Battleground God
August 25, 2009 7:34 PM Subscribe
Can your beliefs about religion make it across the intellectual battleground of Battleground God? After being asked a series of 17 questions about God and religion, you will be judged. The goal is not to judge whether your answers are correct or not but rather whether your answers are rationally consistent.
This post was deleted for the following reason: Meh, posted several times and questionable whether it was really so solidly constructed as to deserve even one of 'em. There's insightful religious commentary and then there's this. -- cortex
You have been awarded the TPM medal of honour! This is our highest award for outstanding service on the intellectual battleground.Well, thank god for that!
The fact that you progressed through this activity neither being hit nor biting a bullet suggests that your beliefs about God are internally consistent and very well thought out.
A direct hit would have occurred had you answered in a way that implied a logical contradiction. 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, you avoided both these fates - and in doing so qualify for our highest award. A fine achievement!
posted by scody at 7:42 PM on August 25, 2009
"Do I contradict myself? Very well then, I contradict myself. I am vast. I contain multitudes."
-Walt Whitman
posted by mai at 7:42 PM on August 25, 2009 [23 favorites]
-Walt Whitman
posted by mai at 7:42 PM on August 25, 2009 [23 favorites]
452720 people have completed this activity to date.
You suffered zero direct hits and bit 1 bullet.
The 'bullet' I bit was saying that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
posted by unSane at 7:43 PM on August 25, 2009 [5 favorites]
You suffered zero direct hits and bit 1 bullet.
The 'bullet' I bit was saying that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
posted by unSane at 7:43 PM on August 25, 2009 [5 favorites]
I mean, this is kind of fun, but it makes some fairly egregious logical skips/assumptions. That and its really no different than the whole 'can God make a stone so big he can't life it' thing...
posted by Lutoslawski at 7:43 PM on August 25, 2009
posted by Lutoslawski at 7:43 PM on August 25, 2009
the 'bullet' I bit was saying that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Yes, exactly what I mean.
posted by Lutoslawski at 7:44 PM on August 25, 2009
Yes, exactly what I mean.
posted by Lutoslawski at 7:44 PM on August 25, 2009
...the God you conceive is internally consistent and could exist in our universe. We suspect that your God is not the traditional God of the Christian, Jewish or Muslim faiths.
posted by StickyCarpet at 7:47 PM on August 25, 2009 [3 favorites]
posted by StickyCarpet at 7:47 PM on August 25, 2009 [3 favorites]
It depends on you being able to have absolute recall about past questions and accuses you of contradiction if you recall statements as being equivalent when they're actually just really similar.
posted by Mayor Curley at 7:47 PM on August 25, 2009 [2 favorites]
posted by Mayor Curley at 7:47 PM on August 25, 2009 [2 favorites]
Any being which it is right to call God must be free to do anything.
why doesn't this phrase make sense to me?
posted by Think_Long at 7:47 PM on August 25, 2009
why doesn't this phrase make sense to me?
posted by Think_Long at 7:47 PM on August 25, 2009
...the God you conceive is internally consistent and could exist in our universe. We suspect that your God is not the traditional God of the Christian, Jewish or Muslim faiths.
Ah ha ha ha...ha. It's funny 'cause it's true! It's funnier because of the understatement.
posted by infinitywaltz at 7:50 PM on August 25, 2009
Ah ha ha ha...ha. It's funny 'cause it's true! It's funnier because of the understatement.
posted by infinitywaltz at 7:50 PM on August 25, 2009
You've just taken a direct hit!
Earlier you agreed that it is rational to believe that the Loch Ness monster does not exist if there is an absence of strong evidence or argument that it does. No strong evidence or argument was required to show that the monster does not exist - absence of evidence or argument was enough. But now you claim that the atheist needs to be able to provide strong arguments or evidence if their belief in the non-existence of God is to be rational rather than a matter of faith.
The contradiction is that on the first ocassion (Loch Ness monster) you agreed that the absence of evidence or argument is enough to rationally justify belief in the non-existence of the Loch Ness monster, but on this occasion (God), you do not.
I don't get this. A lake is measurable, searchable, even an obnoxiously deep one. Comparing that to proving god exists seems fallacious to me.
posted by hermitosis at 7:50 PM on August 25, 2009 [14 favorites]
Earlier you agreed that it is rational to believe that the Loch Ness monster does not exist if there is an absence of strong evidence or argument that it does. No strong evidence or argument was required to show that the monster does not exist - absence of evidence or argument was enough. But now you claim that the atheist needs to be able to provide strong arguments or evidence if their belief in the non-existence of God is to be rational rather than a matter of faith.
The contradiction is that on the first ocassion (Loch Ness monster) you agreed that the absence of evidence or argument is enough to rationally justify belief in the non-existence of the Loch Ness monster, but on this occasion (God), you do not.
I don't get this. A lake is measurable, searchable, even an obnoxiously deep one. Comparing that to proving god exists seems fallacious to me.
posted by hermitosis at 7:50 PM on August 25, 2009 [14 favorites]
One of the principle tenets of my own belief system is that doing dumb quizzes on the Internet will definitely keep you out of heaven.
posted by mhoye at 7:51 PM on August 25, 2009 [2 favorites]
posted by mhoye at 7:51 PM on August 25, 2009 [2 favorites]
You suffered 11 direct hits and bit 6 bullets. Your logic is ridiculously convoluted, but somehow you made it to the end. After crunching the numbers, we've deduced that only God could have carried you this far. Well...shit. What do we do now?
posted by Christ, what an asshole at 7:52 PM on August 25, 2009 [2 favorites]
posted by Christ, what an asshole at 7:52 PM on August 25, 2009 [2 favorites]
The main thing that bothers me is that it defines "God" as an infallible, all-knowing, all-seeing, all-powerful being. It's very rational to me to believe that there is no God, but in the event I am incorrect, then a "God" does not need to have all power, knowledge, and ability.
