Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Faith vs Skepticism - Why faith?
xongsmith
Member
Posts: 2578
From: massachusetts US
Joined: 01-01-2009
Member Rating: 6.8


(2)
Message 350 of 533 (535774)
11-17-2009 9:26 PM
Reply to: Message 330 by RAZD
11-16-2009 9:20 PM


Re: chocolate sprinkles
Rrhain says:
The model works. Why do you demand chocolate sprinkles? Do you have evidence that they are required?
RAZD answers:
Why do you think this question has not been answered?
I've answered it several times, and my answer has not varied. The model works for the knowledge that we know, knowledge that is incomplete....
AND:
The model is incomplete, I don't demand sprinkles, I just note that as long as the model is incomplete they cannot be ruled out.
I've been thinking about these chocolate sprinkles and it occurs to me that not only are they NOT demanded here, but we mathematicians dont even want them! Yet in just about everything we've seen, the model works only up to a point and then things get inexact. The many-body problem in gravity, quantum tunneling, chaotic systems - these can all be modeled at a simple enough scale with the equations we can bring to bear on the issue ("Assume a spherically symmetrical distribution...").
But to go for exactitude, completeness and such, we will find that things get weird. While perhaps these are not Rrhain's chocolate sprinkles per se, they are something to bear in mind when using the model that "works". Suffice it to say that the current model is "working" better than anything else, but it is still being improved upon. Now, as I understand it in my brief time on this board, RAZD's chocolate sprinkles are vastly different from, say, Iano's or Buzsaw's or Phat's. Everyone, myself included, has some unique kind of perception of these "chocolate sprinkles" imbedded within our worldview. For example - and correct me if I am wrong - I think Rrhain & RAZD are closer to each other than RAZD is to Buzsaw in that the models they embrace for describing the world of today are, to all degrees of measurement, indistinguishable. The only difference is perhaps in the description of the moment this Universe came into existence.
Now it would be great from a mathematician's view if we didnt have any chocolate sprinkles, but I think this will turn out to be wishful thinking. No matter how much the model gets improved upon, there will always be a gap between it and reality - a gap filled with those pesky chocolate sprinkles. It's a pursuit curve at best.
It is possible that somewhere up ahead in the sprinkles we'll find an Ace of Spades Straggler insists we're so very unlikely to find in this unbelievably huge deck of card events our observations are checking through (753,322,867,003 cards checked so far & no Ace of Spades yet).
BTW - sorry to interrupt. Wasnt looking for the Room for Arguing, but rather the Room for Sleep Deprivation. Must be further down the hall. Gentlemen: as you were.

- xongsmith

This message is a reply to:
 Message 330 by RAZD, posted 11-16-2009 9:20 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

xongsmith
Member
Posts: 2578
From: massachusetts US
Joined: 01-01-2009
Member Rating: 6.8


Message 461 of 533 (537098)
11-26-2009 9:13 PM
Reply to: Message 455 by Stile
11-26-2009 12:40 PM


Re: In your mind vs. your actions
Stile writes:
Plane 1: The thinking, internal mindset
Plane 2: How you act regarding the Plane 1 mindset
later he tentatively argues:
As far as this debate is going, I'd say that RAZD and CS are arguing from the Plane 1 level, and Straggler and Rrhain are arguing from the Plane 2 level. I also think that Straggler and Rrhain understand the Plane 1 level, and have voiced their tentativity regarding it. The questions they have are regarding the reasoning behind why RAZD and CS seem to take non-atheistic-actions on the Plane 2 level regarding "God," however they both take atheistic-actions on the Plane 2 level regarding any other unknown concept.
Good point.
Also Rrhain eventually brought up the concept of a Meta-I-Dont-Know, regarding what it is, versus the ordinary I-Dont-Know if it exists.
But for some reason Rrhain still think RAZD is DEMANDING the chocolate sprinkles as part of the model, when he was agnostic about them but leaning towards a Deist view of, perhaps, maybe one of them. RAZD has been arguing that, rather than being needed in the model, it's only that a sprinkle cannot be ruled out. Like a huge deck of cards that may or may not contain an Ace Of Spades, failure to find it so far has not ruled out the possibility that it's in the deck somewhere, lurking like a coelacanth. {note to self: "a coelacanthic Ace" would be a cool concept in some future uninvented card game.}
So far all the evidence gathered so far supports the model that has no god. Infact, I offered it as positive evidence in that other thread. It is also true that all the evidence gathered so far supports the model that has a Deistic God that clapped the universe into existence and then went off to do other things elsewhere. So, that means that all the evidence gathered so far to date could be useless...nearly.
Now, is there an ivory-billed coelacanthic Ace of evidence that will be materializing in the future?
I DONT KNOW.
However, personally - and this is where I differ from RAZD and CS, while agreeing with Straggler, Onifre, Stile and others well-known here - I think it's very UNLIKELY. Why? If you know the concept of probability and mean time between failure calculations, this coelacanthic Ace should have shown up by now. If it exists, it is Very Late to the Party. There wont be any beer left by the time it gets here and we wont be able to celebrate properly! CS & Onifre & Straggler will have emptied the Jaegermeister! Onifre & I will have smoked up the entire island of Jamaica!
I'm a 5.7 on that strange scale. My evidence, albeit not so heavily required as a 6.0 or 6.9999, is the Mean Time Between Coelacanthic Aces probability. I freely admit I could be wrong about that. We might only be 10% of the way through the deck. But that's another story.

