quote:Would you not agree that these are interpretations (theories about what god/s is/are like) that have been discarded or revised, rather than actual deities? I find it rather humorous, that one of the precepts of science is that when a theory is invalidated that it is discarded for a better theory or revised to explain the new evidence, but that atheists get incredulous about the number of god theories that have been discarded.
By this, you agree that the demolition of one "interpretation" of god gets rid of all the others. Thus, the evidence that we have showing Zeus doesn't exist is also evidence for any other "interpretation" of god you care to name and thus, we find your claim of there being no evidence to be unevidenced.
quote:For them to have been actual deities, then that assumes evidence for their existence in the past.
No, it merely assumes that there were people who claimed they were in the past. After all, at the time they were claiming it, it was the present. Temporal claims of difference are ineffective because the people who believed at the time were in the present when they were believing.
And by this logic, eventually there won't be anybody left who believes in what is currently believed which means those dieties will have passed into non-existence. Too, it implies that there were no deities before there were believers.
Hmmm...you're wandering into that "people make stuff up" evidence.
Your "Level I" state is only transitory, only existing when one first hears of a concept. As the concept becomes defined, evidence necessarily comes along regarding its existence.
This is directly related to your above complaint that Zeus, Jupiter, Odin, the IPU, and 9-Dimensional Magic Pencils are only "interpretations." You have all that previous evidence regarding every other claim of what god is supposed to be...why is this new one, which really isn't any different from all the other discarded ones, supposed to make us bow down in awe?
You keep clinging to this non-existent state of "no evidence." There is never "no evidence."
Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time. Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.
No, not at all - something unknown, but still a part of reality/nature. But I will grant you that this "force" could be the essence of all existence.
Intelligence is an evolved trait, we know that, that is a fact. We also know that anything that has traits that would resemble organisms found on this planet has to have evolved as well. There is mountains of evidence to support this. This is part of our knowledge and there is no reason to abandon this.
A conscious supernatural force would have to violate this. It would have to change everything we know about nature and would destroy the ToE. And while it's possible, there is absolutely no evidence that supports such a wild, pointless hypothesis. In fact, if there turned out to be a universal consciousness, the first thing I'd want to do is figure out how it evolved.
So what evidence do you have that Jesus did not exist that is comparable to the evidence for the age of the earth?
I meant that he wasn't a god.
Anyway, he was born of a virgin, that's impossible - If that part of the story is discredited, why continue further?
If you wish to continue though: the corrupt way in which the gospels were chosen, the fact that Jesus died, the fact that no one knows about him till he's 30, we have 4 eye witnesses whos stories are written into the gospels many, many years later and not by the original authors, outside of the Bible there is no mention of this rebel who started the christian religion, etc.
But, I admit that evidence for someone who lived 2000 years ago is not easy to come by nor would any regular person see a need to log his existence on this planet. But I am a III in regards to him being a god.
It would be cool if he actually existed and was a rebel. I've always hoped that he did and that evidence would come out pointing to this fact. Not that he was a god, but just someone like the Lenny Bruce of Roman days - an anti-establishment rebel, which, in my concept of him, he would have been funny too.
No, not at all - something unknown, but still a part of reality/nature. But I will grant you that this "force" could be the essence of all existence.
That's a possibility, hope you don't mind if I remain agnostic on it.
Anyway, he was born of a virgin, that's impossible - If that part of the story is discredited, why continue further?
You haven't read your Ann Landers columns - it is possible for virgins to get pregnant, and there are documented cases of this: all you need is sperm, not penetration.
There are also cases of parthenogenesis in some organisms - could not a single mutation cause parthenogenesis?
But, I admit that evidence for someone who lived 2000 years ago is not easy to come by nor would any regular person see a need to log his existence on this planet. But I am a III in regards to him being a god.
Yes, and your problem is that this is a rationalization for why you don't believe in Jesus, not empirical evidence that he did not exist, and you need objective evidence to be on level III. This argument is sufficient only for level II.
There are also cases of parthenogenesis in some organisms - could not a single mutation cause parthenogenesis?
