Battleground God

[HarveyDarkey]

Can your beliefs about religion make it across our intellectual battleground?

In this activity you’ll be asked a series of 17 questions about God and religion. In each case, apart from Question 1, you need to answer True or False. The aim of the activity is not to judge whether these answers are correct or not. Our battleground is that of rational consistency. This means to get across without taking any hits, you’ll need to answer in a way which is rationally consistent. What this means is you need to avoid choosing answers which contradict each other. If you answer in a way which is rationally consistent but which has strange or unpalatable implications, you’ll be forced to bite a bullet.

Of course, you may go along with thinkers such as Kierkegaard and believe that religious belief does not need to be rationally consistent. But that takes us beyond the scope of this activity, which is about the extent to which your beliefs are rationally consistent, not whether this is a good or a bad thing.

What happens when you don't agree with the analyses!?

http://philosophersnet.com/games/god.php

[cbayer]

1. Very interesting.

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 without being hit and biting very few bullets suggests that your beliefs about God are internally consistent and well thought out.

A direct hit would have occurred had you answered in a way that 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. However, because you bit only two bullets and avoided direct hits completely you still qualify for our second highest award. A good achievement!

[HarveyDarkey]

2. That's what I got

I bit two bullets, took no direct hits.

Bitten Bullet 1

You answered True to questions 6 and 13.

These answers generated the following response:

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.

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.

[NMMNG]

4. I scored exactly the same

:hi:

[Jim__]

3. Me too. But I tailored my answers to what they considered to be logical rather than what I ...

actually thought. I considered some of the questions ambiguous and answered in the way that would be easiest to remain consistent - for example, I believe there is no god - but I know there is a possibility - so, I answered the question as to whether or not god exists with "Uncertain" - can't remember the exact phrasing. Later this paid off because it made subsequent questions easier.

[Rabblevox]

5. bit one bullet, no direct hits. agnostic/pagan here. /nt

[silverweb]

8. Ditto... almost.

1 hit and 1 bullet; like you, an agnostic/pagan.

[rrneck]

6. Two hits, zero bullets.

Two hits regarding a condradiction about the necessity of a belief on God exclusive of external evidence.

[Grey]

7. Question 13 is badly worded.

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. It's easy when you don't have to answer in a way to please the Sky Fairy.

[Charlemagne]

9. My score

I regard myself as a christian.

"You took 1 direct hit and you bit zero bullets. The average player of this activity to date takes 1.37 hits and bites 1.09 bullets."

The direct hit was question 13 which I felt was poorly worded. I didnt "bit the bullet" or whatever the option was because, again, I felt it could have been worded better.


Further details, if you care:
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.

You answered True to questions 6 and 13.

These answers generated the following response:

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 take the direct hit.

[Silent3]

10. I got through taking only one hit...

...and I'd say that's because it wasn't possible, the way the questions were presented, to make a fine distinction between an essentially all-powerful god and one that can do things which make the words describing those things meaningless -- such as making a circular square. Since gods are merely hypothetical constructs as far as I'm concerned, I don't see this as any real inconsistency in my philosophy anyway.