Dawkins self-description sounds about right, so somewhere between 6 and 7.

Not 7, because I understand the impossibilty of certain proof of a negative.

But no closer to 1 than Dawkins because I believe the inconsitencies in the character and behaviour of (any) god very strongly suggest that they are fabrications of society - arch-types of cultural fears, taboos and desires used as a storehouse of societal "wisdom". In every sense, gods and holy texts are equivalent to Grimm's Fairy Tales. Allegory as idoctrination.

I tend to see gods as a tool of the power-structure to maintain the status quo, and I can see that religion offers no logic-based answers, only emotional rhetoric.

If gods own proponents (who claim to know its will) can't prove its existence, it's probably not really there.

I have to go with what I would call the supposed Buddha answer: Numbers and God do not mix.

The question is unanswerable and therefore meaningless. No real value comes from working that field. Mental masturbation.

With all the actions one can take to either help others who suffer or help one's self to be at peace, the question of God only obfuscates and often ruins one's ability to address those very real needs.

... the question of God only obfuscates and often ruins one's ability to address those very real needs. Jay Saul

If you really believe that I'm surprised that you bother posting on this blog. In "either help others who suffer or help one's self to be at peace" it would seem god's existence, his nature and what he requires of us would be of huge significance. Should we fuss with global warming, stem cell research or even global peace when all our problems are just tests that will end when we do whatever it is that is required of us?

As to the original question I realise I can't logically prove god doesn't exist since the concept is too loose to nail down and even if I could formulate a proof I could always be wrong. Much as I could be wrong about 2 + 2 being 4. But that said my certainty that god as I have ever seen defined does not exist is very high, as high as my certainty that 2 + 2 is 4. So I am going to declare a god belief of 7.

I suppose that makes me more radical than Dawkins, though I seriously disagree with the idea that religion is the root of all evil. I'm solidly a 7. Certainly, neither the existence nor the non-existence of god can be proved. But given reasonable proof over the centuries for all deities being constructs of the human mind, I don't see any point in waffling about it.

The fact that the Gods of history and organized religion are certainly not real does not mean the question of a creator has or can be proven or disproved.

I believe anyone who places themselves in either group 1 or group 7 is an ideologue. One cannot know what one does not know. Certainty is bunk.

I post here because I love Mitch and these ideas are much more fun to discuss than politics.

I also think the persecution of those who do not believe in God is extremely important. It is a discrimination that is mostly ignored, like being single. All the talk about Gay marriage ignores the fact that giving special rights to some group always discriminates against those not in that group. We should be talking about taking away the special rights of married people, not giving those rights to another small segment of people. And we should take away all special rights given to people because of religion.

An absolute certainty about the non-existence of God(s) falls into the same trap that Descartes sets with his statement,
"Accordingly it seems to me that already I can establish as a general rule that all things which I perceive very clearly and very distinctly are true." This is not more true for the non-existence of God than it is, as Descartes thought, the existence of God.

Saul, I'm not a philosopher, so if it pleases you to call me and any other sevens (or ones)ideologues, so be it. I"m not interested in imposing my stand on anyone else, just stating an opinion that's as well grounded, I think, as not believing in a force that will hold me up if I jump out a tenth story window. When all reality-based evidence is against it, and there has never been any proof in its favor, why hang on to it, even as a vanishingly small possibility?

This is a trick question, no? On a scale of 1 to 7 -- a scale that demands material proof or evidence for belief in something that we all agree is metaphysical [go back to the greek root here: meta-ta-physis >> above or beyond 'things as they are' i.e. the material world that we access through our senses and shape into reality through our consciousness] -- determine your certainty that this metaphysical concept does/n't "exist" ?

Sorry, this is like rating whether you believe in the easter bunny or the energizer bunny. One's a concept that is 'above and beyond' the material things of this world, therefore eludes any categories of 'evidence' [and is this not why we are so angry at the history of punishment for those who championed disbelief?]. The other is 'above or beyond': a metaphysical idea, like 'justice.' That we do things in the name of Justice in shimmering gold letters doesn't provide evidence for its existence beyond an idea. God is a concept. People act in the name of the concept, which does not make it 'real' and certainly doesn't make it 'of the world of things as they are' those human actions in the defense/scrutiny of this concept are indeed real.

Dawkins's scale is really irrelevant, then, and simply obscures this discussion further. I'm solidly not on the scale.

The fact that the Gods of history and organized religion are certainly not real ... - Jay Saul

Sounds like a 7 to me. :-).

Its seems most of the most ferocious arguments I get into with fellow atheist and agnostics are not matters of fact but of definition. Surely the god(s) we are talking about is the god that matters in some way to our lives. One that needs to be prayed to, loved, feared, obeyed, who is the source of all good and harm. Such a god (to JM's point) is not metaphysical but has a very real physical impact on our existence.