I'm pretty doubtful that a single mutation could give rise to parthenogenesis. There are examples of environmental triggers of parthenogentic development in mice and rabbits, but those embryos od not reach full term. Certainly it would be problematic to explain giving birth to a male offspring as the result of any natural form of partheneogenesis.
So now I can safely say that your position (now) is that atheistagnostic?
Now that I've pointed out that "atheist=agnostic" was not my position, and given you a lesson in basic English, where is the admission that your accusations that I was contradicting myself were false?
Do you now agree with me that statements like "6 is agnostic" do not mean that "atheist = agnostic" or that "atheistic is the equivalent of agnostic?"
You are trapped by your claim that agnostic and atheistic were equivalent and now you are digging deeper.
And while you're posting your admission of being wrong, you can also admit to being wrong in claiming to be a "4" on omphalism when you're really a "6", and then you can admit to describing yourself as a pseudoskeptic for relegating a proposition to "6" on the basis that it has no positive evidential support.
Good, now that you have cleared that up, where is your evidence for the part of your (whatever you mean by) "6" position that is atheistic? (seeing as you never addressed that issue on the Pseudoskepticism and logic thread, which was the purpose of that thread, where only agnostic=agnostic people don't need evidence).
Of course I presented evidence on that thread. Your inability to understand it isn't surprising in someone who can't understand when the word agnostic is being used as an adjective in a phrase like "6" is agnostic is it? (That's an example of a real and valid, non-fallacious ad hominem for you, while I'm in the teaching mood, and as it's another concept that you consistently struggle with).
The overwhelming evidence for the existence of natural processes compared to the zero positive evidence for the supernatural is enough to relegate all god explanations of phenomena and all gods to the "6" position on its own. Phenomena include things like beliefs in gods, god "experiences", and the universe.
If you don't understand this, then the fault is yours.
RAZD writes:
Meanwhile, while we are waiting for you to catch up, why not fill us in on how you classify your "6" belief on this scale:
I am still waiting for you to catch up and admit your contradictions and mistakes. I'll look forward to your posts on the "winners and losers" thread.
An atheist is just someone who is at position II on your scale with regard to the existence of God (ie., low confidence).
Agreed. That's what I tried to say before. I thought this might clear some of this up
I do take issue with the utility of your three point scale. Might I suggest we translate it to a seven point scale again to see what I mean?
Zero Confidence: the claim is definitely false.
Very low confidence, but short of zero. It can't be ruled out. Any evidence only exists using one type of measuring device that is renowned for its errors and artefacts, or the effect exists right at the threshold of statistical significance. Many competing claims with identical evidence exist, and many of them are mutually exclusive.
Low confidence. The claim has a modicum of independent evidence in its favour, but other claims which contradict it have more evidence in their favour.
Undecided: There are a number of competing mutually exclusive claims with the same amount of evidence for them.
A modicum of confidence: The multiple independent lines of evidence slightly favour the claim, but rival claims cannot be ruled out.
High confidence: The multiple independent lines of evidence are most parsimoniously explained by the claim being true. Rival claims require large amounts of 'patches' to explain some of the data. Unique predictions have been made and have been demonstrated as accurate. A widely accepted scientific theory.
Total confidence: The claim is true. No question about it.
Your position II might cover my positions ii, iii and iv (and maybe even v)!
A person of faith is someone who holds level III position's levels of confidence, but without level III's evidential requirements.
Certainly your hard-core fundamentalist can be portrayed this way, but having read a lot of posts from other people I don't think this is universal.
I disagree. You ask even a moderate Christian about what they think about the claim 'Jesus was crucified and was resurrected from the dead.' and you are likely to get an answer in region of vi and vii regarding the level of confidence they profess. A particularly liberal Christian might concede that they don't have any warrant for their confidence and that technically (or philosophically) they should have much lower confidence (ii to iv) in such a claim and if you asked them why they don't you'll likely hear the word 'faith' somewhere in the explanation.