Further, the example of the serial killer...it was consistent in his world view that God was telling him to rape and murder prostitutes. That doesn't mean that his actions were rational in my own take on it...it just means that his warped sense of reality allowed this to be rational in his own mind.
By the same token, it is rational for an atheist to believe there is no God, based on lack of evidence. That doesn't mean there is no God, just that an atheist would not be incorrect for believing that there is no God.
Yuck, this quiz is not very well done.
posted by Kickstart70 at 7:54 PM on August 25, 2009 [5 favorites]
Further, the example of the serial killer...it was consistent in his world view that God was telling him to rape and murder prostitutes. That doesn't mean that his actions were rational in my own take on it...it just means that his warped sense of reality allowed this to be rational in his own mind.
By the same token, it is rational for an atheist to believe there is no God, based on lack of evidence. That doesn't mean there is no God, just that an atheist would not be incorrect for believing that there is no God.
Yuck, this quiz is not very well done.
posted by Kickstart70 at 7:54 PM on August 25, 2009 [5 favorites]
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.
I start church now?
Services held on alternating Wednesday afternoons for roughly twenty minutes. No singing, no dogma, no blood-drinking, no tithing. However, God & I must insist that you bring me comics and pie. Also: expect to play a lot of Street Fighter during Solstice ceremonies.
posted by EatTheWeek at 7:55 PM on August 25, 2009 [4 favorites]
I start church now?
Services held on alternating Wednesday afternoons for roughly twenty minutes. No singing, no dogma, no blood-drinking, no tithing. However, God & I must insist that you bring me comics and pie. Also: expect to play a lot of Street Fighter during Solstice ceremonies.
posted by EatTheWeek at 7:55 PM on August 25, 2009 [4 favorites]
I feel like a college freshmen with dreadlocks is trying to catch me as I contradict myself just to prove a point.
could god make an internet quiz so slow that even I can't get to the end? apparently
posted by Think_Long at 7:56 PM on August 25, 2009 [3 favorites]
could god make an internet quiz so slow that even I can't get to the end? apparently
posted by Think_Long at 7:56 PM on August 25, 2009 [3 favorites]
Both things that Lutoslawski pointed out.
Quis snarkiet ipsos snarkiodes, website?
posted by porpoise at 7:56 PM on August 25, 2009
Quis snarkiet ipsos snarkiodes, website?
posted by porpoise at 7:56 PM on August 25, 2009
Any being which it is right to call God must be free to do anything.
There is no God, so now we're just talking about imaginary friends. No, my imaginary friends must not be free to do anything. For one thing, my imaginary friends cannot spontaneously become non-imaginary.
BOOM! Take THAT, ya' goddam limey philosophinuts.
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 7:58 PM on August 25, 2009
There is no God, so now we're just talking about imaginary friends. No, my imaginary friends must not be free to do anything. For one thing, my imaginary friends cannot spontaneously become non-imaginary.
BOOM! Take THAT, ya' goddam limey philosophinuts.
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 7:58 PM on August 25, 2009
no hits, one bullet fine fine fine. but my bullet was "believing" in evolution theory but not in the possible existence of god based on available evidence. how are those 2 things equivalent?? there is a body of empirical evidence in support of evolutionary theory, none that I have heard of in support of the existence of god...or this
the 'bullet' I bit was saying that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
I think...
posted by supermedusa at 7:58 PM on August 25, 2009
the 'bullet' I bit was saying that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
I think...
posted by supermedusa at 7:58 PM on August 25, 2009
Hey whaddaya know? Sort of a triple even.
posted by juv3nal at 8:00 PM on August 25, 2009 [2 favorites]
posted by juv3nal at 8:00 PM on August 25, 2009 [2 favorites]
Kickstart, I must have missed that definition. I was under the impression that the site let you could define god pretty much any way you wanted. There is also a "Do-it-yourself-Deity" which kind of touches on the supposed powers of god.
posted by zach4000 at 8:00 PM on August 25, 2009
posted by zach4000 at 8:00 PM on August 25, 2009
After crunching the numbers, we've deduced that only God could have carried you this far. Well...shit. What do we do now?
Look around for footprints in the sand, and follow them back to where you parked the car.
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 8:00 PM on August 25, 2009
Look around for footprints in the sand, and follow them back to where you parked the car.
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 8:00 PM on August 25, 2009
For those don't agree with the analyses, have a look at the FAQ. It'll give you some idea of their thinking.
posted by Effigy2000 at 8:00 PM on August 25, 2009
posted by Effigy2000 at 8:00 PM on August 25, 2009
Oh man. This is more fun than the quiz: quadruple.
posted by juv3nal at 8:02 PM on August 25, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by juv3nal at 8:02 PM on August 25, 2009 [1 favorite]
Do you have a link for Earthground God, you know, without the bullets?
posted by effluvia at 8:02 PM on August 25, 2009
posted by effluvia at 8:02 PM on August 25, 2009
If you count AskMe answers, it's a quintuple.
posted by jedicus at 8:03 PM on August 25, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by jedicus at 8:03 PM on August 25, 2009 [1 favorite]
I got two direct hits, which I think are more or less reasonable, just looking at it logically. But the bullet I bit confuses me, which maybe speaks to my simple mind:
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.
