|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Dawkins Theistic Probability Scale
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
For the unfamiliar.
Wondering where people put themselves on this, largely for idle curiosity than an in-depth consideration of the scale itself.
To start things off, I'm around 3.5
[ 01. December 2012, 10:46: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Schroedinger's cat
Ship's cool cat
# 64
|
Posted
I am not sure about this scale, but I would come somewhere like 2.5
I believe completely that there is a God. I am personally 100% convinced of it, but I cannot prove it. Would it matter to me if it was not true? No, because my belief is not predicated on any defined reality.
In other words, there is nothing that could disprove what I know and have experienced. Why it is - what the ultimate reality behind it is - I do not know, so it cannot be "disproved".
--------------------
Blog
Music for your enjoyment
Lord may all my hard times be healing times
take out this broken heart and renew my mind.
Posts: 18859 | From: At the bottom of a deep dark well. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
I also have issues with the formulation of this scale. It seems to adhere to a definition 'faith = intellectual assertion that something is true', which isn't how I interpret the word. Also, I also believe that God cannot be described by logic, so I'm not sure if the word 'probability' can apply to Him.
Having said that, maybe I'm a 1 ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
I also have issues with the formulation of this scale. It seems to adhere to a definition 'faith = intellectual assertion that something is true', which isn't how I interpret the word. Also, I also believe that God cannot be described by logic, so I'm not sure if the word 'probability' can apply to Him.
Which is fine; don't consider it to be measuring faith. It's measuring how likely you think it is that God exists. For me, at any rate, that seems a very valid and very important question.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
the long ranger
Shipmate
# 17109
|
Posted
I'm moving downwards. Today I'm about a 3.1 - though I think it depends on the day (and the weather).
--------------------
"..into the outer darkness where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth,” “But Rabbi, how can this happen for those who have no teeth?”
"..If some have no teeth, then teeth will be provided.”
Posts: 1310 | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
TomOfTarsus
Shipmate
# 3053
|
Posted
I must admit that I can't find anywhere else on that scale for me but 1. There's no pride in that, I'm a jerk, a loser of the first rank.
But I look at people like Dawkins and feel really sorry for him- and that's not in a condescending way, truly. I mean... the man likes Christmas Carols! How empty must they seem, how do you even mouth the words and stay halfway true to yourself? Can you imagine the acerbic athiest lustily singing
quote:
Christ by Highest Heav'n adored!
Christ the Everlasting Lord!
Late in time, behold him come,
Offspring of the virgin's womb!
Veiled in flesh the Godhead see!
Hail th' Incarnate Deity!
Pleased as man with men to dwell,
Jesus, our Immanuel!...
Maybe he doesn't sing that one...
Blessings,
Tom
[ 26. September 2012, 12:02: Message edited by: TomOfTarsus ]
--------------------
By grace are ye saved through faith... not of yourselves; it is the gift of God; not of works, lest any man should boast. For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath ... ordained that we should walk in them.
Posts: 1570 | From: Pittsburgh, PA USA | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Karl: Liberal Backslider: It's measuring how likely you think it is that God exists.
I'm not very sure what that means either. I don't even know very well how I should interpret the phrase 'I think there is a 50% probability that God exists.'
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
I'm interested in the 1s. I just can't imagine never thinking "this really could just be a load of cobblers I'm emotionally attached to because it seems better than a godless universe with oblivion at the end of life."
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by TomOfTarsus
I must admit that I can't find anywhere else on that scale for me but 1. There's no pride in that, I'm a jerk, a loser of the first rank.
You have just expressed my own nervousness and misgivings about this kind of scale. But if I am honest, then I would, like you, say 1.
Unfortunately that answer can seem rather proud and smug, but it would be dishonest of me to say otherwise. I suppose one could descend into hyper-Cartesian doubt*, and define the word "know" in some arcane way that would add a few fractions to my category. I suppose one could try to explain away powerful spiritual experiences. Other people could do this, but it would not convince the one who has actually had the experiences.
I wander up and down the scale as far as certain apparently "orthodox" doctrines are concerned, but as far as the existence of a personal, intelligent creator is concerned, atheism just makes absolutely no logical sense to me at all, for reasons that I have given on this and other sites.
*Student: "Prof, do I even exist?"
Professor: "Who's asking?"