I'm not claiming universality of this principle - but it seems to me to be a very common phenomenon. That's why I say that 'faith' seems to be a cognitive tool to give greater confidence in a claim than is warranted - since that is how those that have 'faith' say they are using it.
And that, since it is, you're argument that the possibility of human invention is infinitely more objectively evidenced as a possibility is wrong.
Hmmmmmm. So how much more evidenced is it? Is the possibility of human invention and the commonality of human psychology equally as unevidenced as an answer to the question? Or is it evidentially superior to gods, dogs, the matrix and all those other unevidenced possibilities? Are you quibbling over how much more evidenced this is? Or are you denying that human invention is an evidentially superior conclusion period?
Finally.
I was exposing that you never actually weighed the likelyhood.
You labeled one side of the scale as having absolutely no weight at all so that you could claim the other side of the scale weighed infinitely more which allowed you to avoid actually weighing anything in the first place.
But in doing so they special plead god as an answer to any given gap over all of the other near infinite array of equally objectively uevidenced possible answers.
I agree, and I don't understand CS's reasoning here:
CS writes:
Just because we're void of any objective evidence doesn't mean we can't use logic and reason to narrow down the possibilities.
I don't understand how natural process are being over looked for answers, to make room for the possibility of a supernatural concept that is "void of objective evidence."
Its more of a post-hoc rationalization.
I don't overlook natural process to make room for a belief in god. I have this belief in god that I'm looking for places to make sense.
How on earth can anyone describe something that is void of objective evidence?
They could describe a dream they had.
Even if the evidence in favour of naturalistic answers is misleading the chances of anyone here having guessed correctly as to the nature of the unknowable explanation is miniscule.
Miniscule is too high of a probability IMO; I'd say the chances are zero. And honestly, we should be happy that its zero because science is better when there are no god-of-the-gaps involved.
So then you DO take a positive belief that gods do not exist!?
Santa Claus and the Easter bunny are quite popular ... so are ghosts, leprechauns and fairies.
What would you say the likelyhood of any of these popular concepts existing is?
Are they really that popular though?
But yeah, I believe in ghosts...
Lets try a few and see where you stand.
Yawn. Fine....
What is more likely as a god concept:
1) Zeus - the ruler of Mount Olympus and the god of the sky and thunder.
2) Ra - commander of the sky, the earth, and the underworld.
3) Jesus - was born of a virgin. Died then resurrected.
4) God - creator of the universe - Dieist concept.
5) Some unknown force
I don't know. I think that specific descriptions are less likely to be accurate, and especially in their entirety. We know how lightning forms so an actual Zeus is unlikely, but that doesn't mean that some god isn't behind when and where lightning occurs, or for the creation of the laws that allow for it. In the case that Zeus is a primitive description of the actual god then how does that affect his likelyhood?
Which one do you think is the likely responsible agent to any question about reality that may come up, and why?
Again, I just don't know. I think its pretty likely that some god exists but I don't know much about the specifics of its nature.
Now, would your answer to: "Which one do you think is the likely responsible agent to any question about reality that may come up?" change if I add nature as the 6th concept? - If so, why?
It depends. If it fits in with my current god-concept then I'll feel its more likely than if its just some random made-up creature that you just thought of.
And, whats more likely: That an unknown force exists that created the universe, planets, humans, etc. -OR- that humans made up the concept of god in its early days of life on earth to answer questions about reality that they couldn't answer otherwise?
Lets assume that you choose the latter: Given the many, many shape shifts of the god concept throughout human history, what's more likely: That humans guessed the right concept for the creator of the universe -OR- that everyone believes in some form of god because every civilization from early man on created these concepts to answer questions that they couldn't answer otherwise?
For these kinds of questions, I defer to my own belief in god. I didn't just make it up and I don't believe it just because everyone else does. Now, I can't know the source of other's beliefs, but because of what I do know about my beliefs, I doubt that those are accurate reasons for why people believe in god. I came to a sincere belief in god, after doubting his existence, from my own personal journey and I assume others have as well.
OMFG...
I actually met a Gideon!.. serioulsy. They had a booth set up at a convention. I shook his hand n'everything.
