Scale of Belief, Knowledge, & Certainty
Ever since I came across Richard Dawkins’ scale of belief in The God Delusion, I disagreed with the way it was set out (I found it a rather too simplistic way of determining positions on an important question) . When I fully understood the true meaning of agnosticism, and how it is not a “on the fence” or “I’m not sure” position, I rejected Dawkins’ scale completely. Any scale concerning the belief in God that puts agnosticism as a dead centre position is completely misunderstanding agnosticism. Agnosticism isn’t concerned with the belief in God; it is concerned with knowledge. Namely, whether or not a god can be proven. Agnosticism and atheism are not mutually exclusive positions, as they are positions on different areas.
In my opinion, when considering the question of God there are three aspects that must be addressed: Belief – Whether or not you believe in God, Knowledge – Whether or not you claim absolute knowledge of the existence of God, or claim God can be proven in some way, Certainty – How certain you are of your beliefs (of disbeliefs). Although the three aspects are closely related, they are exclusive to one another. That is to say, one can believe in God, not claim absolute knowledge, and also be relatively uncertain of their belief.
The difference between knowledge and belief is subtle but explainable. Knowledge can best be seen as a subset of belief, and this can be demonstrated by the fact that someone can believe something that is provably wrong (such as someone claiming they believe 1 + 1 = 3), but they cannot know something and hold a disbelief in it. I cannot disbelieve that 1 + 1 = 2 because I know it to be true. Of course, one could argue that a person might lie, but this doesn’t change the fact that when answering truthfully they would admit belief. This argument also does not allow for people who are willingly ignorant for obvious reasons.
Once the difference between knowledge and belief is fully understood, the difference between knowledge and certainty should be quite easy to see. I have explained this to quite a few people when talking about my position on gods, and the best way I can explain it is with the following problem:
Suppose you are alone in a dark empty room. You can hear the pitter patter of raindrops on the ceiling above you. With this limited observation, (a) could you know that it is raining outside the room?, and (b) could you be certain it was raining outside the room?
Rational people would answer a definite “no” to (a), simply because there are an large number of explanations for the sound other than “it is raining outside”. Friends usually have some fun coming up with alternative explanations, such as a sound system, a mental delusion, a hallucination, etc. The answer to (b) really depends on the person, and answers vary along a large range. Most people come to the conclusion that they would be “pretty certain” it was raining outside, and that this decision is based on previous experience of listening to rain on a roof. If one were to plot a probability distribution of all the possible explanations, “it is raining” would be the highest bar. It is simply the most likely explanation for the sound. They key thing to remember about certainty and knowledge is that you can be 100% certain about something and still be wrong. I am 100% certain that I’ll be alive tomorrow, but that won’t stop a stray car or my heart suddenly having an attack.
The relationship between certainty and belief usually depends on the type of belief. For example, I’m a “believer” (not the best word) in the theory of Evolution, and I’m 100% certain that it is true. I’m also a “believer” in the Higg’s boson, but not as certain about it (although I’m certain enough to have a bet with a friend over it). Believers in God are usually quite certain, if not 100% certain about their beliefs. I’d say most atheists were also quite certain about their beliefs.
So, we have three aspects of a position on God to create a scale out of. Belief, defined through one’s atheism/theism, Knowledge, defined through one’s agnosticism/gnosticism, and Certainty, defined through “Strong”/”Weak”. I’ve used the Strong/Weak terms out of their original definition simply because they are good words to use for the aspect of certainty. To clarify, someone who is “strong atheist” in this scale would say they are 100% certain about their disbelief in gods, and a “weak atheist” would be someone who is not 100% certain.
The Scale
- Strong Gnostic Theist - Believes in God, holds God as provable (or proven) and is 100% certain about its existence.
- Strong Agnostic Theist – Believes in God, holds God as unprovable (or unproven) but is still 100% certain about its existence.
- Weak Agnostic Theist – Believes in God, holds God as unprovable (or unproven) and is uncertain about its existence.
- Apatheist – Could be described as 100% uncertain about their beliefs. Usually agnostic, and with a distinct sense of apathy on forming any opinion on the existence of God.
- Weak Agnostic Atheist – Disbelieves in God, holds God as unprovable (and unproven), but is still uncertain about its non-existence.
