When it comes to religion, are you a hypocrite?

[Vesayen]

"You have reached the end!

Congratulations! You have made it to the end of this activity.

You took zero direct hits and you bit 1 bullets. The average player of this activity to date takes 1.37 hits and bites 1.09 bullet. 113438 people have so far undertaken this activity.

Click the link below for further analysis of your performance and to see if you've won an award."


I think it is rigged in a way...you cant get a perfect score but I came close.

The question about "If God is God, then he can make 1+1=72, and make a squarecircle".

I put true, because a defining atribute of God, if he exists is that he can do anything, he DEFINES what logic is..... they say I am saying God can do the logically impossible, that is however NOT what I am saying, I am saying one of the defining atributes of God is for him to set the cosmic rules, logic included.

Out of curiosity, I went back and tried false...... that gave an even worse explination, and another bullet.

[Alexander's Horse]

Hmmm I bit a bullet and had 2 hits, all at the end. The reason being I don't apply the same reasoning to thinking about the Lochness monster and mass murderers as I do to thinking about God.

I stand by my answers.

[General Ludd]

One direct hit (mainly because it was a grey area for me)

Direct Hit 1

You answered "True" to questions 10 and 14.

These answers generated the following response:

You've just taken a direct hit! Earlier you agreed that it is rational to believe that the Loch Ness monster does not exist if there is an absence of strong evidence or argument that it does. No strong evidence or argument was required to show that the monster does not exist - absence of evidence or argument was enough. But now you claim that the atheist needs to be able to provide strong arguments or evidence if their belief in the non-existence of God is to be rational rather than a matter of faith.

The contradiction is that on the first ocassion (Loch Ness monster) you agreed that the absence of evidence or argument is enough to rationally justify belief in the non-existence of the Loch Ness monster, but on this occasion (God), you do not.

And bitten one bullet. (I'm surprised I didn't get more )

Bitten Bullet 1

You answered "True" to questions 7, and 15.

These answers generated the following response:

You've just bitten a bullet! You are consistent in applying the principle 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 this conviction. The problem is that it seems you have to accept that people might be justified in their belief that God could demand something terrible.

This is something many religious people are willing to accept. For example, Kierkegaard believed that it is precisely because Abraham had to contravene established morality to follow God's will and attempt to sacrifice his son which made his act the supreme act of faith.

But as Kierkegaard also stressed, this makes the act incomprehensible from a rational point of view. The rational alternative - that people should require more than such an inner conviction to justify such a belief - is more attractive to most people, but you reject this alternative and bite the bullet.

[Alexander's Horse]

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.

This is complete nonsense - God can be rationally discussed even if there are aspects of God which may be based on conviction or faith. One cannot confinediscussion of God to the physical reality we know - which may nothing more than a thought in God's mind.

I think the logic in this is very lame.

The great theologists, Aquinas, Augustine, were masters of Greek logic.

[yavoon]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


Yup. The chance is merely 2¹⁷. Have fun



Actually, you could believe in a finite god. It should work out the same.

a finite god is a silly half measure. cuz then ur left w/ the obvious question of who made him. I don't see what good at all a finite god does anyone.

[yavoon]

Originally posted by Rogan Josh
Unfortuately this test is riddled with logical errors. For example, it claims that non-belief in the Loch Ness monster (since there is no evidence) should lead to non-belief in God (even if there were no evidence).

Duh!

I think they are only pointed out that standards of proof applied haphazardly is a logical inconsistency. religious ppl often want to have special exemptions. and that urks them when ppl call them on it.

[yavoon]

Originally posted by Sirotnikov
I agree with Rogan, Edan and Azazel.


I myself suffered 1 direct hit and bit two bullets.

Direct Hit 1

You answered "False" to Question 7 and "True" to Question 17.

These answers generated the following response:

You've just taken a direct hit! Earlier you said that it is not justifiable to base one's beliefs about the external world on a firm, inner conviction, paying no regard to the external evidence, or lack of it, for the truth or falsity of this conviction, but now you say it's justifiable to believe in God on just these grounds. That's a flagrant contradiction!

As said before, God is assumed to have omnipotence thus making imperical research of his nature pretty meaningless.

Bitten Bullet 1

You answered "False" to Questions 10 and "True" to Question 14.