The statement I agreed with was If God exists she could create square circles and make 1 + 1 = 72. It seems to me that if God existed, God could define whatever the fuck she wanted; that's what a God can do, right? (The whole thing is fundamentally non-rational to me anyways!) Can someone better help me understand the logical inconsistency here, or what is dangerous--rationally speaking--from asserting this? Seems like there are some philosophical gotchas there I'm just not getting. I don't see why calling something all-powerful and therefore suggesting that all-powerful thing can subvert rationality itself means you can no longer have a rational conversation about it.
For the record, I don't believe in a God or Gods (which is funny, cause it seems like the response I received assumed I do), although I wouldn't call myself an atheist either, I just...don't really think it's the right way to think.
posted by dubitable at 8:09 PM on August 25, 2009
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.
The statement I agreed with was If God exists she could create square circles and make 1 + 1 = 72. It seems to me that if God existed, God could define whatever the fuck she wanted; that's what a God can do, right? (The whole thing is fundamentally non-rational to me anyways!) Can someone better help me understand the logical inconsistency here, or what is dangerous--rationally speaking--from asserting this? Seems like there are some philosophical gotchas there I'm just not getting. I don't see why calling something all-powerful and therefore suggesting that all-powerful thing can subvert rationality itself means you can no longer have a rational conversation about it.
For the record, I don't believe in a God or Gods (which is funny, cause it seems like the response I received assumed I do), although I wouldn't call myself an atheist either, I just...don't really think it's the right way to think.
posted by dubitable at 8:09 PM on August 25, 2009
If God exists she could make it so that everything now considered sinful becomes morally acceptable and everything that is now considered morally good becomes sinful. [True/False]
If God exists she would have the freedom and power to create square circles and make 1 + 1 = 72. [True/False]
I don't get how an atheist could possibly even find these questions answerable. It's like asking "If unicorns could ride motorcycles, could the unicorns do wheelies?" How the hell would I know?
posted by churl at 8:10 PM on August 25, 2009 [17 favorites]
If God exists she would have the freedom and power to create square circles and make 1 + 1 = 72. [True/False]
I don't get how an atheist could possibly even find these questions answerable. It's like asking "If unicorns could ride motorcycles, could the unicorns do wheelies?" How the hell would I know?
posted by churl at 8:10 PM on August 25, 2009 [17 favorites]
I bit one bullet and took one direct hit, both on things where I could've come down one way or the other very easily because of ambiguity in the language.
I think my biggest problem was parsing out the difference between "rational" and "justified."
posted by Navelgazer at 8:14 PM on August 25, 2009
I think my biggest problem was parsing out the difference between "rational" and "justified."
posted by Navelgazer at 8:14 PM on August 25, 2009
This "quiz" is silly. About the square circles and 1+1 = 72: redefining terms is not the same as short-circuiting causality.
Needs more nuance.
posted by flippant at 8:15 PM on August 25, 2009
Needs more nuance.
posted by flippant at 8:15 PM on August 25, 2009
Okay, another quibble, I changed my mind on how accurate I thought one of the hits was. It said:
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.
I think that you can believe in evolutionary theory because even part of it existing shows some usefulness--every part of the theory doesn't have to be fully true and proven to be functional. And its BIG too, right? I mean, there's a lot to evolutionary theory, like punctuated equilibrium vs. gradualism and whatnot. But--and correct me if I'm wrong--you can't believe in just a little bit of God, right? I mean, you buy an ounce you buy a pound you buy a ton, right? How can it be otherwise?
I still think the other hit was reasonable though (The contradiction is that on the first ocassion (Loch Ness monster) you agreed that the absence of evidence or argument is enough to rationally justify belief in the non-existence of the Loch Ness monster, but on this occasion (God), you do not.).
Maybe I should read their FAQ.
posted by dubitable at 8:20 PM on August 25, 2009
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.
I think that you can believe in evolutionary theory because even part of it existing shows some usefulness--every part of the theory doesn't have to be fully true and proven to be functional. And its BIG too, right? I mean, there's a lot to evolutionary theory, like punctuated equilibrium vs. gradualism and whatnot. But--and correct me if I'm wrong--you can't believe in just a little bit of God, right? I mean, you buy an ounce you buy a pound you buy a ton, right? How can it be otherwise?
I still think the other hit was reasonable though (The contradiction is that on the first ocassion (Loch Ness monster) you agreed that the absence of evidence or argument is enough to rationally justify belief in the non-existence of the Loch Ness monster, but on this occasion (God), you do not.).
Maybe I should read their FAQ.
posted by dubitable at 8:20 PM on August 25, 2009
God exists...
True
False
Don't Know
These are not adequate.
posted by klanawa at 8:20 PM on August 25, 2009
True
False
Don't Know
These are not adequate.
posted by klanawa at 8:20 PM on August 25, 2009
Congratulations! You have made it to the end of this activity.
You took zero direct hits and you bit 1 bullets. The average player of this activity to date takes 1.39 hits and bites 1.10 bullet. 453028 people have so far undertaken this activity.
posted by carfilhiot at 8:21 PM on August 25, 2009
You took zero direct hits and you bit 1 bullets. The average player of this activity to date takes 1.39 hits and bites 1.10 bullet. 453028 people have so far undertaken this activity.
posted by carfilhiot at 8:21 PM on August 25, 2009
I took this once before and disagree with some of their versions on what constitutes "consistent".
