Kenny

Note: I don't agree with all of the author's reasoning, but I did find the quiz interesting. I took it as a theist and took two hits as well as biting one bullet. I’m curious to see how non-theists do on it.

You can find it here:

<a href="http://www.philosophers.co.uk/games/god.htm" target="_blank">http://www.philosophers.co.uk/games/god.htm</a>

How did you do?

God Bless,
Kenny

Pomp

No hits, no bullets. I seem to remember taking this quiz some time ago and having to bite one bullet, but I'm not sure what I did differently this time.

Goliath

I bit two bullets, and took zero direct hits. I didn't completely agree with the authors' reasoning, either.

Sincerely,

Goliath

free12thinker

I emerged unscathed with the TPM Medal of Honour.
Whatever this means

uhcord

No hits and no bullets

Scrutinizer

Medal of Honour for me, too!

Bill Snedden

And I as well...

Kenny, out of curiousity, and if you don't mind sharing, what were your "hits" and "bullet"? If I recall correctly, these are supposed to indicate inconsistencies in answers to the questions posed. From what I saw, however, I would say that for most people it's more likely due to issues with how the questions are worded. I've never seen any inconsistency in your reasoning, so I'd bet on the latter rather than the former...

Bill

Kenny

Bill,

I’ll answer on the condition that I don’t have to further elaborate or defend my responses. These are complex questions which would take up more time than I have at the moment.

Well, here it is

I answered no. Taken as a general statment I disagree. I would agree, however, if the qualification “regardless of the external evidence” were removed -- it seems to me that a lot of beliefs we hold are justified on the basis of a firm inner conviction with no external evidence to support them at all. I believe that I did not eat breakfast this morning, for example, even though I have no external evidence what-so-ever to support this belief, only the firm inner conviction created by my memory that I did not. But, external evidence can be relevant to providing defeaters to such convictions. Suppose I discovered that I had accidentally ingested some sort of memory altering drug, for instance. Anyway, my answer here caused me to take a hit when I answered “true” to question 17.

I believe that belief in God, as a worldview defining belief, has a different sort of epistemological status than mundane factual claims, so in this instance, I do think belief in God is justified regardless of the external evidence.

I also got my self in trouble by answering “true” to question 14

I got in trouble because I argreed that it is justified to believe in the non-existence of the Loch-ness monster under these conditions. However, I do not think that the claim that God exists and the claim that the Loch-ness monster exists are the same types of claims, the existence of God being a claim about the nature of ultimate reality and the existence of the Loch-ness monster being a mere existential claim. To me, denial of the existence of God entails positive claims about the nature of ultimate reality.

I bit a bullet on question 11:

Yeah, I know that doesn’t settle well with most people on an emotional level, including me, but I do not believe that God would allow suffering without some morally justifiable reason to do so, which means that there is a greater good that such suffering must serve.

God Bless,
Kenny

[ May 08, 2002: Message edited by: Kenny ]</p>

hezekiah jones

Me too, and me neither.

Of course the rapist is justified in his actions, but his actions are externally unjustifiable.

Autonemesis

I don't think I can paraphrase what I bit the bullet over, so let me paste it: