Richard Dawkins proposed 7 milestones on the spectrum of belief. Which one describes you best?
1. Strong Theist. 100 percent probability of God. In the words of C.G. Jung, ‘I do not believe, I know‘.
2. Very high probability but short of 100 percent. De factor theist. ‘I cannot know for certain, but I strongly believe in God and live my life on the assumption that he is there’.
3. Higher than 50 percent but not very high. Technically agnostic but leaning towards theism. ‘I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God’.
4. Exactly 50 percent. Completely impartial agnostic. ‘God’s existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable’.
5. Lower than 50 percent but not very low. Technically agnostic but leaning towards atheism. ‘I don’t know whether God exists but I’m inclined to be skeptical.’
6. Very low probability, but short of zero. De facto atheist. ‘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’.
7. Strong atheist. ‘I know there is no God, with the same conviction as Jung “knows” there is one’.
Feel free to respond in the comment lines, but try to just give an ‘integer’ answer. For instance, I’d say I’m a 6.
CCD,
Ben
October 31, 2008 at 7:22 pm |
5
I’d prefer 5.5, you you did specify an integer. You’re so rigid.
October 31, 2008 at 9:14 pm |
The problem I have with 2 is that I do not believe that it is not possible that I will eventually ‘know for certain’.
This statement is true for me: “I strongly believe in God and live my life on the assumption that he is there.” I am not 100% certain right now, but I also believe at some point during my life I may be able to know God is real for certain, or at least as certain as I know that I exist.
I’d say I’m around 1.5. I cannot agree with either 1 or 2 completely. If I had to choose I would say 1 because I cannot believe “I cannot know for certain.”
Of course certain is a term I’m wary of, I just assume it is right to say that I am certain that I exist. Otherwise what use would the word be.
So I’ll be down for 1 if necessary.
November 1, 2008 at 12:56 am |
6.
November 1, 2008 at 9:16 am |
I’d say 6 – 6 1/2
November 1, 2008 at 11:08 am |
6 – As Dawkins points out in The God Delusion, a true scientific stance cannot be a 1 or a 7 (just as I cannot take the stance of 7 to Russell’s teapot).
November 1, 2008 at 11:44 am |
I’m a 6.
November 1, 2008 at 11:52 am |
6.5
November 1, 2008 at 12:50 pm |
If you have time Creole, can you define ‘true scientific stance’? This is not a challenge, I’m just curious.
November 1, 2008 at 12:59 pm |
Creole, Michelle and pdx atheist, welcome! Thanks for chiming in on this poll and I hope to see you around the blog. Don’t be a stranger!
CCD,
Ben Barnett
November 1, 2008 at 1:14 pm |
I would say 5
November 1, 2008 at 2:26 pm |
2.5
November 1, 2008 at 3:27 pm |
I’m a 6. To be a 7 would go against my whole stance
November 1, 2008 at 3:47 pm |
I’m a 6.
November 2, 2008 at 9:03 am |
I’m a 2 I suppose. I think my “theoretical mind”, if you will, will always have room for doubt, at least as long as I’m living in this natural world; though, I hope that, my “practical mind” and heart will continually approach full trust that God, as I understand HIm, is there.
This poll seems to indicate pretty clearly that much of the disagreement on this blog is not merely verbal
November 2, 2008 at 9:51 am |
Another 6 here. I’m curious what people think would change their integer. For me it would be indisputable evidence of something supernatural, e.g. if Jesus were to appear to me trailing clouds of glory, heralded by cherubim and seraphim, when I was awake and sober, I’d become a 1 or 2.
November 2, 2008 at 9:57 am |
Is “indisputable evidence” even possible?
November 2, 2008 at 11:51 am |
Mostly 5, but 6-curious.
November 2, 2008 at 5:59 pm |
Sophia – I’d say we have indisputable evidence of the existence of material people and things we commonly observe. For example, I would say I have indisputable evidence that my wife, children, house, car, dog, etc. all exist. We all accept that the people and things we interact with on a daily basis actually exist because we observe them existing.
Personally, I hold God to the same evidentiary standard.
November 2, 2008 at 6:47 pm |
Thank you for clarifying, Maeb. “Indisputable” strikes me as too strong a qualifier for the kind of evidence you describe, but I see what you’re getting at. There certainly isn’t nearly as much controversy around whether or not the external world or its objects exist, as there is around whether or not God exists. So that kind of evidence is at least seldom disputed in practice if not indisputable in principle. That’s my take anyway.
