The Hayter-Braeloch Scale

[Paul the Human]

So what you both meant was '4'.



I love how people try to create new places on the scale despite the fact it doesn't measure this. Paul invented a new metric of "certainty", whilst Caecilian decided the more arguments you had, the closer to 5 you were

Just to clarify, this scale has 5 points on it. You are one of the 5. It only measures belief and your view on whether the existence of gods can be conclusively established. It doesn't measure the number of arguments, or how certain you are.

If pressed in that way, I'd have to say I'm a 5 then. I am convinced that there is no god and I have no doubts about that conviction. I do know that the existence of god(s) cannot be proven one way or the other, but that is why I think 'agnostic' is an extraneous word when applied to 'theist' and/or 'atheist'. Everyone is lacking objective knowledge on the subject and probably always will be.

[Caecilian]

---

I guess I'd be a 4.5 on that scale. The existence and/or non-existence of god(s) probably cannot be conclusively established, but I am pretty certain that there are none.

I'm probably around 4.8

I think that there are a number of arguments that point towards the impossibility of god, but none of them are entirely conclusive.

So what you both meant was '4'.



I love how people try to create new places on the scale despite the fact it doesn't measure this. Paul invented a new metric of "certainty", whilst Caecilian decided the more arguments you had, the closer to 5 you were

Just to clarify, this scale has 5 points on it. You are one of the 5. It only measures belief and your view on whether the existence of gods can be conclusively established. It doesn't measure the number of arguments, or how certain you are.

@tavarish:

Deism still involves a God, which is why we list it under theism (and explain theism as any concept of God, including the ones you mentioned).

---

No.

Certainty is always matter of degree. If you're trying to apply a scale with discrete values to certainty, then I'm afraid your scale is simply wrong-headed.

Here are some things that I'm certain of:

1. That my friend Sharon likes me a lot.
2. That my mother's name is Marian.
3. That the physical world exists.

I'm more certain of 2 than I am of 1, and more certain of 3 than I am of 2.

However, even in the case of 3, I don't have some kind of absolute certainty. Absolute certainty could only come from absolute knowledge, and thats something that we humans simply don't have.

[bozo]

I'm a 4.

[darkwolf176]

I'm also a 4.

[Tiberius]

@Paul the Human

That is why we used a more verbose definition of what we meant by "agnosticism" in our scale:

The word "agnostic" does not refer to either the knowability of "gods" or to epistemic apathy, but rather to the questionable strength of the arguments for the existence or non-existence of "gods" (i.e., the premises and their denials are equally probable).

In other words, if you think there are arguments that conclusively establish the existence or non-existence of gods, you are a "gnostic".

@Caecilian

The point is, the only measure of "certainty" that appears in the scale is concerning the actual appearance of a belief. Those who are "uncertain" are Apatheists. Those who are not "uncertain" are atheists / theists. If you have a belief (or disbelief) then according to our scale, you already have a measure of certainty about that belief that distinguishes you from the apatheists. That is where we stop measuring certainty and focus on the other elements (i.e. the actual belief, and how you view the strength of the arguments for your belief).

The only separating factor between a 4 and a 5 is whether you think the non-existence of Gods can or cannot be conclusively established (note the word "conclusively", it is important here). Similarly, the only separating factor between a 1 and a 2 is whether you think the existence of Gods can or cannot be conclusively established (again, note the word "conclusively").

It's a case of "you either think the arguments conclusively establish existence (or non-existence) or you don't" in much the same way as people have argued "you either believe or you don't". I'm sorry if that forces some people together, despite the fact they may feel "more certain" in some way, but we wanted a simple scale that could classify according to actual beliefs, not the subjective certainty behind those beliefs, since everyone ultimately measures their certainty in different ways.

[downbeatplumb]

If pressed in that way, I'd have to say I'm a 5 then.

Me too.

[Atheist_named_Christian]

If pressed in that way, I'd have to say I'm a 5 then.

Me too.

