We definitely overlap there. I’m always happy to concede that point. I’m equally agnostic regarding my theory of what it is which gives rise to and supports god belief. It is simply what works for me and I think the phenomenon of god belief deserves to be understood. I’ve always thought it may be crucial to understanding what we are and how we got this way.
It is funny that the fellow I was communicating with on the agnostic forum seemed most determined that no true agnostic can allow that the likelihood of either the existence or nonexistence of God is greater. So for him I wasn’t struggling hard enough to balance between the poles.
But I finally realized it isn’t at all about determining probabilities. It is about trying to wrap your head around something pretty obscure. For me it simply isn’t conceivable that what it is which supports God belief should be something outside the consciousness produced by our own bodies. Do all our minds plug into the same source which thereby connects us all? I’d say in a sense yes but literally, no. I guess I have the natural world on a pretty high pedestal. Whatever it is which has driven inorganic chemistry to become organic, or which pushed rudimentary cognition of sense data into minds like ours is a wondrous mystery. But I’m not sure if the move to imbue it with a mind like our own which exercises intentionality would count as a promotion or demotion.
So as they say . . . you can’t win for losing!
2 Likes
Thanks for this Randy. I think this post gave me a nudge out of my muddle.
1 Like
Been over 10 years since I read Dawkins so what’s this scale?
Yup, soo like me. So much so I’m often accused of being an atheist! Speaking of which, it’s funny @MarkD you should start a thread like this. I was wondering lately if perhaps there should be “labels” on this forum, so that it’s easier to understand the context from which people are speaking but then I quickly gave myself a mental slap lol because I hate any labels in real life. Of course I don’t mind at all being “labeled” as Christian because that is what I am but it’s definitely not worth worrying about if someone isn’t quite sure for whatever reason.
2 Likes
google “Dawkins scale”
Labels facilitate communication. Words are not perfect but you cannot communicate without them. You just accept the fact that they are always a first approximation only. Avoiding labels is just dishonest obfustication. If you like you can always add modifiers just like I did with that 1.5 on the Dawkins scale. But that too is an approximation which I can explain in more detail when asked.
- Strong Theist: do not question the existence of God. I know He exists.
- Defacto Theist: Cannot know for certain. Live life accordingly.
I am 1.5 because I think questioning the existence of God is necessary for mental health. And yet I say that I know God exist… as well as I know anything. Living your life accordingly is the only meaning of knowledge that isn’t just hot air.
To be sure people have vastly different ideas what being Christian means. But I honestly think I fit the definition according to the the majority of those who call themselves Christian. And to be sure, “Christian” is just word too, distinguishing between different religious beliefs and opposed to other religious beliefs like Jewish, Moslem, Buddhist, etc… But then an explanation of how I come to that conclusion would again be more detail to go into after that first approximation. And to that we go on and on about my particular position on a long list of doctrinal questions as even more details to modify the previous approximations.
1 Like
My problem with the Dawkins scale is I don’t think about probabilities where God belief is concerned. I would say I’m a defacto atheist but that would require a low expectation that God exists that must be greater than zero. But to my mind the existence of the biblical God is inconceivable.
Worse than that is the fact that “God” is left so poorly defined. I believe that God belief taps into something real and valuable, at least to those actively enough engaged with it. I just don’t think that it is a literal being. So I don’t find myself on that scale.
By the Dawkins scale I’d be a 7 in relation to the Biblical God as popularly conceived but a 1 in terms of what I think is actually behind God belief. Go figure.
Some versions of the Dawkins scale reference probabilities, but most do not. Personally I think probabilities that cannot be calculated are without meaning. So I ignore such talk.
I haven’t seen any version of the Dawkins scale which references the Bible. But this does raise an important point that all such labels as theist, agnostic, and atheist are relative to the particular notion of God in question. I am certainly a defacto atheist with respect to many notions of God (even some Christian notions of God). “Defacto” because I do not say they do not exist so much as say that I have no regard for them whether they exist or not.
1 Like
I totally agree with you about the weirdness of a scale based on “probability.” I understood it to be based on “certitude” which is very different. I’m a 6 because I am too agnostic to be a 7.
Again, I agree here. Psychology has a lot to say, I think, about god belief and what it means about us. My caveat is that the god belief taps into something real but of mixed value, wildly varying across religions and individual people. But it’s something real and deeply human, and that makes it important.
1 Like
Agreed. Sometimes I think the set up of religion can serve to tap into better parts of a person’s nature. But as with most things, what you get out is largely a factor of what you put in.
1 Like
That makes sense to me as better describing our original state relative to what that which gives rise to God belief. I think when we are very young there is very little separation differentiation between rational thought and intuition. But as we mature, and especially in the current state of culture, intuition becomes distrusted and we place our trust more and more on the meanings we can pin down rationally. As a result our thinking tends to become one sided and really quite limited because rationality is quite limited. Of course rationality in the service of the scientific method has exposed many facts whose application has greatly increased our power and influence as a species. But the wisdom of how to use that power has not been cultivated and we are therefore a huge risk to ourselves and every other creature on this planet.
So I like your way of describing “Original Blessing” since we begin in balance and the capacity to acquire wisdom. But the desire for certainty and control leads to our turning away from its source in the quest for self reliance. The sin isn’t there at birth but enters in later.
Of course I don’t actually think we have a creator but I do think we have a wiser, silent partner. Personally I don’t see our animal nature as being the problem. It is by developing a relationship and rapport with the partner that we become more alike. No one has to do that but ultimately seeking your partners’ fulfillment first is the best way to realize your own.
