Are your beliefs consistent? Take the test...
philosophersnet.com
philosophersnet.com
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.
He was, therefore, justified in believing that he was
carrying out God's will in undertaking these actions.
(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?
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.
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
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. :-)
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).
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.
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!
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).
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.
"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?
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.
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.