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. :-)
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.
What about the everyday meaning of "proof" and "irrevocable proof" as "strong evidence" and "stronger evidence" respectively?
If I saw someone leaving the house of a woman (not his wife) with lipstick on his face and messed up clothes, I think I'm justified in calling that proof of an affair. It's not "irrevocable proof" though.
"Irrevocable proof" would then be actually seeing him in the act. Logically, though, it's not - maybe I was hallucinating? Maybe he has a twin? Etc. - the point is, language is rarely definite in everyday use.
I got tripped up on a few of these as well. I said that evolution is correct despite not being fully "proven", yet it was foolish to believe in God without irrevocable proof of his existence. My intent was to say that believing in a God would require a huge amount of proof, not that it could be "proven absolutely", whatever that means. The game decided that I was arguing that God needed to be literally proven in order to prefer the God theory.
I don't even know what would constitute "irrevocable proof" in any area bar "I think therefore I am" - and I believe even that has been shown to not necessarily hold!
A irrefutable proof in mathematics is no problem - no theoretical possibility of being incorrect exists.
But, if the phrase "irrefutable proof" in "softer" context is to have any meaning at all, it can't mean the same as in maths, since there will always be a possibility of being incorrect.
By using the phrase at all in eg. biology, it must therefore mean "the possibility of being incorrect is vanishingly small", otherwise we're just talking gibberish.
Generally, different context give the same phrase different meanings, so taking literal logical paths through a series of different statements is silly and pointless and best left to philosophers. :)
The one part that annoyed me is when it asserted that an omnipotent god must be able to do things that don't make any sense, which is not what I thought the earlier question was asking. It doesn't do any good to point out an inconsistency that's caused by a poorly worded question.
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: (a) Bite a bullet and claim that a higher standard of proof is required for belief in God than for belief in evolution. (b) Take a hit, conceding that there is a contradiction in your responses.
You chose to bite the bullet.
##
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.
I got bitten by that second one too. My reasoning was that rationality (or at least part of it) is likely to be a product of the universe in which you live. Assuming that God created it, they might be just as likely to create a different one where square circles might exist.
The problem is, neither squares nor circles exist in our world. Talking about a world where square circles exist is meaningless.
Squares and circles are mathematical concepts. They often are a model of parts of our world. Of course, the fact that we created these concepts is a product of our universe. But the concepts themselves are independent of any universe. Therefore, they are independent of the will of God (if she exist).
The definitions of squares and circles alone are sufficient for us to tell that no square is a circle, and no circle is a square. That conclusion is likewise independent of our world and the will of God.
How do you know that squares or circles are outside our world? I guess it's hair-splitting, which is what the questionnaire was trying to avoid (ie. it's not a rational/refutable proposition), but how do you know for certain? It might be hard to conceive of such a world - much like trying to think about five-dimensional objects - but that doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.
> How do you know that squares or circles are outside our world?
I know it because of my overall education. If I had a different education, I might have believed otherwise. Anyway, I'm pretty darn sure of myself, and I have actual arguments to back it up.
Have you ever seen a circle? A real circle, and not just a clever disposition of graphite on a sheet of paper. Likewise, have you ever seen a number? A real number, not just a decimal representation of it.
Even better, have you ever perceived a circle or a numbers in any way? Do you know of anyone who has? Do you know of any experiment that could assess or falsify the theory that circles or numbers exist in our world?
I don't.
Because they are mathematical concepts. Mathematical concepts aren't meant to describe things that exist in our world, unlike the concepts of "rock", "human", or "electron". Therefore, you can't make a statement about our world using only mathematical concepts. They help, but they are not enough.
Depends on whether or not you consider yourself Platonist. Still, you fall into the same trap here that the ontological argument makes. Simply because a perfect instance can be posited in a system doesn't mean that such an instance must exist in that system.
Sorry, fell into a little philosophical opaqueness there. Platonist is meant to refer to the ancient philosopher Plato. What he may be most famous for is his theory of Forms. The idea is that there are two worlds: the material world which we can perceive directly and another realm that is "intelligible" but not directly perceivable. We can refer to these as the sensible and supersensible realms. The supersensible realm is accessible through thought and abstraction: it is a world of perfection. It is this realm where perfect circles and shapes and ideas lie. In the Republic, he uses the allegory of the cave to describe the relationship between the supersensible realm and the sensible realm. In a sense, the sensible realm can be imagined as the shadows of figures on a cave wall, where we are unable to turn around and see the figures themselves and only to perceive their projections into the sensible realm. The most modern reinterpretation of Plato's philosophy is present in Judeochristian philosophy. Many would go so far as to say that Christianity is simply a dressed-up reinterpretation of Platonism.
