How Dawkins' belief scale shows atheism to be faith position

Philosophy Forums Philosophy
1

Dawkins belief scale: http://ichthus77.blogspot.com/2010/10/new-new-theism.html

Atheism and theism both are faith positions, as can be seen when the implications of Dawkins’ belief scale are fully carried out:

  1. Omniscient Theist. 100% God, 0% no God. God’s existence is proven beyond a shadow of a doubt so that the believer is a knower with absolute certainty. Since absolute certainty is only possible for the omniscient, this amounts to “I know, therefore I AM.”

  2. Strong Theist. 99-75% God, 24-1% no God. The believer believes the evidence for God’s existence far outweighs the evidence against it, and so believes s/he knows God exists. Lacking certainty, this is a position of faith (s/he is strongly pistic). S/he is only “gnostic” if God exists—if God does not exist, s/he misinterpreted the evidence.

  3. Weak Theist. 74-51% God, 49-25% no God. The believer believes the evidence for God’s existence somewhat outweighs the evidence against it, and so believes God might exist. Lacking certainty, this is a position of faith (s/he is weakly pistic). S/he is only “gnostic” if God exists. If God does not exist, s/he misinterpreted the evidence.

  4. Pure Agnostic/Apistic. 50% God, 50% no God. The believer believes the evidence for God’s existence is as strong/weak as the evidence against it, and so claims to not know or believe that God does or does not exist. S/he lacks the belief of theists, and s/he lacks the belief of atheists, and so s/he is neither—s/he is apistic (having no faith, one way or the other). Since s/he makes no knowledge/belief claim, s/he cannot be gnostic, whether or not God exists. The evidence or her interpretation of it is not telling a true story, because God either exists, or he does not.

  5. Weak Atheist. 49-25% God, 74-51% no God. The believer believes the evidence against God’s existence somewhat outweighs the evidence for it, and so believes God might not exist. Lacking certainty, this is a position of faith (s/he is weakly pistic). S/he is only “gnostic” if God does not exist. If God does exist, s/he misinterpreted the evidence.

  6. Strong Atheist. 24-1% God, 99-75% no God. The believer believes the evidence against God’s existence far outweighs the evidence for it, and so believes s/he knows God does not exist. Lacking certainty, this is a position of faith (s/he is strongly pistic). S/he is only “gnostic” if God does not exist. If God does exist, s/he misinterpreted the evidence.

  7. Omniscient Atheist. 0% God, 100% no God. God’s existence is disproven beyond a shadow of a doubt so that the believer is a knower with absolute certainty. Since only the omniscient can have absolute certainty, this option on the scale is contradictory, as it amounts to saying “I know, therefore I AM not.”

Edited in 10/30/10:

[ ***Note: since 100 and 0 are reserved for the polls, 50/50 ‘could’ be changed to 49/49 (requiring the other 49’s in the scale to go down to 48, and the 51’s up to 52), but that would just look weird. 50/50 symbolizes “equiprobable” moreso than 49/49, and one does not even need to know the exact number to know whether they are a weak/strong atheist/theist or agnostic. ]

2

Is there a reason that this has been posted in Philosophy? We have a Religion board too. This isn’t meant as a reprimand, but you’d probably get more discussion over there. I can move it if you’d like.

Just for clarity: is your stance on the statement “pink unicorns called Humphrey exist” a faith position? If so, then I would agree that atheism is a faith position. And even if not, it may be that you have evidence they do. :stuck_out_tongue:

But then everything else is a faith position, since “only the omniscient can have absolute certainty”. But I don’t think arguing for a pink unicorn-riding God of the gaps is anything other than 18th-century philosophy at its most far-removed from reality. It’s not the faith that normal people talk about, and it’s not the faith the faithful claim to have. I’m absolutely certain that I’ve blue eyes and am writing in English, and I’m not omniscient. Those being “faith statements” doesn’t have any real effect on the practicalities of my life, nor does it give any extra status to claims that normal people would describe as faith-based - i.e. claims of existence for which there is no direct evidence, or contradictory interpretations of facts available.

There are an infinite (or possibly near-infinite) number more things that don’t exist than do, it’s not a symmetrical claim on my “faith”. There are no cats on my desk. Or trees, or steamrollers, or plankton, or neutron stars, or skittles, or frogs, or great-aunts, or tax breaks, or shoes, or Frenchmen, or sparrows, or racecars, or paintings, or Prime Ministers of Canada, or staplers. Wait, there’s a stapler. I can see it. I have faith that I can staple at very short notice. There’s evidence of a stapler, and not of a Canadian Prime Minister.

Not that I’m arguing particularly in favour of Dawkins; he’s a great biologist and a lay philosopher. He overlooks a great deal in his criticisms of faith, by concentrating purely on the scientific status of religious claims - but there’s an obvious reason for that. He’s a biologist, and creationism is an issue in the teaching of biology. Biology is based on evidence, and the primary evidence of creationists is the bible, which claims itself to be the word of God and therefore good evidence. In that way, atheism to him is a dismissal of claims for which there is no physical evidence - a procedural matter rather than a faith claim, and a fairly sound one if we want to approach any consensus on truth. Pierre Trudeau is nodding in agreement, here :stuck_out_tongue:

So he overstates his cause. But take Nietzsche’s injunction - look at who is saying things, the motivation behind it. You’re carrying on your argument with someone who has completely different motivations and aims.

