Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Jesse · 04-13-2003, 07:55 AM

...and see how consistent your beliefs are:

http://www.philosophers.co.uk/games/god.htm

Quote:

Can your beliefs about religion make it across our intellectual battleground?

In this activity you�ll be asked a series of 17 questions about God and religion. In each case, apart from Question 1, you need to answer True or False. The aim of the activity is not to judge whether these answers are correct or not. Our battleground is that of rational consistency. This means to get across without taking any hits, you�ll need to answer in a way which is rationally consistent. What this means is you need to avoid choosing answers which contradict each other. If you answer in a way which is rationally consistent but which has strange or unpalatable implications, you�ll be forced to bite a bullet.

Nowhere357 · 04-13-2003, 09:03 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Jesse
...and see how consistent your beliefs are:

http://www.philosophers.co.uk/games/god.htm

Perfect score! I am pleased way out of proportion to my accomplishment.

Some of the questions required two or three readings.
I was bothered by question 12 which I thought demanded an "I don't know" but of course there wasn't one.

I'm glad god was called "she" because IMO, the creator of life would be closer to female, than male.

I think atheists will have an easier time than theists, and fundies will probably get hurt.

Cool site. Thanks!

beastmaster · 04-13-2003, 09:51 AM

As an atheist, I found several of the questions impossible to answer. What the heck does "justifiable" mean? Sure, the serial rapist may be "able to justify" his behavior because of a belief in god, but that doesn't mean I agree with him, approve of him, or think he shouldn't be punished.

Jesse · 04-13-2003, 10:00 AM

I think they just mean "justifiable according to your own system of morality"--if you were hearing voices from God telling you to commit a crime, and you had a strong feeling it was real but you were still sane and able to look at your own situation from a third-person perspective, would you consider yourself "justified" in acting on it? I guess this presupposes that you already have a somewhat well-thought out system for deciding when a belief or an action is "justified" or not.

diana · 04-13-2003, 10:12 AM

Which means my ideas about "God" may be considered unpalatable by many people. No kidding.

Don't read what follows until after you've taken the test yourself!

Quote:

Bitten Bullet 1

You answered "True" to questions 4 and 12.

These answers generated the following response:

You claimed earlier that any being which it is right to call God must want there to be as little suffering in the world as possible. But you say that God could make it so that everything now considered sinful becomes morally acceptable and everything that is now considered morally good becomes sinful. What this means is that God could make the reduction of suffering a sin... yet you've said that God must want to reduce suffering. There is a way out of this, but it means biting a bullet. So you've got to make a choice: (a) Bite the bullet and say that it is possible that God wants what is sinful (to reiterate the argument here - she must want to reduce suffering; she could make the reduction of suffering a sin; but if she did so, what she wanted (reducing suffering) would be sinful). (b) Take a direct hit and say that this is an area where your beliefs are just in contradiction.

You chose to bite the bullet.

If biting the bullet means acknowledging that the defining characteristics of "God" leads us to this sort of logical problem, I bite bullets every day and am none the worse for wear.

Quote:

****************

Bitten Bullet 2

You answered "True" to questions 6 and 13.

These answers generated the following response:

You stated earlier that evolutionary theory is essentially true. However, you have now claimed that it is foolish to believe in God without certain, irrevocable proof that she exists. The problem is that there is no certain proof that evolutionary theory is true - even though there is overwhelming evidence that it is true. So it seems that you require certain, irrevocable proof for God's existence, but accept evolutionary theory without certain proof. So you've got a choice: (a) Bite a bullet and claim that a higher standard of proof is required for belief in God than for belief in evolution. (b) Take a hit, conceding that there is a contradiction in your responses.

You chose to bite the bullet.

No problem. I could have read closer and avoided this, it appears, but being offered "overwhelming evidence" in the proof of God's existence was not offered as a choice. I goofed in saying that "certain, irrevocable proof" is required for anything. I'm not even sure what that means.

Quote:

****************

Bitten Bullet 3

You answered "True" to Question 16.