November 2, 2008 at 6:54 pm |
OK, I should say there’s little to no controversy in practice regarding the existence of external objects.
November 2, 2008 at 7:27 pm |
I’m somewhere b/w 2 and 3 – pending further evidence…
November 2, 2008 at 8:32 pm |
Maeb,
“We all accept that the people and things we interact with on a daily basis actually exist because we observe them existing.
Personally, I hold God to the same evidentiary standard.”
I observe God existing. I just feel like the way you are stating this, you are denying the possibility that some people do believe they observe God just as they believe they observe material things. You can correct me if I am wrong about this.
November 2, 2008 at 9:58 pm |
In general I would say 6. However, with regards to some particular conceptions of God I would say 7.
November 3, 2008 at 6:59 am |
It depends what part of me you ask. Different parts of me cover the spectrum from 1 to 7. I choose to represent and identify with the part that is a 1.
Brian
November 3, 2008 at 7:17 am |
Owen,
I think very, very few people believe they experience “God” in the way they experience the material world around them. When I say this, I exclude the experiences people under the influence of mind-altering substances, partaking in physically rigorous religious practices like sweat lodges, or other circumstances that can alter the perception of reality.
Many people believe they have experienced something they could describe as “the presence of God” or that they “see God in nature” or something along those lines, but that isn’t what I’m talking about. Right now I can see my wife washing dishes, or hear my daughter playing with tickle-me-Elmo, or reach under my chair to scratch my dog behind the ears. These things are independently verifiable. I have absolute confidence that if you were sitting next to me, you and I would see, hear and feel the same things.
Looking at it another way, religions to one degree or another rely on “faith,” meaning a belief in something that cannot be observed. This is what distinguishes religion from other ways of understanding the world. I simply prefer to rely on the observable.
November 3, 2008 at 8:40 am |
I’m a 6 as well. I view it as something similar to a legal trial. Each side presents the evidence and as a juror, I find no credible for the existence of any gods, but the hypothesis that there are no gods fits the known evidence.
November 3, 2008 at 11:33 am |
I’m a 6, but closer to 5 than 7. But as someone else pointed out, there are certainly some descriptions/claims about god that seem so out of touch & predictable to me that I’m as close to a 7 as I could ever be on those specifics (I won’t even claim to be 100% certain I exist, so I’m never gonna be a pure 7 or 1 on anything, unless I’m qualifying “certain” to mean “as certain as I can ever imagine being about anything.”)
The reason I won’t claim to be a pure 6 is just that god is such a prevalent topic in my life (my friends, family, community, this blog, etc. all keep it that way) that I haven’t yet found the need to say “I’m done considering this… unless something hugely significant comes along to change my mind.” The near ubiquitous prevalence of god theory makes me uncomfortable putting the conversation behind me until I’m ready to be at least a 2 about another explanation for that prevalence. Mind you, I’m a comfortable 3 about what I think’s going on with that and why, but not a 2.
November 3, 2008 at 12:30 pm |
I can’t classify on this spectrum. I’m best described as a ‘natural pantheist’ which doesn’t seem to be compatible with any integer descriptions.
November 3, 2008 at 12:58 pm |
Interesting that there are no 4s yet.
Also, it’s worth noting that 1, 4, 7 are very specific absolute claims, while 2,3,5,6 represent ranges of belief/skepticism. Saying you’re between a 6 and 7 or between a 1 and 2 doesn’t really compute. The only thing that distinguishes between 1/2 and 6/7 is the claim of 100% certainty which is either there or not. Likewise, a 4 means god and no god are EXACTLY equally probable, so if you lean in the slightest amount toward 3 or 5, you’re there.
November 3, 2008 at 4:51 pm |
Thor,
There is more of a difference than the 100% certainty claim in itself between 1/2 and 6/7. There is also the aspect of, ‘and I cannot know for certain’. I don’t believe I cannot know for certain, I just don’t at the moment. Perhaps that part should not be in the 2 or 6.
did you just miss that part of it or do you not believe it to be relevant?
November 3, 2008 at 5:03 pm |
Maeb,
I still disagree with the way you are putting it. God is observable and I think many people who believe in God would attest to that. You are right that the attributes of God are not generally verified to be observed the same in different peoples’ minds, but that is a little different than saying God is not observable.