My second section was meant to deal with a proof of God's existence known as the "Ontological Argument." I'm going to reproduce it hear and quote liberally from Wikipeda (I'm kind of lazy):
1. If I am thinking of the Greatest Being Thinkable, then I can think of no being greater
1a. If it is false that I can think of no being greater, it is false I am thinking of the Greatest Being Thinkable
2. Being is greater than not being
3. If the being I am thinking of does not exist, then it is false that I can think of no being greater.
4. If the being I am thinking of does not exist, then it is false that I am thinking of the Greatest Being Thinkable
Conclusion: If I am thinking of the Greatest Being Thinkable, then I am thinking of a being that exists
I know that you are not attempting to prove the existence of God, but the argument bares some similarity, simply replace "Greatest Being" with "Perfect Circle." If there is no circle more perfect then, by the same argument, such a circle must exist. The trouble is this argument is deceptively simple. Bertrand Russell notably said, "The argument does not, to a modern mind, seem very convincing, but it is easier to feel convinced that it must be fallacious than it is to find out precisely where the fallacy lies."
Perhaps my favorite refutation comes from David Hume:
[T]here is an evident absurdity in pretending to demonstrate a matter of fact, or to prove it by any arguments a priori. Nothing is demonstrable, unless the contrary implies a contradiction. Nothing, that is distinctly conceivable, implies a contradiction. Whatever we conceive as existent, we can also conceive as non-existent. There is no being, therefore, whose non-existence implies a contradiction. Consequently there is no being, whose existence is demonstrable.
In this way we can see that conception (of a form or of God or of a mathematical concept) does not lead directly to any statements of existence or non-existence: they simply "are."
I may have not made myself clear. It looks like I suggested that numbers, squares, and circles exists somewhere, just not in our world.
I didn't want to.
The problem comes from the word "exist", which does not mean the same thing when I talk about the physical world and when I talk about mathematical concepts. For instance, when I say "Do unicorns exist?", or "cars do exist", I am talking about actual existence, in our world, such that it could change my life: if unicorns existed, I might see one. If cars did not exist, I would be riding instead of driving.
When I say "do odd numbers exists", or "there exists no even prime number greater than 2", I am talking about mere ideas. See, numbers "exist" by definition. In Peano arithmetic for instance, I declare that natural numbers exist because: (1) I declare that zero exist, (2) I declare that if a number n exist, then a different number, n+1, also exists. (There are other laws, but we'll leave them.) In short, numbers "exist" because I decided it. This is not the same kind of existence than unicorns. No matter how hard I decide, unicorns don't exist.
Now the fact that everyone agrees that numbers "exist" just means that everyone follows the same convention.
I actually agree with David Hume. He's right because of a very simple, now easy to guess, reason: mathematics doesn't even talk about existence of the unicorn/car kind.
The second one bit me, but I disagree with it because I assumed that the previous statement of God's ability to do anything was necessarily within the constraints of a consistent universe
Yeah me too. Whoever created this test has obviously never programmed in C or C++. The question says 'If there is a god...' but after that point you are outside of the Standard! And we all know that when you leave the well-defined territory of the Standard, all behavior is implementation-defined! So there may or may not be square circles, we have no way to tell :(
I bit exactly the same. However I feel somewhat cheated by the first "bullet", because of the way the question's formulated. I actually don't think that you need "irrevocable proof" to believe in God any more than to believe in something else. However we actually need extremely strong evidence in both cases; evolution has very strong evidence in its favour, while there isn't any evidence that God exists.
Same thing for the second bullet : I stated that God has the freedom to achieve the logically impossible, BUT I don't think that it carries any weight because God doesn't exist and therefore it is all empty chit-chatting anyway. So rational discourse on the subject of God is of course somewhat hard to take seriously anyway, after a certain point.
I think the authors did not think of all possibilities. "Arguing back" might help them to improve the logical engine. I guess what I mean to say is that, rather than arguing back, we could contact them with suggestions.
Eg one thing they did not seem to consider is (my case) some of the implications of differences between the natural and the supernatural (say, God and the hypothetical Loch Ness monster).
I got tripped up on this question too and I agree with the comment above. Loch Ness is a physical lake and Nessie, though perhaps a musical dinosaur, is allegedly tangible and physically there. It's not possible to get a submarine and go searching through God's lake because he probably doesn't live in one and if he did he may well decide to turn invisible just as you got close.