[ 26. September 2012, 12:29: Message edited by: EtymologicalEvangelical ]
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
You have just expressed my own nervousness and misgivings about this kind of scale. But if I am honest, then I would, like you, say 1.
Fuck the nervous bullshit!
STAND TALL
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
Evensong -
Maybe you're right.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
I find myself at 2.8
I don't know for certain, but I believe in God (because I have tried to notbelieve in God and can't) and sometimes live my life on the assumption that s/he is there - other times I completely ignore God an have no thought for him/her/it.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
Karl: Liberal Backslider: It's measuring how likely you think it is that God exists.
I'm not very sure what that means either. I don't even know very well how I should interpret the phrase 'I think there is a 50% probability that God exists.'
The numbers are indeed slightly strange. Nevertheless, I can understand it in a slightly more qualitative way. I'm definitely not convinced God exists. I'm definitely not convinced that he doesn't. If asked, more qualitatively, "how sure are you God exists", I'd have to answer "not very". If I found out (how I'm not sure) that he didn't, then I wouldn't be massively surprised. Nevertheless, I think I'd be slightly less surprised (although "relieved" is probably a better word) if similarly I found out for certain that he did, so I'm reasonably happy to sign up to "more than 50%", hence my positioning myself at a 3.5
I would love to be a 1, but only if I became one through having some really solid reason to, not just an axiomatic conviction. Or a 7, really, and could stop worrying about the whole thing.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
dj_ordinaire
Host
# 4643
|
Posted
I just can't wrap my head around the premise - believe in God/s is *not* an intellectual proposition such as the truth or otherwise of a scientific or historical fact.
For sake of argument I'll say I'm a 1, although I'd rather be a 0. Or something irrational, (i) maybe. That could be fun.
--------------------
Flinging wide the gates...
Posts: 10335 | From: Hanging in the balance of the reality of man | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Karl: Liberal Backslider: Nevertheless, I can understand it in a slightly more qualitative way.
I guess I can see what you mean.
I think I could interpret 'I think there is a 50% probability that God exists' as somewhat equivalent to the feeling of confidence I would have if someone told me 'there is a 50% probability that it will rain tomorrow' (a phrase that does have meaning).
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by dj_ordinaire:
I just can't wrap my head around the premise - believe in God/s is *not* an intellectual proposition
Why on earth not? There may be a God, there may not be. It may not be solely an intellectual proposition, but I don't see how you can say it isn't one at all.
I, personally, find it a very important one - when I pray, is there someone there to hear or not?
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
TomOfTarsus
Shipmate
# 3053
|
Posted
@ Evensong: The early bird may catch the worm, but the tallest blades of grass get chopped by the mower first! ![[Razz]](tongue.gif) ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
I know what the man means, it's hard to just plunk down a "1" and not appear self-righteous or smug, or even intellectually lazy, esp. when we're just typing at one another...
But wow, I'm well acquainted with the vastness of the universe and the smallness of the quark, and yet even that, while compelling, is not convincing. I think my evidence comes from another source, and it's not a wholly intellectual thing anyway. One thing that seems clear to me is that I look across the aisle and all I see is despair - but again, that's a negative.
Well, I'm lousy with words I guess - too many with not enough meaning in'em. I believe Jesus Christ came, and I believe the revelation of God's word in Scripture, and I believe He is able to guard that revelation over time. And I believe at one point He moved on me in a dramatic, supernatural, unexpected and unsought way to rescue me and those about me from what my sin had made of me. He is, of course still working, just not a dramatically... I couldn't take it!
Again, looking across the aisle, I don't know how you even define sin, or good and evil. It's a construct of life that not only seems hopeless, but senseless as well - one might as well dig a hole and get in it, you'll be dead soon enough anyway, and you'll save yourself a lot of pain...
But I don't want to turn this into a debate, Karl was interested in the 1's, so I thought I'd blather on a bit...
Blessings,
Tom
--------------------
By grace are ye saved through faith... not of yourselves; it is the gift of God; not of works, lest any man should boast. For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath ... ordained that we should walk in them.
Posts: 1570 | From: Pittsburgh, PA USA | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
I've got no time for this twit, nor his silly 1-7 scale. Why 1-7? Why not 1 - 100, then it would be a percentage (but he couldn't put his "Dawkins" stamp on it.) Anyway, my score varies, depending on what sort of day I'm having - is that allowed?
Well yes, because I say it is.