And they weren't wearing ninja costumes or anything. But they wouldn't let me get away without a Bible
I paraphrased that Bill Hicks joke in our conversation and they were laughing. I told them how I was gonna try to catch a Gideon because I'd never seen one but apparently they're everywhere putting Bibles in hotel drawers.
That's a possibility, hope you don't mind if I remain agnostic on it.
Not at all.
You haven't read your Ann Landers columns - it is possible for virgins to get pregnant, and there are documented cases of this: all you need is sperm, not penetration.
Fair enough, and I guess I should have elaborated on my point a little further. You described natural causes for the virgin pregnancy, not devine intervention. If its natural, IOW, if someone is claiming to be a preganant virgin by natural means, then I have no reason to doubt it ... its when the "holy ghost" comes into the picture and plants the seed of life into her womb that I see a lack of evidence for - and, a mountain of evidence to support ONLY natural pregnancies and births.
I would have to accept many factors on faith before I could get to accepting the entire story. I continue to be a III on this matter.
There are also cases of parthenogenesis in some organisms - could not a single mutation cause parthenogenesis?
I yield my responce to WK. I don't know much about parthenogenesis ( I could look at wiki and take a stab at it) but there are plenty of knowledgable people in that field on this site that can answer you better than I could.
However, my point remains that it is a natural process and there is no need to consider it a miracle, would you agree?
Yes, and your problem is that this is a rationalization for why you don't believe in Jesus
I think my point was lost in my rant. Jesus, a human being that walked the earth, is more than capable of existing and I would require no evidence for that proof. Just like Carl, Tim and Ian that lived 500 years ago - 3 regular guys that worked on a farm. Whats the point in doubting that? None.
Its when Jesus (or Carl, Tim and Ian) are called gods by a very small group of people that the story gets too far-fetched.
I believe Jesus lived. I believe he was a rebel in his time (even though no other literature talks about him).
I am a II that he existed, because I take the Bible as a form of objective evidence - However, I'm a III to him not being a god.
I don't overlook natural process to make room for a belief in god. I have this belief in god that I'm looking for places to make sense.
Cool, but it seems like you are trying to find gaps in knowledge to place him tentatively (to make sense of it for yourself) until someone uncovers the natural workings of that gap - then he gets moved to another gap. I don't see why something like that is needed. If I had a belief that forced me into that pattern of gap-filling, I'd question the point of why I believe in the first place - But that's just me.
They could describe a dream they had.
A dream takes place in reality and there is much about the function of the brain during dreaming that is understood. Nothing about it is supernatural.
What I meant was, how can someone describe something supernatural for which no objective evidence exists?
So then you DO take a positive belief that gods do not exist!?
No, you misunderstood. I take a positive belief that people didn't guess correctly as to the nature of the unknowable explanation.
Yawn. Fine....
- don't act like you got shit to do - LOL
I don't know. I think that specific descriptions are less likely to be accurate, and especially in their entirety.
Right, that was my point. God(s) started out being very descriptive, and no one questioned the likelyhood - they accepted they existed. As time has progressed (and science has advanced) those specific descriptions seem "less likely to be accurate."
So the likelyhood is relative to the advancements of modern science.
Where once there was no question about the likelyhood of Zeus (and probably many would have doubted "an unknown, ambiguous force") now the script has been flipped. It is the specfic descriptions of god(s) that are less likely, and the ambiguous versions (which leave room for anything) are considered more likely to be accurate.
There is a pattern dictated by human knowledge.
Again, I just don't know. I think its pretty likely that some god exists but I don't know much about the specifics of its nature.
But doesn't that show you a pattern in belief? - That the more advanced a civilization becomes, the less specifics they place on the god they believe in?
I'm not saying this means there are no god(s) - It could very well mean that knowledge of nature brings one closer to understanding the nature of god(s) - but, it can't be denied (IMO) that knowledge about nature influences the concept of god(s) - do you agree?
It depends. If it fits in with my current god-concept then I'll feel its more likely than if its just some random made-up creature that you just thought of.