Yeah. Specifically, quoting from the FAQ,
"omnipotence isn't normally felt to require the ability to do the logically impossible"
Well, maybe I'm a nutbar of an agnostic, but I don't see why. The question was, "if god exists can it do logically impossible things," to which I say...sure, I guess. If there's an intelligent being capable of creating a whole goddamn universe, then maybe it can make one where circles are square or 1+1=72. Perhaps it can make a rock so big it can't lift it. Dunno. "Did an intelligent force create the universe and what is the extent of that force's power" seems to me an inherently unknowable question, because it means speculating on the nature of forces independent of the universe (and thus perhaps not subject to natural law). That there may be such a being does not seem to me to be inconsistent with requiring evidence for the proposition that there is such a being and they have an abiding interest in human affiars, to the extent of having a few sharp words about the blasphemies inherent in a bacon cheeseburger.
posted by Diablevert at 8:22 PM on August 25, 2009
Yeah. Specifically, quoting from the FAQ,
"omnipotence isn't normally felt to require the ability to do the logically impossible"
Well, maybe I'm a nutbar of an agnostic, but I don't see why. The question was, "if god exists can it do logically impossible things," to which I say...sure, I guess. If there's an intelligent being capable of creating a whole goddamn universe, then maybe it can make one where circles are square or 1+1=72. Perhaps it can make a rock so big it can't lift it. Dunno. "Did an intelligent force create the universe and what is the extent of that force's power" seems to me an inherently unknowable question, because it means speculating on the nature of forces independent of the universe (and thus perhaps not subject to natural law). That there may be such a being does not seem to me to be inconsistent with requiring evidence for the proposition that there is such a being and they have an abiding interest in human affiars, to the extent of having a few sharp words about the blasphemies inherent in a bacon cheeseburger.
posted by Diablevert at 8:22 PM on August 25, 2009
Any being which it is right to call God must want there to be as little suffering in the word as is possible.
In the beginning was the word. And the word was 'typo'.
This could explain a lot.
posted by motty at 8:24 PM on August 25, 2009
In the beginning was the word. And the word was 'typo'.
This could explain a lot.
posted by motty at 8:24 PM on August 25, 2009
I'm offended. They need to have options for multiple deities.
posted by mephron at 8:25 PM on August 25, 2009
posted by mephron at 8:25 PM on August 25, 2009
God exists.
No.
If God exists she could make it so that everything now considered sinful becomes morally acceptable and everything that is now considered morally good becomes sinful. Options: Yes/No
Click.
posted by East Manitoba Regional Junior Kabaddi Champion '94 at 8:28 PM on August 25, 2009
No.
If God exists she could make it so that everything now considered sinful becomes morally acceptable and everything that is now considered morally good becomes sinful. Options: Yes/No
Click.
posted by East Manitoba Regional Junior Kabaddi Champion '94 at 8:28 PM on August 25, 2009
I took the same hit hermitosis did, for the same reason. And I bit the bullet that hit dubitable; earlier, they asked if God (if she exists) could do anything, and I said "true." Foolishly, apparently, I interpreted "anything" to mean making 1+1 = 72, among other things.
Still, for a wishy-washy agnostic pantheist, I'm remarkably consistent.
posted by rtha at 8:30 PM on August 25, 2009
Still, for a wishy-washy agnostic pantheist, I'm remarkably consistent.
posted by rtha at 8:30 PM on August 25, 2009
Thanks, juvenal, for rewarding my faith that Battleground God is a, like, Magic Johnson In-n-Out triple double double double.
posted by box at 8:30 PM on August 25, 2009
posted by box at 8:30 PM on August 25, 2009
I am an atheist by definition. Epicurus put it best;
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able, and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither willing, nor able? Then why call him God?
But logic only gets you so far. It works or seems to work in our real everyday world and I've never had cause to doubt it. But the same can be said for the logic of dreams, when you dream it all makes perfect sense it's only when you wake up that you seem to realize it had it's own logic. For all I know nothing makes sense and this waking world is no more than another dream. I am an atheist but not a proud or certain one, I'm humbled by what I don't know.
I'm always kind of amazed that anyone can think they know what's really going on from their little corner of time/space. That goes for theists and non-theists alike.
posted by nola at 8:31 PM on August 25, 2009 [3 favorites]
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able, and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither willing, nor able? Then why call him God?
But logic only gets you so far. It works or seems to work in our real everyday world and I've never had cause to doubt it. But the same can be said for the logic of dreams, when you dream it all makes perfect sense it's only when you wake up that you seem to realize it had it's own logic. For all I know nothing makes sense and this waking world is no more than another dream. I am an atheist but not a proud or certain one, I'm humbled by what I don't know.
I'm always kind of amazed that anyone can think they know what's really going on from their little corner of time/space. That goes for theists and non-theists alike.
posted by nola at 8:31 PM on August 25, 2009 [3 favorites]
Wow, so this has been posted a lot. Maybe we should all retake and repost our results in the annual cat-scan thread, then?
"Battleground God is one of the strangest sites I've seen in some time. I have no idea how these people got all these logical fallacies wedged into their cgi script, or why."
posted by EatTheWeek at 8:31 PM on August 25, 2009
"Battleground God is one of the strangest sites I've seen in some time. I have no idea how these people got all these logical fallacies wedged into their cgi script, or why."
posted by EatTheWeek at 8:31 PM on August 25, 2009
You have been awarded the TPM medal of honour! This is our highest award for outstanding service on the intellectual battleground.
