Talk:Spectrum of theistic probability

on agnosticism and theism
I would like to suggest an expansion on the discussion on atheism and agnosticism. There is another perspective whereby agnosticism and atheism are quite distinct concepts. The first dealing with knowledge and the later with belief. Therefore agnosticism is not some middle ground between atheism and agnosticism (although a "pure" agnostic could be defined as an agnostic who is not an atheist or a theist), but that agnosticism and theism can coexist ("I don't know, but I believe in God") just as agnosticism and atheism can coexist ("I do not know, but I believe that there are no gods"). Conversely one can claim full knowledge and be either an atheist or a theist. For a good discussion of this check ==> about.com's Austin Cline discusses agnosticism vs atheism If anyone has primary sources it would help greatly. Ibrmrn (talk) 06:44, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Agreeance with the "problems witn this sections author; and Deism"
I agree with the author of "problems with this". This scale is just a personal invention of Richard Dawkins. It is also not a very sophiticated scale he invented. Dawkins, for example, deliberately excluded Deism. Of course Dawkins sees Deism as "watered down theism"[allthough he's seemingly willign to take deism more seriously since he wrote "the god delusion"} and Pantheism as "sexed up atheism". Yet, Modern Deists, and Classical Pantheists would argue these points vehemently and rightly. It's pure biased polemics from Dawkins. REAL Pantheism is a form of theism, scientific pantheism is not even "pantheism" at all. As to Dawkins exlusion of Deism from his scale; Deism is NOT simply "watered down theism", though the original deism was and some deists today may have this kid of deism{more accurately defined today as "liberal theism"}, Deism has become a unique category of belief all it's own, seperate from Theism, Agnosticism{allthough one can logically be an "Agnostic-Deist"}, and Atheism. Hence, Dawkins scale is nothing more than a personal polemic, not something to put forth as a valid objective argument and something to include as a wiki article; Unless Mr.Dawkins first ammends his original scale here to make it more accurate,objective, and full. As a thinker myself, I have invented what I call "the scale of rationalism". It is similar to Dawkins scale, except it is purely about rationalisms view on god, with Strong Atheism at one end, Strong Deism at the other, Agnosticism in the center, and degrees between, and it excludes theism alltogether. This scale I invented is arguably just as valid as Dawkins scale, the only reason why Dawkins one is taken seriously or given a wikipedia article is because of his prominence as a biologist and a vocal Atheist. His job as a biologist certianly is not valid grounds for his scale beeing given such prominence and special treatment, what does biology have to do with the god question? All that's left is the fact that he is a vocal atheist, and he's beeen given a soapbox to air his polemics. Ok, so what? There are vocal agnostics and deists and others whom are more or less known or unknown, but this does not mean their arguments are worthy or unworthy of such respect anymore than Dawkins. The scale is propose din 'the god delusion", which is often passed off as a "science" book, whish it is not, it is a atheist polemic that includes some scientific information{so what, theists use the same for their creationist books; Respected Physicist, astrobiologist, cosmologist Paul Davies, with a deistic persuasion has written many more books than Dawkins on this subject matter with deistic polemics- which contain way more scientific info and much more sophiticated philosophical and scientific arguments, yet does he or his arguments get the same special treatment?}. Something is askew here.--Iconoclastithon (talk) 20:09, 22 March 2009 (UTC)


 * In my opinion, if you believe Dawkins' preeeminence as a biologist has nothing to do with his authority on the God question, I think you missed at least some of the main points of the book -please take no offense, it's not my intention whatsoever. Dawkins is widely regarded not only as one of the most important biologists alive: he is considered one of the most influential minds in the world, and that grants him authority enough to write, publish, and be considered an important contributor to a field he has devoted so much time to ponder. Same as Chomsky's analysis on political situations are actually studied in universities throughout the world (in Barcelona, most certainly, and I can prove it if you require it) -even though his field of expertise is linguistics-, Dawkins writes with the clarity and objective subjectivity most scientists can't claim (the requirement to dettach oneself during analysis though not being able to completely brush the theory under scrutiny and its expected outcomes out of one's mind, a human flaw shared by researchers and laymen alike). Being a physicist myself, I find the comparison between Davies and Dawkins quite out of place; a better example would by far be Stephen Jay Gould. Davies just doesn't play in the same league; (amazingly) good a physicist as he may be, he just lacks the skill to coherently move among disciplines while admitting his own limits. But more importantly: Dawkins argues, and with great clarity, that scientists are an obvious choice to turn to when thinking about religion. Maybe more than theologists, who are biased by nature (and nurture). The idea is not his': Kant, Popper, Russell and an impressive series of names seem to converge through time into that same thought.


