Religious Typology Quiz

[Cypress]

Richard Dawkins' Spectrum of Theistic Probability puts it on a scale of 1 to 7. As a famous atheist, not to mention getting rich off of atheism, even Dawkins' wasn't stupid enough to call himself a 7.

https://bigthink.com/articles/atheism-easter-atheister/


Assuming anything without evidence is not a logical position. It's a belief.

From the link, I am a 3 to a 4; akin to Pascal and Einstein.

I range between a three and a four.

My beef with all these American and Brits making these quizes and rankings, is that the question they're really asking is whether you are a Christian or not. Religion and theism doesn't have to follow the Christian model. To me, the Sikh and Hindu conception of an unfathomable oneness that encompasses all of creation is vaguely close to Spinoza's God, or to Neo-confucian concepts of Li

 

[Cancel 1 2023]

What is "level 7?"

See the earlier post that Doc Dutch put up with Dawkins spectrum of atheism.

 

[BidenPresident]

See the earlier post that Doc Dutch put up with Dawkins spectrum of atheism.

no thanks

 

[Dutch Uncle]

I range between a three and a four.

My beef with all these American and Brits making these quizes and rankings, is that the question they're really asking is whether you are a Christian or not. Religion and theism doesn't have to follow the Christian model. To me, the Sikh and Hindu conception of an unfathomable oneness that encompasses all of creation is vaguely close to Spinoza's God, or to Neo-confucian concepts of Li

Dawkins only cares about money. Sure, he's not religious, but he really likes milking the rubes for cash. He's worth $10M. Not bad for a mediocre college biology professor. LOL

Lots of "preachers" have gotten rich off believers. Dawkins simply flipped the script and began milking non-believers.

https://www.celebritynetworth.com/richest-celebrities/authors/richard-dawkins-net-worth/
Richard Dawkins Net Worth
$10 Million

 

[Cancel 1 2023]

no thanks

OK. It was just in answer to your question. No prob.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

No, I clearly stated in my original point that strong atheism which is exactly what is noted as level 7 is logically impossible.

I have remained consistent in my definitions.

(And I don't really care what Dawkins says about this since there is no "atheist pope" so no need to give a flip if I disagree with him on the topic).

Thanks for walking back your comment, "it's not a matter of "degree".

You and I can agree to disagree on your consistency.

It's always interesting to me when a person claims they don't care about something when it's obvious they do. Is it a matter of honesty? Inability to be realistic or simply the way the kids talk these days like Valley Girls say "for real!"?

 

[Cancel 1 2023]

Dawkins only cares about money. Sure, he's not religious, but he really likes milking the rubes for cash. He's worth $10M. Not bad for a mediocre college biology professor. LOL

Dawkins was actually rather famous in biological circles long before any of his public atheism came out. And I'm honestly uncertain why you think he's milking the rubes. He wrote a book and occasionally gets asked to do public speaking.

Lots of "preachers" have gotten rich off believers. Dawkins simply flipped the script and began milking non-believers.

Not really. He's open and honest about his atheism. There's a goodly amount of criticism you can make about the possible philosophy or logic he used in "The God Delusion", but it's not really milking non-believers.

Besides: what's the harm with having an open atheist talking? If you go into any bookstore there's a large religion section where people pontificate openly all the time about their ideas about God. Why is it considered bad form when an atheist does it?

 

[Dutch Uncle]

OK. It was just in answer to your question. No prob.

Ms. BP is aggressive when she's seeking a man's attention. Jus' sayin'.

 

[Cancel 1 2023]

Thanks for walking back your comment, "it's not a matter of "degree".

Oh, you are mistaken. I didn't walk it back. I stand 100% behind my comment as originally crafted. Sorry if I gave you some other impression.

As for my comments about Dawkins, again, you are mistaken. I don't care what Dawkins says about atheism. I liked "The God Delusion" and I, myself, am an atheist. But I am in no way required to agree 100% with Dawkins to be an atheist so I don't really care if he says x or y about atheism. It holds not control over me.

