A philosopher's look at the religious God

[dogman6126]

Ok, so this test was designed by arguably the smartest moral philosopher of today. This test is designed to ask you about your conception of God, and will only look for logical inconsistencies and strange conclusions of any of your views. Its easily interactive and fun to play. Be warned however, it is very challenging. Read the questions carefully and consider them deeply. Answer as you actually believe. I had a friend take this who answered one question because he wanted to avoid a logical inconsistency even though he actually thought the opposite, and he ended up hitting a logical inconsistency. The other view was completely acceptable. The guy who designed this is very smart.
Please feel free to post your results for discussion.

http://www.philosophyexperiments.com/god/Default.aspx

[MENTION=5045]Skarekrow[/MENTION]

 

[Skarekrow]

Ok, so this test was designed by arguably the smartest moral philosopher of today. This test is designed to ask you about your conception of God, and will only look for logical inconsistencies and strange conclusions of any of your views. Its easily interactive and fun to play. Be warned however, it is very challenging. Read the questions carefully and consider them deeply. Answer as you actually believe. I had a friend take this who answered one question because he wanted to avoid a logical inconsistency even though he actually thought the opposite, and he ended up hitting a logical inconsistency. The other view was completely acceptable. The guy who designed this is very smart.
Please feel free to post your results for discussion.

http://www.philosophyexperiments.com/god/Default.aspx

@Skarekrow

Okay…this test is flawed and here is why.
It dings me on this one
It’s the serial killer question…
The serial killer feels justified in killing in the name of God.
Clearly, someone who thinks God is directly talking to them and directing them to kill prostitutes has a mental disorder and cannot be held fully accountable for his/her actions.
The fact that it dings me while it doesn’t take mental illness into account made me kind roll my eyes and just flub through it after that….sorry.
It’s a cool test but it makes too many assumptions about what the person believes.
My beliefs are much more complex than this test gives a person credit for….there is no way to explain to the test, why you are justified.

 

[dogman6126]

Okay…this test is flawed and here is why.
It dings me on this one
It’s the serial killer question…
The serial killer feels justified in killing in the name of God.
Clearly, someone who thinks God is directly talking to them and directing them to kill prostitutes has a mental disorder and cannot be held fully accountable for his/her actions.

Without knowing how they responded to your answers, I can't defend what he said. If you could copy what it responded with and post it on here that would be very helpful.
However, I might be able to put points against what you said here. Before saying anything, remember that philosophy is not like science. Science (very very generally put) deals with a certain type of philosophical possibilities. Namely, nomological possibilities. Philosophy allows us to ask questions of metaphysical and logical possibilities. Nomological possibilities talk about those possibilities allowed by all the rules and laws of nature in the world that we live in. Now, this leads me to ask you this:
Can you prove that a person who is killing people because supposedly God told him to has a mental disorder? This kind of question deals with conceiving or metaphysical possibilities. It does not seem to me that a person killing because God told him to and the concept of mental disease in any way necessitate each other. In other words, I can easily conceive of a person who is killing because God told him to, and the man does not have any mental disease.

Further, the test has nothing to do with whether or not the person in question is morally culpable. The question is getting at the fundamental nature of beliefs. Essentially playing with what you may have heard before, true, justified, and belief. This references talks about knowledge, but that's not the direct question here.

The question simply asks is the person justified in believing what he believes, not if he is correct in the belief.

The fact that it dings me while it doesn’t take mental illness into account made me kind roll my eyes and just flub through it after that….sorry.
It’s a cool test but it makes too many assumptions about what the person believes.

Most people would agree that it's very likely such a person would indeed have a mental illness. That's just not what's in question.

You claim that the test makes assumptions about the person, but I honestly disagree. If you could put forward some example, that would be helpful because right now we are just butting intuitions. A lot of people like to impose their own psychological assumptions of what they expect the question to be asking (or of what is to be expected) if they are not use to the kind of questioning that philosophy does.

My beliefs are much more complex than this test gives a person credit for….there is no way to explain to the test, why you are justified.

And you are correct. When I took the test I came out with two bite the bullets, and one of them I was able to successfully refute (I discussed it with a friend who is very good at philosophy, and she agreed with me). If you wish to refute some of the claims they make, that's awesome and I encourage any such debate. If you wish to post your refutes, I'd love to hear them.

 

[Faye]

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 you do not think that the mereabsence 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 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?

Who ever wrote this committed the logically fallacy of equivocation when using terms like 'rational'. Belief, inductive logic, and deductive logic are all separate things. And all of them can be rational or irrational depending on how one defines rationality. Inductive logic is deductively invalid. Deductive logic is inductively invalid. And belief isn't bound by logic at all. But any of them can play into what constitutes 'rational'. Ultimately, there is no clear distinction between belief and knowledge, and so we can't say with certainty what is or isn't rational or easily identify logical inconsistencies unless we're going to make illogical assumptions like this guy did.


