How Much of a Theist or Atheist are You?

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I didn't say they need qualifications to talk about it. We're talking about it, aren't we? I was just saying that he doesn't have any more academic standing on the subject than you or I as he's not educated in the relevant fields.

Much like many religious leaders and commentators.

 

[Liu]

The scale was written by atheist Richard Dawkins. He considers himself a scholar, so he capitalizes God. This refers to the Abrahamic God. Lower case god isn't used in philosophy and scholarly circles because it refers to pagan and mythical gods. The ignorant internet atheists are ones who use lower case god.

Thanks for the information. I heard of that distinction, but I'm no native speaker of English (my native language capitalizes all nouns), and I have seen this capitalization used rather interchangeably in English, so I rather ask when I encounter it.
Also, you never said the list was a direct quote from Dawkins.

I'll adjust my vote to de-facto atheist then. Absolute knowledge is impossible, so not strong atheist, but as long as logical laws are assumed to apply, I'm completely certain that God doesn't exist in the form Abrahamic religions believe him to.

 

[columbus]

Much like many religious leaders and commentators.

Here in the Abrahamic world, that includes virtually all of them. Everything is based on somebody's interpretation of something written by primitive ancient people, usually with a layer of translation for added confusion.
Tom

 

[columbus]

I read it in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy a few years ago, but it appears that section is removed now. Ok, I'll go with yours.

Probably because the word god, rather like allah, has morphed into a proper name for the gods worshiped by major religious groups.
It doesn't matter the history, God and Allah are now names of characters.
Tom

 

[Jeremiahcp]

The scale was written by atheist Richard Dawkins. He considers himself a scholar, so he capitalizes God. This refers to the Abrahamic God. Lower case god isn't used in philosophy and scholarly circles because it refers to pagan and mythical gods. The ignorant internet atheists are ones who use lower case god.

"Lower case god isn't used in philosophy and scholarly circles because it refers to pagan and mythical gods. "

Not everyone thinks like that, here is a grammatical perspective:

Whether you capitalize god or not depends on the context in which you are using it. As in my previous sentence I was using it as the word god and not an entity named God or entities which are gods. So I didn't capitalize it, because in that context it was not a proper noun. It does not always have to be about referring to a specific type of god; my choice to capitalize god or not depends completely on what I am saying at the time and which form is the proper grammar.

Here is an example:

Praise the greatness of God. This sentence god is a proper noun so it is capitalize.

The gods are great. This sentence god is not a proper noun so it is not capitalize.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

Thanks for the information. I heard of that distinction, but I'm no native speaker of English (my native language capitalizes all nouns), and I have seen this capitalization used rather interchangeably in English, so I rather ask when I encounter it.
Also, you never said the list was a direct quote from Dawkins.

I'll adjust my vote to de-facto atheist then. Absolute knowledge is impossible, so not strong atheist, but as long as logical laws are assumed to apply, I'm completely certain that God doesn't exist in the form Abrahamic religions believe him to.

"Thanks for the information. "

I would not put too much faith in what he said. I am willing to bet for many atheists it is about the grammar.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I certainly see a lot of merit in ignosticism, but in a lot of ways I think it's an even more extreme stance than strong atheism: instead of saying to theists "you're wrong," it says to them "you're so incoherent I can't even say 'you're wrong'" and "your viewpoint isn't even worth considering until you figure out how to better express what you mean."

While I hesitate to *speak on behalf of Rabbi Wine, I seriously doubt that he would say or think anything of the kind. He certainly did not do so in any of the conversation of which I am aware.

(* and I rather resent your willingness to do so based on - I assume - near zero exposure to the man)

 

[Jeremiahcp]

I consider myself to be a hardcore atheist/antitheist.

I have a bible and Koran with personal annotations regarding contradictions, disturbing parts, etc.
I'm a member of an organized atheist/Humanist/etc. organization.
I've Successfully “de-converted” someone to atheism.
I Have already made plans to donate my body to science after i die.
I Have turned on Christian TV because i needed something entertaining to laugh at.
I'm on a mailing list for a Christian organization just so i can see what they’re up to.
I keep my eyes open while i watched others around me pray.
I've argued with someone who stopped me on the street to proselytize.
I Subscribe to a freethought magazine.

That sounds a lot like a religion.