I apologize if I've been unclear in my posts. I'm trying to be really clear.

 

[Cypress]

That's probably because there is no "purpose" on display anywhere.

Let's take "evolution" for instance. Many on this forum may believe that humans are more "advanced" evolutionarily than bacteria. But that's kind of wrong thinking. In fact BOTH are EQUALLY advanced per evolution. Evolution is a passive filter which eliminates maladaptive features. The bacteria inhabiting its niche is as perfected as it needs to be to survive. It is the pinacle of evolution. Humans inhabiting their niche are as evolutionarily perfect as they need to be.

Evolution doesn't have a "direction", it just acts as a passive gate that keeps maladaptive features of living things from getting past so long as they happen before reproduction can happen.



Again, what "final cause" are you referring to? I bet it differs from every single other human being's suggestion of the "final cause". That's probably because it is mostly just humans imagining something deeper. They look at a tree and think it's so amazing that it MUST have some deeper attributes, there must be a REASON nature created a tree. But that is little more than magical thinking.

I assume you are amply familiar with Ockham's Razor. So why propose an added complexity to nature when there isn't really any NEED for it? Just because one can imagine some "teleology" for the tree doesn't mean it has a necessary existence. And it is possible to explain everything about the tree without reliance on any metaphysical features.



Just because QM is difficult to understand from a macro-existence perspective and is truly and honestly weird as anything does not mean there is some deeper meaning to existence. All it means is that existence is potentially weirder than we thought at the atomic level but it doesn't necessarily mean there is some "deeper cause" or "meaning" to anything.




If something undermines determinism and things become truly random, then it would seem to indicate that even nature is trying to tell you there is no "plan". It just is.

Personally, I choose not to cloak myself in a veneer of certainty about whether the cosmos has a purpose or not.

Teleology is not a valid avenue of scientific inquiry, I have been clear on that. That doesn't mean it isn't a legitimate question to some people.

Like you, there are many physicists who don't want to be bothered by any supposed deeper philosophical implications of quantum mechanics, string theory, or the big bang. But I have heard more than my fair share of philosophically-minded physicists speculate on the deeper meaning of QM, fine tuning of the universe, M theory and hyperspace to be aware that not everyone is just completely intellectually satisfied if the math and equations just work out satisfactorily.

 

[Cancel 1 2023]

Personally, I choose not to cloak myself in a veneer of certainty whether the cosmos has a purpose or not.

It seems you might be confused about my position. I honestly thought I had been clear. I am NOT certain of anything. But let me ask you honestly:

If I said there's no reason that an invisible undetectable unicorn COULDN'T BE LIVING in your bathroom would you then be required to believe that such a thing exists or would you do what most people do and say "Nah, there's no reason to believe it's there so I'm just going to default to a lack of belief in the invisible undetectable unicorn"?

I know what you would do as you know. That's my position. Sure it could be there, but there's literally no reason to believe so and it violates parsimony.

Like you, there are many physicists who don't want to be bothered by any supposed deeper philosophical implications of quantum mechanics

That's because so many non-physicists leverage Quantum Mechanics for all their new age bullshit (sorry for the aggressive language). QM is weird. I'm not going to disagree. But it really isn't an open invitation to shove every half-baked idea someone comes up with after a few THC gummies into.

, string theory, or the big bang. But I have heard more than my fair share of philosophically-minded physicists speculate on the deeper meaning of QM

Usually within some limitations. The whole Copenhagen Interpretation of QM is difficult to parse, and it does indicate that there's something we haven't quite got clear about it (maybe it's something we can never get clarity about), but it is mostly just arabesques of imagination when people try to leverage QM for the macro world.

, fine tuning of the universe, M theory and hyperspace to be aware that not everyone is just completely intellectually satisfied if the math just works out.

But the math HAS to work or it is just imagination. That's my point. Imagination is great, it's what we do as people. But it does not carry with it any necessary existence or reality.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Oh, you are mistaken. I didn't walk it back. I stand 100% behind my comment as originally crafted. Sorry if I gave you some other impression.