The fact that you progressed through this activity neither being hit nor biting a bullet suggests that your beliefs about God are internally consistent and very well thought out.
Whoo-hoo! I'm frickin' special forces.
posted by saulgoodman at 8:32 PM on August 25, 2009
The fact that you progressed through this activity neither being hit nor biting a bullet suggests that your beliefs about God are internally consistent and very well thought out.
Whoo-hoo! I'm frickin' special forces.
posted by saulgoodman at 8:32 PM on August 25, 2009
Fucking bullshit "Look, we're all analytical philosophers" masquerading as legitimate discourse on God.
I was annoyed with this the first time it was posted, and took 1.5 hits (justified is ambiguous, dweebs).
posted by klangklangston at 8:32 PM on August 25, 2009
I was annoyed with this the first time it was posted, and took 1.5 hits (justified is ambiguous, dweebs).
posted by klangklangston at 8:32 PM on August 25, 2009
Well, it's just The Philosophers' Magazine, people.
posted by saulgoodman at 8:33 PM on August 25, 2009
posted by saulgoodman at 8:33 PM on August 25, 2009
The real secret is just to be hyper-pedantic, where if there's any ambiguity in the statement—which leaves open the possibility of falsehood—the statement cannot be wholly true; if the statement cannot wholly be true, it must be marked false.
Way to enrich the dialogue, assholes!
posted by klangklangston at 8:35 PM on August 25, 2009
Way to enrich the dialogue, assholes!
posted by klangklangston at 8:35 PM on August 25, 2009
I did this same quiz about four years ago and found it much more difficult then. Maybe I have become more rational?
posted by crossoverman at 8:38 PM on August 25, 2009
posted by crossoverman at 8:38 PM on August 25, 2009
I reject rationality, gods, and masters. Fuck this test.
but if there is a god, it could make 1+1 equal whatever the hell it wanted.
posted by knapah at 8:40 PM on August 25, 2009
but if there is a god, it could make 1+1 equal whatever the hell it wanted.
posted by knapah at 8:40 PM on August 25, 2009
Great. I just wasted time taking a quiz written by people who can't spell or proof read, and who quite genuinely can't tell the difference between God and the Loch Ness Monster. On the plus side I haven't felt so comprehensively patronised and condescended to since I was about ten.
What was that Flash game posted a while back where everything was so deliberately hard that lasting more than twenty seconds was an unlikely achievement more to do with luck than anything else, at which point an entirely new enemy would pop out and kill you instantly. Is this game by the same people?
There are also good games on the internet.
posted by motty at 8:41 PM on August 25, 2009 [1 favorite]
What was that Flash game posted a while back where everything was so deliberately hard that lasting more than twenty seconds was an unlikely achievement more to do with luck than anything else, at which point an entirely new enemy would pop out and kill you instantly. Is this game by the same people?
There are also good games on the internet.
posted by motty at 8:41 PM on August 25, 2009 [1 favorite]
I believe that anyone is entitled to define their use of the word "God". Some of those definitions clearly exist, such as "The Universe". So I believe in those gods. I believe the highly specific gods described by major religions have no good evidence for them, so their existence is infinitesimally unlikely, and I simplify things by being atheistic about them. I believe that other, broader definitions of god, such as merely "a creative force", are outside the scope of that for which we have evidence or for which we could expect evidence, so I do not actively believe in them, but nor do I deny them from conviction.
posted by East Manitoba Regional Junior Kabaddi Champion '94 at 8:42 PM on August 25, 2009 [2 favorites]
posted by East Manitoba Regional Junior Kabaddi Champion '94 at 8:42 PM on August 25, 2009 [2 favorites]
Klang: I agree about "justifiable" vs. "rational," etc. I think the trick is just to look at the formal structure of each more general statements of belief you make in the earlier rounds of questioning, and then make sure when a statement with the same formal structure but different terms comes up in later questioning, make sure your answers preserve the truth values of the terms. It's almost like you could schematize each question, then when you see a particular pattern recur, just be sure to answer the same way.
Yeah, as a test on the logical consistency of beliefs, it's got some pretty gaping logical holes in it. Luckily, I think it's just supposed to be a momentary diversion that stimulates thought, not a crucial tool for self-exploration and philosophical discovery.
posted by saulgoodman at 8:42 PM on August 25, 2009
Yeah, as a test on the logical consistency of beliefs, it's got some pretty gaping logical holes in it. Luckily, I think it's just supposed to be a momentary diversion that stimulates thought, not a crucial tool for self-exploration and philosophical discovery.
posted by saulgoodman at 8:42 PM on August 25, 2009
My god is omnipotent over square roots and HTML quizzes. There, I passed.
posted by RobotVoodooPower at 8:44 PM on August 25, 2009
posted by RobotVoodooPower at 8:44 PM on August 25, 2009
I don't get this. A lake is measurable, searchable, even an obnoxiously deep one. Comparing that to proving god exists seems fallacious to me.
The propositions in the quiz are limited to the realm of what can be rationally asserted or denied by empirical propositions (or by logical tautologies/contradictions).
That realm may indeed more obnoxiously deep than any lake we can conceive of, but it is still (by definition) searchable and measurable.