 * By the way: nobody (at least not anybody worth caring about, i.e. creationists), and certainly not Dawkins, tries to pass "The God Delusion" as a science book. I've got a science book in front of me, one used during my grad courses, and it's called "An Introduction to Quantum Field Theory", by Michael E. Peskin and Daniel V. Schroeder, with sections such as "10.2 Renormalized Perturbation Theory: One-loop structure of Φ 4 theory". I think the difference is self-explanatory.


 * Jordissim (talk) 20:07, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Problems with this
Is this notable enough for an article on its own? As a Dawkins invention, this is not enough for a Wikipedia entry, and especially under this title. Is the phrase "Spectrum of Theist Probability" even used by Dawkins? There is hope for this article because this idea is hopefully not a Dawkins neologism, but we need to find a suitable name for this, and supplement this article with more sources, if this should be kept at all... --Merzul 15:18, 28 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I expanded this a bit, I looked at where this occurs in Dawkins's book and it is in the section on "The Poverty of Agnosticism". I'm thinking of redirecting merging this into the article on agnosticism, either as "Criticism of agnosticism"; or simply "Spectrum of probabilities", simply adding something that Dawkins argues that Huxley "seems to have been ignoring the shading of probability." I'm often very brutal in making moves and mergers like this. So if there are no objections within a few days, I'm going to do this. --Merzul 16:11, 28 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I am also far from convinced that this needs a separate article. Does it have any life outside Dawkins' book? And what are the chances of anyone actually looking for an article under this obscure title? I would favour a summary under Agnosticism, and also perhaps Atheism. Mind you, I tried to argue against promoting the Ultimate Boeing 747 gambit to full-article status, so why should you listen to me? I guess if someone wants hang some personal opinions on it, it'll be stoutly defended and remain in place! But if it does stay, I presume the article title should be lowercased: Spectrum of theistic probability. Snalwibma 16:42, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I also argued vehemently against the 747 gambit :) I think the situation is a bit different, I can't imagine how this current article can be expanded. The 747 Gambit was at least directly addressed by many reviewers. --Merzul 17:44, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to see it expanded into something somewhat analogous to political compass, where 'level of apathy toward religion' or something roughly like that was included as a second dimension. This is largely my own idea though, so I'm doubtful anyone has published anything about it. I think such a compass would be an excellent way of conceptualizing attitudes toward religion (although there are still other aspects left out, such as Dan Dennett's "belief in belief", which should probably have its own article as well). If anyone feels like stealing the idea and writing about it though, be my guest! Richard001 (talk) 06:22, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Reject – I don't want to seem petty or anything. But merging would help this article, but would only damage agnosticism. Defining such a complicated belief and quickly following with criticism and reasons as to why it doesn't make sense only serves to invalidate or add bias to an article. If this article isn't notable enough, and I'm not saying it's not, attaching it to an article when it could confuse the topic should not be an option. After all, and I apologize for being too direct, we don't end an article on Christianity with reasons as to why it doesn't make sense. If the reason's are notable and cited enough it should be able to float on water by itself, hence why we have Criticism_of_Christianity – Saphseraph (talk) 22:53, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

"Is this notable enough for an article on its own?" IMO, No, but as a part of a more comprehensive article... Maybe! As it is it is too one-dimensional, a relevant extension is provided by Fredric Brown's very short story "Answer". Another dimension is provided by teleology v dysteleology, biologists have no problem restructuring their statements in dysteleological form; it is much harder for physicists, QED does seem to involve teleology (as does Thermodynamics). Without getting into a spitting contest, with my training I have to regard QED as a more successful theory than Evolution. But then predicting that there are no rabbit fossils from the Cretaceous is a more falsifiable prediction than that there is no Celestial Teapot 86.183.215.184 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:48, 22 September 2010 (UTC).