- Strong Agnostic Atheist – Disbelieves in God, holds God as unprovable (and unproven), but is 100% certain about its non-existence.
- Strong Gnostic Atheist – Disbelieves in God, holds God’s non-existence as provable (or provable), and is 100% certain about its non-existence.
Note that there are no places for Weak Gnostic Theism or Weak Gnostic Atheism, since to “know” something immediately nulls any form of uncertainty on it.
In case any of you were wondering, I rank myself a 6 on this scale. Any comments concerning my arguments on the philosophy of knowledge are most welcome. I know (at least in the non-absolute sense) this is a well debated problem amongst philosophers.
Contact Adrian Hayter
My Facebook
My Atheist Nexus Page
My Twitter
My Reddit
My Atheist Spot
My FriendFeed
My Technorati
Atheist Forums
Loading ...
I'll try to make this not too long. Here's how I argue my position of #7.
First, I take the question not of disproving god, but I answer "What would it take for me to believe in god?"
Response: I'll believe in "god" when:
1. God is defined by a specific, unwavering set of characteristics;
2. Sufficient evidence of each and every one of those characteristics is presented to me in such a way that I believed those characteristics to exist, or very likely to exist; and
3. None of the evidence can be attributed to anything other than the "god" as defined.
So, as long as any characteristic isn't sufficiently proven, then I don't have a good reason to believe.
Let's take your rain example and put it in this context.
"What would it take for me to believe it's raining outside?"
1. Rain is well-defined (and we can throw in an agreed-upon definition of rain to suffice)
2. Although hearing rain is a start, it's not sufficient. I'd probably need to see it, and perhaps feel it, if I really wanted to be sure. Even then, it could be someone on my roof with a sprinkler (that's real skepticism on my part), so I'll try to eliminate what could be false positives until I run out of skepticism, at least with regard to the individual characteristics.
3. Although if I'm told that someone was peeing from a low-flying plane, and that was the stuff I mistook for rain, the chances are very slim, and the simplest possible reason for what I saw, what I heard, and what I felt was: rain.
So, taking that into account, I walk outside, and I'm not getting wet. I don't see any rain. However, when I walk back inside, I hear the rain. To a god-believer, it means: Then it must be rain! To a real skeptic, it means: Evidence of rain has yet to be shown such that alternatives can be eliminated, and the specific characteristics of rain are lacking. So, no rain.
Then, I turn the argument around and answer the question "How can you disprove god?"
Response: God is fully and wholly disproved when:
1. God is defined by a specific, unwavering set of characteristics; and
2. Sufficient proof is provided that at least one of those characteristics (specifically a necessary characteristic) is not true.
So, for a divine example, we can actually test it. Let's say that a believer argues that god is real, and that god has characteristics X, Y, and Z. We'll ignore two of them for now, and focus on Z, which, according to the believer, is that god answers prayers, just like it says in the bible. So, we test that hypothesis. It's been tested. Prayers are not actually answered, even for believers. Therefore god (at least the god as defined) does not exist.
Then what occurs is that the believer will start making excuses about how prayer isn't being done correctly, or willingly enough, or that god works in mysterious ways. Very well, then the believer must now detail the modified set of characteristics of that god, so that we can test that. "Oh, but god can't be tested!" And then we're done, and god still doesn't exist.
If the believer takes the other route and merely eliminates Z (which really doesn't happen), then we start over again. Ultimately, the "god" we might end up theorizing as true, based on that next set of characteristics, will be more easily and correctly explained with natural phenomena.
(guess that wasn't not too long. sorry!)
a better ranking than Dawkins, but i still don't fit in anywhere:(
i disbelieve in god, currently 100% uncertain about whether god can be disproved or proved, very very certain that god does not exist, but not 100%.
Excellent post! I would have to say I rank no 6. also. I do not believe in god, see no concrete evidence of the existence of any supernatural or supreme being, and I am certain of this, after years spent trying 'to believe', and finally coming to my current happy atheistic conclusion.
I do agree that it is quite impossible at our current state of evolution to empirically *prove* the non-existence of god. I don't believe in god due to there being zero scientific evidence of its existence – however, if some logical, rational, scientifically validated piece of evidence for the existence of god were somehow to emerge, I would have to change my beliefs. I, of course, do not believe this will ever occur, but I am not so arrogant as to say it is impossible.
