(no subject)
Jul. 31st, 2004 09:13 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
theweaselkinghttp://www.philosophers.co.uk/games/god.htm
Interesting. Their results makes some very bad assumptions, though:
"Direct Hit 1
You answered "False" to Question 7 and "True" to Question 15.
These answers generated the following response:
You've just taken a direct hit!
Earlier you claimed that it is not justifiable to base one's beliefs about the external world on a firm, inner-conviction, paying no regard to the external evidence, or lack of it, for the truth or falsity of this conviction. But now you say that the rapist Peter Sutcliffe was justified in basing his beliefs about God's will solely on precisely such a conviction. That's a bull's-eye for the intellectual sniper!"
-----------------------------
Well, no. The question about the rapist was "Was his belief that God spoke to him enough for him to believe that God really wanted him to do these things?"
He sees and hears God telling him these things. This is, for him, justification to believe that God is telling him these things. If I heard God telling me things, I would thus be justified in believing that God is telling me things, regardless of any *objective* truth about God or God telling me these things.
Now, ask me if *him* seeing and hearing things is enough for *me* to believe that God wants him to do those things, or whether he should just be locked up and properly medicated like all the other wackos who think God talks to them and guides their lives.
-----------------------------------------
"Direct Hit 2
You answered "True" to Question 15 and "False" to Question 17.
These answers generated the following response:
You've just taken a direct hit! You claim that it is not justifiable to believe in God based only on inner-convictions, but earlier you stated that it was justifiable for the serial rapist to draw conclusions about God's will on the same grounds. If this form of justification is good enough for the rapist, why is it not good enough for the believer in God? There's an inconsistency here."
----------------------------------------
Back to the rapist question, again: Basing your belief about God based *solely* on inner convictions and *in the face of real-world evidence*, as Question 17 suggests, is entirely different from basing your belief about God based on what you believe to be real-world instances of God speaking directly to you. The rapist was *not* believing in God based solely on inner convictions. He was believing in God based on GOD MAKING A FUCKING PERSONAL APPEARANCE.
The distinction is there, and important.
----------------------------------------
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.
-----------------------------------------
Belief in evolution is belief that the theory of evolution fits the facts and is the most likely cause of the behaviour we see. There *is* certain, irrevocable proof that evolution occurs. There is not certain, irrevocable proof that evolution is *all* that occurs, or that evolution covers all circumstances, or that our theories about the causes of evolution are correct - but the behaviour that we describe as "evolution" most certainly does occur.
I hold God to exactly the same standard of belief, and there is no contradiction, here. If you present to me certain, irrevocable proof that *a god* exists, I will accept this - but without certain, irrevocable proof in *a* god, it's foolish to believe in *any* god.
------------------------------------------
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.
--------------------------------------------------
Biting a bullet? Because I believe that rational discourse on god *is* impossible, without restricting god to being ungodly, which is to say not omnipotent, and that the standard definition of god includes omnipotence? Omnipotence precludes rational thought. This is largely why people insist that their pet deity is omnipotent. It is not "biting a bullet" to say that, for a being to be God, that being must be capable of the impossible, and, as such, the term "god" is meaningless and has no place in rational discussion.
Interesting. Their results makes some very bad assumptions, though:
"Direct Hit 1
You answered "False" to Question 7 and "True" to Question 15.
These answers generated the following response:
You've just taken a direct hit!
Earlier you claimed that it is not justifiable to base one's beliefs about the external world on a firm, inner-conviction, paying no regard to the external evidence, or lack of it, for the truth or falsity of this conviction. But now you say that the rapist Peter Sutcliffe was justified in basing his beliefs about God's will solely on precisely such a conviction. That's a bull's-eye for the intellectual sniper!"
-----------------------------
Well, no. The question about the rapist was "Was his belief that God spoke to him enough for him to believe that God really wanted him to do these things?"