Why, the other way, of course. But my point was, the authors have not considered all the (potentially) important aspects, and we may help them with this. Or just have fun.
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!"
I had the same problem with it, I don't know why it bothered me so much, but it was incredibly frustrating. I shouldn't let something silly like that throw me off, bud damn! Don't throw your red stop sign at me when it is _you_ that is wrong quiz!
Same thing happened to me, and I thought exactly the same thing. But the FAQ says...
"...But if you read the question carefully, you'll see that it is not talking about justifying the act of rape at all. It is talking about whether or not Peter Sutcliffe was justified in believing that he was doing the will of God. Mind you, having said that, I think we may have been a bit provocative in the wording of one of our analyses! Sorry!"
Looking back at the question, it does in fact ask: "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." Still, they could have worded it much better, maybe even to the point where they wouldn't have to explain it in the FAQ.
It is a survey on your beliefs though, not on whether you act on them. What are the differences in kind between your firm, inner convictions and Peter Sutcliffe's?
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.
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?
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.
Basically, a belief is justified if there are good reasons for believing it. What are "good" reasons? It depends on your philosophy. But presumably the reasons are separate from the belief its self. If you cite certain reasons for believing one thing, but then refuse to believe something else on the same basis, you're being inconsistent.
I couldn't follow the logic of that question at all. If person X believes thing Y, person X believes thing Y. No logic enters into that. So if Sutcliffe thought he was doing the will of god, of course he felt justified. Obviously Sutcliffe follows a different logic to mine, so I can not argue with that.
The question "do I think it is justified that he thought like that" has no semantic meaning to me. What is it supposed to mean?
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.
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.
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.
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)
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.
@Ayjay, What would consist as "very strong" proof?
Some of my thoughts on that: Any 'proof' God gives must be physical so we can measure it. Anything we can measure is a 'normal' part of the universe, and so can't be God.
Rainbows = not God because it's just water vapor and light
The universe = not God because it's what happens when you get some kind of powerful explosion that throws out matter and energy for billions of years.
God literally appearing in the sky in physical form announcing that He is God and that He's responsible for this creation = not necessarily God because it could be alien technology, or propaganda warfare from US evangelicals, or <insert theory here that will let us spend millennia arguing before deciding anything has been proved>
Anyway, theres a lot more to evolutionary theory than that we all evolved from single celled organisms many billions of years ago. Some of the theory has been proven (for example, we do know that organisms evolve by replicating and mutation and that environmental pressure will allow certain traits to survive and other die), so that doesn't necessarily make you wrong here. This test makes too many assumptions about your belief based on simple questions.
It really does seem like the questions are worded to create contradictions where there are none. Almost like the author is trying to trap people instead of being intellectually honest (or even a decent philosopher).
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?
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).
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?
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).
The problem arises not when we say one model is more useful or accurate (for our purpose) than another, but when we start to say that something is true.
As if narratives however abstract (math for instance instead of words) are describing reality.
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.
I don't think it makes any sense to call evolutionary theory for true. It's completely missing the point.
If anything evolutionary theory is useful to explain phenomena it is not a true explanation of phenomena. There are no true explanations only consistent explanations branching out from the premise.
Physics is no exception. It's a model to explain phenomena and predict outcomes which are always temporary.
When 2 scientist talk about something "true", they never mean "no way this could be even slightly false". They mean either "given our present information, this is very very probably true" or "this is very very accurate". Most of the time they mean both.
Now, if you want to make a practical decision, in a relatively limited amount of time, you will most likely treat "most probably true, and very very accurate" statement as just true.
So OK, there is no "true". But in practical terms, this is only a stretch, an abuse of language. For practical purposes, this is good enough. If you think it's not, go invent a short label that precisely means what you want, and make people use that. Good luck.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I had exactly the same hit, and thought the same as you.
Perhaps I am naïve, but short of manipulating my neurons directly there is no way a god could reconfigure the universe around me such that 1+1=72. And if a god were to manipulate my neurons directly, it would say nothing about the truthfulness of the statement.
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.
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.
It's an annoying philosophical problem. Mainly it's concerned with a long-running debate of how one should define "omnipotent" for the Philosopher's God. Consider the problem, "Can God make a block so heavy even he cannot move it?" Disregarding the problems with physics here, most philosophers agree that omnipotence should be complete power over all things which are logically possible. Whatever system such a God creates, things will operate consistently within that system. Of course, altering the system is fine, but then "logic" would still continue to be consistent in the new system.