Well, nature is not made up. I don't think you condier Jesus made up. And "some unknown force" is too ambiguous to be anything at all - so, which (of the one you don't consider made up) do you think will answer questions about reality?
The point I'm trying to get at is, if your belief in god has no consequences in reality (doesn't answer any questions about our world/universe) then it's irrelevant to the question of existence.
IOW, the belief is purely faith based, uses no objective evidence, will never answer questions about reality, and is 100% internal and disconnected from the external world we all exist in.
In fact, I would say that is the essence of belief. So why would anyone be considered an atheist toward that?
I came to a sincere belief in god, after doubting his existence, from my own personal journey and I assume others have as well.
Fair enough.
\OMFG...
I actually met a Gideon!.. serioulsy. They had a booth set up at a convention. I shook his hand n'everything.
And they weren't wearing ninja costumes or anything. But they wouldn't let me get away without a Bible
I paraphrased that Bill Hicks joke in our conversation and they were laughing. I told them how I was gonna try to catch a Gideon because I'd never seen one but apparently they're everywhere putting Bibles in hotel drawers.
You found one! Hick's would be so proud LOL.
I never knew they existed in the real world. Are they regular chrisitans?
Cool, but it seems like you are trying to find gaps in knowledge to place him tentatively (to make sense of it for yourself) until someone uncovers the natural workings of that gap - then he gets moved to another gap. I don't see why something like that is needed. If I had a belief that forced me into that pattern of gap-filling, I'd question the point of why I believe in the first place - But that's just me.
Really? I don't think I'm trying to find gaps at all. What makes it seem like I am?
Right, that was my point. God(s) started out being very descriptive, and no one questioned the likelyhood - they accepted they existed. As time has progressed (and science has advanced) those specific descriptions seem "less likely to be accurate."
So the likelyhood is relative to the advancements of modern science.
Where once there was no question about the likelyhood of Zeus (and probably many would have doubted "an unknown, ambiguous force") now the script has been flipped. It is the specfic descriptions of god(s) that are less likely, and the ambiguous versions (which leave room for anything) are considered more likely to be accurate.
There is a pattern dictated by human knowledge.
This is kinda what I was talking about with using logic and reason, despite a lack of objective evidence, to narrow down the possibilities.
But doesn't that show you a pattern in belief? - That the more advanced a civilization becomes, the less specifics they place on the god they believe in?
I'm not saying this means there are no god(s) - It could very well mean that knowledge of nature brings one closer to understanding the nature of god(s) - but, it can't be denied (IMO) that knowledge about nature influences the concept of god(s) - do you agree?
Sure, and I don't see how it wouldn't. Well, unless your a fundamentalist.
Well, nature is not made up. I don't think you condier Jesus made up. And "some unknown force" is too ambiguous to be anything at all - so, which (of the one you don't consider made up) do you think will answer questions about reality?
The point I'm trying to get at is, if your belief in god has no consequences in reality (doesn't answer any questions about our world/universe) then it's irrelevant to the question of existence.
My belief in god has consequences in reality by affecting my behavior. It also sugar-coats a lot of the emotional things we take for granted, and adds some color to this world.
IOW, the belief is purely faith based, uses no objective evidence, will never answer questions about reality, and is 100% internal and disconnected from the external world we all exist in.
In fact, I would say that is the essence of belief. So why would anyone be considered an atheist toward that?
Because they don't believe it exists!?
You found one! Hick's would be so proud LOL.
I never knew they existed in the real world. Are they regular chrisitans?
Yeah, they're non-demoninational. The guy said that they're not a reliogious group, they just want to ensure that everyone has access to a Bible.
Btw, I just bought Love All the People: The Essential Bill Hicks. Its all of his material written out. Great, great book to pick up and read a piece at a time.
I haven't heard of that. next time I'm at the bookstore, I'll take a look. Thanks!
I am still waiting for you to catch up and admit your contradictions and mistakes. I'll look forward to your posts on the "winners and losers" thread.
But you just admitted your mistake (Message 190, for which I thanked you), that you were wrong on your "6=agnostic" nonsense, and this resolves your contradiction.
