Battleground God

[MithLuin]

Elsha, you have a good point about authority - 'who's really in charge? God, or this truth business?' But the real question becomes, 'is the universe rational?' and 'Is God rational?' You can answer both those questions 'no,' but then you have to accept that everything is absurd or on a whim, and nothing really matters, and well...that way lies madness (Yes, I think several philosophers were mad )

I think this is easier to deal with if you don't worry about God right away.

There was a joke in communist Poland that ran like this:

• Party boss: What is 2 + 2?
  Worker: What do you want it to be?

So that one of the slogans of Solidarity became:

• For Poland to be Poland, 2 +2 must always equal 4.

Meaning - it was absurd to let the government determine truth arbitrarily.

I think we can accept this as rational - to be true, something must be objectively true, not just 'in your head.' Something in your head can make perfect sense to you, but that doesn't make it real.

But now, God, the ultimate Authority - can God make something true just by thinking it? Can God determine truth?

I see no problem in recognizing God's unique Authority here, as creator of the universe and all the natural laws that govern it. BUT, God is a rational being, so God would never 'think' something true that wasn't. God wouldn't decide that 2+2 is anything other than 4. This does not put any limitation on God, rather expresses God's perfection.

Does that make sense?

[truehobbit]

Well, I took two hits and had to bite one bullet. I believe that my bullet was an unfair one, though. The question was "If God exists she could create square circles and make 1 + 1 = 72" and I answered yes--circles and squares and numbers are arbitrary signifiers on our part, and you could call a circle a square for the same reason you call a circle a circle, right? The concept of a square is still a square and the concept of a circle is still a circle, those remain the same no matter what you call them. Am I just arguing semantics here and missing the real point of the question?

I answered yes to that one, too, and I don't accept the bullet, either.
I would agree with Mith that semantics are not the problem here. Sure, we could call a circle a square and a square a circle, names are arbitrary - but you could still not transform the one into the other.
"A rose by any other name would smell as sweet..."

I've already explained what I don't agree with in that one, but as it also contradics what Mith said later, I'll say it again.

I see no problem in recognizing God's unique Authority here, as creator of the universe and all the natural laws that govern it. BUT, God is a rational being, so God would never 'think' something true that wasn't. God wouldn't decide that 2+2 is anything other than 4. This does not put any limitation on God, rather expresses God's perfection.

I'm shocked - but I have to contradict you there!

Firstly, how do you know God is a rational being? Or what God would think and not think?

The way I think about God, in this world 2+2=4, and I don't think God could change that, unless He re-made the whole thing.
However, I believe He could have decided to make a world where nothing is the least bit like what we have here and know.

Either the world is created by God, and then logic is created by God, too, and could have been created differently, or logic is beyond God and somehow exists independently of Him - which would be inconsistent with believing that God is above everything.

(Mith, I wonder if you didn't get an inconsistency point for this if you chose God as all-powerful earlier and then said He couldn't change logic later?)

So, yes, I think to say that God could not have made a world different from what it is and completely beyond our imagination is to limit God to our level of understanding. And I think that's wrong.
I think that our trying to fathom God is like a grasshopper trying to understand nuclear fusion.

(Not that I'm precluding that a grasshopper might understand nuclear fusion - I don't know because I've not been a grasshopper yet, to my knowledge - I just do think it's unlikely.)

[truehobbit]

I forgot I meant to ask Jewel about the Taboo results:

Your Moralising Quotient is: 0.13.

Your Interference Factor is: 0.25.

Your Universalising Factor is: 0.00.

I was a bit puzzled by that. You didn't think that any of the actions was wrong on principle, but you still wanted to punish one of them?

I thought that several of them were wrong on principle, but none so wrong that you should take action against it.

Interesting contrast, don't you think?

[MithLuin]

I forget how the "all-powerful" question was worded, but I (for the most part) chose false for a lot of things in the beginning because of their wording (in particular, the use of "anything").

I do believe that God is all-powerful, but I would never suggest that that means God can do anything. God, for instance, can never do evil, because he is holy and it would go against his nature. The "ability to do evil" does not make one more powerful, but less powerful. Knowing that the silly quiz writers would not include this distinction, I chose false .

