Interesting test

[VonVulcan]

http://www.philosophersnet.com/games/god.htm

I found it over simplistic but they addressed that in thier explanation.

I \"Bit the bullet\" once and had two \"direct hits\".

BTW, happy up-coming thanksgiving everyone.


VV

[ccb056]

I'm guessing if you check all you get 0% and if you dont check anything you get 100% ?

[Grendel]

Nope. You have to pay attention or you'll fail

[roid]

even most \"what's your X vs Y score?\" quizes mix their questions around by randomising negative and positive questioning styles, so by answering all yes or all no, you're more likely to get a draw than an extreme polarised answer.

[roid]

it says i took zero direct hits and Bit 2 bullets.

Code: Select all

Bitten Bullet 1

You answered \"True\" to questions 7, 12 and 15.

These answers generated the following response:

You've just bitten a bullet! You are consistent in applying the principle that it is justifiable to base one's beliefs about the external world on a firm, inner conviction, regardless of the external evidence, or lack of it, for the truth or falsity 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 justified in believing that he carries out the will of God, and in an earlier answer you indicated that you think that 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.

****************

Bitten Bullet 2

You answered \"True\" to Question 16.

This answer generated the following response:

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 see no problem with either of them, my world-view is as such:

- \"Morals\" and definitions of right and wrong are entirely relative to your beliefs (ie: religion). There are no absolutes, and no right and wrong. Only what is.

- \"Justifications\" are not rational, you can justify anything. Plenty of people justify 2+2=52, so what.
They simply speak another language. You can still have riveting conversations with even clinically delusional people, knowing that to them your views are just as delusional as theirs views are to you - why are my perceptions true and theirs not? Sheer numbers, there's more of us than them, so we lock them up.
Maybe we're the delusional ones, and it's the ones who are locked up that really see the truth. It's no match for human mob mentality though.


I'm a little taken back actually by the way they talk about \"biting the bullet\" - as if it's something to be avoided. Yes, i have views that some find strange, incredible, or unpalatable. Does this mean i've done something wrong? Should i be instead striving to share other people's views? By what justification is blandness/homogeny so important? i say i'm a sane man in an insane world.

[Jeff250]

I took this and took only one \"direct hit.\" I thought it was misleading though. I answered yes to God can do anything but no to God can make 1+1=72. When I answered yes to God can do anything it was assuming that anything consisted in anything both naturally possible and impossible so long as it is still logically possible. Then again, I think arithmetic is more a function of us rather than a function of the universe. So this complicates the issue even further.

[Lothar]

The quiz is more language-whoring than actual testing for internal consistancy of beliefs. (Fitting that it should be on a philosophers' website.)

For example, I've been hit:

\"You say that God does not have the freedom and power to do impossible things such as create square circles, but in an earlier answer you said that any being which it is right to call God must be free and have the power to do anything.\"

There's no logical problem here. \"Anything\" is contextual; it's assumed that we're speaking about forms of \"anything\" that actually make sense. If you asked if God could fleez blort, I'd be like \"wtf that doesn't even make sense.\" (Jeff, in the case of doing wacky arithmetic, strictly speaking, God could make square circles or 1+1=72 just by working in the right weird spaces and tweaking the definitions accordingly. But in math, unlike in philosophy, the definitions are actually set so you have to be explicit when you change them.)

[CDN_Merlin]

Anyone else noticed that they referred to GOD as a SHE?

[Testiculese]

That would be totally false, otherwise, men would be the ones that bore children!

[CDN_Merlin]

I just find it interesting that they referred to God as a female and are drilling us on the test? The test is flawed to start with because of this.

[TIGERassault]

God is formally referred to as He, wit ha capital H. There's no reason to change that.

[Mercury]

God is formally referred to as He, wit ha capital H. There's no reason to change that.

Was there a good reason to change to that? Capitalizing pronouns referring to deity is a fairly recent practice, and one that had its heyday a century ago. I don't see anything wrong with it, just as I have no problem with those who write G-d or L-rd out of reverence. I just feel no need to show my reverence in those ways.

As for the quiz, I first came across Battleground God a while back on another board. The person linking to it had made some taunts about how no theist would get through unscathed. That caused me to take the quiz more carefully than I would have otherwise. I did manage to get through it without hits or bit bullets. However, looking at it again, I agree with Jeff and Lothar's comments about the semantics of the "God can do anything" hit.

Also, questions 7 and 17 are extremely compound. They do not distinguish between contradictory evidence and absence of evidence. They also do not distinguish between evidence that falsifies or confirms a belief and circumstantial evidence that supports or weighs against a belief. In an effort to make these questions bullet-proof, they made them nearly meaningless for gauging the logic of someone's beliefs.

