The Richard Dawkins Atheism Scale

The Richard Dawkins Atheism Scale

I received a request to talk about Richard Dawkins' Atheism Scale. I hadn't done a video on it, and it's something I've seen referenced a lot of times, so let's talk about it.

In his book The God Delusion, Dawkins talks about how we can place our belief in God on a spectrum, ranging from 1 to 7.

1 means you don't just believe in God. You know with 100% certainty that God exists. 

That sounds kind of silly. I mean, even religious people refer to their beliefs as "faith." They have faith that God exists, even if they can't prove it. They believe in God's existence.

And yet I'm sure we all know religious people who would easily say they're a 1 on the Dawkins Scale. They can't prove God's existence to you, but they're totally sure He's real.

If you think being a 1 makes no sense, then I hope you say the same thing about a 7. That means you know for sure that God doesn't exist.

And yes, that's a ridiculous thing to say, too. It requires this sort of absolute knowledge that none of us possesses. 

We don't know for sure God doesn't exist. All we can say is we've looked at all the evidence available to us, and there's no reason to believe in one. I can't prove to you God doesn't exist.

Also, saying you're a 7 basically means no amount of evidence could ever convince you that you're wrong. That sort of dogmatism seems to go against everything atheists claim to stand for.

There are religious apologists who wrongly assume all atheists are at a 7. We're not. 

It's worth noting that Richard Dawkins himself said he's not a 7. He said he was more like a 6. That is, he felt there was a really low probability of God's existence and he chose to live his life on the assumption that God's not there.

When pressed on it, he later admitted, okay, fine, I'm probably more like a 6.9.

So here's a question for you. What does it mean if you're right in the middle? What if you're a 4?

Well, it means you're smack dab in the middle. You think there's a 50/50 chance of God existing. Which makes it sound like God's existence is as likely as getting tails in a coin flip. 

That would be silly, of course, because I also can't prove the existence or non-existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, but it's not like the chance that he's real is the same as calling heads. So I don't really understand people who say they're a 4.

Here's what a 4 doesn't mean: It doesn't mean you're "agnostic." Agnosticism isn't on the spectrum. It's wrong to think Agnosticism means you're halfway between belief and atheism.

Agnosticism refers to a different question entirely: Could you ever know that God exists? Not do you believe He does, but is it even possible to answer that question? 

If you don't think it's possible, then you're an agnostic. Maybe you're an Agnostic believer or an Agnostic atheist. 

The point is, Agnostic isn't on that scale, and anyone who says otherwise doesn't understand it. It's a separate issue.

All the other numbers? Varying degrees of belief ranging from strongly believing in God's existence to strongly doubting it.

Personally, I'm with Dawkins here. I'm as close as you can get to a 7 without, of course, going that far. I'd love to know in the comments where you would place yourself.

And then think about this: Where would the religious people in your life place themselves? Because while it would make sense for them use a low number, I suspect a lot of them would go all the way down to 1. 

And if they do that, they're lying to you and they're lying to themselves.

You Might Also Like ...

7 Things That Prove God is Real

78 Questions for Christians

4 Creative Ways to Deal with Preachers.

Join the conversation. Leave your questions and comments below and we'll try to address them in future videos. Don't forget to subscribe for more!

Also, follow us at ...

[TheRatsmith]

I tend to think of the number 4 position as being "I don't know, I don't Care, leave me out of this."

[zidneya]

Richard Dawkins: Being one a absolute belief in God and seven a strong atheist which number will you consider you are?
Vegeta: _"Its Over 9000!!!"_

[violentdelightsjames]

I'm fully #7 on every god that humanity has ever conjured up, but I'll admit I'm a 4-5 if there some deistic Conscious Intelligent Being that resides somewhere out there in the the universe that cares nothing about humans etc.

[DBHMedia]

i would say 7. not from arrogance but because i know that nothing can defy the laws of physics.

[MrDzoni]

6.9 is for people who try avoid being labeled intellectually dishonest. Just look at the comments, 6.9 is practically a 7.

[yepperdeedooda]

I can prove God exists, if I could just find that damn receipt from our lunch the other day..

[johnhmaloney]

I'm a 6.9 and most of the religious people that I know would probably place themselves at a 1.

[CrazyPhilMachine]

I am a 6.9999... on every religion.
But I would consider myself to just a 6.9 for there being a higher power.

[conorshea]

6.9.... Great outlook on fairy tails, great sex position as well

[norma]

I'm a 6.9, my husband I think would be a 3 or a 4...sadly...

[greenbannanna]

Don't deny the flying spaghetti monsters existence!
His noodly appendages will haunt you forever. I wrote a poem on it in English class :^)

[miahansen]

Hey! I'm a Christian. Hardcore in a sense. And while we may not share the same opinions on a variety of subjects, I appreciate your channel, intelligence, and the demeanor you hold is pleasant.

[genericeric]

I just don't have no use for a invisible Sky Daddy in my life and so far as to prove the existence of any invisible Sky Daddy no one has done that yet, I just don't have no use for the atheist scale

[amaltheia]

Hello, I want to explain why I am not believing:
What is the boiling point of water ? If it is pure water under 1 atm atmosphere pressure, it is 100 degrees Celsius. You can repeat it 1000 times and you will find out that it is always the same result. But as soon as you change the atmospheric pressure, e.g. by doing the heating on mount Everest, you will find out it is boiling earlier, you can again repeat it and get the same results. By adding salt, you will find out that it is now boiling later. But under same conditions you will again get the same results. That's why it is possible to make measuring devices like a thermometer. Imagine you try to measure a temperature and you get different results under the same conditions; the measuring device would be useless.
So under same conditions you get the same results F(x), under different conditions or initial variables or parameters (x) you get different results.

Now to the problem, religions are promising two different results, heaven (F1) or hell (F2). What are the parameters for going to heaven (or hell), being good, having faith, being patient, being helpfull, being adequate intelligent (to have faith or not to have faith), live long enough to go to hell (babies go to heaven) etc.
So, if there are two results, the initial (given) parameters (or the resultant of them) cannot be the same. So if the initial parameters for heaven or hell are differntly distributed to people, can we speak about a fair god ? Do you believe in an unfair god ? I don't.

[purplekitten]

I would say I’m a 6, my dad’s a 5 and my mom is a 3. My aunts are probably a 4 and my maternal grandmother a 2. Also, thank you for explaining agnosticism so well. I used to believe it was halfway between theism and atheism but now I understand it’s more complicated.

[thelifeofzbear]

I'm like 6.9 because there to much evidence that points that God is not real while there could be evidence that comes along later in the future but as for now it's just not there

[brianmchugh]

I'm a 7... I understand Dawkin's reluctance to go to 7... however, the fact that there have been many thousands of religions, the vast majority now long dead, which all believed in a creator, provides a compelling precedent that all religions are wrong... and it is important to understand that all current religions will ultimately be long dead too.
If we could take a peek 1000 years in the future... apart from blowing our minds momentarily i'm sure 😆, it would confirm this.

[davidmccann]

I just wanted to say thanks. I've been struggling to determine where I fit on the general spectrum of belief. I had previously called myself agnostic, believing, as you explain that many others do, that I was in the middle. This video helps me define my faith (or more-so lack-there-of) in much clearer terms. It's always refreshing to watch you videos, and just wanted to say thanks.

[PaleGhost]

I'm an atheist that hopes there's a Q like alien out there.

[thegodlessnorwegian]

Another way to say this is: There are 3 scales. 1= There is a God, 2= Im not sure there is a God. 3= There is NO God.