You were guilty of equivocating, claiming that a "6" did not need to support their position with evidence because they were agnostic, when the ones that get off from supporting their position are agnostic (2) or predominantly agnostic (3 & 5).
All of which is based on your own mistake; your mistranslation of my claim that the "6' position is agnostic into atheist=agnostic".
There was no mistake, no mistranslation, it was an intentional demonstration using your own words to show you that your position was silly in trying to use agnosticism to avoid supporting your "6" position with evidence, when your "6" position was not based on agnosticism.
It should have been relatively obvious (it was to everyone else) that 6 ≠ 5 ≠ 4 ≠ 3 ≠ 2 on the scale, and that these differences require different levels of support.
You tried to blur the distinctions to avoid paying the piper (presenting evidence to support your position), and you've been forced to claim that 2 through 6 are equivalent in this regard:
Which gets pretty silly when you then have to claim that a 2 theist is an atheist, or that a 6 atheist is a theist. Without the distinctions between 2 and 3 and 4 and 5 and 6 the scale becomes meaningless.
You have now stated that the "... "6' position is agnostic into "atheist=agnostic" ..." reproduction of your argument by equivocation is a false representation, not because you were right in your original post/s, but because 6 ≠ 5 ≠ 4 ≠ 3 ≠ 2 on the scale, and because this became obvious when I started inserting one for the other in your comments.
Now that I've pointed out that "atheist=agnostic" was not my position, ...
... you can pick up where you started with this little equivocation game in Pseudoskepticism and logic, and actually present the evidence for you atheist position, avoid your previous mistake, and actually address the issue.
Really? I don't think I'm trying to find gaps at all. What makes it seem like I am?
Maybe I misunderstood. Do you see god as a possible answer to the question, "what created the universe?"...?
If so, how is that not a gap filler?
This is kinda what I was talking about with using logic and reason, despite a lack of objective evidence, to narrow down the possibilities.
So then we can agree that the concepts of god become more vague (removing the old specifics) as we as a society increase our knowledge about nature.
And consider this, that all we're doing is using the objective evidence that we have aquired to remove the concepts that violate the things we've learned about nature that can't be violated.
This is what we atheists have done for MOST known god concepts too. But, we stop short of having objective evidence to remove ALL god concepts because of the ambiguity, vagueness and unknwon aspect of this last remaining god concepts - ie. the unknown, ambiguous force (that some still hold to the opinion that it might be supernatural). Which could end up being completely natural and a part of reality as well, so no need for "belief" or "faith" to be involved at that point.
We, just like you, have narrowed down the possibilities using, as you admitted to doing as well, the knowledge of nature that we have aquired. We, unlike you however, view the lack of objective evidence in support of ANY god concept as a reason to doubt the possibilty of them existing at all.
For subjective reasons (that apparently we atheists lack) you have faith in one concept still being possible.
My belief in god has consequences in reality by affecting my behavior.
Wouldn't you say that YOU affect your behavior because you believe in god, and not the other way around?
What I meant is, can god answer the questions of reality? Does the god concept answer the "How did the universe begin," question?
Even if we establish that a god did it, we are no closer to understanding anything about our reality/world/universe. So believing god did it would have no consequence in our understanding of anything, and never has.
Oni writes:
IOW, the belief is purely faith based, uses no objective evidence, will never answer questions about reality, and is 100% internal and disconnected from the external world we all exist in. In fact, I would say that is the essence of belief. So why would anyone be considered an atheist toward that?
CS writes:
Because they don't believe it exists!?
Well, if you agree that its internal (in your mind) and disconnected from the external world, that would mean that your belief is subjective, and your concept of god is also subjective - My point is, how could anyone believe or disbelieve your subjective beliefs and concepts? I cannot reject that which has no quality in reality.
Again, we don't disbelieve in god, we simply claim that there is no evidence to support any god concept - until, like I said above, we get to this *new* "ambiguous, unkown force" - At which point I feel no one even knows what they're describing.