Diagram
I'd like to suggest a diagram be added showing this concept visually. Something to go at the top that should give the reader a very quick summary of the concept. It would basically just be an image of a linear scale going from theism to atheism, with agnosticism in the middle. Something like green = theism, cyan = agnosticism and blue = atheism, for example. There would of course be intermediate colours, highlighting the continuous nature of the issue. Richard001 (talk) 06:47, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Title
Should not this be called "Spectrum of theistic probability belief", instead? It seens that what it (subjectvely) measures is the belief of different persons, and it does not even try to acess the actual probablity of God existing or not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.82.162.48 (talk) 03:28, 7 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with the fact that this page doesn't talk about the theistic probability, but I disagree with your conclusions. In the first place, because the name of the page is itself a reference to the person who coined the term, Richard Dawkins, and the source of the description, "The God Delusion"; and secondly, my opinion is that what should be done is NOT to change the title (which wouldn't provide any added value to Wikipedia), but to expand the page so that it does deal with the subject it's supposed to explain, by including, for instance: 1) a good analysis of the validity of such a scale, 2) its implications both on a sociological, cognitive and antropological view, 3) a serious subsection regarding population surveys, and 4) the mutual incompatibility between Dawkins' probabilistic approach and Stephen Jay Gould's NOMA. This page is necessary, but right now it almost falls into the category of a stub. For many reasons, this shouldn't be the case at all, not for a subject so important in so many levels to so many people.


 * Jordissim (talk) 02:46, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Redirects added
I have added redirect articles so that a search on "Dawkins scale", "Dawkins scale of belief" and "Dawkins scale of atheism" all redirect to this article. --WickerGuy (talk) 17:21, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Spectrum scale unexplained, and NOMA
Anyone who's read "The God Delusion" by Dawkins is aware that he puts a lot of stress in how one should use the scale to gauge one's beliefs; and provides a sound line of thought regarding how most self-labelled agnostics wouldn't actually define themselves as believing in a 50%-50% probability of God existence, so the most unpopulated number after 7 should be 4. That's the point Dawkins is trying to make -that agnosticism is actually a form of intellectual non-commitment, a way of avoiding social stigmas, or a misunderstanding of the scaled measurements of atheism or of the term itself. Therefore, I think this section must be revised by providing more quotations from Richard Dawkins - or the page, when read by public unfamiliar with Dawkins' work, will draw the wrong conclusions on what the author meant.

I also believe this article should at least reference the school of thought named by Stephen Jay Gould as NOMA, or Non-overlapping magisteria - although I must state, least should I be accused of having my own agenda by trying to introduce an inherent counterargument in the article, that I personally don't believe in it, neither as a layman on spiritual subjects nor as a trained physicist. A new section depicting NOMA as opposed to Richard Dawkins' views would greatly clarify the magnitude and importance of the page, and would also provide new grounds for further entries that are currently blocked by the lack of different approaches to the subject.

Jordissim (talk) 22:40, 8 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Just adding that I'd agree both with clarifying the article further with Dawkins' quotes, but also mentioning NOMA. Maybe if I read the book again soon I'll get an opportunity to write an edit. --Topperfalkon (talk) 14:01, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Criticism and categorization

 * (Discussion moved here from a user's Talk page for continuation...)

Hi there, you reverted one of my edits to the above page and said your rationale for doing so was "rmv uns & n/a". What exactly does that mean? Apollo The Logician (talk) 13:18, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi Apollo The Logician. The cryptic edit summary indicates that I "removed unsourced & non-applicable" additions to the article. I'll try to express my multiple concerns in fuller form here.  You added two sentences which said this:
 * The spectrum of theistic probability has been criticsed over how it defines atheism. Philosophers such as William Lane Craig have defined atheism as the denial of the existence of a god.
 * That content did not have the required citations to reliable sources, so I removed it for now. Also, you placed it in a dedicated section of its own with a "Criticism" header, which I removed for reasons best explained here. I also undid the addition of a category which did not appear supported by the body of the article.  (There are other concerns, such as the misspelling of "criticized", which was likely a typo.)  Without reliable sources for me to review, I can't verify your assertions: (1) That "Spectrum of theistic probability" even seeks to "define atheism", when our article doesn't appear to convey that. (2) That valid criticism of categorizing non-belief has been advanced. (3) That multiple "philosophers such as" have advanced such a criticism. (4) That Craig, or philosophers "such as" him, is (implicitly) credited with defining atheism. Or are you simply trying to convey that Craig thinks an absence of belief in deities isn't atheism unless it is also coupled with an affirmative but unsupportable (see position #7 on the Spectrum)  "denial of the existence of a god" (i.e.; Zeus?) -- an assertion which would probably be more appropriate in the Craig article than here.


 * Looking forward to your thoughts on the matter. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 17:52, 23 November 2016 (UTC)


 * "I also undid the addition of a category which did not appear supported by the body of the article."
 * In what way? Dawkins is discussing philosophical views.


 * "That "Spectrum of theistic probability" even seeks to "define atheism", when our article doesn't appear to convey that."
 * It doesn't seek to define it but it is based on a definition of atheism that is controversial.