--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."
Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
the long ranger
Shipmate
# 17109
|
Posted
I think the scale is fair enough. Seven points give a neutral central point with weak, strong and very strong points on either side of the argument.
I'd really like it to be true, but honestly, I'm really not sure.
--------------------
"..into the outer darkness where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth,” “But Rabbi, how can this happen for those who have no teeth?”
"..If some have no teeth, then teeth will be provided.”
Posts: 1310 | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
It's early days, and n= far too few, but I'm interested that the people who most struggle to see the question in the terms proposed by the scale are those most inclined, grudgingly, to identify, as 1s.
I'm interested in what that means, as well.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anyuta
Shipmate
# 14692
|
Posted
as a scientist myself, I can't say that I agree that either of the extreme ends can possibly exist (in an objective sense). there is no and can not be any scientific proof either way. the scale conflates two different things.. objective proof (science) and faith/belief.
if we take it only in the second sense, then I guess I'm a 1. I have no doubts, personally, that God exists. OK, perhaps a 1.000000001, but still about as certain as it's possible to be. as positive as I am that I myself exist.
But certainty is not knowledge.
Posts: 764 | From: USA | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anyuta:
But certainty is not knowledge.
This is the bit I don't really get. For me, at any rate, "I am certain that" and "I know that" are pretty much the same thing. At least I'm not sure (I don't know) that I could put a fag paper's difference between them.
If I don't know, then I can't have certainty.
Clearly this is a function of how my mind works that isn't universal, as I'd tended to assume it was.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
I can't place myself on this scale. I listened at my usual 3:30 a.m insomnia time last night to Taize, prior night a Latin mass.
Where would you put me and the Puddleglum, the marshwiggle from the Silverchair? I seem to be stuck somewhere outside Dawkin's scheme.
quote:
CS Lewis, The Silver Chair:
Green Witch: Put away these childish tricks. I have work for you in the real world. There is no Narnia, no overworld, no sky, no sun, no Aslan.
Marshwiggle: I ‘m on Aslan’s side even if there isn’t any Aslan to lead it. I’m going to live as like a Narnian as I can, even if there isn’t any Narnia.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Karl: Liberal Backslider: It's early days, and n= far too few, but I'm interested that the people who most struggle to see the question in the terms proposed by the scale are those most inclined, grudgingly, to identify, as 1s.
I find that interesting too.
I'm very much in the 'relational faith' camp, so it's in this way that I try to interpret the scale. There have been times in my life that I had doubts, but this isn't one of them. So, although I realize that it sounds self-righteous, I guess I'm pretty much a 1.
Not bad for a liberal
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
I can't place myself on this scale. I listened at my usual 3:30 a.m insomnia time last night to Taize, prior night a Latin mass.
Where would you put me and the Puddleglum, the marshwiggle from the Silverchair? I seem to be stuck somewhere outside Dawkin's scheme.
quote:
CS Lewis, The Silver Chair:
Green Witch: Put away these childish tricks. I have work for you in the real world. There is no Narnia, no overworld, no sky, no sun, no Aslan.
Marshwiggle: I ‘m on Aslan’s side even if there isn’t any Aslan to lead it. I’m going to live as like a Narnian as I can, even if there isn’t any Narnia.
You could be anywhere on the scale. It's asking what I thought was a very simple question - "how sure are you that God actually is real?". To put it in terms Puddleglum might understand, "yes, that's very noble, and I get your point, but how sure are you that Aslan is real, and how much do you just hope he is because a world with him in it seems better than one without him in it?"
I am, in all honesty, amazed how many people are expressing difficulty with that question. I can understand not thinking it's the most important question, but surely it's one we all ponder? Isn't it?
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
I think the scale is fair enough. Seven points give a neutral central point with weak, strong and very strong points on either side of the argument.
It took me a while to work out that 4 was central, not 3.5 Wouldn't 50% be easier? I'm not saying I'm 50% of course, but why should I scale myself at a certain time of the day, for everyone else's consumption?
--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."
Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
For me, the problem isn't the scale of "probabilityof God existing", it's the additional "live my life on the assumption that he is.is not there" on 2 and 6. I can see cases where people are 100% (or very nearly) convinced God exists yet that belief has little impact on their lives, or conversely strongly convinced there is no God yet live as though there is (a case of hedging one's bets, perhaps). I don't think intellectual belief in God and how people live correlate that easily.
