

Are your beliefs consistent? Take the test... - anthonyb
http://www.philosophersnet.com/games/god.php

======
ziadbc
Was going well. However, one of my 'misses' had a logical flaw in it. I
previously responded that it is ok to believe something spiritually based on a
firm inner conviction, without external evidence. It then posed that a person
raped someone because an inner voice told them it was ok. I responded that
this was not ok. It said that I had now some logical conflict. This is not the
case. I said it was ok to believe in something without external evidence, I
did not say it was ok to act on those beliefs without external evidence. Huge
massive difference here.

Logical Fail Here: "Earlier you said that it is justifiable to base one's
beliefs about the external world on a firm, inner conviction, regardless of
the external evidence, or lack of it, for the truth or falsity of this
conviction. But now you do not accept that the rapist Peter Sutcliffe was
justified in doing just that. The example of the rapist has exposed that you
do not in fact agree that any belief is justified just because one is
convinced of its truth. So you need to revise your opinion here. The
intellectual sniper has scored a bull's-eye!"

~~~
cwp
Actually, the question was not whether Sutcliffe was justified in committing
rape, but whether he was justified in believing that he was doing the will of
God. If "firm inner conviction" justifies a belief, and Sutcliffe had firm
inner conviction, then Sutcliffe was justified in his belief.

~~~
tspiteri
Well, it's a bit like this:

1\. Is it justifiable to walk into a shop?

2\. John Does walked into a shop and murdered all present. Was he justified in
walking into the shop?

Answering yes to 1 and no to 2 is a contradiction in the same way. But, is it
really valid to separate the action of walking into the shop with the murder
of those present? Is it really valid to separate Sutcliffe's belief from his
actions?

~~~
cwp
To answer your questions, yes and yes. It's clearly possible to walk into a
shop without killing anyone, and the analogy to Sutcliffe holds: it's possible
to believe that God wants you to rape and murder prostitutes, without actually
doing it.

Condoning rape and murder only comes into play if you also answer that God is
the source of all morality. In that case, doing God's will is by definition
moral, and if he wants you to rape and murder, well, you bite the bullet.

------
ckuehne
Question 12 asks: "If God exists she could make it so that everything now
considered sinful becomes morally acceptable and everything that is now
considered morally good becomes sinful.".

Which I deem to be true. I earlier responded "God does not exists". So there
really is not contradiction as claimed by the game

"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."

since I deem the premise of question 12 false (God does not exist). Again "If
God exists than she can do such and such ..." is always true if God does not
exist.

Furthermore I also think there might be a semantical problem in the analysis.
The game did not establish that sin implies suffering.

------
timcederman
_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._

It is foolish to believe in something with zero evidence for it. Whether it's
the celestial teacup or invisible pink unicorns. That's quite different to
physical evidence of evolution.

The author of this test loves playing semantic games.

~~~
andymorris
I think it's getting at: say you had more actual evidence for the God theory
than you did for evolution. Your response seems to indicate that you would
STILL prefer evolution, as you would require _certain, irrevocable_ proof for
God. Your previous response said that you didn't need that level of proof for
evolution, hence it states your views are logically inconsistent.

I made the same "mistake", as I intended to imply that I would need "very
strong" (but not "certain" proof) for the God theory.

Basically, the question's are a bit ambiguous (especially with only True/False
responses), but logically I think the site is correct.

\-- Ayjay on Fedang

~~~
timcederman
The previous question said "Is evolution essentially true?" Well, yes. Plenty
of physical evidence for it.

I read the question as "Do you need actual evidence to believe in a God." I
say yes. I don't see how my views are conflicted there - evidence means
something is "true" (ah, but what is the definition of truth? We end up going
down the rabbit hole about evidence, models, likely truths, etc)

~~~
ugh
I think the important word here is "irrevocable". Saying you don't need
irrevocable evidence doesn't mean you don't need any evidence. Irrevocable
seems to me to be pretty much the same as unfalsifiable which doesn't make
much sense and would not be good evidence for the existence of god.

------
Deestan
A useful and somewhat though-provoking test.

But, it feels really _frustrating_ not being able to argue back; especially
when the test starts claiming logical conclusions regarding my beliefs and
opinions based on technical definitions ("irrevocable proof", "justifiable",
etc) that I disagree with. :-)

~~~
sliverstorm
You don't have to get very technical to use the meaning of "irrevocable
proof". Interpreting the definition to mean 'proof that cannot be refuted' is
pretty straightforward, and not a technicality at all.

~~~
anthonyb
I'm not so sure that "irrevocable proof" really makes that much sense. How do
you prove something and then revoke it?