 * "That multiple "philosophers such as" have advanced such a criticism. "
 * Fair enoungh, the reference never said anything about that.


 * I was implying that Craig simply disagrees with that definition of atheism, not that he and others get to define it. Apollo The Logician
 * Fair enoungh, the reference never said anything about that.
 * I would appreciate the opportunity to review the reliable source you are referencing. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 20:33, 23 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Well there isn't a source that states multiple philosophers disagree with the definition of atheism Dawkins uses but there are multiple well respected philosophers I can link to that contradict Dawkins definition. Apollo The Logician —Preceding undated comment added 20:56, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I would be interested in seeing them. Present them here, please? Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 06:49, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Lipsquid
You need a consensus before deleting anything Apollo The Logician (talk) 20:00, 27 December 2016 (UTC) Apollo The Logician (talk) 20:00, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Restoring the stable version of an article does not require consensus. Consensus is required for the material you added that changed the stable version. WP:CONSENSUS  Edit Warring will result in you being sanctioned or blocked.  I have already warned you on your talk page.  I am stepping away from the article for a few days to let additional editors respond.  Ping me if you like... Lipsquid (talk) 23:38, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Categories
How is this not related to the Philosophy of religion (see page)? And how is it related to atheism? This is a spectrum of belief and Nonbelief? Apollo The Logician (talk) 21:32, 2 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi, Apollo! I hope the holidays are finding you in good spirits.  Thank you for initiating this discussion;  Here are my thoughts on the categories and descriptions we've been juggling:
 * this article is about various levels of belief (or absence of belief) in deities, and is therefore certainly strongly related to both atheism and theism (and arguably deism too).
 * this article is not about religion (which may or may not include belief in deities) in general, nor about any specific religion, so the Philosophy of religion category appears out of place to me. While it is true that theism and atheism can sometimes be discussed in the context of religion, they are often separate and unrelated.
 * as for ignosticism and political spectrum, I think a reasonable argument could be made to remove their links from this article, as they are not closely related to the article subject.
 * I've reviewed the Philosophy of religion section as you've suggested, and I see in particular the assertion that Philosophy of religion deals with the existence of gods, so I can't fault you for adding the category, but that section of our article is unsourced. Also, while philosophy may concern itself with the existence of gods, it does so with very narrow definitions of theism and atheism (i.e.; philosophical inquiry insists that atheism must assertively reject the existence of gods absolutely, which is of course an absurdist position as one can never prove that something does not exist).  May I ask you to more clearly explain your primary reasoning for adding the Philosophy of religion category to this article? I ask only because the source of the subject of this article (Dawkins) doesn't consider it a philosophical enquiry. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 03:30, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't see how a spectrum of positions regarding god should be include in the theism and atheism category.
 * In the lead of the article it defines as "the philosophy of religion as the philosophical examination of the central themes and concepts involved in religious traditions". The existence of a god is obviously included in this. Robin Le Poidevin, a philosopher of relogion says atheism is a part of the philosophy of religion.
 * You do realise atheism is philosophy right? It can't be separated from it. That's like me saying "science has a very narrow definition of matter" in contrast to matter outside of science. It makes no sense. Also that's not true, traditionally,  yes atheism was defined by philosophers as the denial of the existence of God but most modern philosophers (Flew, Dennett etc) define it as an absence of belief. Apollo The Logician (talk) 12:05, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * So is that a silent fair enough or what? Apollo The Logician (talk) 15:11, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I've been somewhat busy with the holidays. Thank you for your patience.
 * I don't see how a spectrum of positions regarding god...
 * We're not discussing a "spectrum of positions regarding god", it's a spectrum of positions regarding belief in the existence of gods, an important distinction. So with that clarified for you, do you now see how that directly relates to atheism (the absence of belief in the existence of gods ) and theism (the belief in the existence of gods )?
 * ...central themes and concepts involved in religious traditions". The existence of a god is obviously included in this...
 * More precisely, the arguments for the existence of gods may be included in that, which is why I have not immediately reverted your re-insertion of the category. Do you know of any philosophical arguments which come from the premise of atheism (the absence of belief) rather than the narrower sub-premise of denying that gods exist?
 * You do realise atheism is philosophy right? It can't be separated from it.
 * Incorrect. Atheism is the absence of belief in deities. It predates the invention of the concept of deities. It isn't a belief, it isn't philosophy, nor is it "a" philosophy.  However, a minority form of atheism (affirmative denial of existence) has been made a topic of philosophical study, as you noted.
 * ...me saying "science has a very narrow definition of matter" in contrast to matter outside of science. It makes no sense.
 * It makes no sense because that analogy is inapplicable. A proper analogy, if you wish to equate "atheism" with "matter", would be: That's like me saying "condensed matter physics has a very narrow definition of fermionic matter" in contrast to matter in science in general.  That would make sense.  In order for philosophy to contemplate and argue belief in gods, it needs a concrete starting point, such as affirmative denial.  If you try to get a philosopher to discuss belief in gods from the original position of atheism, i.e., absence of beliefs before the indoctrination into a belief system, the discipline of philosophy considers that an invalid position, or one not worth addressing philosophically.
 * yes atheism was defined by philosophers as ... but most modern philosophers (Flew, Dennett etc) define it as ...
 * Not exactly, as philosophers do not get to "define atheism". They do (and have), however, get to chose which existing definition they will engage with through their discipline.  Based on its historical usage, "atheism" has many variations in meaning, from the pejorative "doesn't believe in the same supernatural entities that I believe in" to "doesn't hold any beliefs in deities at all" to "has 'belief' in the nonexistence of deities".
 * This is fun, but we're straying from the original issue of whether to categorize this article as "Philosophy of religion". This spectrum deals with existence of gods, and the "philosophy of religion" can also deal with the existence of gods, but does philosophy of religion deal with this spectrum (the subject of this article)?  Can you direct me to whatever source you feel best addresses the "Spectrum of theistic probability" subject from the "Philosophy of religion" perspective?  That may help us to put this to rest. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 15:30, 9 January 2017 (UTC)