Or to put it more bluntly:

For example, do you really want to claim that it is not rationally justified to believe that intelligent aliens do not live on Mars?

Belief in an empirical claim like there not being intelligent life on Mars is never rational if we take deductive certainty as our standard of rationality. I can believe that there are no aliens up there, and we can send NASA to gather evidence that there is no evidence up there, but that doesn't mean that I can ever know with deductive certainty that there are no aliens up there.

Hence why most people hate philosophy.

 

[Oscillation]

Who ever said God should be "logical"? (Not a belief of mine, but a philosofical question)

 

[dogman6126]

Who ever wrote this committed the logically fallacy of equivocation when using terms like 'rational'. Belief, inductive logic, and deductive logic are all separate things. And all of them can be rational or irrational depending on how one defines rationality. Inductive logic is deductively invalid. Deductive logic is inductively invalid. And belief isn't bound by logic at all. But any of them can play into what constitutes 'rational'. Ultimately, there is no clear distinction between belief and knowledge, and so we can't say with certainty what is or isn't rational or easily identify logical inconsistencies unless we're going to make illogical assumptions like this guy did.

I do agree that the clarification of what is meant by 'rational' would be needed. However, notice that as the post said, you hit no logical inconsistency. That is probably the case because of what you pointed out. It would be false to say you where logically inconsistent. However, when you hold the view that "absence of evidence, even where it has been sought, is enough to justify belief in the non-existence of things", then we can talk about some odd results of such a view. That being the aliens on mars. Honestly, I hit the same bullet you did, and this is the bullet I countered. I think that at this point we can talk about sufficient searching in justifying inductive views. So you might have spent 4 years searching for a loch ness monster, but that doesn't mean you searched in the right way. From this it might not be justified in believing that there is no loch ness monster. Given the condition of sufficient searching, then I would agree to the opposite.

Belief in an empirical claim like there not being intelligent life on Mars is never rational if we take deductive certainty as our standard of rationality. I can believe that there are no aliens up there, and we can send NASA to gather evidence that there is no evidence up there, but that doesn't mean that I can ever know with deductive certainty that there are no aliens up there.

This statement is certainly true. But I think the writer of this program made room for the inductive proving like what you described. This is just saying you would have to watch out for this odd view. And we can counter that claim.

Hence why most people hate philosophy.

I don't know where you got this from. Everyone does philosophy on some level at least sometimes. Usually without realizing it. The more in-depth philosophy discussed here may be complicated, but that isn't really reason to "hate it". If this kind of challenged thinking is not what you prefer, that's ok. Philosophy just deals with different kinds of questions than what a good number of people have a taste for. For example, some people prefer empirical fields rather than philosophy. That's ok, but it doesn't seem fair to condemn philosophy.

 

[dogman6126]

Who ever said God should be "logical"? (Not a belief of mine, but a philosofical question)

Some people do make such a claim, but it is not one that I agree with. While he may be logical, I do not find him constrained to being logical for the following reason. Suppose that there is a God, and that he created the universe. If we take the view that logic is a fundamental aspect of the fabric of the universe, then it is a part of the universe. If God created the universe, then he came before the universe (before is a hard term to use here, because we are talking about a place without 'placeless' or without time). If he created the universe, then he created logic, so why would he be constrained by what he created? Doesn't seem to make sense. Now we could make the claim that logic is fundamental to the universe and the 'place' it came from, but this is unnecessary. Really we can't say much about what is outside the universe. It's pure speculation.
In this test, there is a question that asks to the nature of this view, and it is pointed out if you hold the view.

 

[Cornerstone]

The 'biting bullets' part is nonsense but I guess it is to prevent future Sutcliffe's from getting justifaction from the test.

I found this difficult because I don't try to express my views in a logical fashion. I don't know what it means for the test but I do feel that contradictions can exist and that that doesn't upset the nature of reality. The biggest one I can think of is the inner life vs the outer life. They can be synthesised but perhaps not reconciled with hard logic because the inner life responds to other things like emotionality which may not lead you to the traditionally spiritual path before death comes a-knockin'.

 

[Faye]

I don't know where you got this from. Everyone does philosophy on some level at least sometimes. Usually without realizing it. The more in-depth philosophy discussed here may be complicated, but that isn't really reason to "hate it". If this kind of challenged thinking is not what you prefer, that's ok. Philosophy just deals with different kinds of questions than what a good number of people have a taste for. For example, some people prefer empirical fields rather than philosophy. That's ok, but it doesn't seem fair to condemn philosophy.

I majored in philosophy, and I have a rule where I don't talk about philosophy with someone unless they have a demonstrated interest in it because most people really do hate it. My guess is that they don't like to think for themselves. Or they don't want their worldviews challenged. Or they just hate intellectual stuff. I'm not sure.