- xongsmith

This message is a reply to:
 Message 455 by Stile, posted 11-26-2009 12:40 PM Stile has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 462 by RAZD, posted 11-27-2009 12:34 AM xongsmith has not replied
 Message 463 by Rrhain, posted 11-27-2009 3:11 AM xongsmith has replied

xongsmith
Member
Posts: 2578
From: massachusetts US
Joined: 01-01-2009
Member Rating: 6.8


Message 465 of 533 (537182)
11-27-2009 11:43 AM
Reply to: Message 463 by Rrhain
11-27-2009 3:11 AM


Rrhain writes:
He claims the model is incomplete. Therefore, it must have chocolate sprinkles.
No. He claims the Model is incomplete because it is incomplete. Do you honestly think the current scientific Model of the Universe and Everything is complete? Why are zillions of scientists still getting grants to do research if the Model is complete? Why have the LHC looking for the Higgs boson? It does not follow from this that it must have chocolate sprinkles. He's just saying you cannot rule them out yet. But there are other kinds of chocolate sprinkles....
Rrhain observes:
But the model doesn't require it and the null hypothesis rules it out until evidence is brought forward that indicates it is required.
You could also bring in Occam's Razor.....
However, it has been my experience that nothing in the real world is a clean, unsprinkled thing - there's scads of DNA that isnt being used, for example. Just because they are not required doesnt mean they're not there. Check out the Silly Design Institute for further troubles with only having what is required. Then we also have to consider that the Model is an Abstract. No person or machine can create a drawing of a perfect square - there's always wobbles and ultimately Heisenberg says "hi!"
The Model by necessity makes simplifications in order to get to tractable mathematics ("assume a spherical distribution"), then it adds perturbations requiring numerical integration that get closer to reality - so in fact the Model is loaded with chocolate sprinkles - just not the kind you talk about. If we go down to Planck length and Planck Time sizes, then all manner of sprinkles come waltzing in. Today the current Model seems to point to a Big Bang. (See Ned Wright's page at http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmolog.htm) Certainly at the very beginning we have the Planck dimensions in effect. What evidence do we have that at that moment the current Model works? They talk about how physical laws break down inside a black hole...and certainly the Planck-aged universe is in a similar dire condition with these physical laws. How can RAZD's one sprinkle be ruled out when we already have to allow for scads of other weird sprinkles. To use your Gay Marriage - Mixed Race Marriage argument, what is different this time? Sure - it's not needed, but a lot of stuff is not needed and is here. Not being needed is insufficient grounds for dismissal. Your Null Hypothesis is only applicable in the sense of forming a guide on how to conduct scientific investigations. You always begin as simple as possible. You start with a blank sheet of paper, as it were, but then stuff gets written on it, and then more stuff and so on, even in the margins. One man's Higgs boson might be another man's chocolate sprinkle, to paraphrase the terrorist/freedom fighter line.
In the case of RAZD's chocolate sprinkle, I'm not sure that it will ever be possible to find empirical objective evidence of something that happened down in the Planck moments of creation, so I shrug and move on. And, if I understand my brother correctly, once we get out of that Planck zone, there is no difference in what you & I and my brother accept into our worldview by applying the Model to reality. For me and you it makes no difference in how we behave in this Universe. We wont need to pay attention anymore to that sprinkle. It might be curious to know some day, but we are not going to throw huge amounts of energy at finding out right now. Sunsets are beautiful either way. Enjoy the sunsets.
In the case of YEC chocolate sprinkles, we have a different story. Not only are they not needed, they've been disproven. In fact tons of descriptions of the supernatural have been shown to be made up, as Straggler will attest. And by "tons" I mean every description that has fallen under the rigors of scientific scrutiny.
Now, in the case of some currently observing omniscient god in the sky as yet undescribed, we have the Mean Time Between Coelacanthic Aces probability calculations to make such a thing extremely unlikely and form evidence of the kind RAZD would need to see for a 6.0 Dawkins instead of a 5.0 Dawkins.