These answers generated the following response:

You've just bitten a bullet! You say that if there are no compelling arguments or evidence that show that God does not exist, then atheism is a matter of faith, not rationality. Therefore, it seems that you do not think that the mere absence of evidence for the existence of God is enough to justify believing that she does not exist. This view is also suggested by your earlier claim that it is not rational to believe that the Loch Ness monster does not exist even if, despite years of trying, no evidence has been presented to suggest that it does exist.

There is no logical inconsistency in your answers. But by denying that the absence of evidence, even where it has been sought, is enough to justify belief in the non-existence of things, you are required to countenance possibilities that most people would find bizarre. For example, do you really want to claim that it is not rationally justified to believe that intelligent aliens do not live on Mars?

As said before, god's assumed omnipotence makes this irrelevant.

Furthermore, I'm willing to bet 100$ that when NASA finds remains of intelligent life on Mars in the next 20 years, no one will have remembered this test

Bitten Bullet 2

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.

This is again not directly linked to rational but much more to empirical evidence.

You can discuss god using apriori notions but empirical evidence are false.

Just as no empirical evidence can say if the color orange is prettier than blue. It's a matter of personal conviction. Empirical methods do not apply.

certainly it appears u can define god in any way u wish. but what fun(or point?) is there in defining a god away from any discussion? I mean its certainly plausible to simply say ur god can escape all detection or logic. but it really leaves u w/ a conundrum of why u believe in such a being in the first place.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Ecthelion
and atheism isn't not believing in god but being hostile to believing in god

Not at all. Atheism connotes no hostility whatsoever. Why get hostile about something in which I don't believe?

As for the test, I took one hit, but I protest:

You've just taken a direct hit!

Earlier you said that it is not justifiable to base one's beliefs about the external world on a firm, inner conviction, paying no regard to the external evidence, or lack of it, for the truth or falsity of this conviction, but now you say it's justifiable to believe in God on just these grounds. That's a flagrant contradiction!

This is not a necessarily a contradiction, depending on one's definition of God.

[yavoon]

I am pleasantly shocked by the amount of ppl who take objection w/ taking direct hits. its quite interesting.

[Drake Tungsten]

The reason being I don't apply the same reasoning to thinking about the Lochness monster and mass murderers as I do to thinking about God.

I stand by my answers.

Same thing for me. The Loch Ness monster question, in particular, was pretty stupid. One would think that an omnipotent deity might be a little more skilled at avoiding detection that a prehistoric lizard trapped in some Scottish lake, but the Swede obviously doesn't agree with that common sense logic.

[Boris Godunov]

I wouldn't have objected if I hadn't found their rationale flawed, because I am perfectly content having a few inconsistent beliefs. Consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds, etc.

[Boris Godunov]

Supposing they had said the invisible unicorn who lives on the Moon instead of the Lochness Monster. Would that make it better?

[yavoon]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
I wouldn't have objected if I hadn't found their rationale flawed, because I am perfectly content having a few inconsistent beliefs. Consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds, etc.

yes being able to hold two contradictory beliefs in ur head at the same time is a truly valuable trait. athletes is a great example.

but I think we'd have to know how badly u fool around w/ the definition of god to see what your beliefs actually come out too. ur caveat at the end of "depends on ur definition of god." doesn't instill great confidence in me since lots of things can be hidden in bizarre definitions.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by yavoon
but I think we'd have to know how badly u fool around w/ the definition of god to see what your beliefs actually come out too. ur caveat at the end of "depends on ur definition of god." doesn't instill great confidence in me since lots of things can be hidden in bizarre definitions.

The problem is that when they asked the question, they didn't set any limit or definition of "God." Some people define God in bizarre ways, after all.

[Boris Godunov]

Oh, and Edan et al, they addressed your exact objections about the Loch Ness Monster in the FAQ:

What are you going on about the Loch Ness monster for, surely you're just confused?

The Loch Ness Monster/atheism comparison has to do with the oft heard claim of theists that atheism must be a faith because there isn't any evidence or compelling argument for the non-existence of God. It's the "you can't prove God doesn't exist, so believing that she doesn't is not rational" argument.

So question 14 is: As long as there are no compelling arguments or evidence that show that God does not exist, atheism is a matter of faith, not rationality.

This amounts to the following claim: In the absence of argument or evidence to show that God doesn't exist, atheism is faith.

Or, more formally (but, before I'm jumped on, not formal in the "formal logic" sense):

If there is no evidence for not-P, then belief in not-P is faith (where P is God's existence).

