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

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..