Hi Mitch and thanks for your reply. I probably didn’t express myself clearly - I’m not against labels per se(as I said I though whether we should have labels on this forum) as that would be what the “PC brigade” is advocating for. Good example of this is ‘colour blindness’ which as we know causes more harm than good. My problem is when they become negative ie Christian is assumed to be anti science, Black man is assumed to be “up to no good” etc. This leads to harmful stereotypes. And then you have situations when a person doesn’t quite fit in with particular label or doesn’t like associations that come with it, so doesn’t want to use any but often society forces labels upon unwilling individuals.
I have seen calculations for the probability of God’s existence and I too didn’t think much of them. It’s as mathematic as saying “I like this hat 85%” lol
Since everybody else is declaring I think I must be a 2. Not that that you can express something soo complicated with a simple scale of 7 degrees but it is a guide.
Thank you and God bless.
1 Like
I once read that ‘words are just pegs to hang ideas on’ (or something like that). It seems that the definition of ‘atheist’ varies.
For me, a-theism is a worldview based on an assumption/belief that there are no gods.
Someone may say that it’s not an affirmative belief but I would claim that this worldview is de facto based on a belief that the number of real gods is 0, based on two criteria.
(1) how you live shows what you believe. The lifestyle and decisions made by an atheist are based on an assumption that there are no gods.
(2) an atheist cannot prove that there are no gods. Atheists may claim that they have no reason or need to prove such things. Yet, if someone would like to prove there are no gods, it would not be possible (my claim, based on belief in God). So, a-theism is not based on hard facts, it is based on an assumption/belief.
For me, an agnostic is a person who says that she/he don’t know if there are gods or does not want to choose between the sides (atheism vs. belief in God or gods). Most of the ‘non-believers’ I have spoken with are agnostics rather than atheists.
The claims written on the page of American atheists sounds like an attempt to include as many as possible to ‘us atheists’, to get more weight to their claims or demands.
1 Like
It’s good to remember that belief in God does not exclude honest questioning or doubts. Whether God exists or not, does not depend on my beliefs, questioning or doubts. I think most believers go through periods of questioning and uncertainty. For me, it is just a sign of a person who is seeking the truth.
If someone demands believing in what you are told, without questioning or doubt, it is a worrying sign that something is wrong.
1 Like
Since belief in God is central to your worldview I understand how that might seem to be the case from your perspective. But if you think about it a little more I think you’ll realize it isn’t necessarily so. Suppose you were born in some small, remote community in which no one has worshiped any gods for as long as anyone can remember. What role would gods then play in their worldview?
As I wrote, it seems that ‘atheism’ has been defined in different ways.
I understand that an atheist would not want to define his worldview through the concepts of god(s) or theism. As far as I understand (non-native English speaker), the word ‘a-theism’ is formed of two parts, the latter ties the word to theism. So, ‘atheism’ is not a good choice if there is a will to define ‘atheism’ without a clear link to God or gods.
About your community example: according to the definition I use, the community might be atheistic. Depends on whether they don’t believe in any gods. Lack of worship is not a proof of lack of believing. Anyhow, this case shows the limitations of the word ‘atheism’.
Another question is how many communities are truly ‘atheistic’. Small communities may be formed by atheists but I don’t know how many tribal communities in the world lack belief in supreme beings. Maybe in the sense of buddhism, spiritual existence without a belief in superior deity. Or in the sense that there is no superior deity as such but there is afterlife and the ancestors may affect the everyday life even after they have died.
1 Like
I actually think that is an interesting point on your side. I also question just how integral god belief may have been to our development as a species. It could be that while literal god belief can be transcended, that there would be no atheist alternatives possible without our ancestors embrace of it. I still think it has value and may for all I know provide those for whom it fits a superior connection to that which inspired the practice.
The idea of a human community with no religion is a non-existent fantasy which doesn’t agree with our observation of human behavior. What we observe is that man is a religious animal. Without religion from their ancestors, people invent religion for themselves and it is often some pretty bad religion. It takes a history of reform to make human beings at least somewhat religiously well behaved.
The quintessential example a human being without culture is easily observed in the human toddler. And what they do is a lot of bizarre random stuff before they learn what to do and what not to do. This tells us exactly what we can expect from human beings without some aspect of culture. It is not some imaginary default behavior but a bunch of bizarre random stuff until we learn what to do and what not to do.
In Finland, some of those without a religion have united under the title ‘freethinkers union’. No use of the word ‘atheist’.
In practice, the activities of the members of the union have been quite aggressive atheism. Religious freedom has both a negative (freedom of not to believe) and a positive (freedom to believe) aspect. The union has driven the negative aspect at the cost of the positive aspect (pr campaigns, aggressive legal attacks, campaigns to get people leave the church). They have tried to get rid of anything with religious connections in contexts where even a small minority of attending people has a non-religious background. This has kept the demands of the union in the media although they represent a small minority of Finns.
1 Like
I think I’ve heard atheists opine that they will know they’ve ‘arrived’ when such a label is not needed at all, and they are referred to as … just … people. Group labels are applied to those seen as somehow special or notable outliers from the accepted norm.
Wouldn’t it seem strange to be known as “he who has never ridden an elephant”. Such a group must surely be a vast majority of us … think of the political power and clout we should have! But, no … not having ever been on an elephant just isn’t “a thing.” For most of our known human history, not believing in any gods is very much “a notable thing”. But one can understand why they should weary of being defined only in the negative of something they have rejected. It must rankle that it is the very thing they have declined to believe in that then becomes the term of demarcation society recognizes them as.
-Non sweet potato eater, Merv [unless they come in chip form - those are good. But the mushy stuff with marshmellow topping … uggghhh. That causes me to self-identify as a sweet a-potatoist. …though I try not to be too militant about it.]
3 Likes