You might believe God is not observable because you have an inclination to not believe in God’s existence, but it is still a belief and it is not true to say, “God is not observable.” Perhaps, “God is not observable in the ways I believe God should be able to be observed if God were real” or “God is not observable and able to be verified as the same from the perspectives of different people.”
Perhaps just semantics, I guess I define observable differently then you.
November 3, 2008 at 10:48 pm |
Siu, I think from what I understand of pantheist, I think you’re likely to be a 6-7. You’re right, this 1-7 is really specific to Theism/Atheism, but Pantheism, as I understand it, is really just another type of atheism in practice. There’s not traditional theistic god, only a replacement of God with ‘whatever we reveal from nature’, which is essentially what Einstein and Spinoza believed in. What do you think of that? Am I way off?
Ben
November 4, 2008 at 7:23 am |
Owen, I get the distinction.
I suppose I just shrug that part off as an unintended less-than-perfect way of expressing the definition. “I cannot be certain” in both cases was probably intended to mean “I cannot currently be certain” …. Being CERTAIN you cannot ever know something just because you don’t currently is just as dogmatic as being CERTAIN you do know that thing. Since nitpicking that point attributes the exact same 100% certainty to 2s and 6s that was supposed to distinguish those stances from 1s and 7s, I suppose I just excused it as a bad phrasing… but yes, if you want to focus on that phrasing, then I don’t disagree. Is it safe to say you’re a 2 if “cannot be certain” becomes “am not certain”?
November 4, 2008 at 10:29 am |
Yeah Owen, I think you must define “observable” differently. I’m really not trying to be antagonistic here, but if it’s valid to say that god is observable, then it’s valid to say anything is observable – flying spaghetti monster included (I’m really not mocking you here, I’m just getting into the semantics of definition). I would tend to reserve the word “observable” for things that virtually EVERYBODY can observe.
November 4, 2008 at 1:01 pm |
Thor,
“attributes the exact same 100% certainty to 2s and 6s that was supposed to distinguish those stances from 1s and 7s”
Possibly, but what if what it was actually saying, ‘I don’t think I can know for certain’. Then the 100% certainty is still being escaped and I still would not agree with it. For me it is, ‘I don’t know if I can know for certain’.
“Is it safe to say you’re a 2 if “cannot be certain” becomes “am not certain”?”
Yes.
Derek,
Regardless off what you would reserve the word observable for, this is the most common definition for it I can find: “capable of being or liable to be observed”. No where in any definition I saw does it say most people have to be able to observe it. Observe is a pretty broad term.
I think it naturally comes down to that most people who believe in God will say He is observable and most people who do not believe in God will say He is not observable.
I guess we’re just arguing how observable is supposed to be used now, which is kind of dumb.
The problem I have with the flying spaghetti monster is that it doesn’t seem like to me that it would be in a world that we cannot see with natural eyes that is within our world. The words ‘flying and ’spaghetti’ are natural concepts and don’t do ‘invisible’, not-of-this-world, omnipotent beings justice. They are just entirely different things.
November 4, 2008 at 1:31 pm |
I’m a 6. Practically a 7, but I don’t feel the need to spit hairs
November 4, 2008 at 2:38 pm |
I will chime in with a “4″ just to make Thor happy
Personally I feel like a “1″ but I can’t prove that I am so I have to go with “2″.
Peace
Corvus
“Nevermore”
November 4, 2008 at 4:56 pm |
on Pantheism.
Eastern pantheism (Buddhism/Hinduism) typically posits a God like force that is completely super natural. The way to know ir or gain enlightenment is to transcend the illusions of the senses (doesn’t sound like the discoveries of science).
However, I suppose there is a Spinoza like thing that you could call pantheism which sort of personifies nature. However, I would call it something like pannaturism.
Though I see this pannaturism and eastern pantheism to be very different conceptually I wonder if the two do end up similarly opposed to monotheism?
November 5, 2008 at 12:31 pm |
I’m a 3. I dunno. I guess we need to figure that there’s something better than ourselves, or I’m just playing pretend cos my childhood was a wreck. We do make our own decisions tho, so I got that (praying and no action is just silly! just act!). So I guess that kicks me to a 5.