Something like "irrefutable proof" would be better.

~~~
Deestan
Yes, that's what I meant to write. English is such a moving target.

------
loup-vaillant
I got a direct hit because of a contradiction between question 5 (I answered
true) and question 16 (I answered false).

Actually question 16 strikes me as meaningless. If god "creates" something,
that something must be a physical thing, which potentially influences our
world (unlike the Dragon in the proverbial garage). That, or I misunderstood
the meaning of "create".

Squares and circles are _not_ physical things. They are mathematical concepts.
We don't create them, we _imagine_ them. Likewise, the fact that 1+1=2 (and
not 72) is only based on mathematical concepts. Actually 1+1=2 is not even a
fact, that's a tautology. It says _nothing_ about our world[1].

Of course, an omnipotent God could totally make us believe that 1+1=72, or
that square circles actually exist in our world. But that wouldn't make it
true. That just would make us irrational.

[1]: the concept itself says nothing, but of course, the fact that we thought
the concept says a _lot_ about us and our universe.

~~~
ugh
I don't think you really believe that god can do anything. Wouldn't a god that
can do anything truly be able to do anything, even logically inconsistent
things?

You to me seem to believe that god can do a great many things but not
anything. Your answer to 5 doesn't seem to be your actual belief.

~~~
loup-vaillant
First, I don't believe in God, so this isn't a matter of belief but a matter
of definition.

Second, I have no problem with God creating a world where the principle of
contradiction doesn't hold. What I have a problem with, is God modifying a
realm that depend only on a set of fixed definitions. This is not impossible,
this is _unthinkable_.

Also, we have complete control over such realms. These are just concepts.
There is no notion of "can" or "can't" there. Mathematical realms are just
self consistent. By definition. So, talking about what God "can" or "can't" do
in these realms is meaningless.

------
torial
Just worth highlighting this (as a lot of discussion seems to be on the
bullets and contradictions):

Rules of the game

The aim of the game is to get across the intellectual battleground unscathed.
There are two types of injury you can suffer.

A direct hit occurs when you answer in a way which implies a logical
contradiction. We have been very careful to make sure that only strict
contradictions result in a direct hit. However, we do make two caveats.

First, because you only have choices between pre-selected and carefully worded
statements, you might find that you have taken a direct hit because the
statement closest to your own conviction leads into a contradiction. However,
had you phrased the statement yourself, you may have been able to avoid the
contradiction while expressing a very similar belief.

Such possibilities are unavoidable given the constraints on the game. We
merely ask that you do not take it personally if you suffer a direct hit and
don't get too frustrated if the choices we offer you sometimes seem to force
you into a choice you'd rather not make.

You have to bite a bullet if your choices have an implication that most would
find strange, incredible or unpalatable. There is more room for disagreement
here, since what strikes many people as extraordinary or bizarre can strike
others as normal. So, again, please do not get too upset if we judge you have
bitten a bullet. Maybe it is our world-view which is warped!

------
dkersten
_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._

This is stupid. I said that god COULD change what is considered sinful and
that god would WANT to minimize suffering. Being able to do something isn't a
contradiction with wanting something else if they never do it. I'm ABLE to
kick the cat, but I don't WANT to hurt it - my beliefs about the cat aren't a
contradiction.

I never said that such a god would change the definition of sin to make
decreasing suffering a sin, just that they would be able to and wouldn't want
to. Where is the contradiction?

~~~
Locke1689
You're right, the explanation of the contradiction is poor. The true
contradiction is that your definition of sin is arbitrary -- if God simply
decides what is "sin" and that definition is in and of itself malleable, what
makes an action "sinful?"

Tomorrow I will see if I have my Socrates texts. I think he spoke about this
in the _Creeto_ (piety under the Gods).

~~~
dkersten
If god couldn't redefine sin, then god would not be all powerful, which, in my
opinion, is a requirement of being considered "god".

------
sgift
I have not taken any direct hits, but three bullets. Which means (slightly
paraphrased): Your beliefs are consistent, but people may find them strange
(sometimes). I'm still trying to analyze if this is a problem.

------
cwp
I escaped unscathed, but I will say this: I was squirming as I answered a lot
of the questions. Having denied the existence of God, how am I to have an
opinion the nature of divinity?

But it made me realize that I'm actually more sympathetic to the notion of God
than I had thought. Apparently, a preponderance of evidence suggesting the
existence of a very wise and powerful being would be enough to make me a
believer. That's a much lower bar than I would have expected.

~~~
Locke1689
Is that not the most logical answer? I am an atheist (and philosopher) only
because there is no direct evidence for the existence of God. If extraordinary
evidence would present itself to the contrary (e.g., lightning striking Mount
Rushmore to write out, "I AM THE LORD, YOUR GOD") I'd have some serious
praying to do.