So what's this got to do with the Loch Ness monster? Well, question 10 is:

If, despite years of trying, no strong evidence or argument has been presented to show that there is a Loch Ness monster, it is rational to believe that such a monster does not exist.

At first sight, this is a different kind of question. It's asking about evidence for the existence of something, not the non-existence of something.

But, of course, that's the whole point.

If you answer "True" to question 10, then you're committed to the view that evidence for the non-existence of Nessie is not required in order to come to the conclusion that the monster does not exist; that is, evidence of absence is not required - rather, in certain circumstances, absence of evidence is enough to conclude that Nessie does not exist. In other words, the fact that there are no compelling arguments or evidence to show that Nessie does not exist (and now we have equivalence with question 14) is not, in and of itself, sufficient to rule out, in principle, a justified belief in Nessie's non-existence.

So returning to question 14 - if you answer "True" to question 10, to remain consistent you have to answer false to question 14. The point is that there are circumstances where it might be rational to believe in the non-existence of God, even in the absence of compelling arguments or evidence to show that God does not exist. These circumstances might include: where science uncovers all the secrets of the universe, understanding its origins and final destiny; where we find out (positively) that our existence and the universe's is the product of some entity that we wouldn't want to call God (which, of course, is not itself positive evidence for the non-existence of God).

2. That's all very well, you say, but the Loch Ness monster isn't the same kind of thing as God - and, in principle, God is the kind of entity that might forever be beyond our knowledge.

This response gets caught in a pincer movement. But the argument is quite involved - and it would be disingenuous to claim that our rejoinder is decisive!

The essence of the objection is this: Nessie is a physical entity, in a confined space, so the presence or absence of Nessie is verifiable in a way that God's is not.

At first sight, this seems reasonable, although some people will feel slightly uneasy at the idea that it is possible to make definitive claims about an entity which might not exist.

So what's the problem?

Well, imagine yourself confronted by a Nessie non-existence sceptic. They're part of some Nessie worshipping cult (and remember that many people do believe truly bizarre things, so this is not entirely gratuitous)! And they say to you: "Sure, Nessie is a physical entity, but it has the rather extraordinary (indeed unique - and possibily mystical) ability to remain forever beyond detection."

How does one respond? Well, it is extremely difficult - indeed it is probably impossible - to disprove this proposition. But equally, most people would consider it absurd to continue to believe in Nessie, if, for example, the whole of Loch Ness was drained of water, and at the bottom one found no Nessie, but a large Nessie shaped submersible.

If this is right (we're correctly reporting how most people would react), it means that most people don't require the absolute, beyond all possibility, refutation of a non-existence sceptic's challenge, even where this challenge involves a mystical, beyond human knowledge, component, in order to discount it, and to conclude that belief in the non-existence of an entity is rational.

What's this got to do with God? Well, it has to do with God, because the can't prove the non-existence of God move, in certain circumstances, is analogous to the Nessie non-existence sceptic move. It is so, in those circumstances mentioned above (whilst discussing objection 1): where science uncovers all the secrets of the universe, understanding its origins and final destiny; where we find out (positively) that our existence and the universe's is the product of some entity that we wouldn't want to call God, etc.

In other words, it is analogous to the Nessie non-existence sceptic move, in those circumstances where we don't require further explanations of the universe and our place in it.

Okay, so many of you are not going to be convinced. You'll say, but God is a different kind of thing from Nessie. Well, to that, the Nessie non-existence sceptic will reply - "No, she's not; not in the important sense that absence of evidence is never enough to justify belief in the monster's non-existence"; and the atheist will reply, "Hey, you didn't allow the Nessie non-existence sceptic to make that move, so how come you get to make it"? And this is the pincer movement. Sure, it is always possible to claim that God is, in principle, and in all circumstances, forever opaque to us - but you can't do this and deny the Nessie non-existence sceptic the same move. Or, to put it another way, you can claim that it is possible to make reasonable assumptions about Nessie's non-existence, but only if you concede that there might be circumstances where one can do the same about God's non-existence.

The final point to mention is that it is of no consequence that we might not yet be at the point where it is possible to make the reasonable assumption that lack of evidence for God's existence justifies atheism. The conditional in the question was not qualified (i.e., it didn't say something like: "Given the state of knowledge about the universe today, as long as there are no compelling...).