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
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.
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!
83 comments
[ 3.4 ms ] story [ 171 ms ] threadBut, 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. :-)
If I saw someone leaving the house of a woman (not his wife) with lipstick on his face and messed up clothes, I think I'm justified in calling that proof of an affair. It's not "irrevocable proof" though.
"Irrevocable proof" would then be actually seeing him in the act. Logically, though, it's not - maybe I was hallucinating? Maybe he has a twin? Etc. - the point is, language is rarely definite in everyday use.
I got tripped up on a few of these as well. I said that evolution is correct despite not being fully "proven", yet it was foolish to believe in God without irrevocable proof of his existence. My intent was to say that believing in a God would require a huge amount of proof, not that it could be "proven absolutely", whatever that means. The game decided that I was arguing that God needed to be literally proven in order to prefer the God theory.
I don't even know what would constitute "irrevocable proof" in any area bar "I think therefore I am" - and I believe even that has been shown to not necessarily hold!
-- Ayjay on Fedang/philosophy
Something like "irrefutable proof" would be better.
A irrefutable proof in mathematics is no problem - no theoretical possibility of being incorrect exists.
But, if the phrase "irrefutable proof" in "softer" context is to have any meaning at all, it can't mean the same as in maths, since there will always be a possibility of being incorrect.
By using the phrase at all in eg. biology, it must therefore mean "the possibility of being incorrect is vanishingly small", otherwise we're just talking gibberish.
Generally, different context give the same phrase different meanings, so taking literal logical paths through a series of different statements is silly and pointless and best left to philosophers. :)
##
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: (a) Bite a bullet and claim that a higher standard of proof is required for belief in God than for belief in evolution. (b) Take a hit, conceding that there is a contradiction in your responses.
You chose to bite the bullet.
##
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.
Squares and circles are mathematical concepts. They often are a model of parts of our world. Of course, the fact that we created these concepts is a product of our universe. But the concepts themselves are independent of any universe. Therefore, they are independent of the will of God (if she exist).
The definitions of squares and circles alone are sufficient for us to tell that no square is a circle, and no circle is a square. That conclusion is likewise independent of our world and the will of God.
I know it because of my overall education. If I had a different education, I might have believed otherwise. Anyway, I'm pretty darn sure of myself, and I have actual arguments to back it up.
Have you ever seen a circle? A real circle, and not just a clever disposition of graphite on a sheet of paper. Likewise, have you ever seen a number? A real number, not just a decimal representation of it.
Even better, have you ever perceived a circle or a numbers in any way? Do you know of anyone who has? Do you know of any experiment that could assess or falsify the theory that circles or numbers exist in our world?
I don't.
Because they are mathematical concepts. Mathematical concepts aren't meant to describe things that exist in our world, unlike the concepts of "rock", "human", or "electron". Therefore, you can't make a statement about our world using only mathematical concepts. They help, but they are not enough.
My second section was meant to deal with a proof of God's existence known as the "Ontological Argument." I'm going to reproduce it hear and quote liberally from Wikipeda (I'm kind of lazy):
1. If I am thinking of the Greatest Being Thinkable, then I can think of no being greater 1a. If it is false that I can think of no being greater, it is false I am thinking of the Greatest Being Thinkable 2. Being is greater than not being 3. If the being I am thinking of does not exist, then it is false that I can think of no being greater. 4. If the being I am thinking of does not exist, then it is false that I am thinking of the Greatest Being Thinkable Conclusion: If I am thinking of the Greatest Being Thinkable, then I am thinking of a being that exists
I know that you are not attempting to prove the existence of God, but the argument bares some similarity, simply replace "Greatest Being" with "Perfect Circle." If there is no circle more perfect then, by the same argument, such a circle must exist. The trouble is this argument is deceptively simple. Bertrand Russell notably said, "The argument does not, to a modern mind, seem very convincing, but it is easier to feel convinced that it must be fallacious than it is to find out precisely where the fallacy lies."
Perhaps my favorite refutation comes from David Hume:
[T]here is an evident absurdity in pretending to demonstrate a matter of fact, or to prove it by any arguments a priori. Nothing is demonstrable, unless the contrary implies a contradiction. Nothing, that is distinctly conceivable, implies a contradiction. Whatever we conceive as existent, we can also conceive as non-existent. There is no being, therefore, whose non-existence implies a contradiction. Consequently there is no being, whose existence is demonstrable.
In this way we can see that conception (of a form or of God or of a mathematical concept) does not lead directly to any statements of existence or non-existence: they simply "are."