------
Locke1689
No hits, but only because I'm familiar with the questions being posed. For
example, the statement about God being able to do anything was clearly an
allusion to the Philosopher's God (i.e., most agree that the Philosopher's God
can perform any action which is logically possible). Similarly, the question
about "God exists. True/False" is clearly designed to get someone to make a
straight statement about the existence of God, which the only logical answer
is "unknown." The question about moral justification in absence of a God is
tricky, mainly because of the wording. The wording implies that there can be
no moral system outside of a theological system. Technically, it's not that
there is no moral system, but only that all moral systems are essentially
equivalent in fundamental foundation. This is ideally trying to trap one in
the same well that Kant fell into.

------
thingsinjars
The line of questioning struck me as odd, roughly paraphrased as:

"Does god exist?"

"No"

"Erm, well, _if_ god existed, what would the nature of god be?"

Isn't that following an irrelevant line of enquiry?

------
Tichy
Hm, it does not even use the same logic I do. I don't believe anything. There
are just likelihoods (or proofs).

So how am I supposed to answer "is it rational to believe that Nessie does not
exist if there has never been any evidence for it"? I don't think it is likely
that Nessie exists, but I can not prove the opposite either. So I can not
claim to believe that Nessie does not exist.

~~~
ugh
Sure, there are only liklihoods, I can never be absolutly sure of, well,
anything, really. Defining 'truth' as something I am absolutly certain of
wouldn't make much sense.

But why should I define 'truth' that way? I have no problem calling something
'true' which merely has a high enough liklihood. It's a useful approximation,
it basically dichotomizes a scale which is quite often pretty useful.

I also don't have many semantic worries. We seem to be well aware of the
double character of 'truth' and usually say something like 'absolute truth'
when we refer to statements of which someone is absolutly certain.

------
ThomPete
There are so many problems with this test.

For instance. It sets up evolutionary theory as a true false theory.

But evolutionary theory is a model to explain phenomena. It's neither true nor
false. (I say that as an atheist btw.)

Edit: Instead of just down voting why don't you come forward with an argument?

~~~
loup-vaillant
You play with the words too much here. _Any_ theory is a mere model, except
fundamental physics. But the evolutionary theory is accurate enough to be
called "true", don't you think?

~~~
revolvingcur
What makes fundamental physics an exception to your rule? How fundamental
would a "model" need to be to no longer be a model? It seems to me that the
explicit purpose of physics is to create ever more detailed models of what
happens next at various degree of detail, but there's no "there" down there to
ultimately declare as actual reality, just our empirical descriptions
(models).

~~~
loup-vaillant
EDIT: I actually agree with you. Maybe I shouldn't have made an exception of
physics in the first place.

That's because fundamental physics _seeks_ to be the ultimate explanation for
everything. (A bit like 42 :-) As far as I know, every other theories about
our world are meant to be tractable models, instead of the real thing.
Evolution theory is an example. Fluid mechanics is another. We could try to
explain them in terms of string theory, but that would hardly help us in
finding new fossils, or build a safe plane.

~~~
ThomPete
That they seek it doesn't mean it's so.

Kuhn and Popper for instance is in disagreement about what making a model more
precise means.

Seeking a model that is without doubt is simply fools gold if you ask me. It's
assuming certainty where none really exist.

~~~
loup-vaillant
> That they seek it doesn't mean it's so.

True. I got carried away.

> Seeking a model that is without doubt is simply fools gold

Seeking something doesn't mean we assume that we will find it. The fact that
it's unattainable doesn't mean it isn't worth pursuing. Like perfection.

~~~
ThomPete
It might just be a matter of semantics or taste, but what about just seeking
better predictability. How is that leaving us worse of?

Truth, objective, rational etc. is covered with all sorts of baggage.

~~~
loup-vaillant
> How is that leaving us worse of?

It doesn't. I just haven't thought of this "third alternative".

------
harrys
this is very logical. Well built and programed. But humans are not logical.
You ask questions for the reason to contradict. The fact the Sutcliffe raped
people based on that God told him to...Uhm I dont think so. Ask your self
this, if this "God" told him to do so; then who is this God? If you read in
the bible it sais who God is. And that is not who God is, love does not harm
any one. God did not tell him this, unfortunately he was fooled. Making the
Q's not valid IMO

~~~
harrys
A proof only becomes a proof after the social act of “accepting it as a
proof”.

------
Mathnerd314
Definitely helped me to refine my beliefs a bit; finally got by unscathed:
TFFFFTFFTTFFFFFFF