I guess I am a 4.99999999999999999999999... = 5

(Evidence for the non-existence of god is infinite - we just have to find it all if we want to really PROVE it)

[Caecilian]

---

@Caecilian

The point is, the only measure of "certainty" that appears in the scale is concerning the actual appearance of a belief. Those who are "uncertain" are Apatheists. Those who are not "uncertain" are atheists / theists. If you have a belief (or disbelief) then according to our scale, you already have a measure of certainty about that belief that distinguishes you from the apatheists. That is where we stop measuring certainty and focus on the other elements (i.e. the actual belief, and how you view the strength of the arguments for your belief).

The only separating factor between a 4 and a 5 is whether you think the non-existence of Gods can or cannot be conclusively established (note the word "conclusively", it is important here). Similarly, the only separating factor between a 1 and a 2 is whether you think the existence of Gods can or cannot be conclusively established (again, note the word "conclusively").

It's a case of "you either think the arguments conclusively establish existence (or non-existence) or you don't" in much the same way as people have argued "you either believe or you don't". I'm sorry if that forces some people together, despite the fact they may feel "more certain" in some way, but we wanted a simple scale that could classify according to actual beliefs, not the subjective certainty behind those beliefs, since everyone ultimately measures their certainty in different ways.

---

Hmmm... I'm not convinced.

All you've done here is shift the burden of your argument from the word 'certainty' to the word 'conclusively'.

Either you're equating 'conclusively' to absolute knowledge/ certainty, or you're not.

In the first case, then no one can know anything conclusively, because no one has absolute knowledge. Your 5-point scale becomes a 3-point scale (positions 2, 3 and 4).

In the second case, 'conclusively' represents some degree of certainty. But what degree? We're back with trying to shoe-horn a continuous variable into a set of 5 discrete values, which just doesn't work.

[Tiberius]

I never shifted the burden...I never even mentioned the word "certainty"...Paul did.

The "conclusively established" section of the description, like the "belief" or "disbelief" stance, is a personal conviction. Think of it this way:

1) Do you believe that gods exist?
- If Yes, goto 2.
- If No, goto 3.
- If Uncertain, you are an Apatheist.

2) Do you hold that the existence of gods can be conclusively established (by any means you know of)?
- If yes, you are a Gnostic Theist.
- If no, you are an Agnostic Theist.

3) Do you hold that the non-existence of gods can be conclusively established (by any means you know of)?
- If yes, you are a Gnostic Atheist.
- If no, you are an Agnostic Atheist.

Some people will argue that various theological arguments conclusively establish God exists (i.e. Cosmological, Argument from Design, etc). These people are Gnostic Theists. Others will reject these arguments and say they are not conclusive, but say that they still believe in a deity. These people are Agnostic Theists.

Same with the atheism side of the argument.

It doesn't matter if you are amazingly 99.9999% certain that Gods exist; if you don't think there are any arguments that conclusively establish the existence of Gods, you are agnostic.

[Welsh cake]

3. Apatheist
Those who are uncertain regarding the existence of gods. They may sometimes 'believe' and other times 'not believe' that gods exist, and question whether the issue has ultimate consequences.

I'd argue that Apatheist is summarised and consequently is missing out its crucial various states of certainty or 'uncertainty', whatever, these states are what most theists go through when they gradually convert to atheism, because you can be 'Apathetic Agnostic' as well. When I began to de-convert I became gradually an apathetic theist towards the belief in the god concept, yet still thought a creator-like entity was responsible for the entire cosmos, but at this moment in my deconversion I felt indifferent to it, I studied the Problem of Evil and concluded it didn't care about my life (or my eventual death) and thus I stopped attending religious events or ceremonies, I ceased praying, or conducted any other form of action relating to god.

You mention the only measure useful is of "certainty" that appears in the scale but those who are "uncertain" are Apatheists, I respectfully disagree, these are in a nutshell simply varying levels of certainty again given how they exercise and express their belief or disbelief in their day-to-day lives, you couldn't identify an apatheist but the belief in god(s) is still a binary position and we can't have an 'in-between', in other words, to suggest they are uncertain is to subsequently imply they are somehow capable of accepting both positions of belief AND non-belief in a god which is a logical contradiction.

I would say you have many more varying levels or degrees of certainty resulting in one being transcendentally Apatheist Theist or Apatheist Atheist or Apathetic Agnosticism. These similar but distinctly different positions are quite complex to differentiate and it requires more careful thought because you could feasibly go the extra mile and include Ignosticism into the fray.