I didn't want to.
The problem comes from the word "exist", which does not mean the same thing when I talk about the physical world and when I talk about mathematical concepts. For instance, when I say "Do unicorns exist?", or "cars do exist", I am talking about actual existence, in our world, such that it could change my life: if unicorns existed, I might see one. If cars did not exist, I would be riding instead of driving.
When I say "do odd numbers exists", or "there exists no even prime number greater than 2", I am talking about mere ideas. See, numbers "exist" by definition. In Peano arithmetic for instance, I declare that natural numbers exist because: (1) I declare that zero exist, (2) I declare that if a number n exist, then a different number, n+1, also exists. (There are other laws, but we'll leave them.) In short, numbers "exist" because I decided it. This is not the same kind of existence than unicorns. No matter how hard I decide, unicorns don't exist.
Now the fact that everyone agrees that numbers "exist" just means that everyone follows the same convention.
I actually agree with David Hume. He's right because of a very simple, now easy to guess, reason: mathematics doesn't even talk about existence of the unicorn/car kind.
Same thing for the second bullet : I stated that God has the freedom to achieve the logically impossible, BUT I don't think that it carries any weight because God doesn't exist and therefore it is all empty chit-chatting anyway. So rational discourse on the subject of God is of course somewhat hard to take seriously anyway, after a certain point.
Eg one thing they did not seem to consider is (my case) some of the implications of differences between the natural and the supernatural (say, God and the hypothetical Loch Ness monster).
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!"
"...But if you read the question carefully, you'll see that it is not talking about justifying the act of rape at all. It is talking about whether or not Peter Sutcliffe was justified in believing that he was doing the will of God. Mind you, having said that, I think we may have been a bit provocative in the wording of one of our analyses! Sorry!"
Looking back at the question, it does in fact ask: "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." Still, they could have worded it much better, maybe even to the point where they wouldn't have to explain it in the FAQ.
(I didn't get any wrong :-P)
Unless he believes in an evil God...
http://www.evilbible.com/Murder.htm http://www.evilbible.com/Rape.htm
-- Ayjay on Fedang
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?
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.
1. Is it justifiable to speak freely?
2. John Doe announced that a crowded theatre was afire, and people died in a resulting stampede. Was he justified in speaking?
Nobody ever addresses the separability issue you describe.
Basically, a belief is justified if there are good reasons for believing it. What are "good" reasons? It depends on your philosophy. But presumably the reasons are separate from the belief its self. If you cite certain reasons for believing one thing, but then refuse to believe something else on the same basis, you're being inconsistent.
The question "do I think it is justified that he thought like that" has no semantic meaning to me. What is it supposed to mean?
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.
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
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)
Some of my thoughts on that: Any 'proof' God gives must be physical so we can measure it. Anything we can measure is a 'normal' part of the universe, and so can't be God.
Rainbows = not God because it's just water vapor and light
The universe = not God because it's what happens when you get some kind of powerful explosion that throws out matter and energy for billions of years.
God literally appearing in the sky in physical form announcing that He is God and that He's responsible for this creation = not necessarily God because it could be alien technology, or propaganda warfare from US evangelicals, or <insert theory here that will let us spend millennia arguing before deciding anything has been proved>
--Trindaz on Fedang
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?
Tomorrow I will see if I have my Socrates texts. I think he spoke about this in the Creeto (piety under the Gods).
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?
The problem arises not when we say one model is more useful or accurate (for our purpose) than another, but when we start to say that something is true.
As if narratives however abstract (math for instance instead of words) are describing reality.
They are not.
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.
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.
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.
Truth, objective, rational etc. is covered with all sorts of baggage.
It doesn't. I just haven't thought of this "third alternative".
If anything evolutionary theory is useful to explain phenomena it is not a true explanation of phenomena. There are no true explanations only consistent explanations branching out from the premise.
Physics is no exception. It's a model to explain phenomena and predict outcomes which are always temporary.
Now, if you want to make a practical decision, in a relatively limited amount of time, you will most likely treat "most probably true, and very very accurate" statement as just true.
So OK, there is no "true". But in practical terms, this is only a stretch, an abuse of language. For practical purposes, this is good enough. If you think it's not, go invent a short label that precisely means what you want, and make people use that. Good luck.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Perhaps I am naïve, but short of manipulating my neurons directly there is no way a god could reconfigure the universe around me such that 1+1=72. And if a god were to manipulate my neurons directly, it would say nothing about the truthfulness of the statement.
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.
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.
"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?
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!