sounds a lot like they were mutually exclusive, but the closer to the middle you are, the more relevant the "agnostic" part becomes. While all options except for the first and the last one are some form of agnosticism, people who are less inclined to either side might want to emphasize more that they are agnostic. Since I am neither, I refer to myself simply as agnostic and nothing more. I also believe this is why the term is often misused.

While I don't want to fall into the group 'trying to declare you theist or atheist without getting complaints about that you "can't" think as you do,' you really think that gods existing is exactly as likely as gods not existing. I'm sorry, but I find that very hard to believe.

 

[CFLarsen]

Nope. At this point the probability of its existence is essentially zero.

Then, you're a 6.

"Essentially zero" does not equal "zero".

All you 6's out there seem to think you can probably fly to Jupiter on pencils.

No. You confuse "probably" and "possible". They are not the same.

 

[H3LL]

No. You confuse "probably" and "possible". They are not the same.

Erm!...OK...All you 6's out there seem to think it's possible you can fly to Jupiter on pencils.



.

 

[CFLarsen]

Erm!...OK...All you 6's out there seem to think it's possible you can fly to Jupiter on pencils.

No. We are saying that it is not impossible that we might at some time in the future be able to fly to Jupiter on pencils.

Had you lived 150 years ago, you would have had a hard time believing we could go to the Moon. Gee, we can't even build a machine heavier than air that can fly!

 

[H3LL]

No. We are saying that it is not impossible that we might at some time in the future be able to fly to Jupiter on pencils.

Thus setting almost no limit on what one may consider impossible.

I think this is foolish and I will not be testing stationary for it's inter-planetary capabilities, checking snow for identical flakes or taking precautions to protect myself from falling cows.

The existence of imaginary characters is less plausible than the above.

.

 

[CFLarsen]

Thus setting almost no limit on what one may consider impossible.

"Almost", yes. But consider this:

In 1978, Louise Brown was the first test-tube baby to be born. Groundbreaking scientific breakthrough. I don't know how old you are, but I can remember how big a story this was. Huge.

Today? 15-20% of all Danish babies are conceived by IVF. It's mundane. Nobody raises an eyebrow.

Or, consider the first Space Shuttle launch. That was a keeper, eh? Quick, don't look: When was the last shuttle launch? No? Can't remember? I can't, either. It's mundane now to send people into space.

The longer I live, the more fantastic scientific advances I see. And the more cautious I am about how much science can achieve in the future.

I think this is foolish and I will not be testing stationary for it's inter-planetary capabilities, checking snow for identical flakes or taking precautions to protect myself from falling cows.

Not now, no. But can you really say what won't be possible in the future? I can't.

The existence of imaginary characters is less plausible than the above.

How did you estimate that? On what data?

 

[Rufo]

While I don't want to fall into the group 'trying to declare you theist or atheist without getting complaints about that you "can't" think as you do,' you really think that gods existing is exactly as likely as gods not existing. I'm sorry, but I find that very hard to believe.

Like I wrote in my post, to me this whole thing is a matter of definition rather than a simple yes/no question, so the choice is not perfect to express my opinion. It's not quite as simple as that I think the two options exactly as likely.

First, I don't think we should stop using the word "God", or defining it as non-existent. To me, "God" represents the creator and maintainer or the universe, whether that's the sky-father of various religions or the impersonal laws of nature which science in later days have determined might have managed the whole thing without sentient help. Being atheist means you have given up the word "God" to those you disagree with, let them decide what it means, and then merely declare their definitions nonexistent or irrelevant. I have no interest in that whatsoever.

Meanwhile, being agnostic, as I stated, I have not found a satisfactory definition for the word myself yet, and even if I do find one, I believe that we will never truly know the nature of that entity. As such, I can not reasonably call myself theist.

Second, mostly out of pure curiousity: Why do you find it very hard to believe that someone would think gods existing is exactly as likely as gods not existing? You have the whole spectrum of opinions and ideas here, and out of all positions, is that the only one which it is extremely hard to believe that someone would take? Even if you do not understand the thinking behind the position, is it more difficult to understand than any of the others?

 

[H3LL]

Not now, no. But can you really say what won't be possible in the future? I can't.

I can, because I have set a limit to what I will consider plausible. Pencils as transport is not a possibility.

How did you estimate that? On what data?

After thousands of years of close study there is no useful data for real existence of imaginary characters. With no useful data you seem to consider it possible. How odd.

What little useful data there is would indicate there is nothing there other than imagination.
With useful data suggesting it's imaginary you seem to consider it possible. How odd.

There is no useful data to suggest gods are real. There are no gods.

There is useful data to suggest gods are imaginary. There are no gods.

I have set a limit to what I will consider plausible. There are no gods.


.