As for the guy's test- he really just wanted to say that you can't logically believe in God, or that is what it seemed like anyway. The very last question on that did sting me. Its a difficult issue, but basically, logic is not so set in stone like he wants to present it. It sort of reminds me of The God Delusion by Dawkins. I personally don't believe in a supernatural creator, but I don't think doing so is necessarily illogical even if the only evidence one has is one's own inner conviction. I don't think that belief in a god conflicts with science either.

 

[Cornerstone]

That's the problem! The Nessie question!

I got 3 bullets and 0 hits when I did it again and took my time.

The Nessie question equates God to an external phenomena whereas I would be inclined to say that God exists everywhere as dichotomy and nowhere in unity. The former being the basis for the external life and the latter the internal life. When these two are synthesised, we 'know' God exists and can have faith that does not depend on belief.

 

[Faye]

That's the problem! The Nessie question!

I got 3 bullets and 0 hits when I did it again and took my time.

The Nessie question equates God to an external phenomena whereas I would be inclined to say that God exists everywhere as dichotomy and nowhere in unity. The former being the basis for the external life and the latter the internal life. When these two are synthesised, we 'know' God exists and can have faith that does not depend on belief.

That's what I was thinking. Why couldn't God be internal or partially internal, or why wouldn't some internal state be sufficient for belief in God? And how do we draw the distinction between internal and external in precise terms anyway? That whole distinction in our thought process is something we sort of owe to the mind/body distinction that we make, which is itself a concept rooted in the idea that we have immortal souls that causally interact with our physical bodies (like Descartes thought).

 

[Barnabas]

The test doesn't like that I believe that logically that absence of evidence doesn't mean that you can logically believe that something does or does not exist, out side of that I got away unscathed.

 

[sprinkles]

Battleground God - Analysis


You navigated the battlefield suffering 0 hits and biting 0 bullets, which represents an overall performance at the 100th percentile (i.e., 100% of scores are worse than yours). The tables on the right show how your performance compares to the other 15563 people who have completed Battleground God.

Edit:
As for the Nessie question... nessie is alleged to live in a lake so in that context one could reasonably be justified in believing it doesn't exist (the lake is practically searchable) That's almost a trick question.

 

[Eventhorizon]

Okay…this test is flawed and here is why.
It dings me on this one
It’s the serial killer question…
The serial killer feels justified in killing in the name of God.
Clearly, someone who thinks God is directly talking to them and directing them to kill prostitutes has a mental disorder and cannot be held fully accountable for his/her actions.
The fact that it dings me while it doesn’t take mental illness into account made me kind roll my eyes and just flub through it after that….sorry.
It’s a cool test but it makes too many assumptions about what the person believes.
My beliefs are much more complex than this test gives a person credit for….there is no way to explain to the test, why you are justified.

I counter and say that ANYONE who feels as if a god is talking to them has a mental disorder. What difference does it make if the person believes they are being directed to kill as opposed to say, dance in the street?

 

[Skarekrow]

I counter and say that ANYONE who feels as if a god is talking to them has a mental disorder. What difference does it make if the person believes they are being directed to kill as opposed to say, dance in the street?

They aren’t killing anyone.

 

[Eventhorizon]

They aren’t killing anyone.

Yes but what does that have to do with whether a god is talking to them or not? Or are you trying to say that a god would only say what you think it would say? Awful presumptuous if so...

 

[Skarekrow]

Yes but what does that have to do with whether a god is talking to them or not? Or are you trying to say that a god would only say what you think it would say? Awful presumptuous if so...

No, I’m saying there is a difference in someone who is say…dancing in the street…they can still be crazy…and someone who is a serial killer.
But, one does not hurt anyone else, while the other is a destructive force.

 

[j654dgj7]

Ok, so this test was designed by arguably the smartest moral philosopher of today. This test is designed to ask you about your conception of God, and will only look for logical inconsistencies and strange conclusions of any of your views.

Fun test! I got worried about the shots at the end.

What's so wrong about having complex, opposing views in faith? Is there really such a thing as being "wrong" in religious opinions and beliefs? If it's what you believe, it's what you believe. After all, it's better to believe something that doesn't logically make sense with passion than to believe nothing and have no purpose, right?

 

[CindyLou]

Enjoyed that one. I got hit on one question

Direct Hit 1

You answered "True" to questions 4 and 6 and "False" to Question 17, which generated the following response:

You say that God does not have the freedom and power to do impossible things such as create square circles, but in earlier answers you indicated that any entity that it is right to call God must be free and have the power to do anything. So, on your view, God is not free and does not have the power to do what is impossible. This requires that you accept - in common with most, but not all, philosophers and theologians, and contrary to your earlier answer - that God's freedom and power are not unbounded. He does not have the freedom and power to do literally anything.

 

[Tin Man]

You navigated the battlefield suffering 0 hits and biting 0 bullets, which represents an overall performance at the 100th percentile (i.e., 100% of scores are worse than yours). The tables on the right show how your performance compares to the other 15622 people who have completed Battleground God

Interesting, but I dislike being forced between binary answers to such complex questions.