As I said before I don’t think it was a good idea for Dawkins to draw up this spectrum of probabilities 1 to 7. The term God means different things to different people.
I say I’m a 7 because that’s the highest number on the scale. I actually was shocked when I read it in Dawkins book; it doesn’t make anybody’s position clear. He could have gone from 1 to 9 by adding in the two most important categories theist and atheist. Or he could have said 1 to 2 theist or atheist.
Is a weak 7 the same as a strong 1 or a weak 1 the same as a strong 7?
I don’t think there is a scale that would make any sense, using numbers or symbols only confuses the whole issue.
is based on a thought process called mysticism, the use of symbols is also quiet common e.g. crucifix or stars, and the symbol itself can be adored and some are prepared to die for it.
is based on logical reasoning where all the facts are looked at and the most reasonable position is taken.
Scientific thought: - Mechanistic thinking, every thing can be proven and worked out mathematically.
Einstein’s famous equation means absolutely nothing unless you understand the meaning of E, M, C and sq. Which 95% of the population of the planet wouldn’t have a clue about.
The trouble with this thread is; it seems to me to have become an argument between logical reasoning and dogmatic mechanistic thinking.
Adamd164 has taken the position that he is a 6.95 on Dawkins scale of 1 to 7, and is critical of anybody that takes a different position other than his own even to the extent of accusing me of having started some sort of a fintan’s faith club
, but yet refuses to respond to my answers to his questions.
If there was a scale starting with fanatical mystical thinking and ending with fanatical mechanistic thinking, adamd164 would be equal and opposite to an evangelical Christian running around carrying a crucifix shouting repent or be dammed forever.
Who ever heard of a 6.95 strong atheist?
I’m an atheist and there is no scale or a fintan’s faith club