(Is philosophy that limits itself to this realm somehow inherently shallow? Is philosophy that doesn't limit itself to this realm really philosophy, strictly speaking? Those are great and interesting questions, but the quiz doesn't attempt to address them).
posted by treepour at 8:44 PM on August 25, 2009
The propositions in the quiz are limited to the realm of what can be rationally asserted or denied by empirical propositions (or by logical tautologies/contradictions).
That realm may indeed more obnoxiously deep than any lake we can conceive of, but it is still (by definition) searchable and measurable.
(Is philosophy that limits itself to this realm somehow inherently shallow? Is philosophy that doesn't limit itself to this realm really philosophy, strictly speaking? Those are great and interesting questions, but the quiz doesn't attempt to address them).
posted by treepour at 8:44 PM on August 25, 2009
No hits, one bullet.
Biting a bullet indicates that I hold a belief that is "strange, incredible, or unpalatable to many."
They didn't ask enough questions - I bite many of those bullets.
posted by jaruwaan at 8:44 PM on August 25, 2009
Biting a bullet indicates that I hold a belief that is "strange, incredible, or unpalatable to many."
They didn't ask enough questions - I bite many of those bullets.
posted by jaruwaan at 8:44 PM on August 25, 2009
Further, the example of the serial killer...it was consistent in his world view that God was telling him to rape and murder prostitutes. That doesn't mean that his actions were rational in my own take on it...it just means that his warped sense of reality allowed this to be rational in his own mind.The question was
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.The question was not "does his convictions justify his actions?" The questions was "does his convictions justify his beliefs." The answer is: No, that's tautological. You gotta be way more pedantical.
posted by aubilenon at 8:46 PM on August 25, 2009
I thought this was an incredibly condescending quiz.
posted by prefpara at 8:47 PM on August 25, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by prefpara at 8:47 PM on August 25, 2009 [1 favorite]
I don't see the difference between #12 (god could make everything sinful-->moral and vice versa, which I said is true) and #17, yet I "bit a bullet" on #17 (the square circles question, which I also said is true). Presumably this is because I said a God did not have to be omnipotent, yet the FAQ doesn't address this point at all? Someone explain it to me like I'm a five year old, please.
posted by R_Nebblesworth at 8:55 PM on August 25, 2009
posted by R_Nebblesworth at 8:55 PM on August 25, 2009
Well, it is a British magazine... (I keed, I keed.)
posted by saulgoodman at 8:57 PM on August 25, 2009
posted by saulgoodman at 8:57 PM on August 25, 2009
No wait, I get it, I suppose - though I think math could be up for modification by a non-omnipotent God. non-omnipotence doesn't mean no powers, it just means not all powers.
posted by R_Nebblesworth at 8:57 PM on August 25, 2009
posted by R_Nebblesworth at 8:57 PM on August 25, 2009
I said got was omnipotent and omniscient and omnibenevolent.
Assumed good is a fundamental quality of existence.
Believe God could make a different kind of number theory.
It looks like I understand God better than I do number theory.
posted by Kid Charlemagne at 9:03 PM on August 25, 2009 [1 favorite]
Assumed good is a fundamental quality of existence.
Believe God could make a different kind of number theory.
It looks like I understand God better than I do number theory.
posted by Kid Charlemagne at 9:03 PM on August 25, 2009 [1 favorite]
I answered omnipotent and got the same "bullet" on #17 so I don't know what their rational is other than they think an omnipotent god would be a god that can do anything except fuck with maths. I'm just guessing.
posted by nola at 9:04 PM on August 25, 2009
posted by nola at 9:04 PM on August 25, 2009
Slashdot: I have no idea how these people got all these logical fallacies wedged into their cgi script, or why.
posted by Riki tiki at 9:04 PM on August 25, 2009 [2 favorites]
posted by Riki tiki at 9:04 PM on August 25, 2009 [2 favorites]
I don't get this. A lake is measurable, searchable, even an obnoxiously deep one. Comparing that to proving god exists seems fallacious to me.
That's the one that hung me up. I was having trouble putting my finger on the semantical problem there & I was wondering if they'd phrased the first question in a way that confused me, but I was thinking the same thing. Searching a lake is quantifiable. Seeking Invisible Man is not.
posted by Devils Rancher at 9:04 PM on August 25, 2009
That's the one that hung me up. I was having trouble putting my finger on the semantical problem there & I was wondering if they'd phrased the first question in a way that confused me, but I was thinking the same thing. Searching a lake is quantifiable. Seeking Invisible Man is not.
posted by Devils Rancher at 9:04 PM on August 25, 2009
The statement I agreed with was If God exists she could create square circles and make 1 + 1 = 72. It seems to me that if God existed, God could define whatever the fuck she wanted; that's what a God can do, right? (The whole thing is fundamentally non-rational to me anyways!) Can someone better help me understand the logical inconsistency here, or what is dangerous--rationally speaking--from asserting this? Seems like there are some philosophical gotchas there I'm just not getting. I don't see why calling something all-powerful and therefore suggesting that all-powerful thing can subvert rationality itself means you can no longer have a rational conversation about it
I think you are confusing the ability to define terms with the ability to actually create such an object or scenario. Instead of thinking about the terms "square" and "circle" think about their definitions; is it rationally possible for a 2D object to have 4 sides of equal length that intersect each other at right angles while simultaneously having every point along its edge at an equal distance from its center? The answer is no, such a shape cannot exist because the criteria are mutually exclusive. A simpler example is to wonder if god can make it rain and not rain simultaneously. Rationally this doesn't make any sense. So by saying that god could do such a thing you are committing yourself to a scenario that is not limited to what is rationally possible; any attempt to make rational arguments about this scenario then become pointless. Hope that helps!
