Battleground God exercise

[marle]

It's a God quiz, and it's apparently supposed to measure the internal contradictions in your beliefs. My guess though is that there will be people disagreeing with how the quiz is constructed. I answered the questions as an agnostic.

Battleground God

I got 1 direct hit (most common result).

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You answered False to Question 7 and True to Question 17.

These answers generated the following response:

You've just taken a direct hit! Earlier you said that it is not justifiable to base one's beliefs about the external world on a firm, inner conviction, paying no regard to the external evidence, or lack of it, for the truth or falsity of this conviction, but now you say it's justifiable to believe in God on just these grounds. That's a flagrant contradiction!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For reference:

Question #7) It is justifiable to base one's beliefs about the external world on a firm, inner conviction, even in the absence of any external evidence for the truth of these convictions.

Question #17) It is justifiable to believe in God if one has a firm, inner conviction that God exists, even if there is no external evidence that God exists.

I wouldn't say that my "no" answer to #7 and "yes" to #17 are necessarily contradictory. External world = external evidence. "God" is mysterious and is beyond normal, every-day explanation. Even though I don't have a firm belief in God, I can see why other people would believe in the concept, depending on how God is defined.

[Sexy Spork #37]

I got no direct hits. No contradictions.

For reference, I do believe in God, whatever God is.

[Karen]

I'm agnostic as well and I got 1 direct hit.

___________________________________________________
Analysis of your Direct Hit

You answered True to Question 7 and False to Question 15.

These answers generated the following response:

You've just taken a direct hit! 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!
____________________________________________________

* as an agnostic I have no real problem with people basing their systems of belief on what ever inner convictions they hold. But I do not agree that those convictions in any way justify a person's actions. Particularly when those actions involve other people who don't share your convictions.

I may have misunderstood the question about Peter Sutcliffe, but, it was an interesting quiz all the same. Thanks Marle!

[Farouche]

Thanks for posting this, Marle. This was fun to think about. I answered as an atheist (don't believe in God/gods because I see no reason to do so, not because I believe that the existence of such a being is necessarily impossible per se--i.e., a "soft" atheist) and I got two "bite the bullets:"

(SPOILERS AHEAD, mateys!)

1. "You are consistent in applying the principle that it is justifiable to base one's beliefs about the external world on a firm, inner conviction, regardless of the external evidence, or lack of it, for the truth or falsity [of] this conviction. The problem is that it seems you have to accept that people might be justified in their belief that terrible things are right. You have agreed that the rapist is justifiable in believing that he carries out the will of God, and in an earlier answer you indicated that you think God defines what is good and what is evil. Therefore, to be consistent, you must think the rapist is justified in believing that he acts morally when he acts on his inner conviction. Hence, you bite the bullet and justify the rapist."

This one doesn’t make much sense to me… unless this “bite the bullet” was written under the assumption that an atheist would not have answered "true" that a “being worthy of being called ‘God’” would be capable of flipping morality (good becomes evil, evil becomes good)--which is what I said. But I thought that question was vague: was it asking whether a god could alter everyone’s *perception* of morality (since humans are the only true measure of morality on Earth, and even then we, as individuals, disagree on particulars), or whether a god could change morality with respect to my own current belief in a relatively fixed morality? I figured the first one made the most sense, but maybe the quiz felt differently.

2. "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 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 feel like the above sorta misses the point of religion. Whether or not a god is constrained by the fundamental principles of rationality is beside the point: we're already talking about a being who can theoretically do anything conceivably physically possible by force of will (or else what makes him "God?"). Not exactly rational territory to begin with. Really, at their root, religious beliefs ARE pretty much beyond the realm of rational discussion, and many religious people are quick to acknowledge that fact. For them it typically comes down to the concept of faith: “I believe because I believe,” or “I believe because I sense God’s nonphysical presence” (both of which are virtually impossible to debate directly). For people like myself it comes down to: "what reason is there to believe in something I can’t detect in any way, and that by definition I can't comprehend?" The two sides can try to convince each other, but there just aren't a lot of hard claims (at least in this day and age) for either side to try to prove or disprove.

Jul 21, 2012 13:38:56 GMT -5 marle said:

My guess though is that there will be people disagreeing with how the quiz is constructed.

Yeah--the quiz was interesting, but some parts kinda drove me crazy. Like being asked if a being "worthy of being called God" could do "anything" (I said yes, after a lot of squirming), and then later being asked if that being would be able to flip the moral poles or create a "circular square." 'Cause like, first of all, the paradox of God creating "a rock too heavy for himself to lift" seems like kind of a pedantic objection to the belief in an "all"-powerful God. Personally, I wouldn't dock anybody godhood points if he could do ANYTHING except create external limits on his own powers.

Secondly, the question isn't specific enough, in my opinion. What's the point of reference? Since "morality" and "circular" are human concepts, a god could theoretically change our collective perceptions such that killing and torture become "moral" and our definition of "circular" applies to a square as well as a circle. Or he could make us simply incapable of differentiating squares and circles. Or he could make it impossible for squares to exist. Or he could eliminate adjectives from human speech. If a sentient creature poses a paradoxical test of a god's power and the god then chooses to eliminate all life, who wins?

The use of the word "justifiable" in the quiz was also pretty weird and ambiguous. In the real world, it seems to me that "justifiable" can mean different things in different contexts. A belief or an act can be "justifiable" based on the perceptions a person has to work with. But that doesn't mean those actions are legally or socially "justifiable." Our legal system recognizes that distinction: we deal differently with criminals who are crazy and truly believe their heinous acts are moral, versus those who choose to ignore moral standards and do terrible things anyway. (Not to say it's necessarily easy to tell the difference.)

It's reminds me of that guy in Canada who hacked off the head of a fellow passenger on a Greyhound bus. He was clearly delusional at the time, so his acts were "justifiable" in the sense that they made sense in response to what he perceived--ya gotta feel sorry for the guy, who seems to have realized the horror of his actions after going on meds for a while. But the actions weren't "justifiable" in the sense that he's absolved of responsibility. He's the unfortunate owner of a brain that's capable of committing actions that are un-justifiable by the vast majority of external standards. A person can sympathize (acknowledging that he was justifiably misled by his defective brain) and at the same time believe that he should be permanently relegated to a mental hospital. I think the fact that Canada is planning to release this guy back into society is a real-life example of conflating internal versus external "justifiability."

[marle]

Farouche,

You do know how to spell it all out well. ;D

We both agree that the quiz is severely lacking in defining its terminology, and the author doesn't understand that the whole point of God is that it's something beyond our common understandings of reality.