- xongsmith, 5.7d

This message is a reply to:
 Message 463 by Rrhain, posted 11-27-2009 3:11 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 471 by Rrhain, posted 11-27-2009 7:47 PM xongsmith has replied

xongsmith
Member
Posts: 2578
From: massachusetts US
Joined: 01-01-2009
Member Rating: 6.8


Message 466 of 533 (537183)
11-27-2009 11:51 AM
Reply to: Message 463 by Rrhain
11-27-2009 3:11 AM


Rrhain asks:
quote:I DONT KNOW.
What don't you know? What are you talking about? That is not a facetious question. How can you claim that you don't know about something if you are unable to tell us what it is?
If we will find evidence of the supernatural...an Ace in the deck, so to speak.
(Sorry, forgot to address that question.)

- xongsmith, 5.7d

This message is a reply to:
 Message 463 by Rrhain, posted 11-27-2009 3:11 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 468 by RAZD, posted 11-27-2009 2:04 PM xongsmith has not replied
 Message 472 by Rrhain, posted 11-27-2009 7:49 PM xongsmith has replied

xongsmith
Member
Posts: 2578
From: massachusetts US
Joined: 01-01-2009
Member Rating: 6.8


(1)
Message 474 of 533 (537409)
11-28-2009 11:18 AM
Reply to: Message 472 by Rrhain
11-27-2009 7:49 PM


Rrhain asks:
What do you mean by "supernatural"? All you've done is replace one undefined term with another.
Okay then - let's use your term: chocolate sprinkles
Surely you are familiar with what that term means.

- xongsmith, 5.7d

This message is a reply to:
 Message 472 by Rrhain, posted 11-27-2009 7:49 PM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 475 by onifre, posted 11-28-2009 11:32 AM xongsmith has replied
 Message 509 by Rrhain, posted 11-30-2009 10:53 PM xongsmith has replied

xongsmith
Member
Posts: 2578
From: massachusetts US
Joined: 01-01-2009
Member Rating: 6.8


(1)
Message 476 of 533 (537417)
11-28-2009 11:40 AM
Reply to: Message 471 by Rrhain
11-27-2009 7:47 PM


Rrhain gives us this:
What do you think "incomplete" means? It means that there is something missing. I have decided to call this something that is missing "chocolate sprinkles."
Then what are these:
Because the new ones are based upon implications of the rainbow sprinkles we already have.
I think I would view the incompleteness of the Model as not just chocolate sprinkles or rainbow sprinkles - but any kind of sprinkles, including those that turn out to be legit expansions of the Model.
For example, before General Relativity there used to be a bunch of sprinkles, because the Model at that time did not have an explanation for Mercury's orbit or starlight deflection by gravity or any number of other things that GR explained. GR was incorporated into the Model, expanding it's scope.
Rrhain:
If it is undescribed, how can we possibly assign a probability to it?
We are not assigning a probability to that, we are noting that we havent observed it in all known history. We are assigning a probability to the chances of observing it - call it a chocolate sprinkle, if you will. We've turned over 83 gazillion cards and the Mean Time Between Observed Chocolate Sprinkles must be extremely large, large enough at this point to conclude that a Dawkins Level of 6.0d is starting to look good. It isnt any one instance of Absence of Evidence, it's the sample size of all such instances.

- xongsmith, 5.7d

This message is a reply to:
 Message 471 by Rrhain, posted 11-27-2009 7:47 PM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 510 by Rrhain, posted 11-30-2009 11:23 PM xongsmith has replied

xongsmith
Member
Posts: 2578
From: massachusetts US
Joined: 01-01-2009
Member Rating: 6.8


Message 477 of 533 (537420)
11-28-2009 11:48 AM
Reply to: Message 473 by Rrhain
11-27-2009 8:01 PM


Rrhain objecting to the term "coelacanthic Ace":
Huh? You don't see any evidentiary difference between an undefined term that has never been observed and a living creature we have a fossil record of? That the scenario of an extant creature might have been lost track of is identical to the scenario of an entity that has never been observed has been hiding all this time?
Okay, sorry. I knew there might some nuance taken wrong.
Let's just call it a Chocolate Sprinkle Ace.
It just doesnt have the other cool menacing nuance of swimming deep in the dark sea, lurking there, hidden from us, until some fisherman accidently hoists one aboard. So be it.