At least, I think I did. Regardless, I didn't get anything inconsistent, I merely was told to bite a bullet for recognizing the internal (though not external) consistency of the convictions of a deranged killer.

And I must point out, dear Hobby, that a certain German Shepherd is on my side . Ratzinger (in his infamous 'let's quote a Byzantine Emperor' speech) argued that God must be rational. Yes, God made logic, but that is only because, well, logic is good . It is possible that he could have created the world in different ways. (Meaning - no gravity, but some new force to lend order to everything) But, no matter how he did it...it would have to be logical, ordered, rational. It couldn't be completely chaotic and absurd, because God is not completely chaotic and absurd. God IS - all being comes from him. So, logic and rationality come from him, too....

So, I agree with you, logic is not beyond God or external to God. But, it is part of his nature, and therefore, all of his creations (if there could be any variations) would reflect this. And no, I don't know what God thinks. I think Galadriel is a bit full of herself when she claims to know the mind of Sauron, so I would be daft to claim to have the Almighty figured out. But....I think this is something He's told us about himself.

[anthriel]

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.

HAH!!! I take real pride in that.

A direct hit would have occurred had you answered in a way that implied a logical contradiction. The bitten bullet occurred because you responded in a way that required that you held a view that most people would have found strange, incredible or unpalatable. However, because you bit only one bullet and avoided direct hits completely you still qualify for our second highest award. A good achievement!

HAH!! I have strange, incredible or unpalatable thoughts! I take real pride in that!

Here's the bullet I bit:

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?

Again, my answer would not quite have been "it's not RATIONAL to believe these things do not exist", if I had had a choice... the potential non-existance might be probable without evidence to the contrary, and I might have chosen that answer had it been worded that way. Doesn't rule it out, though, and again I think that this type of thing is my scientist coming out... proving something is fairly difficult to do.

So... in conclusion... my religious beliefs might be screwed up (well, they might!), but at least I'm logical about it.

I take real pride in that.

[Frelga]

I've bitten the same bullet as Anthy! * is proud * The Loch Ness bullet.

And yes, I don't think that "the absence of evidence, even where it has been sought, is enough to justify belief in the non-existence of things." I would say that the evidence of non-existence is that "things" cannot exist under the observable conditions. So, there is evidence that intelligent humanoid aliens do not exist on Mars, because to survive, such aliens would require all sorts of stuff that we know isn't there. Is there evidence that Loch Ness monster CANNOT exist and remain undetected? I don't know. Is there evidence that God CANNOT exist? I don't believe so.

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!

[Primula Baggins]

What's the old saw? "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

I should take this test. Maybe tomorrow. It sounds interesting.

[Aravar]

Omnipotence is not the ability to do anything, but the ability to do anything which can be done.

Some statements are permissible in our grammar, but are nevertheless nonsense: eg The HoF poster Aravar is an antelope.

[elfshadow]

The way I think about God, in this world 2+2=4, and I don't think God could change that, unless He re-made the whole thing.
However, I believe He could have decided to make a world where nothing is the least bit like what we have here and know.

Either the world is created by God, and then logic is created by God, too, and could have been created differently, or logic is beyond God and somehow exists independently of Him - which would be inconsistent with believing that God is above everything.

Thanks, Hobby, this is basically exactly what I was trying to say!!


Mith, I definitely understand what you're trying to say, and I do believe that because God (again, not saying I necessarily believe in God, but to continue with the argument) created rationality, he surely must be a rational being. But--if God created rationality and the only rationality we know is that which we have been exposed to, thus that which was created by God, will we ever know if that is the only rationality which exists or could there be a different kind of rationality? In other words, if things like rationality and truth are absolute and unchangeable by God, God is again not the highest authority in the universe. But if rationality and truth are controlled by God, then something that could be entirely ratinonal in this universe could be irrational had God created the universe differently. I believe that if God is truly omnipotent, he must have the ability to define what is rational and what is true. Only then will he become rational and truthful--unless, as I said, rationality and truth are above him.

[halplm]

Yeah, I take a little bit of exception to how things are worded, but that's the whole point of these things.

I took two hits, the Loch Ness one (which is bogus for many reasons), and the "Inner conviction" one... but for that one they're unclear about what "external evidence" is. If this is "physical scientific evidence" which is what I took it to mean, then their conclusions are incorrect, because science cannot account for God, so how can it find evidence for him? I "external evidence" just means everything outside of inner conviction, then I'd change my answers... but the questions don't make sense.