I'd call that pretty similar to weak agnostic atheist. As you say, you
aren't 100 certain, so the strong label can't be strictly applied to
you.
I'm a 6. I always wanted to be a 6. I am certain I am not a 7. He he.
I think you meant to say there is no place for Weak Gnostic Theism or Weak Gnostic Atheism.
But other than that, excellent post. I'll have to take another look at Dawkin's scale.
Cheers for pointing that out. That'll teach me for rushing the conclusion in order to get to the theatre in time :P
I like your scale. It's nearly perfect. I must admit that there were different periods of my life when I was at levels 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6. I'm currently at level 6 and I'm probably going to stay here. Thanks for writing this.
I like your scale. It's nearly perfect. I must admit that there were different periods of my life when I was at levels 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6. I'm a recovering fundamentalist. I'm currently at level 6 and I'm probably going to stay here. Thanks for writing this.
Just to be different, I'll announce that I'm a 3. :)
I definitely like this post and I think it is well done. I only have one qualification, albeit a tedious one and perhaps arguably superflous. I don't see knowledge as a "subset of belief", because the certainty that defines knowledge as such is a certainty that is based on logic and verification, which is different than belief as such. I "know" something to be true, either on account of the logic at hand or because I've "seen" it or experienced it somehow. I "know" 1+1=2 because I understand the definitions of "one" and "addition", and therefore draw a logical conclusion. I "know" Hawaii exists because I've been there.
more…
This is different than the certainty that can be generated by belief. Belief claims are certain on the basis of the one who is making the claim- if the person is trustworthy, we generally tend to "believe" him or her, and if the person has a certain degree of authority, a ph.d, experience, other credentials, etc., they are deemed trustworthy. I "believe" atoms exist, even though I personally haven't seen them- I trust the authority of those scientists who tell me about them. I "believe" the American Revolution happened, because I trust the sources that have been handed down which tell us about this war, even though I personally didn't witness the war or meet George Washington.
In both sets of examples there is certainty, but of a different nature, because the nature of the claim is different. Thus, the certainty that can accompany belief is different, since it is based on the authority of the one making the claim, as opposed to the certainty of true knowledge, which is based on having personally experienced something for myself or applied the basic rules of logic.
The experience of belief as trust in another's authority is therefore very different than knowledge, and as a result I wouldn't describe knowledge as a "subset" of belief.Now some would argue that knowledge is really "justified true belief" (which is what I think you are doing here) because a given claim has been verified in some way by evidence and logic (hence, it is "justified"); but the epistemic undertones are too complex for me to accept this definition. One must be of the epistemological orientation that perception, rather than being, is at the root of all knowledge, and therefore the result is that we can only accumulate a certain range of probabilities with respect to our world which more or less commands our assent. This of course lends itself to various degrees of agnosticism about God, reality, and metaphysics. If all we "know" are perceptions (Hume), rather than real things (Aristotle), then of course there comes a point, in which we must "guess" that our perceptions correspond to reality as such, and most rational people do so (justification) on the basis of probabilities, rather than sheer guesswork.
On the scale, I qualify as a #1, which will perhaps irritate you and those who read this blog, though I don't mean to. I think there are a number of philosophical proofs that establish the existence of God with absolutely certainty, constituting the claim "God exists" as a knowledge claim rather than a belief claim. I contend that the question of God's existence is a philosophical one (not a "scientific" one), and can only be answered with certainty on that level. However, as one might expect, I think philosophical conclusions can be (and in fact are) supported by modern science in a variety of ways, which adds further credibility. In other words, I think modern science can give good reasons (arguments) for thinking that there is a god, but in addition, I think that philosophy can go further by proving that there really is a god. It is the difference between "arguments" which give us good reasons for "believing" something to be true, and "proofs" which establish with absolute certainty that a claim really is true (beyond probabilities). Modern science helps a great deal, I think, but it is not necessary in order to build the case for God.
I define the word "God" here in a way that was accepted by the atheist Bertrand Russell in his famous debate with the Jesuit Frederick Coppleston many years ago: a being that is one, self-sufficient (necessary), omniscient, omnipotent, supremely good, personal and the creator of the universe.