[Mobius]

My god has a Plausibility Quotient of 0.8

The values I gave to god are the exact same qaulities and abilities which I believe humans will acquire within ten thousand years from now - give or take a few millenia either way.

[Skyalmian]

[VonVulcan]

I agree with Jeff and Lothar's comments about the semantics of the "God can do anything" hit.

Also, questions 7 and 17 are extremely compound. They do not distinguish between contradictory evidence and absence of evidence. They also do not distinguish between evidence that falsifies or confirms a belief and circumstantial evidence that supports or weighs against a belief. In an effort to make these questions bullet-proof, they made them nearly meaningless for gauging the logic of someone's beliefs.

I agree.

[Birdseye]

This sucks.

I answered false to this:
\"Evolutionary theory maybe false in some matters of detail, but it is essentially true.\"

Only because I still believe you can't 100% prove evolution. You could still theortically have a god who made it look like evolution existed, but it really didn't. Life could also right now just be a dream, and when i wake up this concept of 'evolution' might not exist. Boo, I quit after this. Talk about its own logical contradiction -- False dilemma.

You're under fire!

You don't think that it is 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 in the previous question you rejected evolutionary theory when the vast majority of scientists think both that the evidence points to its truth and that there is no evidence which falsifies it. Of course, many creationists claim that the evidential case for evolution is by no means conclusive. But in doing so, they go against scientific orthodoxy. So you've got to make a choice:

Bite the bullet and say there is evidence that evolution is not true, despite what the scientists say.

Take a direct hit and say that this is an area where your beliefs are just in contradiction.




The scientists are wrong. I'll bite the bullet.

My beliefs are in contradiction. I'll take a direct hit!\"

I wish there was another option:
* This test presents false dilemmas

[CDN_Merlin]

My god has a Plausibility Quotient of 0.8

The values I gave to god are the exact same qaulities and abilities which I believe humans will acquire within ten thousand years from now - give or take a few millenia either way.

"Qualities" Mobious. It's "u" after "q" not "a".

Sky, I'm not offended, I don't really believe in religion. just that people harp about everything religious and here it is he is being referred to as a female.

[roid]

just assume the test is written with more than a christian patriarchal god in mind.

[Dakatsu]

I frogot to copy mine, but it said I bit the bullet because although I dont think you should base your logic on something as religion with no proof, while evolution has little proof and I believe it.

Heres the thing: I said evolution is a good explanation, as in has more evidence than \"God 7 days\". I think it is the best answer so far, and until proven wrong, I will go with it. I also said at the beginning that I don't know if god exists. I don't know if god exists because although I know the Christian god doesn't exist, it is possible there is a higher power. Wether that higher power can even do stuff on this planet such as send angels mabye, mabye not. Mabye god can't intervene with us. I can't disprove that, or an afterlife or reincarnation that can't be proven at all or can't be proven or disproven now. Evolution has holes, but it is the best explanation now, I don't necessarily believe in evolution as much as I think it has the greatest chances of how we got here. It has more proof than the christian or other gods and the creation theory.

Hope it isn't all jumbled and unreadable.

[Ferno]

hm, interesting.

A few questions I found to be on the ambiguous side, causing me to read them at least twice. My reading comprehension is quite good, but when questions are either written poorly or are unclear, it causes me to back up and try and decipher the message.

You have been awarded the TPM medal of distinction! This is our second highest award for outstanding service on the intellectual battleground.

This seems to be a bit of a feel-good passage; possibly to cause me to accept what's next in the description. Anyone else feel the same way?

The fact that you progressed through this activity being hit only once and biting very few bullets suggests that your beliefs about God are well thought out and almost entirely internally consistent.

The direct hit you suffered occurred because one set of your answers implied a logical contradiction. The bitten bullets occurred because you responded in ways that required that you held views that most people would have found strange, incredible or unpalatable. At the bottom of this page, we have reproduced the analyses of your direct hit and bitten bullets.

This happened because it seems to think I answered differently to the loch ness monster and atheism. The two questions dealt with wholly different subjects. A monster and a faith. The physical versus the metaphysical.

Because you only suffered one direct hit and bit very few bullets, you qualify for our second highest award. A good achievement!

I still don't feel like I've actually acieved anything.

[roid]

You have been awarded the TPM medal of distinction! This is our second highest award for outstanding service on the intellectual battleground.

This seems to be a bit of a feel-good passage; possibly to cause me to accept what's next in the description. Anyone else feel the same way?

iirc lower down on the page they say that just under half of all participants get at least that award.

[Ferno]

yea, i read that part.. I still stand by what I said, though.