 

[james bond]

He's an evolutionary biologist, not a "scholar" of philosophy, religion, theology, sociology, etc. When he talks about religion, it's purely as a layman.

He lists himself as ethologist, eb and author and "He is an emeritus fellow of New College, Oxford, and was the University of Oxford's Professor for Public Understanding of Science from 1995 until 2008" in liberal-biased wikipedia. Besides being one of the founders of New Atheism, he founded Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science. I would agree that he first came to prominence with his The Selfish Gene book.

Very different from what conservapedia says about him. I assume he considered himself an agnostic before.

" Clinton Richard Dawkins, FRS, FRSL, (born March 26, 1941 (age 76), is a British author, biologist, evolutionist, agnostic and leftist/liberal (See also: Richard Dawkins and agnosticism).[3]

He is sometimes referred to as the "world's most famous atheist" but when interviewed, he claims that, on a scale of 1 to 7, where 1 is perfect faith in God and 7 is perfect confidence in atheism, he is a 6.9.[4]

Most of Richard Dawkins' popular books have promoted evolutionary pseudoscience. Dawkins is also the former holder of the Charles Simonyi Chair of the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University.

He is an ardent opponent of religion, which he dismisses as mere superstition.[5] However, Dawkins has offered no effective rebuttal to studies which show that the irreligious are more likely to be superstitious than evangelical Christians.[6]

Dawkins is one of the principle founders of the New Atheism movement which is a form of militant atheism in terms of its rhetoric. Dawkins said about New Atheism, "[O]ur struggle is not so much an intellectual struggle, as a political one: What are we going to do about it?”.[7] In recent years, the prominence of Richard Dawkins and the New Atheism movement has greatly waned (see: Richard Dawkins' loss of influence and Decline of New Atheism).

In terms of the theism vs. agnosticism/atheism issue, Dawkins has shown himself to be rather ignorant in matters of philosophy and theology. For example, atheist philosopher Dr. Michael Ruse declared concerning Dawkins' book The God Delusion: "The God Delusion makes me embarrassed to be an atheist."[8] The philosopher Antony Flew, who was one of the most prominent atheist academics in the world before adopting deism, said about Dawkins: “The fault of Dawkins as an academic…was his scandalous and apparently deliberate refusal to present the doctrine he appears to think he has refuted in its strongest form”.[9]

As far as the origin of the universe, Dawkins wrote: “The fact that life evolved out of nearly nothing, some 10 billion years after the universe evolved literally out of nothing, is a fact so staggering that I would be mad to attempt words to do it justice."[10] See also: Atheism and the origin of the universe

Dawkins is a vocal opponent of Islam. Despite his opposition to religion/Christianity, Dawkins indicated: "Christianity may actually be our best defence against aberrant forms of religion that threaten the world".[1][2] See also: Richard Dawkins and Christianity

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

While I hesitate to *speak on behalf of Rabbi Wine, I seriously doubt that he would say or think anything of the kind. He certainly did not do so in any of the conversation of which I am aware.

(* and I rather resent your willingness to do so based on - I assume - near zero exposure to the man)

I was talking about ignosticism in general, not about the positions of any particular ignostic.

The implications of the ignostic position (i.e. that the term "god" is too poorly-defined for "a god exists" to be a meaningful statement) seem clear enough - and clearly damning of theism - to me; if you know how Rabbi Wine managed to reconcile this view with respect for theism, feel free to share. From the little I know of him, my impression is that he managed to do so, though I have no idea how.

 

[columbus]

I was talking about ignosticism in general, not about the positions of any particular ignostic.

Would you explain the difference between "ignosticism" and "igtheism" please? In simple terms?
I often get confused, finding the definitions of such words so laced with tacit assumption and connotations that I don't understand what someone means. Even after I look it up in an ordinary dictionary.
Tom

 

[Jeremiahcp]

How Much of a Theist or Atheist are You?

About that much.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Would you explain the difference between "ignosticism" and "igtheism" please? In simple terms?
I often get confused, finding the definitions of such words so laced with tacit assumption and connotations that I don't understand what someone means. Even after I look it up in an ordinary dictionary.
Tom

AFAIK, "ignosticism", "igtheism", and "theological noncognitivism" all mean the same thing.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Much like many religious leaders and commentators.