Anyhow, great post, as it dovetails with one of my criticisms of rationalism in that it is often one-dimensional, not respecting the nuances between knowledge, belief and opinion. Couldn't quite figure out how to get all this into one post or maybe just two.
I'm a pretty new atheist myself. I've been interested in theology for a while now (which is how I got to this point), but I haven't really seen anything quite like your logical way for disproving god. I like it because it seems fair to the person you are posing the question to. I'll explain what I mean by "fair."
One of the things that I see from both sides is the need to come up with predatory questions that demand the answerer to agree to take something they don't believe as true before answering the question. For example, "Why do you hate God?" is unfair in this way to people who don't believe in any gods in the first place. Also, questions often aren't actually asking for an answer at all, but instead, just aim to score meaningless points as if the discussion were a competition instead of shared pursuit of truth.
Since your disproof doesn't demand that anything be taken for granted and doesn't try to control the response, it doesn't run into this stuff. After explaining your method for disproving a god and then offering the listener a disproof from it, they have the opportunity to try to challenge your disproof however they like. It just seems more genuine to the idea of trying to seek the truth together this way, instead of trying to rhetorically "trick" the other side in a childish I-win-if-you-lose kind of way.
So that's why I like your logic there. Thanks for sharing.
I'm a pretty new atheist myself. I've been interested in theology for a while now (which is how I got to this point), but I haven't really seen anything quite like your logical way for disproving god. I like it because it seems fair to the person you are posing the question to. I'll explain what I mean by "fair."
One of the things that I see from both sides is the need to come up with predatory questions that demand the answerer to agree to take something they don't believe as true before answering the question. For example, "Why do you hate God?" is unfair in this way to people who don't believe in any gods in the first place. Also, questions often aren't actually asking for an answer at all, but instead, just aim to score meaningless points as if the discussion were a competition instead of shared pursuit of truth.
Since your disproof doesn't demand that anything be taken for granted and doesn't try to control the response, it doesn't run into this stuff. After explaining your method for disproving a god and then offering the listener a disproof from it, they have the opportunity to try to challenge your disproof however they like. It just seems more genuine to the idea of trying to seek the truth together this way, instead of trying to rhetorically "trick" the other side in a childish I-win-if-you-lose kind of way.
So that's why I like your logic there. Thanks for sharing.
P.S. I'm a six on the scale because you can't really definitively disprove a negative, whether it's the nonexistence of god or the nonexistence of a magical teapot floating in space above Pluto. However, you can come up with sound logic to back a reasonable axiomatic conclusion, as you've done.
Good reply. There is a small discrepancy though. In reality we assign names to observable things that have certain properties. Names are assigned after the properties x of an object are established.
With God, it is the other way around. People say "god" without there being a consensus on what is meant. There are people who believe in God, but who claim God is undefinable. If this is the case, you can not disprove God by your method. Similarly, people believing in God might claim that God is pantheistic. This would also pose a problem. In both cases though, it is silly to talk about God because in the first case neither side can know what the hell we're talking about and in the other case he simply is existence, which we know exists but which boils it down to semantics. :-) There are also other problems you might encounter, like untestable properties.
This shows how important it is to define "God". If someone says "I believe in God", the first question would be to ask "What do you mean?". Thousands of gods can be found in literature, and even the Judeo-Christian god spans many types among its believers. Some types are more readily disproven than others – the personal, intervening god versus the pantheistic or deistic god. We see a trend of the personal intervening god being a god of the gaps, being reduced throughout history to the pantheistic/deistic god that we will probably be left with in the future.
"Nearly" perfect? What would you suggest to to amend?
I'd say "nearly perfect" as well, but impossible to improve, if it must be kept as one scale.
The reason I don't know where I rank on it, is because I'm a 7 on most defined gods – we CAN prove that Jehova as described in the Bible, for instance, doesn't exist, because he is attributed mutually exclusive properties. Just as we can know that a square circle cannot exist, we can know that an apathetic and flawless but angry and jealous god cannot exist. But when talking about gods and higher entities in general, I'm a 6. I cannot say that no higher creature of some form doesn't exist somewhere – that would require looking everywhere at once, and even then it could just be invisible.
That is a pretty good scale. I have only recently started reading The God Delusion, so I haven't gotten to his scale yet, but I can't imagine there being a better one.