If we are talking about an ill defined god concept that explains all the stuff we don't know (yet) but otherwise does not inform the real world then indeed the existence of such a being is irrelevant but to my mind is synonymous with not existing at all.

I post here because I love Mitch and these ideas are much more fun to discuss than politics.

I hope I didn't come off as in any way to discourage you from posting here. In fact I very much enjoy your post. You give me lots to think about.

Cantana, I'm not a philosopher either. But one can prove falling just by dropping something off that tenth floor balcony (I would not suggest sacrificing one's self for a proof); one cannot prove the non-existence of something defined as an entity beyond our awareness. HUGE difference.

I am sorry if you think ideologue is harsh but certainty is certainty. I'm pretty sure there is no absolute certainty about reality.

Boelf, I interpret Dawkins statement as referring to the concept of an all-knowing creator, not just the Gods people pray to, otherwise Dawkins would surely rate himself a 7.

Evidently JM and I are in the "refuse to be counted in this continuum" faction.

Boelf, I interpret Dawkins statement as referring to the concept of an all-knowing creator... Jay Saul

What does "all-knowing creator" even mean?

Looking at Richard Dawkins Quotations Richard says "the onus is on you to say why you believe in it. The onus is not on the rest of us to say why we do not." which I take to be a dismissal of constructs with no relevance.

If metaphysical means that which does not and cannot not impact the physical world then by definition they are irrelevant. It is fair to say such constructs don't exist pending any evidence to the contrary at which point they are not longer "metaphysical".

Mean? To me, nothing. As I have said, to me the question itself means nothing. So, in that sense, any answer is also meaningless--all numbers, real and imaginary, including 1 through 7.

How do you explain Dawkins' not considering himself a 7?

I'd have to put myself at 6.99999 ..., with the missing 0.0000...1 reserved for the fact that you can't really take _anything_ as a certainty. I am pretty sure I am typing right now, for example, but perhaps I am not.

How can you determine that what you are not aware off is only .0000...1 of what would be necessary to make certainty?

We do not know what or how much we do not know.
If one cannot determine how much is uncertain how in this world does one determine with any measurable amount of certainty about what is out there?

I was going to say that the Dawkins scale is about as interesting as the toy in a box of Cracker Jacks, but it spurs conversation so I guess I'm wrong. One interesting thing about it is that Dawkins says he's a 6. My god, if he's only a 6 then we truly are lost. How wishy washy. Talk about the "best lacking all conviction." We shall surely be swept away by the passionate conviction of the worst, and what rough beast, etc. Unless it's only a ploy (Dawkins that wily) & he knows that to admit he's a 7 would open him to the possibility of asserting an unprovable. So a big question is is the 6 honest or dishonest. Wayne brings up the question of decimals, reducing (unconsciously?)
the scale to the ridiculous.

Or is Dawkins merely recalculating Pascal's wager, giving odd. 86/100 god doesn't exist. Water this ground and testable hypotheses will spring up willynilly. And possibly god is a cretan liar. Maybe the atheist is Achilles and God is Zeno's tortoise.

What the hell is Dawkins doing? A seven point scale: this is oxonian dinner-table drivel. How does he take so serious a topic and reduce it to a thumbsucking parlor game. Or does the numeration of the scale suggest Science? Scientists are always making scales, aren't they? But then why not 1 - 5, why not 1 - 11?
Does the scale indicate Dawkins sees the possibility of some nuance, some analysis, some breakdown of the issue into stages? Might he want to suggest what they are, if not describe and justify them?

There are other ways to go about this. Existence is not a simple thing, there are many kinds of existence, the existence of things, the existence of ideas, the existence of memory, the existence of fantasies, the existence of mathematics, the existence of contradictions. How about the past? Does it exist, did it once exist and no longer? Where did it go? Is it possible that God existed but no longer? Is this what is meant by God is dead? For something that doesn't exist god seems to cause quite a lot of trouble. But seriously, it would appear that some things exist persistently, while others, an infinite number, call them moments, continually come into being and then cease to exist. Certainly hard to observe, they won't stay still! Maybe god's something like that. Also, since religion is so great a source of evil, should believers be killed? If not, why not?(Here's where the Dawkins scale comes in handy: 1s execution, 2s life imprisonment, 3s shorter sentences, 4s probation, heavy fines all down the line. The atheist polity?) Easy to define and list many kinds of existence but any description of god, true or false, entails I would imagine, the attribution of a special type of existence, seems like a few ontological questions are still on the table. Without god is anything sacred? Has that word meaning? Is human life sacred? If so why? Perhaps human life, human mind are sacred first, then god follows? If we deny that god made man cool. But if as has been said man made gods, then they exist or existed, right, if made, than exists, right? How could we be talking so much & for so long (millenia) about something that doesn't exist? Like Justice -- man-made concept but exists, no? Like Love, it exists, but only in so far as people do. Maybe god is just . . virtual. Seems like by most definitions of the worrd exists, god existts. If justice, democracy, love, consciousness, desire, taste, experience exists, god exists. That god exists is obvious -- anything we can talk about exists IN SOME SENSE. That's the crux of the ontological argument. The question is defining god. Undefinability can only be part of the definition. Moloch, Savior, History, Enigma, the question is a rich one. Derrida never called it bunk.