 * "We're not discussing a "spectrum of positions regarding god", it's a spectrum of positions regarding belief in the existence of gods"
 * If that is true explain why theists are included in the spectrum? Should the political spectrum page be in the conservatism, socialism and libertarianism category?
 * "Do you know of any philosophical arguments which come from the premise of atheism (the absence of belief) rather than the narrower sub-premise of denying that gods exist?"
 * That question makes no sense.
 * "Incorrect. Atheism is the absence of belief in deities. It predates the invention of the concept of deities. It isn't a belief, it isn't philosophy, nor is it "a" philosophy.  However, a minority form of atheism (affirmative denial of existence) has been made a topic of philosophical study, as you noted."
 * "What I meant is that it is a part of the field of philosophy like physics is a part of science.
 * "Not exactly, as philosophers do not get to "define atheism".
 * Never said they did, but yes they do. As I said it is a part of their field. They originally came up with the concept of atheism back then when it meant the denial of the existence of a god or gods.
 * "however, get to chose which existing definition they will engage with through their discipline"
 * How is any of this relevant to what I said? You said philosophers define it as the denial of the existence of a god, I was correcting you.
 * Well as you said " In order for philosophy to contemplate and argue belief in gods, it needs a concrete starting point, such as affirmative denial. If you try to get a philosopher to discuss belief in gods from the original position of atheism, i.e., absence of beliefs before the indoctrination into a belief system, the discipline of philosophy considers that an invalid position, or one not worth addressing philosophically."
 * From the article. "#Strong theist. 100 per cent probability of God. In the words of C.G. Jung: "I do not believe, I know.'''"
 * De facto theist. Very high probability but short of 100 per cent. "I don't know for certain, but I strongly believe in God and live my life on the assumption that he is there."
 * Leaning towards theism. Higher than 50 per cent but not very high. "I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God."
 * Completely impartial. Exactly 50 per cent. "God's existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable."
 * Leaning towards atheism. Lower than 50 per cent but not very low. "I do not know whether God exists but I'm inclined to be skeptical."
 * De facto atheist. Very low probability, but short of zero. "I don't know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and Ilive my life on the assumption that he is not there."
 * Strong atheist. "I know there is no God, with the same conviction as Jung knows there is one."
 * Clearly there is claims being made. The spectrum of theistic belief doesn't include implicit atheists. Only theists and explicit atheists. Apollo The Logician (talk) 18:18, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I guess we'll step through this one small part at a time.
 * You said philosophers define it as the denial of the existence of a god, I was correcting you. --Apollo The Logician
 * No, I did not. To the contrary, I said that philosophers do not get to define atheism.  Please strike your comment or provide a diff to where I said philosophers define atheism.  Then we can move on.  Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 21:31, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * "while philosophy may concern itself with the existence of gods, it does so with very narrow definitions of theism and atheism (i.e.; philosophical inquiry insists that atheism must assertively reject the existence of gods absolutely)" From your original reply. Apollo The Logician (talk) 21:45, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Nowhere in that quote did I say that philosophers define atheism. I said that philosophy addresses the subject of existence using only one very narrow (i.e.; "denial of existence") definition; philosophers certainly did not invent that definition. Philosophers do not get to define atheism. Are we simply misunderstanding each other? So I will repeat my request: Please strike your comment or provide a diff to where I said philosophers define atheism.  Then we can move on. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 21:39, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I never said you said that philosophers are the authority on the definition of atheism, I said you claimed philosophers use a certain definition of atheism. You were wrong.Apollo The Logician (talk) 21:43, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I never said you said that philosophers are the authority on the definition of atheism...
 * That is correct, you never did. That is the first time either of us has used the word "authority" on this Talk page.  What is your point?
 * I said you claimed philosophers use a certain definition of atheism.
 * No, you did not, until just now. Here is what you actually said to me (you do realize it's still on this page just above, right?): You said philosophers define it as the denial of the existence of a god, I was correcting you.  I never said that (nor would I), so I asked you to "provide a diff to where I said philosophers define atheism".  I've asked twice, and twice you have failed to provide substantiation for your assertion.  We can consider that resolved and move on to the next small part.
 * If that is true explain why theists are included in the spectrum?
 * Theists are included in the spectrum because it's a spectrum of positions regarding belief in the existence of gods. That isn't self-explanatory? Xenophrenic (talk) 05:36, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Let's just drop it obviously we are not getting anywhere and it is not really relevant. The last part of my response to you is what matters. Apollo The Logician (talk) 13:59, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