I also bit two bullets, one on Evolution... which is understandable, and I don't think their questions can even remotely encompass the complexity of that argument for anyone that has been involved in it.

The other bullet was the "logically impossible" one. The basic premise of this idea is totally flawed, and I object to the language they use about it, saying "beyond any debate or rational discussion." To say God is constrained by human logic is absurd to start with, and the questions they asked about it were overly simplistic.

These kinds of things are fun (I think I'll take the athiest side of this one to see exactly how "fair" the authors were ), but more for trying to spot the traps, than to actually provide any knowledge. The true/false nature of the answer choices force the takers of the quiz down paths they wouldn't actually go, because they don't actually think the question IS simply true or false.

ETA: I'm not sure about this being entirely "fair." The only real trap for the athiest side is the evolution one, and that brings up the issues I had with it, as it's not clear enough about evolution, to give "true/false" answers.
I also always find it very interesting when people refer to God as "She." In almost all cases I have found this as as clear indication of someone antagonistic towards the larger religions in general. If they were being neutral and gramattically correct, they would refer to God (genderless) as "He" or "He or She." Using the feminine pronoun is somewhat antagonistic as the VAST majority of people that believe in God, always refer to him as "He," and anything else is either insulting to them, or just confusing.

Whether they are right to think this, is another discussion...

[Pearly Di]

I took this test at lightning speed last night. I am an Internet Butterfly and tend to take internet quizzes and do internet memes at lightning speed.

I didn't bite any bullets. But I got one hit. I came a crocker on the whole thing about 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. At first I said this was false and then later on I changed my mind and said it could be true. Ooops!

[My own position is that this is untenable, from a religious, philosophical and moral POV. Peter Sutcliffe acted on a firm inner conviction, as far as I can tell, and ... yikes. No, that's not a road I want to travel down, thank you. It really matters what people believe ... it will affect how they behave.]

However, despite my one bullet, the verdict was that despite the fact that my beliefs are not entirely consistent, they are well thought out.

[Primula Baggins]

I got hit over that one later in the quiz, Di. As I chose to read the question that trapped you, "the external world" is the physical world and so does not include God. I do think it is irrational to form one's beliefs about the physical world around "firm inner conviction" when physical evidence is readily available.

So I took a hit later when I said that it is acceptable to base a belief in God on a firm inner conviction. To me these are two separate questions and can have two separate answers with no inconsistency.

I bit no bullets but did take one other direct hit, in that I don't believe God could make 1 + 1 = 72 by fiat. That's based on a strong inner conviction that God would not create a universe that was not self-consistent and that could not be studied and understood by rational means. So, in that sense, God "could" not do such a thing; it would be inconsistent with God's own nature, in my view.

I don't think I deserved either hit, but that's life. Fun test.

[vison]

Well, I took the test and wrote a very excellent post on Torc which the stupid site promptly refused to post because of some weird ongoing thing, and I could not recover it and was severely annoyed.

However.

I took one hit, and bit one bullet.

The test was supposedly rational, and that is where it fails badly. The hit I took was on Peter Sutcliffe: the question was about "belief", not "action" and I maintain that it is perfectly justifiable to base one's BELIEFS about the world on a firm inner conviction, etc. And I do accept that Sutcliffe was justified in doing THAT: but I certainly do not accept that he then was justified in his crimes. The distinction is clear and unambiguous, and is totally missing from the question. My logic is impeccable, the logic of the quiz is not. Belief is not action, although it may lead to it.

I had to bite the bullet on 'God has the freedom and power to do that which is "logically impossible" '. According to the quiz, "you are saying that any discussion of God as an ultimate reality cannot be constrained by basic principles of rationality. That would seem (my emphasis) to make rational discourse about God impossible . . . ."

Well, duh. No, it doesn't. What a stupid leap of false logic!!! This is excessively irritating, since it was quite an interesting little quiz and did make me think a bit.

[Aravar]

These kinds of things are fun (I think I'll take the athiest side of this one to see exactly how "fair" the authors were ), but more for trying to spot the traps, than to actually provide any knowledge. The true/false nature of the answer choices force the takers of the quiz down paths they wouldn't actually go, because they don't actually think the question IS simply true or false.

