Deconstructing Dawkins' Spectrum of Theistic Probability
December 23, 2015 at 1:35 am
(This post was last modified: December 23, 2015 at 1:52 am by mralstoner.)
This is just off the top of my head, so feel free to shoot it down if you see holes.
In Dawkins' spectrum he uses the word "probability" throughout:
But are we dealing with probabilities here? Probabilities are the chance of randomly selecting a particular object from a known set of objects e.g. a coin toss, picking a card from a deck. Because the range of possibilities are known, we know the exact degree of chance that a particular object will be chosen.
So, what is the set of objects we are choosing from here? (A) a universe with a god and (B) a universe without a god? No, there is no set of objects at all, there is only one universe, and we're trying to discover its true nature.
So, we're not dealing with the probability of selecting a particular universe, we're dealing with the degree of certainty of our beliefs. So, we can now throw the word "probability" away, because it has nothing to do with this problem.
So, what's left? What are we measuring? We're measuring the degree of certainty of a person's god belief.
So, the wording should be:
1. Strong theist. 100 per cent sure of God
2. De facto theist. Very high confidence but short of 100 per cent.
4. Completely unsure. Exactly 50 per cent.
6. De facto atheist. Very low confidence, but short of zero.
But this is muddled, because there isn't really a 1-7 scale, rather there's simply a 1-3 scale:
1. Strong theist.
2. De facto theist.
3. Completely unsure.
And...
1. Strong atheist.
2. De facto atheist.
3. Completely unsure.
So, we're simply measuring the strength of a person's belief.
The next question is: is there any way to justify the strength of your belief in atheism?
The usual arguments go:
1. Absence of evidence, is evidence of absence.
2. The universe looks just like it would if there was no god e.g. a vast empty universe.
3. We can track the evolution of god stories down through different cultures, etc
But are these statements enough to justify a strong belief that there almost certainly isn't a god?
Let's dive into what a belief is? Belief is a FEELING of certitude, it's an idea (there is no god) coupled with a positive feeling (yes that's true). This is how the brain marks knowledge, it couples positive feelings with ideas, and that feeling allows us to relax about that knowledge, which then seeps into our subconscious as "fact".
Now, ordinarily, the brain's threshold for forming beliefs is a reliable and observable pattern in nature. If we see something repeatedly, this repetition instills the belief.
Or, the natural brain threshold can get bypassed via brainwashing and culture.
So, when it comes to gods, how do we form a belief if there is no evidence to pass the natural brain threshold? In a natural setting, if a person is not exposed to the idea of god, they will have no belief either way about gods. It's only in a religious culture that can bypass the natural threshold via brainwashing.
So, how do we then get to the "strong atheist" or "de facto atheist" positions, which are both fairly confident there is no god? This is where the spectrum falls down entirely, because there is no way to disprove a hypothetical like god (or the matrix problem, or the zombie problem). As ridiculous as each of these hypotheticals sound, it's entirely possible that they are true.
To illustrate, let's ask how we move from "evidence of absence" to strong atheism. What's the link? It's entirely possible that a god made the universe exactly the way it is, without a trace of god, he made it specifically to look like he doesn't exist. We can't disprove this.
The truth is, because there's no way to disprove these hypotheticals (gods, zombies, the matrix), WE CANNOT HAVE ANY DEGREE OF CERTAINTY about such hypotheticals.
And so, what we do is select our realities based on beliefs of CONVENIENCE i.e. which one feels better to live under. And living with the observable reality is much more comfortable than the mental burden of these apparent fantasy worlds (unless you're part of a religious community).
So, to sum up:
- We're not dealing with probabilities at all.
- We're dealing with degrees of certainty.
- Certainty may be arrived at via natural methods or via brain washing.
- But certainty doesn't apply to hypotheticals like gods, zombies, and the matrix problem, because there's no way to disprove them or even to put a degree of confidence on them.
- So, we just choose the most convenient reality. If we're living in a religious community, the convenient reality is to continue believing in god. But if you're not part of a tight religious community, it's much more comfortable to believe in the natural world rather than in imaginary friends.
So, we're not dealing with a Spectrum of Theistic Probability, but a Spectrum of Theistic Convenience.