This answer generated the following response:

You've just bitten a bullet! In saying that God has the freedom and power to do that which is logically impossible (like creating square circles), you are saying that any discussion of God and ultimate reality cannot be constrained by basic principles of rationality. This would seem to make rational discourse about God impossible. If rational discourse about God is impossible, there is nothing rational we can say about God and nothing rational we can say to support our belief or disbelief in God. To reject rational constraints on religious discourse in this fashion requires accepting that religious convictions, including your religious convictions, are beyond any debate or rational discussion. This is to bite a bullet.

I disagree with the conclusion I boldfaced, unless you place your emphasis on seem. Saying God has the freedom and power to do that which is logically impossible is saying God's omnipotent, which is consistent with other questions I answered. I never claimed omnipotence is a rational, coherent concept, though.

Interesting quiz.

d

beastmaster · 04-13-2003, 10:27 AM

Quote:

I think they just mean "justifiable according to your own system of morality"

Oh. I thought they meant rationally justifiable, not morally justifiable.

Anyway, interesting stuff.

copernicus · 04-13-2003, 10:46 AM

Medal of Honor!

Jesse · 04-13-2003, 01:09 PM

diana:
Saying God has the freedom and power to do that which is logically impossible is saying God's omnipotent

Maybe. But the blogger who I learned about this game had a different opinion on the meaning of "omnipotence" which makes more sense to me:

Quote:

Battleground God (via Brian Weatherson ) accused me of being inconsistent because I said that �Any being which it is right to call God must be free to do anything� and �Any being which it is right to call God must have the power to do anything� were true while �If God exists she could create square circles and make 1 + 1 = 72� was false. I see what the game is trying to say, but I don�t think there�s any consistency here. The reason God couldn�t make square circles isn�t that this would be some kind of limit on the powers of an otherwise omnipotent God, it�s just that �square circle� doesn�t mean anything. God�s inability to make square circles is like God�s inability to create szlactons, not like my inability to build a refrigerator. It�s not that God lacks the capacity to do it, it�s just that the sentence �God could create a szlacton� doesn�t attribute anything meaningful to God.

Perhaps, then, I shouldn�t have said that �If God exists she could create square circles and make 1 + 1 = 72� was false, maybe I should have said that the sentence was non-truth-evaluable, but they didn�t give that option. At any rate, I think Russell was probably right when he said �the present king of France is bald� is false, so I think I�ll stick with my original answer. �Square circle� fails to refer, and including a non-referential term in your sentence makes it false.

diana · 04-13-2003, 01:15 PM

Yes. And so we're back in no time flat to beating the horse of omnipotence. She still has life in 'er yet, it seems....

d

Gurdur · 04-13-2003, 02:11 PM

Perfect score.

Quote:

99777 people have completed this activity to date.
You suffered zero direct hits and bit zero bullets.
This compares with the average player of this activity to date who takes 1.37 hits and bites 1.09 bullets.
7.57% of the people who have completed this activity, like you, emerged unscathed with the TPM Medal of Honour.
46.90% of the people who have completed this activity took very little damage and were awarded the TPM Medal of Distinction.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

04-13-2003, 09:51 AM	#3
beastmaster Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Madrid / I am a: Lifelong atheist Posts: 885	As an atheist, I found several of the questions impossible to answer. What the heck does "justifiable" mean? Sure, the serial rapist may be "able to justify" his behavior because of a belief in god, but that doesn't mean I agree with him, approve of him, or think he shouldn't be punished.

04-13-2003, 10:00 AM	#4
Jesse Moderator - Science Discussions Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: Providence, RI, USA Posts: 9,908	I think they just mean "justifiable according to your own system of morality"--if you were hearing voices from God telling you to commit a crime, and you had a strong feeling it was real but you were still sane and able to look at your own situation from a third-person perspective, would you consider yourself "justified" in acting on it? I guess this presupposes that you already have a somewhat well-thought out system for deciding when a belief or an action is "justified" or not.

04-13-2003, 10:46 AM	#7
copernicus Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Bellevue, WA Posts: 1,531	Medal of Honor!

04-13-2003, 01:15 PM	#9
diana Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Colorado Springs Posts: 6,471	Yes. And so we're back in no time flat to beating the horse of omnipotence. She still has life in 'er yet, it seems.... d

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.