In terms of "how convinced are you God exists" I'm very nearly a 1. In terms of "do you live as though God exists" I regret to say I struggle to be lower than a 3 (or a 4 if it's not such a good day). I identify strongly with the man who came to Jesus and said "I believe! Help me with my unbelief!".
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
the long ranger
Shipmate
# 17109
|
Posted
Karl, I'm wondering if there is a more basic binary distinction - either one is a 1, in which case you either strongly believe or want to believe strongly or you are every other point on the scale.
I think if you are in the 'Hmm, well I want it to be true' camp you might well find it difficult to put yourself anywhere other than 1, if that is where you want to be. Do you see what I mean?
[ 26. September 2012, 13:17: Message edited by: the long ranger ]
--------------------
"..into the outer darkness where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth,” “But Rabbi, how can this happen for those who have no teeth?”
"..If some have no teeth, then teeth will be provided.”
Posts: 1310 | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
the long ranger
Shipmate
# 17109
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
It took me a while to work out that 4 was central, not 3.5 Wouldn't 50% be easier? I'm not saying I'm 50% of course, but why should I scale myself at a certain time of the day, for everyone else's consumption?
Because this is the discussion. You don't have to participate, but it is simply a wrecking technique to imply that the question should not even be asked.
--------------------
"..into the outer darkness where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth,” “But Rabbi, how can this happen for those who have no teeth?”
"..If some have no teeth, then teeth will be provided.”
Posts: 1310 | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
Personally, I would find it more fun to run the scale 0 to 14, with 7 the neutral position in the middle. A pH scale of belief. But, it isn't my scale and we're working with what Dawkins thought up.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
Karl, I'm wondering if there is a more basic binary distinction - either one is a 1, in which case you either strongly believe or want to believe strongly or you are every other point on the scale.
I think if you are in the 'Hmm, well I want it to be true' camp you might well find it difficult to put yourself anywhere other than 1, if that is where you want to be. Do you see what I mean?
I don't know; while I identify whole-heartedly with the "I want it to be true" camp, but could not possibly with any honesty put myself as a 1 - what I want doesn't govern reality. My father I know is most certainly in that camp, but he'd put himself around a 5-6 at the lowest.
Alan - I think the "live my life as if he is there" bit means "self identify as a theist", rather than "live up to the ideals I ought to if I'm a believer". I go to church, for example, which is a believer thing to do, despite being only around the 3.5 point on the scale, because I've elected to draw a tentative and provisional conclusion in the direction of theism.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by dj_ordinaire:
I just can't wrap my head around the premise - believe in God/s is *not* an intellectual proposition such as the truth or otherwise of a scientific or historical fact.
Quite.
Dawkins mistake here is this assumption (from Karl's link):
quote:
Dawkins posits that "the existence of God is a scientific hypothesis like any other."
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
Which is extra funny cos in science, you must always be aware of your assumptions and the limitations they impose on the hypothesis.
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
Because this is the discussion. You don't have to participate, but it is simply a wrecking technique to imply that the question should not even be asked.
That's not quite it - I'm abstaining, and giving my reasons for doing so. Part of the reason is, because Richard Dawkins invented the scale, it's obviously not intended for the good of people who don't see things the way he does.
--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."
Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Alan Cresswell: Personally, I would find it more fun to run the scale 0 to 14, with 7 the neutral position in the middle. A pH scale of belief.
In this scale, the strongest believers would be the most acidic
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
Alan Cresswell: Personally, I would find it more fun to run the scale 0 to 14, with 7 the neutral position in the middle. A pH scale of belief.
In this scale, the strongest believers would be the most acidic
must...not...run...with...this...
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by dj_ordinaire:
I just can't wrap my head around the premise - believe in God/s is *not* an intellectual proposition such as the truth or otherwise of a scientific or historical fact.
Quite.
Dawkins mistake here is this assumption (from Karl's link):
quote:
Dawkins posits that "the existence of God is a scientific hypothesis like any other."
Which is extra funny cos in science, you must always be aware of your assumptions and the limitations they impose on the hypothesis.
I don't find it at all funny - I think it's a perfectly reasonable model. I wish someone would tell me why it isn't.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
angelfish
Shipmate
# 8884
|
Posted
I am a 1, but that isn't to say that I cannot conceive of receiving information that might change my mind. If, for example, the gospels were shown beyond reasonable doubt to be fakes, and there was no credible evidence for Jesus having lived and died as we believe he did, then I would have to reassess the basis of my experience of God and might end up as a 3.