November 5, 2008 at 8:54 pm |
I’m a 6. I am inclined to think that most atheists are a 6. Which reminds me of Bill Maher and his movie Religulous. In the movie (and if you watch his show) he seems to imply that he is an agnostic. I would say that he is a 5. I would also generalize from my conversations with people and say that most people who haven’t given these questions much thought, and are not religious but are the sensitive type, would be a 3. From the very religious people that I have spoken to (mostly very devout Muslims), they would consider themselves to be a 1, even though I find that they lack many of the arguments (even bad ones) to defend that position. So perhaps with great effort I can argue them down to a 2 (and I have done that with one person, but that was one too many circular arguments later).
Lastly, great blog.
November 6, 2008 at 2:04 am |
I’d say I’m somewhere between 6 and 7 and closer to 7. I also think that anyone who’s an atheist and an 8 is not particularly better than someone who’s a 1 and probably answers the definition of “fundamentalist atheist”. I doubt it such a person would become a suicide bomber, though.
November 7, 2008 at 3:30 pm |
8…no wait, 7. I’m not a true scientist so I’m ok with not stepping in with a 6 here.
November 8, 2008 at 7:11 pm |
There is no 8 on the scale.
November 9, 2008 at 5:34 pm |
I would say that i am a 2 but for me that does not necessarily mean that there is god for other people. To me there is no reason for god or a higher power in your life unless it makes you happier or in some way enhances your life, because what is there other than that. I believe in God because it makes me happy and gives me a sense of security and direction. Once belief in God stops making you happy or it starts to hurt others than what reason is there to believe?
November 9, 2008 at 7:49 pm |
I’d go for number 4. This reminds me of invictus.
November 12, 2008 at 5:27 pm |
I am a 6.
3, 4 and 5 need reworded. Agnosticism is not in the same equation as atheism. Atheism and theism speaks to whether a person has a belief in diety or not. Agnsoticism is concerned with how or if knowledge of diety can be known. Whatever the agnostic thinks about kowledge of god…they still have to admit belief or not. It is completely illogical to claim a middle ground on the question “Do you believe in diety?” It is a yes/no propositon…and it does not deal with the existence of god at all…it deals with the person in questions belief only. Do you believe in god? Yes. No. Either way, it says nothng about god…just the person;s belief. And anyone claiming to be a skeptic, would have to admit that if there is no knowledge of something they will not believe it.
Again…using logic…You have a belief in deity (theist) or you do not(atheist). Do you believe in a god or gods? Yes or no. Theist or atheist. If you asked someone this question and they said, “We cannot come by a knowledge of god”…then you would call that person an atheist, right, and probably ask them to answer your initial question…because the answer given does not fit the question. If there is no knowledge, they are not then assigning belief are they? If so…that is fine, but now they are theist. You see…there is just no middle ground, no matter how much agnsotics want there to be. The question does not care how you come by knowledge of god. And if you believe you cannot ever have knowledge of something, what possible basis for belief can there be?
(Not to mention the entirely illogical premise that you can know about something enough to state you cannot know anything about it. If you cannot know anything about something…then you cannot possibly know enough to make that statement in the first place. Think about that. Next time an agnostic tries to tell you that we cannot have any knowledge of god…ask them “How do you know?” That should point out what an illogical stand agnosticism is in this context)
Note: Agnsoticism does have merit, however. It is in the next question, or the follow on. An atheist may say they are such because they have studied and not found proof of god. Likewise, an atheist may say that they believe that no knowledge of god is possible to obtain. So…atheist/agnsotic. Very plausible and a prper use of the two terms…as in, not counter to each other.
November 12, 2008 at 9:10 pm |
I like this argument a lot. It is satisfying to me. However, I still have some sympathy for people who want to say their believe is “agnostic”. (even if that is illogical) I think they tend to have a humble attitude.
March 1, 2009 at 12:58 pm |
Atheism is the belief that there is no supernatural force such as a “god” or a “creater of the universe”.1-7 is Richard Dawkins sacle and i think to truley be one of them you need to either expericence a “god” or supernatural force for my self i am a 6. I live on the assumption that there is nothing more after death and your guna lie in a box forever six feet under ground. I think its you believe or you dont believe. Atheist or Theist. Its one or the other.If you do not think like me you may need reason to believe or not to believe of god. Its just science to explain evoloutinary bioliogy not some supernatural form.Study and research and you will not need a bible.