- xongsmith, 5.7d

This message is a reply to:
 Message 473 by Rrhain, posted 11-27-2009 8:01 PM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 512 by Rrhain, posted 11-30-2009 11:36 PM xongsmith has not replied

xongsmith
Member
Posts: 2578
From: massachusetts US
Joined: 01-01-2009
Member Rating: 6.8


Message 478 of 533 (537421)
11-28-2009 11:59 AM
Reply to: Message 475 by onifre
11-28-2009 11:32 AM


chocolate sprinkles
Hi Oni
I think you miss the point ... no matter what you decide to call it, it's still a meaningless term.
Rrhain decided to call that part of the Model that would defined as "missing" to be termed chocolate sprinkles.
If we need more details, I guess Rrhain will have to supply them. I dont need the details right away. I think we can proceed a little bit further before they need to be described in detail. Then there are those Rainbow Sprinkles he brought up as well.

- xongsmith, 5.7d

This message is a reply to:
 Message 475 by onifre, posted 11-28-2009 11:32 AM onifre has not replied

xongsmith
Member
Posts: 2578
From: massachusetts US
Joined: 01-01-2009
Member Rating: 6.8


Message 481 of 533 (537469)
11-28-2009 9:01 PM
Reply to: Message 479 by RAZD
11-28-2009 6:32 PM


Re: The third level of logical evaluations of the positions
RAZD states:
What is pointed out, by evaluating the structure of the arguments, is that as soon as you say that X is more likely than notX, that you have created a situation that is contradicted by the form of the statements. We can replace X with Y = notX and end up with the contradictory conclusion that notX is more likely than X, and this cannot be true if X is more likely than notX. This inherent contradiction shows that the logical structure is invalid when probability\likelihood statements are included.
Whoops! I didnt follow that.
Y = notX
given:
p(X) > p(notX)
substituting:
p(X) > p(Y)
reordering:
p(Y) < p(X)
p(notX) < p(X) no contradiction
Where did you get "notX is more likely than X"?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 479 by RAZD, posted 11-28-2009 6:32 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 482 by RAZD, posted 11-28-2009 9:51 PM xongsmith has replied

xongsmith
Member
Posts: 2578
From: massachusetts US
Joined: 01-01-2009
Member Rating: 6.8


Message 483 of 533 (537477)
11-28-2009 10:17 PM
Reply to: Message 482 by RAZD
11-28-2009 9:51 PM


Re: The third level of logical evaluations of the positions
RAZD explains:
Looking at the form of the argument, not the content, means that
p(X) > p(notX) is the same form as
p(Y) > p(notY) in terms of the claim being made
Then I would have to question the usefulness of using form to evaluate a claim of the kind Bluegenes is making.
Perhaps, in the case of evaluating form, you should use a different symbol than ">", pregnant with improper implications. In your formal symbology ">" or "<" cannot be allowed, since X > Y cannot be reversed into Y > X, like "=" can, or Union or Intersection (large sans serif "u" and "n" symbols).
Maybe @ for "formal reversible operator of some kind":
p(X) @ p(notX)
p(Y) @ p(notY)
Then we are home clear.
For example "NE" for "not equal to":
p(X) NE p(notX)
p(Y) NE p(notY)
No problem there.
What about "is contained in", C:
X C Y
cannot be reversed into
Y C X

This message is a reply to:
 Message 482 by RAZD, posted 11-28-2009 9:51 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 484 by RAZD, posted 11-28-2009 10:44 PM xongsmith has replied
 Message 485 by xongsmith, posted 11-28-2009 11:18 PM xongsmith has not replied
 Message 487 by RAZD, posted 11-28-2009 11:33 PM xongsmith has replied

xongsmith
Member
Posts: 2578
From: massachusetts US
Joined: 01-01-2009
Member Rating: 6.8


Message 485 of 533 (537482)
11-28-2009 11:18 PM
Reply to: Message 483 by xongsmith
11-28-2009 10:17 PM