--------------------
"As God is my witness, I WILL kick Bishop Brennan up the arse!"
Posts: 1017 | From: England | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Niminypiminy
Shipmate
# 15489
|
Posted
It's interesting that only 2 and 6 appear to link the question of 'what I know' with 'how I live my life' -- though in a sense it does that by assuming that 'what I know' is separate from 'how I live my life'.
I'd put myself at 2. I don't know (in the sense of have postitive empirical proof of) whether God exists (just as Richard Dawkins doesn't), but I am content to live my life in the belief that he does, even though I cannot prove it.
--------------------
Lives of the Saints: songs by The Unequal Struggle
http://www.theunequalstruggle.com/
Posts: 776 | From: Edge of the Fens | Registered: Feb 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Yes, Dawkins' formulation shows his usual confusion between science and philosophy, (or physics and metaphysics, if you like), but ignoring that, I hover between 1 and 7, occasionally veering into -6 or into +14. Well, actually, sometimes it is beyond certainty.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I'm interested in the 1s. I just can't imagine never thinking "this really could just be a load of cobblers I'm emotionally attached to because it seems better than a godless universe with oblivion at the end of life."
That would apply to both ends of the scale.
I have no problem thinking "Maybe this really is all wrong and I am deluding myself." I think that it is important to hold ideas humbly.
Still, having considered the alternatives, I think that 1. is clearly the best option.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
I find the whole idea of a 'scale' meaningless. I don't think I believe in 'God', either, if by that is meant a supernatural being that exists independently of everything else. I'm reminded of Francis Thompson: "Does the fish soar to find the ocean?" I believe in reality (not that I live in it all the time), and God = what is. Whatever is.
I'd find it hard to place that sort of belief on a scale.
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
I'm a 1, aim to live up to it as 2 indicates, fall short of that mark. But that's inconsistency of belief and behaviour. Such inconsistency is one of the reasons I'm a 1!
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
Been an eye-opener, this. I expected some 1s, I expected some random criticism of Dawkins, but I am surprised (and do not understand) all the stuff about the scale being meaningless or not being able to place oneself on it. Perhaps I'm too much like Dawkins myself; I really do see the question of the existence of God as a question that ultimately has a yes/no answer - either there is a God with the attributes theists generally apply to him, or there is not. And that question is of fundamental importance because I see little point in pretending its true if it isn't just because I prefer a theistic universe over an atheistic one.
Interestingly, Dawkins himself has variously said he's a 6 to 6.9, so yes, the inability to be absolutely sure does apply at both ends of the scale.
My question again to the 1s is - why are you so certain - I genuinely want to know, because if God is real then I'd like to know it for certain myself. Years of agnostic Christianity weigh heavily, but I cannot, from where I stand, see an intellectually honest alternative.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
TomOfTarsus
Shipmate
# 3053
|
Posted
op'd by Karl:
quote:
I am, in all honesty, amazed how many people are expressing difficulty with that question. I can understand not thinking it's the most important question, but surely it's one we all ponder? Isn't it?
You know, your Einstein avatar reminds me of how he once ascribed his discovery of relativity to being slow as a youth. Something to the effect of, since he didn't ponder such questions as a child, he did so as an adult, and naturally could look into them more deeply than a child could!
I often think of myself that way. I grew up dogmatically Catholic, and that was never really rocked (intellectually) for me as a child. The emotional weight placed on it by my family made it pretty much unquestionable for me - I would never darken the door of a Protestant "church". (No offense intended to our Catholic brethen - do you get that it was kind of "over the top"?!)
But the family was Dysfunction Central, and so I consider myself pretty stunted emotionally and socially. I married a Protestant young lady, but she had deep questions from her own (pretty abusive, but religious) upbringing, and so I began to study the Bible. And I learned, and learned and learned, but my doubts didn't surface until I was in my 40's and suddenly found out that I wasn't quite the Great Spiritual Giant that I thought I was. ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif) ![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif) Oh, I was a giant all right, but one that needed a rock slung at his head!
In the ensuing crisis the doubts and despairs swirled wildly. And so yeah, it is personal, emotional, and relational. How the dickens do you even live in a world where everything is reduced to the results of the scientific method (which AFAIK, has a theistic basis to begin with)?
