Battleground God

[ciphergoth]

Most of you will already have played

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


I played, and got the text

Earlier you claimed that it is justifiable to base one's beliefs about the external world on a firm, inner conviction without any external evidence for the truth of these convictions. But now you say that it is foolish to believe in God without certain, irrevocable proof that God exists. A firm, inner conviction can never be certain proof, since we know that people have firm inner convictions about things which are false.

I didn't mean just any conviction! I meant the Principle of Induction, which I believe to be a justified way to reach conclusions about the world even though evidence for it is impossible!

Oh yes, and as for the question "Torturing innocent people is morally wrong"...

Comments

[booklectica]

'The fact that you progressed through this activity being hit only once and biting very few bullets suggests that your beliefs about God are well thought out and almost entirely internally consistent.'

Interesting test. I would go into it further but there is a small sandpapery tongue licking my leg, which makes it difficult to think.

[adjectivemarcus.livejournal.com]

Simon home early?

[lizw.livejournal.com]

"You took 0 direct hits and you bit 1 bullets. The average player of this activity to date takes 1.28 hits and bites 1.06 bullets. 6349 people have so far undertaken this activity."

Apparently biting bullets isn't considered a good thing - it disqualified me for the top medal and got me the second level instead. Personally, I was rather proud of my bitten bullet ;-)

Morality

[cairmen.livejournal.com]

I believe that they were defining "morality" as "a system of behaviour based on a religious conviction", as opposed to "ethics", which are " a system of behavour based on logical philosophical principles". That's certainly how I was defining it.

[aegidian]

How did you do compared to other people?


* 6356 people have completed this activity to date.
* You suffered 0 direct hits and bit 3 bullets.
* This compares with the average player of this activity to date who takes 1.28 hits and bites 1.06 bullets.
* 35.97% of the people who have completed this activity have, like you, been awarded the TPM Service Medal.
* 7.72% of the people who have completed this activity emerged unscathed with the TPM Medal of Honour.
* 50.24% of the people who have completed this activity took very little damage and were awarded the TPM Medal of Distinction.

The test isn't very consistent for anyone who consider Gods (plural) to have a variety of human-like powers and limitations and I resent having to bite bullets for asserting that absence of evidence does not equate to evidence of absence.

[ciphergoth.livejournal.com]

Which bullet did you bite? Doing the test the second time around, interpreting the question that got me my direct hits the way they meant it, I bit one bullet: I require a higher standard of evidence for God than for ordinary scientific assertions, like evolution.

One hit, no bullets

[mrph.livejournal.com]

For which I blame Nessie. Ooops.

[stonehan.livejournal.com]

Oh, this was fun.

Congratulations!
You have been awarded the TPM medal of distinction! This is our second highest award for outstanding service on the intellectual battleground.

The fact that you progressed through this activity without being hit and biting only one bullet suggests that your beliefs about God are internally consistent and well thought out.

I'm proud of my bullet too: why should the logical conclusions of belief always be palatable?

[ajva.livejournal.com]

Yes, I bit that one. But I don't think they were being fair or indeed entirely logical. They don't allow for evidence you may already have, or what you do with it. :o)

[mhw.livejournal.com]

*grin* One bitten bullet, no hits. I didn't realise I'd internalised my Spinoza quite so well.

[lizw.livejournal.com]

"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."

Well, yes, but that doesn't mean that others weren't justified in believing that it was right to stop him and lock him up for a very long time.

[lizw.livejournal.com]

I answered consistently with the gods having various human attributes and didn't get any hits or bullets for it... On the absence of evidence thing, I think you and I actually have much the same beliefs, so my guess is you were reading more into words like "rational" than they intended (or I was reading in less than they intended, I supppose). Absence of evidence does mean that it's rational to believe in the absence of the whatever-it-is; it just doesn't follow that it's necessarily irrational to believe in its presence. I answered accordingly and came through those questions okay.

Re: Morality

[lizw.livejournal.com]

I didn't get a hit for saying that it was possible to have morality without God, so I don't think that can have been it. Maybe they thought one of your later answers was inconsistent? Or am I misunderstanding your point? If so, forgive me - I'm very tired today.

[wechsler.livejournal.com]

As ever I have issues with the definition of "belief" used here. In their sense it seems to be a discrete quantity - either you believe in something absolutely or you don't believe in it. Personally I tend to qualify my beliefs by probability - I consider it unlikely but not impossible that Nessie exists, but without absolute proof, that's an issue of faith - albeit a rational one. Likewise I hold atheism to be a rational issue of faith; but the quiz forces you to chose either "rationality" or "faith" and fails to consider a bitten bullet there. All in all, this quiz just shows why you can't adequately describe your philosophy in a series of tick-boxes.

And the first question is particulalry dodgy. To state that "God exists", a clearer definition of "God" is required. I believe, in various ways, in various gods, but I call none of them "God".

[ajva.livejournal.com]

Exactly. And what do you mean by "justified"? Do you mean in the universal, objective sense? Or do you mean in the "internally consistent" sense upon which this quiz itself is based? And if the quiz is designed to let you define the concept of "justified" for yourself, then how can you make a fair choice when you are allowed to define some things but not others?

[lapis-lazuli.livejournal.com]

Very interesting exercise...

* You suffered 0 direct hits and bit 0 bullets.

for basically saying that there's no god, but that we can believe whatever we want to, whether there's evidence for it or not.

[lizw.livejournal.com]

I went for "internally consistent". I'm not sure I believe in an objective universal kind of justification; or at least if there is one, I don't believe we have a reliable way of knowing what it is.

[ajva.livejournal.com]

A very good summary of my problems with the quiz too - cheers!

[ex-meta.livejournal.com]

No hits, no bullets. I am 31337.

am i missing something?

[zz]

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.

i can see what they mean, but i'd consider a firm decision that god doesn't exist, ie atheism, to be a matter of faith, because equally a lack of proof there is no god could be a reason to believe there's a god, or something.. :)
then again, their thingy seems to be written from an atheist pov anyway, whereas i'm an "i don't know, and as a lack of a decision doesn't trouble me in anyway, i will not make a decision" where god is concerned..

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 even when there is no external evidence for the truth of 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.

i was saying that people will act according to their beliefs, be they a "message from god" or an attempt at a "rational" path..