I managed to take no hits or bullets answering from a theist perspective. I answered

1T, 2F, 3T, 4T, 5F, 6T, 7F 8F, 9T, 10T, 11F, 12F, 13F, 14F, 15F, 16F, 17F

[Jnyusa]

I think we've got a ringer here, Demo

This is the same magazine that put up the dead chicken morality questions, and I noticed that there was a bait-and-switch in the middle of those questions, so I thought this test was probably rigged the same, and it is.

The tests at the The Philosophers' Magazine are rigged to make you doubt your own rationality; and the rigging is not really playful as it is at some of those math sites designed to convince you you're no good at arithmetic ... though, personally, I find all "sucker" games distasteful, and when they are aimed at core beliefs I find them downright deceitful.

I did some googling around The Philosophers' Magazine. It is listed elsewhere among UK religious sites as the place to buy philosophy books for the religious person in your family, other recommendations being the Catholic Encyclopedia, the Philosophy of Chabad, Islam On-Line, etc.

Besides the online magazine they also publish a hard-copy magazine called THINK, available in the US and UK. The most recent issue is devoted to Intelligent Design. All the articles are in defense of it. The other topic given airing in this issue is homosexuality, the abnormality of it.

The tests are a very clever attack on humanism, actually. They don't tell you outright that you must believe in God; they simply lead you to question whether anyone is truly capable of rationality. By actively disguising their own agenda they lead you to believe that professors of logic have designed the test and this makes you more inclined to accept the results, even though everyone who reports their analysis here does feel that something was wrong with the logic of the analysis even if they can't explain exactly what it is.

The other thing that makes the test convincing is the fact that religious believers also do poorly, giving the test an appearance of neutrality. But a bait-and-switch aimed at eroding confidance in rationality can roll off the backs of religious believers because the foundation of faith is not rationality. No religious person ever turned away from their belief in God because of being told it was not logical! Whereas rationality is the foundation of secular philosophies and anything that attacks reasoning ability attacks the belief system directly and effectively.

I noticed when I took the other test about the dead chickens, that all the analysis of answers boiled down to "proving" that moralities based on anything other than God were not logical. Here the analysis boils down to convincing you that you do not have the empirical evidence you think you have for all beliefs other than belief in God. The purpose is to convince you that it is illogical to disbelieve in God due to lack of empirical evidence.

So .... test-takers beware! (if you're secularist)


Jn

[Primula Baggins]

That's really interesting, Jn. In retrospect, I should have been suspicious (if I were the suspicious type) when I noticed that the test designers were insisting that one must base a belief or lack of belief in God on empirical, physical evidence. The humanists don't usually fall for that one.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Interesting. I would have thought it the other way around. Shows what I know.

[Faramond]

I don't see it, Jn. I don't think the test is a ringer one way or the other. I think it's poorly constructed and thought out, and that all test takers should beware.

[nerdanel]

I also always find it very interesting when people refer to God as "She." In almost all cases I have found this as as clear indication of someone antagonistic towards the larger religions in general. If they were being neutral and gramattically correct, they would refer to God (genderless) as "He" or "He or She." Using the feminine pronoun is somewhat antagonistic as the VAST majority of people that believe in God, always refer to him as "He," and anything else is either insulting to them, or just confusing.

hal, I think that your perspective is the "insulting" one on this issue - specifically, that you find referring to God as She to be "antagonistic," "insulting," and "confusing," while referring to God as He is "neutral" and "gramattically (sic) correct" (heads-up: if you complain about someone else's grammatical deficiencies, you are overwhelmingly likely to have a grammar or spelling error in your own post ).

For the record, in Judaism, the "shekinah," or Divine Presence of God (bearing some similarities to the Christian Holy Spirit) is commonly believed to represent the feminine aspects of the Divine. Prayers concerning the Shekinah use female grammatical terms, whether in Hebrew or English. So that is one example of many in which religious people (i.e. not people "antagonistic towards the larger religions in general") refer to God, essentially, as She (I am qualifying that because obviously Hebrew forms are somewhat different.)

[truehobbit]

What's a ringer?

(Sorry, no time to study all the new replies yet, and they sound too good to read cursorily and deserve some thought in the reply. )