We can drop it if you wish. I'm not sure what "last part" of what you said you are referring to, but I do know that you never answered my most important question. I'll repeat it here if you decide you wish to reengage in discussion of the matter: Kind regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 04:08, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Can you direct me to whatever source you feel best addresses the "Spectrum of theistic probability" subject from the "Philosophy of religion" perspective? That may help us to put this to rest.
 * This below
 * Well as you said " In order for philosophy to contemplate and argue belief in gods, it needs a concrete starting point, such as affirmative denial. If you try to get a philosopher to discuss belief in gods from the original position of atheism, i.e., absence of beliefs before the indoctrination into a belief system, the discipline of philosophy considers that an invalid position, or one not worth addressing philosophically."
 * From the article. "#Strong theist. 100 per cent probability of God. In the words of C.G. Jung: "I do not believe, I know."

Clearly there is claims being made. The spectrum of theistic belief doesn't include implicit atheists. Only theists and explicit atheists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Apollo The Logician (talk • contribs)
 * De facto theist. Very high probability but short of 100 per cent. "I don't know for certain, but I strongly believe in God and live my life on the assumption that he is there."
 * Leaning towards theism. Higher than 50 per cent but not very high. "I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God."
 * Completely impartial. Exactly 50 per cent. "God's existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable."
 * Leaning towards atheism. Lower than 50 per cent but not very low. "I do not know whether God exists but I'm inclined to be skeptical."
 * De facto atheist. Very low probability, but short of zero. "I don't know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and Ilive my life on the assumption that he is not there."
 * Strong atheist. "I know there is no God, with the same conviction as Jung knows there is one."


 * The Spectrum of theistic probability doesn't include or exclude implicit atheists, and you also won't find PAPs (permanent agnosticism in principle) on the scale either, nor would they be expected to appear on the scale. The scale treats belief in existence of gods as a "scientific hypothesis" rather than a philosophical question (Dawkins explains this in the same cited chapter). So I don't understand the point you are trying to make. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:25, 16 January 2017 (UTC)


 * "doesn't include or exclude implicit atheists" em what? How?
 * "and you also won't find PAPs (permanent agnosticism in principle) on the scale either, nor would they be expected to appear on the scale." First of all that is not true. Second of all even if it was true so what?
 * "The scale treats belief in existence of gods as a "scientific hypothesis" rather than a philosophical question (Dawkins explains this in the same cited chapter). So I don't understand the point you are trying to make" What on earth? I am baffled by this nonsense. Can you quote the section? Apollo The Logician (talk) 20:34, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I could quote the section if I wanted to spend a half-hour doing it.  It's from the last paragraph on page 49 through page 51 of the presently cited source.  And you'll see Dawkins explicitly explain why PAPs can't appear on the scale on page 51.  Hope that helps, Xenophrenic (talk) 20:40, 16 January 2017 (UTC)