posted by 12%juicepulp at 9:08 PM on August 25, 2009
I think you are confusing the ability to define terms with the ability to actually create such an object or scenario. Instead of thinking about the terms "square" and "circle" think about their definitions; is it rationally possible for a 2D object to have 4 sides of equal length that intersect each other at right angles while simultaneously having every point along its edge at an equal distance from its center? The answer is no, such a shape cannot exist because the criteria are mutually exclusive. A simpler example is to wonder if god can make it rain and not rain simultaneously. Rationally this doesn't make any sense. So by saying that god could do such a thing you are committing yourself to a scenario that is not limited to what is rationally possible; any attempt to make rational arguments about this scenario then become pointless. Hope that helps!
posted by 12%juicepulp at 9:08 PM on August 25, 2009
I started to get all exercised that there were assumptions made that weren't stated prior to the game, but then read the FAQ and the prelude a little more carefully; and I think the only one that still remains is that they assumed that Peter Sutcliffe was a rational being.
posted by nonspecialist at 9:09 PM on August 25, 2009
posted by nonspecialist at 9:09 PM on August 25, 2009
got the same "bullet" on #17
Bullets aren't damage, right? They're just logically necessary responses that might make people squirm a little uncomfortably. They're not saying you contradicted yourself, just that your beliefs lead to what many might consider unpleasant but necessary conclusions.
posted by saulgoodman at 9:09 PM on August 25, 2009
Bullets aren't damage, right? They're just logically necessary responses that might make people squirm a little uncomfortably. They're not saying you contradicted yourself, just that your beliefs lead to what many might consider unpleasant but necessary conclusions.
posted by saulgoodman at 9:09 PM on August 25, 2009
Services held on alternating Wednesday afternoons for roughly twenty minutes. No singing, no dogma, no blood-drinking, no tithing. However, God & I must insist that you bring me comics and pie. Also: expect to play a lot of Street Fighter during Solstice ceremonies.
I have appointed myself the Right Reverend Rancher, and will be opening our souther branch office, forthwith. Expect a schism over cream vs. fruit pie, and whether to accept the cobblerists at our first ecumenical council, though.
posted by Devils Rancher at 9:10 PM on August 25, 2009
I have appointed myself the Right Reverend Rancher, and will be opening our souther branch office, forthwith. Expect a schism over cream vs. fruit pie, and whether to accept the cobblerists at our first ecumenical council, though.
posted by Devils Rancher at 9:10 PM on August 25, 2009
I was in good health until Question 13. After that, things went downhill considerably fast.
You've just taken a direct hit!
Earlier you agreed that it is rational to believe that the Loch Ness monster does not exist if there is an absence of strong evidence or argument that it does. No strong evidence or argument was required to show that the monster does not exist - absence of evidence or argument was enough. But now you claim that the atheist needs to be able to provide strong arguments or evidence if their belief in the non-existence of God is to be rational rather than a matter of faith.
The contradiction is that on the first ocassion (Loch Ness monster) you agreed that the absence of evidence or argument is enough to rationally justify belief in the non-existence of the Loch Ness monster, but on this occasion (God), you do not.
and
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!
were the two direct hits I took.
An interesting quiz, but there are some logical fallacies present in the reasoning.
posted by reenum at 9:18 PM on August 25, 2009
You've just taken a direct hit!
Earlier you agreed that it is rational to believe that the Loch Ness monster does not exist if there is an absence of strong evidence or argument that it does. No strong evidence or argument was required to show that the monster does not exist - absence of evidence or argument was enough. But now you claim that the atheist needs to be able to provide strong arguments or evidence if their belief in the non-existence of God is to be rational rather than a matter of faith.
The contradiction is that on the first ocassion (Loch Ness monster) you agreed that the absence of evidence or argument is enough to rationally justify belief in the non-existence of the Loch Ness monster, but on this occasion (God), you do not.
and
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!
were the two direct hits I took.
An interesting quiz, but there are some logical fallacies present in the reasoning.
posted by reenum at 9:18 PM on August 25, 2009
All you people trying to apply reason to religious belief are so adorable.
Have a donut.
posted by rokusan at 9:19 PM on August 25, 2009 [1 favorite]
Have a donut.
posted by rokusan at 9:19 PM on August 25, 2009 [1 favorite]
Zero bullets, zero direct hits. Somehow I take this as a sign that I'm dull.
posted by adamrice at 9:21 PM on August 25, 2009
posted by adamrice at 9:21 PM on August 25, 2009
So if one takes zero hits and bites no bullets, does that mean one spends too much time thinking about these things, or that one is a little too Spock-like to be human or what?
posted by CheeseDigestsAll at 9:26 PM on August 25, 2009
posted by CheeseDigestsAll at 9:26 PM on August 25, 2009
I thought it was nifty, though I do dispute the one "hit" I took:
posted by XMLicious at 9:29 PM on August 25, 2009
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 this convictions, but now you say it is not justifiable to believe in God on just these grounds. That's a flagrant contradiction!The "firm, inner conviction" I'd been thinking of was an inner conviction like "logic works" or "math works"; when my external experiences contradict those I assume that I'm mistaken in some way and thus far it seems like I've always been correct about that, though I'd like to think I'd persist in believing that logic and math work even in the absence of external evidence. But I don't think that accepting "logic works" as justifiable based upon an inner conviction means that you have to accept "God exists" as justifiable based upon an inner conviction. (It seems like I could probably prove that using some ∀ and ∃ symbols but I'm too lazy to.)
posted by XMLicious at 9:29 PM on August 25, 2009
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.