He sees and hears God telling him these things. This is, for him, justification to believe that God is telling him these things. If I heard God telling me things, I would thus be justified in believing that God is telling me things, regardless of any *objective* truth about God or God telling me these things.
Now, ask me if *him* seeing and hearing things is enough for *me* to believe that God wants him to do those things, or whether he should just be locked up and properly medicated like all the other wackos who think God talks to them and guides their lives.
-----------------------------------------
"Direct Hit 2
You answered "True" to Question 15 and "False" to Question 17.
These answers generated the following response:
You've just taken a direct hit! You claim that it is not justifiable to believe in God based only on inner-convictions, but earlier you stated that it was justifiable for the serial rapist to draw conclusions about God's will on the same grounds. If this form of justification is good enough for the rapist, why is it not good enough for the believer in God? There's an inconsistency here."
----------------------------------------
Back to the rapist question, again: Basing your belief about God based *solely* on inner convictions and *in the face of real-world evidence*, as Question 17 suggests, is entirely different from basing your belief about God based on what you believe to be real-world instances of God speaking directly to you. The rapist was *not* believing in God based solely on inner convictions. He was believing in God based on GOD MAKING A FUCKING PERSONAL APPEARANCE.
The distinction is there, and important.
----------------------------------------
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.
-----------------------------------------
Belief in evolution is belief that the theory of evolution fits the facts and is the most likely cause of the behaviour we see. There *is* certain, irrevocable proof that evolution occurs. There is not certain, irrevocable proof that evolution is *all* that occurs, or that evolution covers all circumstances, or that our theories about the causes of evolution are correct - but the behaviour that we describe as "evolution" most certainly does occur.
I hold God to exactly the same standard of belief, and there is no contradiction, here. If you present to me certain, irrevocable proof that *a god* exists, I will accept this - but without certain, irrevocable proof in *a* god, it's foolish to believe in *any* god.
------------------------------------------
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.
--------------------------------------------------
Biting a bullet? Because I believe that rational discourse on god *is* impossible, without restricting god to being ungodly, which is to say not omnipotent, and that the standard definition of god includes omnipotence? Omnipotence precludes rational thought. This is largely why people insist that their pet deity is omnipotent. It is not "biting a bullet" to say that, for a being to be God, that being must be capable of the impossible, and, as such, the term "god" is meaningless and has no place in rational discussion.
(no subject)
Date: 2004-08-01 03:22 am (UTC)Yes, The Philosophers is a bit - well, actually, a lot - biased to Athiesm. However, most people's thinking is so fuzzy that they do not make the distinctions that you make, and so it is reasonable to accuse them of either ignoring facts when convenient or of harboring logical inconsistencies. I suspected that you were not one to be idle and soft in your definitions.
We differ somewhat in our view of God. I think omnipotence does not imply the ability to do the logically impossible; two apples and 2 oranges are 4 fruits and even God cannot say they are 3 fruits or 5 fruits. But God could, on a whim, have those four fruits cut up into ten thousand slices, each of good size,and feed a crowd. He could also add a 5th, or take away one, if needed, by fiat.
I did not consider a voice in the rapist head to be sufficient grounds for him to commit crimes. I think that A God which wanted mayhem done should be able to back up the voice with a solid miracle, at the least, before following the direction of the voices for mayhem would be reasonable.
(no subject)
Date: 2004-08-01 09:39 am (UTC)If God talked to me and told me that prositutes needed to die, I might be justified in believing that God wanted it to be so. I still wouldn't do it, because without a heck of a lot more proof as to why this is a good thing and which God is doing the talking, I'm of the opinion that most Gods as written aren't competent enough to run the PTA, let alone the universe. Besides, I wouldn't be me if I didn't feel that "God said so" is not enough to make something right. He's God, if he wants something "bad" done he can do it himself at *no* expenditure of effort, and he can bloody well make the consequences good rather than evil. Thus, I'll let him commit all the atrocities and I'll stick to being an intelligent, reasonable person with a clear conscience.