Re: The third level of logical evaluations of the positions
Maybe we should proceed with the Dawkins Scale and some actual probabilities?
1.0 +-----------+ 1.00
    |\         /|
2.0 + \p(G)   / + 0.83
    |  \     /  |
3.0 +   \   /   + 0.67
    |    \ /p(notG)
4.0 +     X     + 0.50
    |    / \    |
5.0 +   /   \   + 0.33
    |  /     \  |
6.0 + /       \ + 0.17
    |/         \|
7.0 +-----------+ 0.00
    | | | | | | |
    1 2 3 4 5 6 7
    7 6 5 4 3 2 1
In this first cut, straight line approximation, a person
at level 1.0 has p(G) = 1.00 and p(notG) = 0.0.
This feel innaccurate because a 6.0d yields p(G) = 1/6.
I am fairly certain the 6.0's here would not think the was as much as a 1 out of 6 probability that god(s) exist. They are more likely to estimate something like 1 in 1000.
We could then move on to the next cut, sinusoidal curves crossing at 4.0d and .50,.50 with the sum = 1.00.
Using the right side Y-axis values,
p(G) = .5cos(wx)+.5
and p(notG) = 1 - p(g) = -.5cos(wx) + .5
We can then derive a scale (w) from p(G) for a 6.0 =~ .001
[color=red]
    |   |   |   |   |   |   |  <-- p(G)[/color]
1.0 [color=red]+--===..[/color]---------[color=cyan]..===--+[/color] 1.00
3.0 |       [color=red]`.[/color]     [color=cyan].'[/color]       |
3.5 +         [color=red]\[/color]   [color=cyan]/[/color]         + 0.83
    |          [color=red]\[/color] [color=cyan]/[/color]          |
3.9 +           [color=violet]V[/color]           + 0.67
    |           [color=violet]|[/color]           |
4.0 +           [color=violet]x[/color]           + 0.50
    |           [color=violet]|[/color]           |
4.1 +           [color=violet]A[/color]           + 0.33
    |          [color=cyan]/[/color] [color=red]\[/color]          |
4.5 +         [color=cyan]/[/color]   [color=red]\[/color]         + 0.17
5.0 |       [color=cyan].'[/color]     [color=red]`.[/color]       |
7.0 [color=cyan]+--===''[/color]---------[color=red]``===--+[/color] 0.00
[color=cyan]    |   |   |   |   |   |   |
    1   2   3   4   5   6   7  <-- p(notG)[/color]
Looks like my 5.7 corresponds to p(G) ~= 0.03 and p(notG) ~= .97.
Maybe I can live with that, as they say in the recording business.
Edited by xongsmith, : No reason given.
Edited by xongsmith, : Fix left axis scale.
Edited by xongsmith, : My 5.7 reading fixed.

- xongsmith, 5.7d

This message is a reply to:
 Message 483 by xongsmith, posted 11-28-2009 10:17 PM xongsmith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 489 by RAZD, posted 11-28-2009 11:57 PM xongsmith has replied

xongsmith
Member
Posts: 2578
From: massachusetts US
Joined: 01-01-2009
Member Rating: 6.8


Message 486 of 533 (537483)
11-28-2009 11:26 PM
Reply to: Message 484 by RAZD
11-28-2009 10:44 PM


Re: The third level of logical evaluations of the positions
Example
Consider the following argument which claims to prove that pie is delicious:
1. Pie is food.
2. Food is delicious.
3. Therefore, pie is delicious.
This particular argument has the form of a categorical syllogism. In this case "Pie is food" and "Food is delicious" act as premises. The first assumption is almost true by definition: pie is a foodstuff edible by humans. The second assumption is less clear; it could mean any one of the following:
* All food is delicious.
* One particular type of food is delicious.
* Most food is delicious.
* To me, all food is delicious.
* Some food is delicious.
* Anything not delicious can not be considered food (equivalent to the first statement under formal logic)
NO GOOD.
the word "is" is equivalent to an equals sign "=" and thus is reversible.
Find another example, so I can be enlightened.
THanks.

- xongsmith, 5.7d

This message is a reply to:
 Message 484 by RAZD, posted 11-28-2009 10:44 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

xongsmith
Member
Posts: 2578
From: massachusetts US
Joined: 01-01-2009
Member Rating: 6.8


Message 488 of 533 (537485)
11-28-2009 11:46 PM
Reply to: Message 487 by RAZD
11-28-2009 11:33 PM


Re: logic of the form needs to be valid for valid conclusions
RAZD writes:
Here you replace all X's with Y's, where Y = notX and the arguments are not contradictory if the form is valid, but they are contradictory where the form is invalid.
Yeah, I saw all that and kinda shrugged.
By that method the 50-50 option is the only one that works, so this is a sneaky form of begging the question.
It doesnt do anything for me.
Sorry.
My sine curves probably wont do anything for you then.
Ah well.
Why havent you asked me how it is that I think I know how many cards are in the deck? I gave you a wide-open target there. ;-)

