Direct Hit 1Okay, I agree. This was a no-no. Ironically, this is the question most theists-who-think-atheists-are-utterly-wrong-and-should-be-converted choose. Whoops. :)
You answered "True" to questions 10 and 14.
10. If, despite years of trying, no strong evidence or argument has been presented to show that there is a Loch Ness monster, it is rational to believe that such a monster does not exist.
14. As long as there are no compelling arguments or evidence that show that God does not exist, atheism is a matter of faith, not rationality.
These answers generated the following response:
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.
However, I have issues with the way question 14 was stated. It said "as long as," which to me is like "suppose." Supposing there are no compelling arguments or evidence that show that God does not exist, then yes, I do think atheism would be considered a matter of faith and not rationality. But supposing is not the same as IS. Nor is reality the same as personal reality. *I* think there are compelling arguments and evidence that God (as he is typically defined in JCI tradition) does not exist. Therefore, to *me*, atheism is not a faith matter, but a rationality matter.
I guess that's what I get for answering the question truthfully.
Bitten Bullet 1Once again, I have issue with the second question. I took "He was justified" to mean "it was justifiable for him." Maybe wrong, but that's how I took it. Just because it was justifiable for him doesn't mean it was wrong or right or moral. It just means he came to a conclusion via valid logic.
You answered "True" to questions 7, and 15.
7. It is justifiable to base one's beliefs about the external world on a firm, inner conviction, even in the absence of any external evidence for the truth of these convictions.
15. 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.
These answers generated the following response:
You've just bitten a bullet! You are consistent in applying the principle that it is justifiable to base one's beliefs about the external world on a firm, inner conviction, regardless of the external evidence, or lack of it, for the truth or falsity this conviction. The problem is that it seems you have to accept that people might be justified in their belief that God could demand something terrible.
This is something many religious people are willing to accept. For example, Kierkegaard believed that it is precisely because Abraham had to contravene established morality to follow God's will and attempt to sacrifice his son which made his act the supreme act of faith.
But as Kierkegaard also stressed, this makes the act incomprehensible from a rational point of view. The rational alternative - that people should require more than such an inner conviction to justify such a belief - is more attractive to most people, but you reject this alternative and bite the bullet.
Plus, I don't see how answering "True" to these questions is almost wrong. I said in #7 it was justifiable to bas one's beliefs on a firm, inner conviction. #15 said Peter had a firm, inner conviction that God wanted him to do something, and then the question asked if this was justifiable. Well...yeAH...to Peter, anyways.
Pfft. I think it proves people underestimate the power of a simple pronoun/word.
... so, how did I answer the other questions? ...
I read the FAQ and stuff after I took the test, which is what you're supposed to do. If you haven't taken the test and are actually up to it, don't read the following until you have. It's better if you go into the test cold--no philosophical warmup or anything, so it's straight from the heart or whatever bodily organ in which you keep your convictions. These were my thoughts while facing each question.
1. God exists. DON'T KNOW
Heh, let me explain. Rationally, I can't actually admit there is no God/Force/Thing/Whatever. In my heart, I *want* to say there is no God. Personally, I'm atheist, but if you want me to be utterly Vulcan about it, I'm agnostic. 2. If God does not exist then there is no basis for morality. FALSE
I HATE this one when used in debates against atheism. Fucking morons.
3. Any being which it is right to call God must be free to do anything. TRUE
Duh. Freedom of thought/action is what makes life life--wordly life or otherwise.
4. Any being which it is right to call God must want there to be as little suffering in the word as is possible. TRUE
Here, I thought the question was going for omnibenevolence, and thought I'd take a hit here for believing in one traditional attribute of the JCI God, but I didn't. But really, I suppose it's a question that would set up for a later contradiction, if there was one. Here you could probably see the difference between "rational me" and "personal me." Rationally, God can want for whatever the fuck he wants; supposing there was one, a benevolent being is what I wish for.
5. Any being which it is right to call God must have the power to do anything. FALSE
Ummm...I could see this connection early on, even though I didn't know #16 existed yet. You can't square a circle--not you, your brother, your friend, nor God. A circle is a concept which self-referentially implies perfect roundness. A square is a concept which self-referentially implies four straight sides and four 90-degree corners. You can't square a circle because there is no such concept.
6. Evolutionary theory maybe false in some matters of detail, but it is essentially true. TRUE
Haha, key word here is "essentially."
7. It is justifiable to base one's beliefs about the external world on a firm, inner conviction, even in the absence of any external evidence for the truth of these convictions. TRUE
Ummm...I've tried proving my existence, and seriously this is about all I can come up with. You?
8. Any being that it is right to call God must know everything that there is to know. FALSE
If God knew everything, he would still now know what it would be like to wonder. Plus, wondering >> omniscience. Whence philosophy...Duh-uh...
9. Torturing innocent people is morally wrong. TRUE
It IS.
10. If, despite years of trying, no strong evidence or argument has been presented to show that there is a Loch Ness monster, it is rational to believe that such a monster does not exist. TRUE
The "years of trying" would be my first point. However, since there is no strong argument against Nessie, it is ALSO rational to believe that she exists (ask any kid/adult-who-still-has-her-inner-kid). But, that was not the question--my other point.
11. People who die of horrible, painful diseases need to die in such a way for some higher purpose. FALSE
Sorry to burst your bubble, but Death does not discriminate.
12. 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. FALSE
Apparently this answer conflicts if you think God is the basis of morality. Kind of follows the question of whether God must obey the laws of logic.
13. It is foolish to believe in God without certain, irrevocable proof that God exists. FALSE
Uh, hello, I respect my religious friends.
14. As long as there are no compelling arguments or evidence that show that God does not exist, atheism is a matter of faith, not rationality. TRUE
Better to see my comment on my direct hit.
15. 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. TRUE
Better to see my comment on my bitten bullet.
16. If God exists she could create square circles and make 1 + 1 = 72. FALSE
See #5.
17. It is justifiable to believe in God if one has a firm, inner conviction that God exists, even if there is no external evidence that God exists. TRUE
I trust my religious friends, too.
...
Anyhows...anybody care to give it a shot and tell me about it?
No comments:
Post a Comment