Here's a quiz you can try to see if your positions on atheism and religion are consistent [Battleground God]. Be careful, this quiz has many pitfalls. I took three hits and a bullet but it's not because I'm illogical, in my opinion. It's because questions can be interpreted in several different ways.Here's one of the questions that caused me trouble.
It is foolish to believe in God without certain, irrevocable proof that she exists.I answered "true." What I mean by that is that you require evidence to believe in something. What the authors of the study mean is that "certain, irrevocable proof" is inconsistent with my answer about evolution! They say,
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:I did, indeed, reply "true" to the statement that evolutionary theory is essentially true. But that's only because I wasn't given the option of replying to the statement that evolution is a fact. I accept evolution because there is certain proof that it exists. I assumed, incorrectly as it turns out, that they were using "evolutionary theory" as a synonym for "evolution."
Bite a bullet and claim that a higher standard of proof is required for belief in God than for belief in evolution.
Take a hit, conceding that there is a contradiction in your responses.
In order to be consistent I guess I should have replied that "evolutionary theory" is not essentially true.
Watch out for Question 15. It's also a trap.
Read the comments on FriendlyAtheist. Quite a few people got through the test with no hits. I wonder how they answered the question about evolution.
12 comments :
Interesting "quiz" I took one hit the 6/13 true-true trap as well. Here is question 6 "Evolutionary theory maybe false in some matters of detail, but it is essentially true." Seems obvious this is true, "maybe false in some areas" "is essentially true" what evidence contradicts this? Anyway I bit the bullet, because I believe 6 and 13 can both be true and be logically consistent.
I took the quiz (before reading your hints) and didn't take any hits or bullets. I think I answered "false" to "it is foolish to believe in God without certain, irrevocable proof that she exists". I think that the existence of God is a theory like any other and if we just had good evidence then belief would be reasonable. Certainty and irrevocable proof aren't necessary, just as they aren't necessary for belief in any other theory.
Not sure why, but it sounds like you answered a different question from the one they asked and got dinged as a result.
You answered the evolution question correctly, its the other that tripped you up. We don't have have irrevocable proof of anything in the real world and yet don't consider ourselves foolish to accept particular things as true. If there was as much evidence for God as there is for evolutionary theory then it would not be foolish to consider it true - its the fact that there's zero evidence for God that makes the belief foolish.
I didn't take any hits or bullets, and for the same reason as tyro and MartinC. We don't need absolute proof for any proposition before it becomes rational to believe it (in the sense of: accept its truth, acknowledging that tomorrow something may come
along which overturns that conclusion), only a preponderance of evidence.
martinc says,
You answered the evolution question correctly, its the other that tripped you up. We don't have have irrevocable proof of anything in the real world and yet don't consider ourselves foolish to accept particular things as true.
I think you're right in the sense that that the authors of the test agree with you. Here's the problem.
I think it's foolish to believe in something without evidence, as you say. As soon as there is solid factual evidence then that comes pretty close to "certain, irrevocable proof" in my mind but not in the minds of the authors of the question.
You could argue that nothing is ever proved beyond a shadow of a doubt—and I do argue that from time to time—in which case Question 13 has to be false.
The problem with quizes like this is that you have to guess what's going on in the minds of the authors. I'm not sure they have a logically consistent philosophy themselves. They should have asked whether there is "certain, irrevocable proof" that evolution exists in order to detect any logical inconsistencies.
Note that the very first question already poses a problem. You are asked whether God exists and the possible answers are "True," "False," and "I don't know." I answered "False" but my answer depends very much on who is asking the question. If it was John Wilkins asking the question I'd know that the correct answer is "I don't know" (with the caveat that the probability is extremely low).
The second question is also open to several interpretations ("If God does not exist then there is no basis for morality"). It depends on how you define morality. I tend to avoid that word in favor of "ethical behavior" because "morality" is closely associated with religion. The idea is that there is a certain absolute code of behavior (morals) that are laid down by a higher power. (This is one of the "proofs" of God, according to Frncis Collins.)
Thus, in one sense the statement is true. Atheists aren't "moral" but they are ethical.
For me, Question 9 becomes a problem ("Torturing innocent people is morally wrong.") I'd like to answer false because I don't like the word "morally." If they had just asked whether I favor torturing innocent people then the answer is much easier. (BTW, is there anyone who favors torturing innocent people?)
What did everyone think of Question 15?
The serial rapist Peter Sutcliffe had a firm, inner conviction that God wanted him to rape and murder prostitutes. He was, therefore, justified in believing that he was carrying out God's will in undertaking these actions.
To me this is obviously true because we are being asked to evaluate the logic of Peter Sutcliffe. There is no internal consistency in the conclusion he draws from the premise that God is talking to him.
But I took a direct hit ...
Earlier you claimed 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 that the rapist Peter Sutcliffe was justified in basing his beliefs about God's will solely on precisely such a conviction. That's a bull's-eye for the intellectual sniper!
Sorry, but the intellectual sniper didn't ask me whether Peter Sutcliffe was justified in believing that he should accept God on the basis of a firm inner conviction. It asked me whether people who answer "yes" to that question are being logically consistent when they act on that internal conviction.
Question 17 asks,
It is justifiable to believe in God if one has a firm, inner conviction that God exists, regardless of the external evidence, or lack of it, for the truth or falsity of the conviction that God exists.
Having answered "true" to the Peter Sutcliffe question, I took a direct hit on this one.
You claim that it is not justifiable to believe in God based only on inner-convictions, but earlier you stated that it was justifiable for the serial rapist to draw conclusions about God's will on the same grounds. If this form of justification is good enough for the rapist, why is it not good enough for the believer in God? There's an inconsistency here.
There is no inconsistency, in my opinion. It is still logical (justifiable) to draw a conclusion from a premise that you think is false. At least I think that's okay ... are there any philosophers in the house?
Larry,
WRT the rapist questions, they present a guy who has a "firm inner conviction" and then ask if it's justified to believe that this is sufficient to believe in its validity. We had both said that no, a firm inner conviction is not sufficient and evidence is required and I think that's all they're checking. It probably becomes clearer when you reverse the answers and say that a "firm inner conviction" is sufficient to form a belief, but then deny that this rapist's firm inner conviction is valid. We would both see that as hypocritical.
I wonder if, instead of answering the question they asked (whether the rapist's belief was valid), you were actually answering whether the rapist thought a firm inner conviction was sufficient to validate his belief. We both know that he thought that that his inner feelings were enough and we both know that theists think that their inner conviction is enough, but the question is asking whether we think their reasoning is valid. In both cases, I think we'd both say that a firm inner conviction (regardless of the evidence) is not adequate, as you'd said earlier.
Perhaps I'm misunderstanding your point.
I had a couple of problems with the quiz, I think because I treated the term 'God' as the traditional monotheistic God of religion. When I got to the end of the quiz I saw that they are trying to sell a book called 'The God of Philosophy'. Now that does make a difference. We are always told that the God of religion can do anything he wants and is all powerful. The God of philosophy is more limited and that is reflected in the way the site scores your answers.
"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!"
Beliefs about the external world (such as continental drift, for instance) are not the same as belief in a supernatural being. The latter indeed cannot be based on "external evidence".
I guess the tester wanted me to answer that I cannot know anything about the external world if not by inner convicition alone.
What an ass haha
@El Topo - why are beliefs about God any different than any other beliefs? Sounds like special pleading to me.
well, congratulations. You are as dumb as the guy who invented this test.
Beliveing in god does indeed take more special pleading than believing in continental drift. Or that rocks fall.
Post a Comment