3

Atheism has always struck me as opposite of a faith position. Skip to the → for my argument.

To place myself squarely on your version of Dawkins’s scale, I am a Weak Atheist and am confident that I can defend this position with good reasons. Not that you asked, but I figure showing you where I stand on the scale is the best way to start a discussion. And I disagree that my position is one of faith.

→ Faith positions, as per the way “faith” is actually used in everyday ordinary language, are not based on empirical evidence or logical reasoning, other beliefs and theories – yes, faith beliefs – no. Faith positions are based on intuition or “spiritual apprehension,” things that are not within the realm of empirical investigation. The phenomenon of atheism is a response to theism. More specifically, it is the rejection of theism. Atheism cannot exist unless theism exists first. Atheism, the idea that God does not exist, can only occur after the idea of God has occurred first. It cannot stand on its own. It emerges as a negative evaluation of theism. Theist apologetics has also emerged – but as a positive evaluation of theism. Therefore, atheists and theist apologetics DO NOT hold positions of faith, unless we are using a non-standard definition of faith, because their positions are based on evidence and reasoning.

I read your blog entry that you linked. I realize that you meant the part about THE NEW, NEW THEISM to be satirical (I will say that it is an intelligent and amusing experiment), but in my estimation it fails as satire because its criticisms are either invalid or incoherent. THE NEW, NEW THEIST’s position: “there is just no evidence for the belief that there is no God.” Therefore, “we just lack belief in the nonexistence of God,” which = therefore, we believe God exists. First of all, THE NEW, NEW THEIST’s position is FALLACIOUS, unlike the atheist’s position it tries to satirize. It’s a textbook example of an “Argument from Ignorance” or “Appeal to Ignorance” (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance). It is analogous to the argument: BECAUSE THERE IS NO EVIDENCE FOR THE BELIEF THAT THERE ARE NO UNICORNS, I BELIEVE UNICORNS EXIST. Whereas, for an atheist, because the evidence for God is disputed and/or lacking it is NOT FALLACIOUS to believe that said thing (God) does not exist. Furthermore, the problem of evil is an antique and fairly inconsequential argument that only interests students of philosophy and christian theologians. It does not reason that God cannot exist, but that a certain type of God (all good, all powerful, and all knowing) cannot exist. It is certainly not the driving force behind atheism. The ridiculousness of theism (not all theism, but much of it) is the driving force behind atheism.

4

the scale is mathematically inconsistent with itself.

5

My math is screwed up, lol! I’ll fix it later, and reply to y’all in time.

6

Actually, I’d agree that New Atheism does represent a faith position because it clings to the same sort of nonsense that the system it seeks to supplant does. It was either Dawkins or Harris who, when asked about Buddhism, basically answered that he didn’t give a fuck about Buddhism. They aren’t trying to create some sort of a rational system, they are positioning themselves against the Abrahamic traditions (given the liberality of Judaism, primarily against Christianity and Islam). Granted, those traditions are wrong so I’m not unsympathetic to their goals, they are just so sucky about it.

Fuck those dudes, seriously.

7

I don’t know how to fix the math. It shouldn’t be 50/50 at the middle (just like it shouldn’t be 100-75, or 25-0, in 2/3/5/6), since 100 and 0 are reserved for the polls. Or maybe it should, but I can’t explain why (though it is no doubt a simple explanation) (no doubt). Oh well. I’m leaving it. I can’t say 50/49=49/50 can I? That would be too weird.

I’m going to read your replies now.

8

The real problem here is bad philosophy. Any system that bases itself off an unknowable variable (what do other people believe?) is a terrible system because it can’t be predictive. Otherwise, you just invite solipsism.

9

Only_Humean, I posted it in philosophy because it is a belief scale…it is epistemology…any ‘ism’ can be plugged in to it.

I would not disagree that every position not held by the omniscient is a faith position.

The only position that is not a faith position is agnosticism or (a more accurate term I recently learned) apisticism. It lacks the belief of atheism, and the belief of theism.

If you’re apistic about unicorns, it means you neither believe they exist, nor believe they do not exist (based on evidence that is inconclusive).

Once you claim a title on either side of apistic/agnostic, though, you’re claiming a faith position.

When we create stuff…there is a lot of science behind it. The same is true of God. There is no conflict there. Science cannot give us certainty, only probability…hence, my strong faith in evolution.

If I had posted my version of the scale under the username “strong atheist”–how do you suppose you would have received it? I’m tempted to conduct an experiment… shifty eyes Nah…I can’t do it. If I were found out, it would get blown all out of proportion. Did they know about the genetic fallacy in Nietzsche’s day?

fuse–

There is a such term as blind faith because not all faith is blind. Blind faith is not bolstered/weakened by evidence/counter-evidence-----standard faith, is. Faith is merely another word for belief. Blind faith is another way to say blind belief. Not all belief is blind, and not all faith is blind.