And so yeah, at this age I guess I could look into things a little more deeply than a child could...
Hope it helps,
Tom
[ 26. September 2012, 13:47: Message edited by: TomOfTarsus ]
--------------------
By grace are ye saved through faith... not of yourselves; it is the gift of God; not of works, lest any man should boast. For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath ... ordained that we should walk in them.
Posts: 1570 | From: Pittsburgh, PA USA | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by TomOfTarsus:
op'd by Karl:
quote:
I am, in all honesty, amazed how many people are expressing difficulty with that question. I can understand not thinking it's the most important question, but surely it's one we all ponder? Isn't it?
You know, your Einstein avatar reminds me of how he once ascribed his discovery of relativity to being slow as a youth. Something to the effect of, since he didn't ponder such questions as a child, he did so as an adult, and naturally could look into them more deeply than a child could!
I often think of myself that way. I grew up dogmatically Catholic, and that was never really rocked (intellectually) for me as a child. The emotional weight placed on it by my family made it pretty much unquestionable for me - I would never darken the door of a Protestant "church". (No offense intended to our Catholic brethen - do you get that it was kind of "over the top"?!)
But the family was Dysfunction Central, and so I consider myself pretty stunted emotionally and socially. I married a Protestant young lady, but she had deep questions from her own (pretty abusive, but religious) upbringing, and so I began to study the Bible. And I learned, and learned and learned, but my doubts didn't surface until I was in my 40's and suddenly found out that I wasn't quite the Great Spiritual Giant that I thought I was. Oh, I was a giant all right, but one that needed a rock slung at his head!
In the ensuing crisis the doubts and despairs swirled wildly. And so yeah, it is personal, emotional, and relational. How the dickens do you even live in a world where everything is reduced to the results of the scientific method (which AFAIK, has a theistic basis to begin with)?
And so yeah, at this age I guess I could look into things a little more deeply than a child could...
Hope it helps,
Tom
Can I be candid?
I'm afraid it doesn't help. You looked - but what did you find?
How one lives in a godless universe is just a question that has to be faced if indeed God doesn't exist. Not wanting to face that possibility has no bearing on whether it's true or not.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hedgehog
Ship's Shortstop
# 14125
|
Posted
There does seem to be some bias built into the phrasing of the scale. Most obviously, a de facto theist is described as not being certain but "strongly believe" in God. However, a de facto atheist is not certain but thinks that the existence of God "is very improbable." To be balanced, either the de facto theist should be phrased as thinking it "is very probable" that God exists, or the de facto atheist should "strongly believe" that God does not exist.
Having said that, I guess I would be a 2. Not being able to scientifically prove God's existence, I cannot technically claim certainty, but I do think that it is very probable that he exists. If Dawkins is a 6.9, then maybe I am a 1.1.
--------------------
"We must regain the conviction that we need one another, that we have a shared responsibility for others and the world, and that being good and decent are worth it."--Pope Francis, Laudato Si'
Posts: 2740 | From: Delaware, USA | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
angelfish
Shipmate
# 8884
|
Posted
Well Karl, I am a 1 because I have known the voice and presence of God in my life, and when I look at the historical documents pertaining to the life of Christ and the early church, I think it is a huge leap of faith to suppose that he didn't really live and die and then rise again.
--------------------
"As God is my witness, I WILL kick Bishop Brennan up the arse!"
Posts: 1017 | From: England | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
dj_ordinaire
Host
# 4643
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by dj_ordinaire:
I just can't wrap my head around the premise - believe in God/s is *not* an intellectual proposition
Why on earth not? There may be a God, there may not be. It may not be solely an intellectual proposition, but I don't see how you can say it isn't one at all.
I, personally, find it a very important one - when I pray, is there someone there to hear or not?
I'm certainly not saying that it isn't important - it is, of course! Nor am I saying that other people aren't right to try to place themselves on the scale if they find it useful to do so.
My point is that my mind literally cannot comprehend the question. It just doesn't fit into my brain. I know that that this isn't very helpful but it's the only way I can think of to express my attitude towards the proposition. It's like saying 'On a scale of 1 to 10 - why?' or something like that.
--------------------
Flinging wide the gates...
Posts: 10335 | From: Hanging in the balance of the reality of man | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