Here's a couple of related videos:
Can We Know Anything: Valerie Tarico
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZNjnD7QMB8Y
The Best Argument for Atheism: Emotional Attention
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VALzHQGxx_c
In Dawkins' spectrum he uses the word "probability" throughout:
Quote:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectrum_o...robability
1. Strong theist. 100 per cent probability of God
2. De facto theist. Very high probability but short of 100 per cent.
4. Completely impartial. Exactly 50 per cent.
6. De facto atheist. Very low probability, but short of zero.
But are we dealing with probabilities here? Probabilities are the chance of randomly selecting a particular object from a known set of objects e.g. a coin toss, picking a card from a deck. Because the range of possibilities are known, we know the exact degree of chance that a particular object will be chosen.
So, what is the set of objects we are choosing from here? (A) a universe with a god and (B) a universe without a god? No, there is no set of objects at all, there is only one universe, and we're trying to discover its true nature.
So, we're not dealing with the probability of selecting a particular universe, we're dealing with the degree of certainty of our beliefs. So, we can now throw the word "probability" away, because it has nothing to do with this problem.
So, what's left? What are we measuring? We're measuring the degree of certainty of a person's god belief.
So, the wording should be:
1. Strong theist. 100 per cent sure of God
2. De facto theist. Very high confidence but short of 100 per cent.
4. Completely unsure. Exactly 50 per cent.
6. De facto atheist. Very low confidence, but short of zero.
But this is muddled, because there isn't really a 1-7 scale, rather there's simply a 1-3 scale:
1. Strong theist.
2. De facto theist.
3. Completely unsure.
And...
1. Strong atheist.
2. De facto atheist.
3. Completely unsure.
So, we're simply measuring the strength of a person's belief.
The next question is: is there any way to justify the strength of your belief in atheism?
The usual arguments go:
1. Absence of evidence, is evidence of absence.
2. The universe looks just like it would if there was no god e.g. a vast empty universe.
3. We can track the evolution of god stories down through different cultures, etc
But are these statements enough to justify a strong belief that there almost certainly isn't a god?
Let's dive into what a belief is? Belief is a FEELING of certitude, it's an idea (there is no god) coupled with a positive feeling (yes that's true). This is how the brain marks knowledge, it couples positive feelings with ideas, and that feeling allows us to relax about that knowledge, which then seeps into our subconscious as "fact".
Now, ordinarily, the brain's threshold for forming beliefs is a reliable and observable pattern in nature. If we see something repeatedly, this repetition instills the belief.
Or, the natural brain threshold can get bypassed via brainwashing and culture.
So, when it comes to gods, how do we form a belief if there is no evidence to pass the natural brain threshold? In a natural setting, if a person is not exposed to the idea of god, they will have no belief either way about gods. It's only in a religious culture that can bypass the natural threshold via brainwashing.
So, how do we then get to the "strong atheist" or "de facto atheist" positions, which are both fairly confident there is no god? This is where the spectrum falls down entirely, because there is no way to disprove a hypothetical like god (or the matrix problem, or the zombie problem). As ridiculous as each of these hypotheticals sound, it's entirely possible that they are true.
To illustrate, let's ask how we move from "evidence of absence" to strong atheism. What's the link? It's entirely possible that a god made the universe exactly the way it is, without a trace of god, he made it specifically to look like he doesn't exist. We can't disprove this.
The truth is, because there's no way to disprove these hypotheticals (gods, zombies, the matrix), WE CANNOT HAVE ANY DEGREE OF CERTAINTY about such hypotheticals.
And so, what we do is select our realities based on beliefs of CONVENIENCE i.e. which one feels better to live under. And living with the observable reality is much more comfortable than the mental burden of these apparent fantasy worlds (unless you're part of a religious community).
So, to sum up:
- We're not dealing with probabilities at all.
- We're dealing with degrees of certainty.
- Certainty may be arrived at via natural methods or via brain washing.
- But certainty doesn't apply to hypotheticals like gods, zombies, and the matrix problem, because there's no way to disprove them or even to put a degree of confidence on them.
- So, we just choose the most convenient reality. If we're living in a religious community, the convenient reality is to continue believing in god. But if you're not part of a tight religious community, it's much more comfortable to believe in the natural world rather than in imaginary friends.
So, we're not dealing with a Spectrum of Theistic Probability, but a Spectrum of Theistic Convenience.
Here's a couple of related videos:
Can We Know Anything: Valerie Tarico
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZNjnD7QMB8Y
The Best Argument for Atheism: Emotional Attention
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VALzHQGxx_c
