Religion is a topic of conversation capable of generating the most heated discussions , but we often forget that there is no single way to believe that there is one or more gods.

Like virtually all psychological characteristics related to belief systems, there is a spectrum of intensity ranging from obsession with the idea of the divine to the total absence of belief, through various states of uncertainty.

It is this idea of believing in gods following a continuum that led biologist Richard Dawkins to create a scale, something that is known as the theistic probability spectrum . Let’s see what this concept proposed in his book The God Delusion consists of and how it helps us to position ourselves before religion and belief in a god (or more than one).

What is the theistic probability spectrum?

The fundamental idea that gives rise to the creation of the theistic probability spectrum, also known simply as “the Dawkins scale”, is that we can use extreme values in the intensity with which it is possible to believe in one or more gods in order, using those extremes as a reference and creating intervals between them, to situate ourselves in that scale that goes from the total certainty that the divine exists to the total certainty that nothing that can be qualified as such exists .

Thus, the Dawkins scale goes beyond the dichotomous idea that one can be a believer or a non-believer, and establishes several intermediate categories. Similarly, its design makes it less likely to be defined as pure agnostic , since there are more options to choose from and therefore the chances of not leaning towards either theism or atheism are reduced.

Degrees of belief in God according to the Dawkins scale

Next we will see how Richard Dawkins proposed categories to establish this scale between theism and atheism. It should be kept in mind that although it serves any theistic religion, it was designed with Christianity specifically in mind and the Abrahamic religions in general and their concept of God.

1. Strong theist

This end of the Dawkins scale expresses the absolute certainty that God exists. It is still a belief, but it is a belief for which there is practically no doubt or moment of hesitation .

2. De facto Theist

In this second degree of theism, less extreme than the previous one, there are certain doubts about the existence of God, but they are not significant enough that in practice the person defines himself as a theist without any problem , and generally acts as if the deity existed.

3. Agnostic Close to Theism

This is a weak form of agnosticism in which there are serious doubts that God exists, but it is considered more likely that a deity exists than the opposite .

4. Completely impartial agnostic

It represents a category completely equidistant from the extremes represented by theism and atheism. It is believed that the same possibilities exist for God to exist as for him not to exist .

5. Agnostic Close to Atheism

Following the symmetrical structure of the theistic probability spectrum, it can already be intuited that this category corresponds to those who believe that there are more possibilities that God does not exist than that he exists , but these are not very far from the 50% that the completely impartial agnostic represents.

6. De facto atheist

There are some doubts about the non-existence of God, but in general one lives as if the divine only existed as a historical and anthropological phenomenon , and not beyond nature.

7. Strong atheist

This is the second category at one end of the theistic probability spectrum, and represents the total absence of belief in God, or in other words, the certainty that God does not exist.

The characteristics of this gradation

It should be noted that the Dawkins scale is not a tool to measure the intensity with which a person adheres to the norms established by a religion or by ideologies contrary to any religion. In any case, it serves to measure the intensity with which one believes in the existence of one or more gods from a theoretical point of view, with no other implications than that.

Thus, cannot be used to establish whether a person is more or less fundamentalist , whether he wants to impose his religious or anti-religious dogmas on others, etc.

On the other hand, if we judge the theistic probability spectrum as a tool available for use in psychology, it is easy to find many problems with it.

First, there are the typical limitations of instruments based on introspection and self-assessment . For example, it is not the same to say that one is totally agnostic as to behave as a totally agnostic person. There is a distance to be considered between the ideas associated with self-concept and actual behaviour in specific contexts.

Secondly, the Dawkins scale is based on such abstract concepts that it is very difficult to understand exactly what each person thinks about when he answers what he answers.

For example, some may try to situate themselves on this scale with a very traditional and humanized version of the Christian god in mind, others may do so by assuming that the Christian god is something much more abstract and distant from human understanding, and others may do so by assuming that “God” simply means a form of intelligence capable of designing nature and indifferent to notions of good and evil.

On equal terms, depending on what you think the concept “God” represents, it will be easier to answer one or the other , since some versions of the deity have more associated characteristics and others have less (so it is less possible to be wrong if you claim that it exists).

Thus, the theistic probability spectrum serves more as a tool for reflection than as a resource for obtaining meaningful statistics.

Bibliographic references:

  • Dawkins, R. (2013). The mirage of God. Barcelona: Booket.