As for my comments about Dawkins, again, you are mistaken. I don't care what Dawkins says about atheism. I liked "The God Delusion" and I, myself, am an atheist. But I am in no way required to agree 100% with Dawkins to be an atheist so I don't really care if he says x or y about atheism. It holds not control over me.

I apologize if I've been unclear in my posts. I'm trying to be really clear.

You and I can agree to disagree on these points.

Are you under 35 years of age? I'm about to turn 67 so that may explain our communication differences.

FWIW, Ms. BP is also under 35.

 

[Cancel 1 2023]

You and I can agree to disagree on these points.

Actually no, we can't. I'm telling you what I think about my own position. Why would you 'Disagree' with what I say about my own position?

Are you under 35 years of age? I'm about to turn 67 so that may explain our communication differences.

60.

FWIW, Ms. BP is also under 35.

Don't care. I'm not here as a dating site.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Dawkins was actually rather famous in biological circles long before any of his public atheism came out. And I'm honestly uncertain why you think he's milking the rubes. He wrote a book and occasionally gets asked to do public speaking.



Not really. He's open and honest about his atheism. There's a goodly amount of criticism you can make about the possible philosophy or logic he used in "The God Delusion", but it's not really milking non-believers.

Besides: what's the harm with having an open atheist talking? If you go into any bookstore there's a large religion section where people pontificate openly all the time about their ideas about God. Why is it considered bad form when an atheist does it?

Wow! You know a lot about someone you claim you don't care about. LOL

 

[BidenPresident]

That's because so many non-physicists leverage Quantum Mechanics for all their new age bullshit (sorry for the aggressive language). QM is weird. I'm not going to disagree. But it really isn't an open invitation to shove every half-baked idea someone comes up with after a few THC gummies into.

Quantum Mechanics is no stranger than the classical mechanistic model of Newton.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Actually no, we can't. I'm telling you what I think about my own position. Why would you 'Disagree' with what I say about my own position?

60.

Don't care. I'm not here as a dating site.

You have a right to be angry and excited. It's common among people with something to prove.

Interesting. Thanks.

We can agree on your multiple "don't care" statements. What are you here for, Jank?

 

[Cancel 1 2023]

Wow! You know a lot about someone you claim you don't care about. LOL

Once again, you misinterpretted my point which was rather more clear. I don't care what he says about ATHEISM. I actually think his evolutionary biology work is admirable. And since I am interested in the sciences I knew about him LONG before I ever heard anything about his atheism.

 

[Cancel 1 2023]

You have a right to be angry and excited.

I am neither angry nor excited. Just clarifying for you that these are my thoughts on my own position. As such it is hard to imagine how you could "disagree" with my own thoughts on my own position.

It's common among people with something to prove.

I have nothing to prove.

We can agree on your multiple "don't care" statements. What are you here for, Jank?

The same reason you are. To discuss concepts. Is that a problem on here? Isn't that what forums are for?

 

[Cancel 1 2023]

Quantum Mechanics is no stranger than the classical mechanistic model of Newton.

No, it's SUPER strange. I recommend you read up on the Cophenhagen Interpretation. That's the one that puts a primary role of the "observer" into collapsing the waveforms into a "reality" experience by the observer.

In the quantum world we can "entangle" two particles such that they maintain the same quantum state no matter how far apart they are separated. The implications of faster-than-light communication are frightfully close on that one. But it also allows for "teleportation".

Solid objects are SIMULTANEOUSLY waves.

I believe Feynman said it best: "If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don't understand quantum mechanics."


That's why it is so easily leveraged by people who want to plow all their "imagination" into something and give it the imprimatur of "science".

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Once again, you misinterpretted my point which was rather more clear. I don't care what he says about ATHEISM. I actually think his evolutionary biology work is admirable. And since I am interested in the sciences I knew about him LONG before I ever heard anything about his atheism.

What causes you to disagree with him so much on atheism that you don't care about his thoughts on the issue?