- xongsmith, 5.7d

This message is a reply to:
 Message 487 by RAZD, posted 11-28-2009 11:33 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 491 by RAZD, posted 11-29-2009 12:19 AM xongsmith has not replied

xongsmith
Member
Posts: 2578
From: massachusetts US
Joined: 01-01-2009
Member Rating: 6.8


Message 490 of 533 (537490)
11-29-2009 12:16 AM
Reply to: Message 489 by RAZD
11-28-2009 11:57 PM


Re: The third level of logical evaluations of the positions
RAZD writes:
Except there are NO actual probabilities - that is the flaw in the scale - they are all assumptions, and not based on fact.
Well, what do you think the Dawkins numbers are? Facts? No.
You say a 6.0 has to show evidence, but a 5.0 does not. This is an assumption on your part. If you say that, I say anything EXCEPT a 4.00000000000000000000000000000 has to show evidence.
My probability scale was an alternate form of the Dawkins scale - a personal feeling about what the individual thinks they are. If I say I think there's a 0.03 probability god(s) exist, i'm not talking about facts. Now, to answer your evidence requirement, I use 2 things: (1) the fact that the Model has worked all along on everything it has been brought to bear on with close scrutiny, modifying and expanding itself as needed without once having to resort to a single Chocolate Sprinkle, and (2) the Mean Time Between Chocolate Sprinkles maximum likelihood calculation, based on my general vague experience of seeing the world of science. I consider the current situation to be more than half way through the relevant cards in question. But I reserve the right to change my position if new evidence comes to light - especially any new evidence that might indicate that there are lot more cards than I thought.
Edited by xongsmith, : added missing word, "be"

- xongsmith, 5.7d

This message is a reply to:
 Message 489 by RAZD, posted 11-28-2009 11:57 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 492 by RAZD, posted 11-29-2009 8:29 AM xongsmith has replied

xongsmith
Member
Posts: 2578
From: massachusetts US
Joined: 01-01-2009
Member Rating: 6.8


Message 493 of 533 (537561)
11-29-2009 11:00 AM
Reply to: Message 492 by RAZD
11-29-2009 8:29 AM


Re: possibilities yes, probabilities YES.
hi RAZD,
Let's look at the wording of the Dawkins scale -
For reference on definitions, we can use the (flawed) "Dawkins scale" as a reference to some general positions:
1.00: Strong theist. 100 percent possibility of God. In the words of C.G. Jung, 'I do not believe, I know.'
2.00: Very high probability but short of 100 per cent. De facto theist. 'I cannot know for certain, but I strongly believe in God and live my life on the assumption that he is there
3.00: Higher than 50 per cent but not very high. Technically agnostic but leaning towards theism. 'I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God.'
4.00: Exactly 50 per cent. Completely impartial agnostic. 'God's existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable.'
5.00: Lower than 50 per cent but not very low. Technically agnostic but leaning towards atheism. 'I don't know whether God exists but I'm inclined to be skeptical.'
6.00: 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.'
7.00: Strong atheist. 'I know there is no God, with the same conviction as Jung 'knows' there is one.'
I see "probability" used a lot in there. The 3.0 and 5.0 levels use it in manner that most people would expect to mean the way I was using it.
Ignoring the inherent mathematical problem/s of calculating probabilities when the number of possibilities is unknown, we can refer to this scale as a reference of relative atheistic, agnostic and theistic beliefs.
I guess what I'm saying is people are going to look at this and pick their number based on their worldview, including, among other things, their own estimate of what the probability is, problems or not. You cant stop people from doing that when they look at this scale.
Notice that the 1.0 and 2.0 positions both refer to "living their lives assuming s/he/it is there" and the 6.0 and 7.0 to "living their lives assuming s/he/it is not there". The central positions have no corresponding lifestyle references. We can imagine someone at the 3.0-4.0-5.0 levels living their lives assuming they dont know, but what would this look like? Sometimes they behave like a 2.0 and sometimes like a 6.0, depending on what the situation is? I think it was Style who was pointing out that there were 2 levels, the Internal Mindset and the External Behavior - I may have the wrong person as my brain dont work so good this morning.

- xongsmith, 5.7d

This message is a reply to:
 Message 492 by RAZD, posted 11-29-2009 8:29 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 496 by RAZD, posted 11-29-2009 12:30 PM xongsmith has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024