Atheist Nexus Logo

Note on the Dawkins Scale and De Facto Certainty

To my knowledge, Dawkins describes himself as a 6 (or, more specifically, a 6.9--see Bill Maher interview) on principle. A scientist must remain open to evidence. Whereas theists can say as an article of faith that they are 100% certain that there is a god, scientists will as a matter of principle avoid phrasing things in terms of absolute certainties. Karl Popper described the history of science as the history of "conjectures and refutations."  Scientific knowledge is not held dogmatically.  This is because science is self-revising.  Scientific hypotheses are subject to revision when new data come in.  The position of absolute certainty is the bread and butter of the religious faithful.  Religious 'facts' are based on faith, and faith requires no empirical justification. Science however requires evidence; a claim is accepted as true to the extent that there is evidence for it.  The possibility exists however that new evidence could require that we revise or even throw out previously accepted hypotheses and theories.  From a scientist's point of view, 100% certainty in all scientific claims is untenable.  100% certainty would require some amount of faith. That having been said, we can be 99.99999% or sufficiently certain about the truth values of certain propositions, e.g., the Earth is round, or the arrow of time is moving in the direction of increased entropy, etc. And one may even say that if there is an absolute lack of evidence that something exists, one can be sufficiently certain that it does not exist. Consider the situation of entering an empty room with no discernible table, but a man tells you there is a table and that you can not disprove the existence of the table. You check the room thoroughly and come to the conclusion that either your sensory apparatus is seriously impaired, or the man's claim is false. Unfortunately, in the case of the universe, we are not dealing with a small, empty room. We can not discern all that is in the cosmos. But I will say that the idea of a 'personal creator' that feels passion of any kind is rather ridiculous, and this should be apparent to anyone who gives it a moment of serious thought.

Sent from my iPhone

Views: 469


You need to be a member of Atheist Nexus to add comments!

Join Atheist Nexus

Support Atheist Nexus

Donate Today



Help Nexus When You Buy From Amazon


Nexus on Social Media:

Latest Activity

Dyslexic's DOG replied to Dyslexic's DOG's discussion Secular Humanism Teaches Christians How To Be Moral?
16 minutes ago
Randall Smith commented on Ruth Anthony-Gardner's group Hang With Friends
26 minutes ago
Randall Smith commented on Daniel W's group Godless in the garden
36 minutes ago
Loren Miller posted a status
"WORD UP! Reason Rally 2 is in the drawing-board phase and planned for 2016 ... and if it happens, I AM SO THERE!!!"
44 minutes ago
Randall Smith commented on Daniel W's group Food!
46 minutes ago
Randall Smith commented on Richard C Brown's group learnerscoffeeshack
49 minutes ago
Profile IconRobert Ray, Keith Pillsbury, Cody Manley and 2 more joined Atheist Nexus
1 hour ago
Dyslexic's DOG replied to Bruce Long's discussion Shameless request for browser usage...
1 hour ago

© 2015   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service