 

[james bond]

Thanks for the information. I heard of that distinction, but I'm no native speaker of English (my native language capitalizes all nouns), and I have seen this capitalization used rather interchangeably in English, so I rather ask when I encounter it.
Also, you never said the list was a direct quote from Dawkins.

I'll adjust my vote to de-facto atheist then. Absolute knowledge is impossible, so not strong atheist, but as long as logical laws are assumed to apply, I'm completely certain that God doesn't exist in the form Abrahamic religions believe him to.

I'm glad that Dawkins' list came in handy and has helped you to identify yourself more readily. I have not seen a similar list. As for capitalization, I have updated it from what I read in Stanford. It refers to the major monotheistic religions. Also, in English grammar, proper nouns are capitalized. Thanks for your reply.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

The implications of the ignostic position (i.e. that the term "god" is too poorly-defined for "a god exists" to be a meaningful statement) seem clear enough - and clearly damning of theism - to me; if you know how Rabbi Wine managed to reconcile this view with respect for theism, feel free to share. From the little I know of him, my impression is that he managed to do so, though I have no idea how.

Again let me emphasize that my direct exposure to Rabbi Wine was limited to a rather long dinner with a handful of people and a few Shabbat services; I claim no ability to channel the man.

I suspect that Rabbi Wine had little respect for theism in a formal sense. Rather than deeply admiring it, he found it ill conceived. But that is a far cry from disrespecting the theist by ...

saying to theists "you're wrong," it says to them "you're so incoherent I can't even say 'you're wrong'" and "your viewpoint isn't even worth considering until you figure out how to better express what you mean."

Rather, I can imagine a discussion between Rabbi Wine (RW) and some hypothetical theist (HT) progressive roughly as follows ...

• HT
  Rabbi, do you believe in God?
• RW
  What do you mean by God?
• HT
  < any one of a myriad of answers >
• RW
  I don't see a God so described as necessary so, no, I do not believe in such a God as yours.
• HT
  Well, is there any definition of God that you might believe in?
• RW
  I know of none. More to the point, it seems to me that anything worthy of the appellation would be inherently undefinable, and I do not see how I could believe in something that transcends definition.

 

[james bond]

Probably because the word god, rather like allah, has morphed into a proper name for the gods worshiped by major religious groups.
It doesn't matter the history, God and Allah are now names of characters.
Tom

You're entitled to your faith, beliefs and opinions, but I found I had to draw the line on capitalizing God somewhere because we have much more information because of the internet. I've always seen it capitalized in academic and serious discussions Ultimately, one has to decide what is real and true versus fake or not real for themselves. Maybe the internet atheists are not academic or serious. For example, internet atheists do not understand the word "fact." If something is "fact," then usually everyone knows and can use it for their reasoning. I don't have to be told in every news article the earth is "4.6 billion years old" or dinosaurs lived "245-million years" ago. Yet, the liberal internet atheists media do not seem sure of themselves and have to constantly remind people the fake news.

 

[columbus]

You're entitled to your faith, beliefs and opinions, but I found I had to draw the line on capitalizing God somewhere because we have much more information because of the internet.

What does that have to do with the vernacular usage and literary conventions and respectful intentions that go into deciding whether or not to capitalize God/god in a specific context?
Tom

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It strikes me as strange that nobody ever seems to care about a person's credentials when they're speaking in praise of religion.

It also strikes me as strange that once a person dismisses Dawkins's credentials, they generally don't see the need to argue against the criticisms that he makes against religion.

In terms of the validity of his criticisms, his qualifications - or lack thereof - only matter if they've led to him making incorrect conclusions.

So which of Dawkins's conclusions do you think are incorrect?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

It strikes me as strange that nobody ever seems to care about a person's credentials when they're speaking in praise of religion.

It also strikes me as strange that once a person dismisses Dawkins's credentials, they generally don't see the need to argue against the criticisms that he makes against religion.

In terms of the validity of his criticisms, his qualifications - or lack thereof - only matter if they've led to him making incorrect conclusions.

So which of Dawkins's conclusions do you think are incorrect?

I'd have to re-familiarize myself with his positions on it to answer. I haven't paid attention to the "new atheist" brigade in years and so have forgotten stuff. I do find that those trained the "hard sciences" who comment on religion often don't understand it, though. They tend to view things through empirical lenses and misunderstand the sociological aspect of it.