Just wondering.

I was going to say that the Dawkins scale is about as interesting as the toy in a box of Cracker Jacks, but it spurs conversation so I guess I'm wrong. One interesting thing about it is that Dawkins says he's a 6. My god, if he's only a 6 then we truly are lost. How wishy washy. Talk about the "best lacking all conviction." We shall surely be swept away by the passionate conviction of the worst, and what rough beast, etc. Unless it's only a ploy (Dawkins that wily) & he knows that to admit he's a 7 would open him to the possibility of asserting an unprovable. So a big question is is the 6 honest or dishonest. Wayne brings up the question of decimals, reducing (unconsciously?)
the scale to the ridiculous.

Or is Dawkins merely recalculating Pascal's wager, giving odd. 86/100 god doesn't exist. Water this ground and testable hypotheses will spring up willynilly. And possibly god is a cretan liar. Maybe the atheist is Achilles and God is Zeno's tortoise.

What the hell is Dawkins doing? A seven point scale: this is oxonian dinner-table drivel. How does he take so serious a topic and reduce it to a thumbsucking parlor game. Or does the numeration of the scale suggest Science? Scientists are always making scales, aren't they? But then why not 1 - 5, why not 1 - 11?
Does the scale indicate Dawkins sees the possibility of some nuance, some analysis, some breakdown of the issue into stages? Might he want to suggest what they are, if not describe and justify them?

There are other ways to go about this. Existence is not a simple thing, there are many kinds of existence, the existence of things, the existence of ideas, the existence of memory, the existence of fantasies, the existence of mathematics, the existence of contradictions. How about the past? Does it exist, did it once exist and no longer? Where did it go? Is it possible that God existed but no longer? Is this what is meant by God is dead? For something that doesn't exist god seems to cause quite a lot of trouble. But seriously, it would appear that some things exist persistently, while others, an infinite number, call them moments, continually come into being and then cease to exist. Certainly hard to observe, they won't stay still! Maybe god's something like that. Also, since religion is so great a source of evil, should believers be killed? If not, why not?(Here's where the Dawkins scale comes in handy: 1s execution, 2s life imprisonment, 3s shorter sentences, 4s probation, heavy fines all down the line. The atheist polity?) Easy to define and list many kinds of existence but any description of god, true or false, entails I would imagine, the attribution of a special type of existence, seems like a few ontological questions are still on the table. Without god is anything sacred? Has that word meaning? Is human life sacred? If so why? Perhaps human life, human mind are sacred first, then god follows? If we deny that god made man cool. But if as has been said man made gods, then they exist or existed, right, if made, than exists, right? How could we be talking so much & for so long (millenia) about something that doesn't exist? Like Justice -- man-made concept but exists, no? Like Love, it exists, but only in so far as people do. Maybe god is just . . virtual. Seems like by most definitions of the worrd exists, god existts. If justice, democracy, love, consciousness, desire, taste, experience exists, god exists. That god exists is obvious -- anything we can talk about exists IN SOME SENSE. That's the crux of the ontological argument. The question is defining god. Undefinability can only be part of the definition. Moloch, Savior, History, Enigma, the question is a rich one. Derrida never called it bunk.

Just wondering.

Well, the way I interpret it, a 6 means that something might be out there, but if it is who knows, and who cares, really? Because if it is it doesn't interact with us in any way. Asimov said "I am an atheist. I don't have the evidence to prove that God doesn't exist, but I so strongly suspect he doesn't that I don't want to waste my time."

6.5

Then only God could be a 7. And Asimov was notoriously obsessive-compulsive. No time to waste on God! I'd say Asimov was a 6.5 at least. Maybe a 6.66.

Part of the reason I "went decimal" is just so that I could be totally sure of what I was saying. In practical terms, I am a 7, but if I were in a court of law, say, I'd go with the 6.999.

It's _almost_ like if the the question were, How sure are you that there is no Santa Claus?

I'd be a 7. I have no doubt. And when I meet someone and know the kinds of stuff that has happened to them combined with what I perceive to be their intellect value, I can tell if they are religious. Not that I'm always right, but I'd wager my finances. ;) Try it sometime.

There's a trend forming. I think soon it will be proved that people need a way of coping and that there will be a correlation with religion/spirituality. I think as the ages progress we will eventually no longer need ideologies to help us cope with the fewer and fewer unknowns and fears. God won't help us with global warming, it'll be logic and rationality that guides us.

I've had some religion talks of late and was told that I could not experience god unless I let go of rationality, since rationality has a "ceiling".