Having internal beliefs and acting on them are different things.
You claim that it is justifiable to believe in God based only on inner-convictions. But earlier you stated that the serial rapist, Peter Sutcliffe, was not justified in believing, purely on the basis of inner-convictions, that he correctly discerned God's intentions in his raping and murdering of prostitute
Having internal beliefs and acting on them are different things. And I'm getting tired of this Peter Sutcliffe fellow.
posted by kirkaracha at 9:33 PM on August 25, 2009 [1 favorite]
So if one takes zero hits and bites no bullets, does that mean one spends too much time thinking about these things, or that one is a little too Spock-like to be human or what?
Dude. THAT IS TOTALLY WHEN YOU BECOME A GOD
...Anyway, I'm sure this quiz has provided many a hazy college dorm room with hours of entertainment, so there's that.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 9:33 PM on August 25, 2009
Dude. THAT IS TOTALLY WHEN YOU BECOME A GOD
...Anyway, I'm sure this quiz has provided many a hazy college dorm room with hours of entertainment, so there's that.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 9:33 PM on August 25, 2009
I think reducing all these issues to true/false is incompatible with their pose of rationality.
For instance, several questions deal with whether beliefs are "justified". Surely that's an incredibly hairy philosophical question that doesn't play well with absolutes.
posted by zompist at 9:38 PM on August 25, 2009
For instance, several questions deal with whether beliefs are "justified". Surely that's an incredibly hairy philosophical question that doesn't play well with absolutes.
posted by zompist at 9:38 PM on August 25, 2009
This part of the FAQ was, to me, the giveaway:
10. There are a set of objections that have to do with things like Plantinga's reformed epistemology, Tillich's thoughts about the kind of existence God has, etc. Basically, it's the set of responses that have come from professional theologians and philosophers of religion.
To which we reply, yes, yes, you're right! It is complicated, but this is an online game!
In other words, this game presupposes a line of thinking that will be convincing only to those who don't know jack about the subject at hand.
posted by DaDaDaDave at 9:41 PM on August 25, 2009 [2 favorites]
10. There are a set of objections that have to do with things like Plantinga's reformed epistemology, Tillich's thoughts about the kind of existence God has, etc. Basically, it's the set of responses that have come from professional theologians and philosophers of religion.
To which we reply, yes, yes, you're right! It is complicated, but this is an online game!
In other words, this game presupposes a line of thinking that will be convincing only to those who don't know jack about the subject at hand.
posted by DaDaDaDave at 9:41 PM on August 25, 2009 [2 favorites]
Bullet bitten. It was delicious.
This would seem to make rational discourse about God impossible.
Err... yes, that's right.
posted by adamt at 9:43 PM on August 25, 2009
This would seem to make rational discourse about God impossible.
Err... yes, that's right.
posted by adamt at 9:43 PM on August 25, 2009
Hmm, my one hit was the same as XMLicious's, and I'm inclined to blame the quiz rather than myself. :)
Question 7 asks about "beliefs about the external world"; arguably that excludes mathematical truths and perhaps beliefs about God.
Question 17 asks about believing in God despite the absence of "external evidence"... I'm not even sure what "external evidence" they could be thinking of; how do you build a Godometer? I'd think most rational people who believe in God do so based on arguments, not on direct experience.
posted by zompist at 9:44 PM on August 25, 2009
Question 7 asks about "beliefs about the external world"; arguably that excludes mathematical truths and perhaps beliefs about God.
Question 17 asks about believing in God despite the absence of "external evidence"... I'm not even sure what "external evidence" they could be thinking of; how do you build a Godometer? I'd think most rational people who believe in God do so based on arguments, not on direct experience.
posted by zompist at 9:44 PM on August 25, 2009
In the FAQ, they mention that Nessie believers can always invent another place for her to hide, just like God believers can. No matter where you look or what disproofs you undertake, they can just keep changing the rules. (i.e., "She's invisible when she wants to be. And can fly.")
Basically, belief in the supernatural lets you believe anything, no matter how much evidence exists to the contrary. But none of that knowledge is encoded in the question: instead, it's comparing a physical thing to a supernatural one. Very bad form.
This quiz is very much written by an atheist. It's a blunt instrument, without nuance. I found it very condescending, even though I took neither hits nor bullets, and probably correspond closely in actual belief to the author.
posted by Malor at 9:47 PM on August 25, 2009
Basically, belief in the supernatural lets you believe anything, no matter how much evidence exists to the contrary. But none of that knowledge is encoded in the question: instead, it's comparing a physical thing to a supernatural one. Very bad form.
This quiz is very much written by an atheist. It's a blunt instrument, without nuance. I found it very condescending, even though I took neither hits nor bullets, and probably correspond closely in actual belief to the author.
posted by Malor at 9:47 PM on August 25, 2009
I was hugely internally consistent in my atheism. I did bite one bullet though. And that was enough to sew seeds of doubt. So now I am a Kali worshipper.
posted by Astro Zombie at 9:48 PM on August 25, 2009 [6 favorites]
posted by Astro Zombie at 9:48 PM on August 25, 2009 [6 favorites]
« Older “If you are bitter at heart, sugar in the mouth... | Exploring Ingenuity in Iron ... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by paladin at 7:42 PM on August 25, 2009