I do not argue “You can’t disprove God’s existience, therefore God exists.” The new, new theism satirizes the atheist’s argument from ignorance (there is no evidence of God, therefore there is no God). “Absence of evidence, is not evidence of absence.” – Sagan That is not meant as an admission that there is an absence of evidence, however.

If you read Epicurus’ argument from evil (or an argument attributed to him), it finishes off with “Then why call him God?” (paraphrase)…indeed, only a loving, all-powerful being is worthy of the title.

I suspect the ‘driving force’ behind atheism will depend on the atheist (having been one). I’m sure many young earth creationists think the ‘driving force’ behind their anti-evolution beliefs is the ‘ridiculousness’ of evolving from ‘lesser’ species. It’s a lot easier to go around saying things are ridiculous, than to actually examine the evidence.

10

x

By system, do you mean the scale? You don’t have to know the exact percentage. Folks can tell where they are at on the scale, w/o knowing the exact percentage.

Predictive? I predict that more believers will welcome apologetics, and less skeptics will consider ‘believers’ brainless, the less people consider all faith/belief to be blind.

11

For me, it is all about the question of agnostics. Do they exist? I say “no”. You’ve got theists and, bless their hearts, they are wrong (provided we are discussing this within a Judeo-Christian conception of theism). You’ve got atheists and, bully on them, they’ve picked the winning ticket. You’d likely give the same answer, but with the conclusions reversed. But what about those people that claim to be neither/nor? How does one address them?

12

They are agnostics/apistics.

13

How do you know that?

14

…and they either have an inferior God concept, or, in deciding not to decide (believe), they are believing in bad faith:
http://www.examiner.com/apologetics-in-san-francisco/reasons-for-faith-101-is-faith-blind
http://www.examiner.com/apologetics-in-san-francisco/reasons-for-faith-101-is-atheism-a-belief-or-a-lack-of-faith

Perhaps that’s closer to what you were fishing for.

15

How do I know they are agnostics/apistics? Because they claim to be neither theists (envelops all god concepts, including polytheism) nor atheists.

16

How do claims to outside sources relate to the sort of inner reality required for knowledge of belief? This is particularly important if you are going to be arguing that they are making claims in bad faith . . .

17

Hey Ichthus,

Faith is merely another word for belief.

If so, you have yourself a very unnecessary thread, the point of which is just to say that atheism is a belief position. I don’t see what the excitement is about if that’s it.

The new, new theism satirizes the atheist’s argument from ignorance (there is no evidence of God, therefore there is no God)

But now we’re talking about “the atheist’s” argument which is a dubious generalization. It’s very ill-documented, but there’s a major difference between 1) believing there is no God and 2) not believing in God. I think this difference is one of the reasons there has been so much fuss about defining atheism and different “types” of atheism. It has been said that newborn babies and people before they exposed to theism do not believe in God. This must be true; they cannot believe in a concept they have never learned. This is obviously different than concluding that they believe God does not exist, a conscious rejection of the concept. What you’re satirizing is a case where someone believes there is no God. To support the belief that there is no God, one must find evidence of the non-existence of something, something that has a very vague general definition to begin with. A lot of people will say “you can’t prove a negative” as in you can’t prove that something is not (and thus the claim that “God exists” is not falsifiable), but this is false. (A good, short read on the subject: departments.bloomu.edu/philosoph … gative.pdf) Basically, you can prove a negative. For example, I can prove there isn’t a mouse in my shoe, because mice come in a range of shapes and volumes that preclude any mouse from being in my shoe while my foot is in my shoe - and my foot is, without a doubt, in my shoe. There are better and different kinds of examples in the short essay I referenced. However, it would be difficult to prove that God is not in my shoe (lol) or to prove that God doesn’t exist…because God is vaguely defined and it’s not clear what kind of evidence it would take to disprove God. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but an absence of evidence is a lousy basis for belief: hence there are people, usually called atheists, who simply don’t believe in God.

It’s a lot easier to go around saying things are ridiculous, than to actually examine the evidence.

Agreed.

18

Hey Xunzian,

Off the top of my head, there is something funny about agnosticism. Honestly, I think agnostics are simply atheists who don’t like being called “atheist.” There’s clearly something that keeps “agnostics” from believing in God. And if they don’t believe in God, no matter why, they are atheist - because that’s just what atheism means at the most basic level.

19

No, it’s really not. Faith is a specific kind of belief. That’s like saying “Shark is merely another word for fish.” There are other kinds of fish than shark, you know.

20

Fair enough, it stays :slight_smile:

I would, for all the reasons I gave above. Faith is not synonymous with knowledge. Otherwise it would be called knowledge and talked about in the way we talk of knowledge.

I’m not a militant atheist, and I like to think that that sort of epistemology would have riled me enough to respond whatever your presented faith/background :wink: There are many atheists who are so out of a religious motivation to believe that they have The Truth, I will grant - there is an atheist form of faith. But that is not all atheists. One could make an analogy to Christians who believe because they value comfort rather than truth.

Nietzsche knew about the genetic fallacy, I’m pretty sure. Are you familiar with his work?