However, my point remains that it is a natural process and there is no need to consider it a miracle, would you agree?
I could explain how the miracle occurred, but not why.
I am a II that he existed, because I take the Bible as a form of objective evidence - However, I'm a III to him not being a god.
Personally I believe anyone can become an enlightened individual (someone tapped in to your "ambiguous force" perhaps), that Gandhi, MLK, Thoreau, Jesus (if he existed, for I am a II here as well), and Gautama Buddha would be examples. Curiously, there is evidence that Gautama was a real person:
Apparently some of the court documents recorded his religious gatherings, and that they drew people from around the country.
However, I'm a III to him not being a god.
Again, what evidence do you have that this is so? If you are a level III then there needs to be the supporting empirical objective evidence that this level requires:
I do take issue with the utility of your three point scale. Might I suggest we translate it to a seven point scale again to see what I mean?
Zero Confidence: the claim is definitely false.
Very low confidence, but short of zero. It can't be ruled out. Any evidence only exists using one type of measuring device that is renowned for its errors and artefacts, or the effect exists right at the threshold of statistical significance. Many competing claims with identical evidence exist, and many of them are mutually exclusive.
Low confidence. The claim has a modicum of independent evidence in its favour, but other claims which contradict it have more evidence in their favour.
Undecided: There are a number of competing mutually exclusive claims with the same amount of evidence for them.
A modicum of confidence: The multiple independent lines of evidence slightly favour the claim, but rival claims cannot be ruled out.
High confidence: The multiple independent lines of evidence are most parsimoniously explained by the claim being true. Rival claims require large amounts of 'patches' to explain some of the data. Unique predictions have been made and have been demonstrated as accurate. A widely accepted scientific theory.
Total confidence: The claim is true. No question about it.
Your position II might cover my positions ii, iii and iv (and maybe even v)!
Personally, I think that leaves things too open for people to equivocate on their positions. Instead of trying to lay out the spectrum of confidence possible, I tried to break it down by basic evidence categories:
(1) no evidence, or insufficient evidence to show much of anything. Are indistinct footprints evidence of sasquatch?
(2) subjective evidence, or evidence that has not been corroborated by anyone else. Did someone, alone and conscious in a remote area observe a new species or a unicorn?
(3) objective empirical evidence that has been confirmed by multiple occurrences\people.
And then apply what we seem to have agreed can be supported by that evidence (based on way to many threads for such a simple issue):
Now if you like, these levels can be subdivided, but I think the distinction by types of evidence is critical to consilience of opinions. Your (vi) and (vii) would be sublevels of III.
I have trouble with some of your levels, like (iii):
Low confidence. The claim has a modicum of independent evidence in its favour, but other claims which contradict it have more evidence in their favour.
In my opinion, if there is invalidating evidence then there should be NO confidence. I can also have no confidence in a claim that has no evidence.
I disagree. You ask even a moderate Christian about what they think about the claim 'Jesus was crucified and was resurrected from the dead.' and you are likely to get an answer in region of vi and vii regarding the level of confidence they profess.
Message 187 Phat (re dawkins scale): I would consider myself a definite 2.00.
Message 199 Phat (re RAZD scale): looks like I am also a 2 on your scale!
Not that Phat encompasses the class of moderate christians, but I do think that many people can distinguish between these levels. If they don't, then this scale helps to uncover that issue, as it does for others.
It seems the biggest problem is that people have this need to decide. To borrow from Onifre, the need to decide should be based on the relevance of the concept to the person: if concept {A} does not affect person {Q} in any way, they do not need to decide, and can wait for the issue to be sorted out by others that are affected and by the evidence that they find while sorting it out. If it is a life and death matter for person {Q} then it doesn't matter how good the evidence is, or how much confidence they have in the decision, they do need to decide based on the information available.
Most people it seems (to me anyway) make decisions based on their world views and how new concepts fit in to that picture of how the universe works. There was some evidence posted (I've lost it) that people make up their minds first and then find reasons for that decision.
- You'd be surprised....
You found one! Hick's would be so proud LOL.
™ Version 4.2