[roid]

ya i was saying that i feel the same way

[The Lion]

3 direct hits and 2 bullets.

I don't have the result page on my screen anymore but here's what I
remember:

The big mistake I made was answering true to Q7 (\"belief without
evidence is justifiable\"). I probably did that because I was confused
by the wording. Because of this I got hit at Q13. But then I answered
true to Q17 in order to be consistent with my answer to Q7, and as a
result I got shot by Q13. Doh!

The remaining hit was because I didn't consider \"being able to do
everything\" to include making true contradictions such as 1 + 1 = 72
(or whatever).

I think one of the bullets had to do with my interpretation of \"evolutionary
theory\". I didn't study evolutionary theory, and I thought of the \"essence\"
of it to be purely logical (consider programs such as Tierra and Avida),
but the \"details\" to be based on external observations, and so I
answered true.

The other bullet was because I answered true to the Peter Sutcliffe
question, which I had to do in order to be consistent with Q7...

[Verran]

Code: Select all

Congratulations!

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 being hit only once and biting no bullets suggests that your beliefs about God are well thought out and almost entirely internally consistent.

The direct hit you suffered occurred because one set of your answers implied a logical contradiction. At the bottom of this page, we have reproduced the analysis of your direct hit. You would have bitten bullets had you responded in ways that required that you held views that most people would have found strange, incredible or unpalatable. However, this did not occur which means that despite the direct hit you qualify for our second highest award. A good achievement!

----------

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!

Yeah, they take this as a simple \"logical\" factor, not a \"morality\" factor. I answered this way because I believe such justifications (from my own decisions/actions) can be made in the effort of good morale. However, they are claiming it from the perspective of something bad (in my opinion). This is where logic and morale collide like trains.

And, of course, the concept of morale itself varies with different cultures, beliefs, etc, from person to person. Cutting off the hand of a thief would be immorale and cruel in some places, but accepted in others.

Fun test

[Shadowfury333]

And, of course, the concept of morale itself varies with different cultures, beliefs, etc, from person to person. Cutting off the hand of a thief would be immorale and cruel in some places, but accepted in others.

Isn't morale the level of motivation within a group of people, and morals a group of behavioural standards?

[Drakona]

I got very predictable results: The \"hit\" about omniscience extending to illogical things, and the \"bitten bullet\" about evolution.

The first I might have expected from a philosophy website, and I very much disagree with it. I usually answer 'yes' to the question 'Can God do the logically impossible?' because I know God's experience is so alien to ours that he can do many things we would naively think logically impossible. Strictly speaking, though, I don't think God can do the truly logically impossible. This is no limitation on his omniscience: I view the logically impossible, not as the unachievable, but as linguistic gibberish. When you say \"four-sided triangle\" you aren't offering a challenge; you don't mean anything sensible by the words. It's like asking for someone to \"gnarble snarff blatt.\"

I see my position as a good compromise between the classic strong/weak omniscience positions. It preserves the relevance of rationality, while denying that human reason can limit God. As far as I can see, it's completely consistent, so I say \"nyah nyah nyah\" to their 'direct hit.'

I did find the analysis of the evolution hit amusing.

You don't think that it is 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 in the previous question you rejected evolutionary theory when the vast majority of scientists think both that the evidence points to its truth and that there is no evidence which falsifies it. Of course, many creationists claim that the evidential case for evolution is by no means conclusive. But in doing so, they go against scientific orthodoxy.

Not one, but two appeals to authority, presented as problematic for someone who only counts hard evidence! Whoever wrote that must not think for themselves very much. I try to live my life counting only evidence, and never giving weight to authority, and it has the very predictable effect that I disagree with experts a lot. I hold weird opinions on just about every topic from theology to engineering principles; the fact that I am in confident disagreement with thousands of the brightest minds in the world bothers me not the least if I am unpersuaded by the evidence available to me. I think anyone who says they live by reason alone and doesn't hold half a dozen crazy, outlandish opinions despite what thousands of experts say . . . is lying to themselves.

Speaking of crazy or eccentric, I was amused that I didn't *immediately* generate a 'bitten bullet' for answering \"FALSE\" to Question 9, \"Torturing innocent people is morally wrong.\" I'd think most folks would find that opinion pretty objectionable, at least at first blush. (The explanation - generating suffering for no reason is an evil, but there are a surprisingly large number of moral reasons available to justify generating suffering. Performing surgery, allowing kids to ride bikes and get into accidents, demanding that your trainee finish those 50 situps . . . . This list is even longer if, unlike a lot of philosophers, you don't take the central rule of morality to be \"mimize suffering\".)