I feel like most people I've known in my life are a 4 (Apatheist), but when pressed about the subject, would then act as if they were a 3 or a 2. It's like 98% of the time they don't even think about God or his existence, and live their lives like they don't care either way, but when asked, they would still say they believe, and would refuse to be labeled an agnostic or atheist, yet probably don't even know why. Weird.
I just finished reading the book "Godless" by Dan Barker. Would you believe he went from being a No. 1 to being a No. 7? I've heard of other people who became atheist because they actually read the Bible and were horrified by what they found there. Barker goes into great detail as to how he made the transformation and why.
Very nice post, way much better than dawkins' scale. however I don't get how can one be 100% certain about something that is unprovable. Anyway, I rank myself a 6 on this scale too.
Agnostisizm, agreed- if something "is" unprovable it doesn't seem reasonable to be certain about it. But I do not understand how one can be 100% certain that god's existence is "unprovable". How does one reach such a high degree of certitude about being uncertain of something? I see this is a real issue for anyone who wants to take a reasoned approach to agnosticism. It seems to be the "safer" road by being open to all possibilities, but at the same time, by conceding the "unprovability" of god, the agnosticism is now closed to any attempt to resolve this deep question- how are they so sure it cannot be resolved?
I guess I'm a little late to the party here, but your post was very thought provoking, so I thought I'd add my thoughts.
Whichever way you view a/gnosticism, IMO it only serves to muddy the waters when it comes to discussing religion. Religion is purely about faith, and it is farcical to start talking about religion in terms of true knowledge, as it doesn't exist, and will never exist. Imagine if there was a predictable, replicable procedure that would confirm the existance of a Judeo-Christian god (for example)- faith would be null and void as it would simply become a case of "Do I want to live in heaven for eternity" or "Do I want to burn in hell for eternity".
Not that I necessariy disagree with your scale (although the "apatheist" part is a little bit ropey, those folks don't care either way which really adds a fourth dimension to the debate), I just think that it detracts from more important matters.
Love the blog by the way.
I'm just wondering if we've been trapped and the whole paradigm and argument has been defined Christians? They set up the rules and we are forced to argue positions in a flawed system.
I like to view the universe and our knowledge of it from a position of neutrality. " We just are." The Universe just is." From there, as humans, everything begins to fall in place according to how proven it is. I picture it like a circle where truth is in the center and all that we know and observer falls outside us. So if you are atheist, 1+1=2 is very close by, evolution is further out (perhaps half way out of the circle and Christianity is all the way on the edge of this circle. Face it, they can't prove anything they believe.
The way I see it, we need to frame this argument as what is provable? Unfortunately, we are forced to argue with "Believers" as though they stand on solid ground when in fact, their positions are so far outside our ability to explain. Even though we have mountains of provable and predictable science, they hold their "beliefs" up as possible and they do so as though their positions are equal to all the scientific knowledge that has been defined.
Is there a god? I would put my answer to this question 7/8th way out. For one, it's unimportant and two, the mere question has been defined by the Christian Authority that has ruled for so long (too long) and three, I don't think we are to the point where we can totally disprove it. However, I don't think we are really all that prepared to define what it is we think this god is to begin with; everyone has a different opinion so proving something that we can't even define is a bit nutty.
It burns me up when these Intelligent Designers pretend to be working in science; it's a farce and I don't think we should continue to accept their rules. These rules were set down thousands of years ago and they've entrenched themselves into our discourse.
You write "God" (capitalized). What god are we talking about here? Atheism and agnosticism are about gods in general, not just one god or one type of god (such as a creator-god).
If you make it general, such as any god or gods, then I would be square on #4, with an asterisk. That asterisk would read that I'm not 100% uncertain about what I believe (I know what I believe), I just have no belief either way and don't care to. I don't believe a god exists nor do I believe no gods exist — and I'm agnostic.
If the scale is based on the Judeo-Christian god, then I'm a 7 (6.99… to be technical).
My apologies. I can't seem to break the habit of capitalising the word "god". My excuse is that I refer to the "God idea", and as it is an important idea it requires capitalisation. Any time I mention "God" instead of "god/gods" you can be pretty sure I mean the whole idea of "God".