Game - Battleground God

I got through this without too much difficulty: no hits and no bullets. Had to stop to parse a few of the statements, but otherwise plain sailing. Got my Medal of Honor and all that.I seem to remember playing it a few years back with similar fate. I guess my philosophy is, if nothing else, non-contradictory (as far as the resolution of this test can detect anyway). I suppose that is a good thing, but as they say, sometimes there is enough ambigiuty that what people understand the question to say, might be different that what they intended it to say. Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

Yet I see no gray area whatsoever When I read the question I see them both saying exactly the same thing. I guess we have differing understandings of the word, faith and/or rationality. Perhaps they should incorporate that into the game?

I read number 10 to say: if, after plenty of investigation, there is no evidence or argument that suggests the exsitence of an entity, not believing that it exists is a rational position to take.I don't think that not believing that something exists requires any faith - unless there is a crap load of evidence that it does, of course. And I read 14 to say that after investigations, for as long as there is no evidence or argument for the existence of an entity, not believing that it exists requires an act of faith as opposed to being a rational position to take.It doesn't take faith to not believe something is true when there is no evidence to suggest it does.That's why I figure we have different ideas on what 'faith' might mean.It cannot be rational to not believe in the Nessie and also not rational to not believe in God.

I'm going to reword each of the arguments, maybe it will help. Maybe not, who knows?

quote:

---

10. If, despite years of trying, no strong evidence or argument has been presented to show that there is a God, it is rational to believe that God does not exist.

---

and

quote:

---

14. As long as there are no compelling arguments or evidence that show that Nessie does not exist, Anessieism is a matter of faith, not rationality.

---

transforming further

quote:

---

10. If, despite years of trying, no strong evidence or argument has been presented to show that there is a God, it is rational to be an atheist.

---

If you think this is true then

quote:

---

14. As long as there are no compelling arguments or evidence that show that Nessie does exist, it is rational to be an Anessiest.

---

And with that strange morphing hopefully you can see how I read it. To me when I say 'I don't believe X' I mean to say 'I lack the belief that x is true'. When I say 'I don't believe X exists', I mean 'I lack the belief that x exists'. When I say 'I believe X doesn't exist' I mean the same thing. That might be one of the fundamental differences in the way we read and interpret things. It is not my position to ignore the degree of faith, but to suggest that with any reasonable usage of the word faith, no faith is required to disbelieve in certain entities. Obviously, if there is reasonable expectation that evidence is potentially to be expected then having confidence in the lack of existence is unfounded. But if I've looked all around my house and I can't find my milk, its entirely rational to believe it is because it doesn't exist and I should go buy some, but also to retain the acceptance that maybe you just weren't looking properly, or you've had brain damage or just suffering from hysterical lactose-blindness. Hey, maybe your entire house is filled with milk, and you're a crazy old man that is constantly trying to make coffee but always thinks he's run out of milk.It's entirely rational to both believe Nessie doesn't exist and to accept that it might, and that you would eagerly soak in the evidence should it emerge. It is also rational to believe that my computer desk exists but accept that evidence might be presented to question that belief.We could insist in remaining agnostic about absolutely everything, but I don't think that is particularly rational Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

We could around and around. But no, this is not what I am saying when I say "I believe x does not exist". I am not saying that I have faith that the evidence will continue to be negative. In fact, I accept that some things which I currently do not believe exist, will probably one day be shown to exist. I agree with your understanding of the purpose of the game. I did rather well at it I don't have a problem with the two questions, and it's interesting to have seen your take on it - maybe you'll understand why I see no problem. I have no faith that the evidence will continue to be negative. Faith doesn't come into it. Thus my belief is not based on faith. I have, I believe, a well founded confidence that the evidence for Nessie will continue to be in the absent category. Yes, I know what you think. I don't think this is the case. We are viewing the questions in a different manner - and this is interesting. I'm just trying to help you understand how I am reading the statements. I see the two questions as asking the same things in a different way, evidently you see a difference between the two. What would give you that impression after I said "It's entirely rational to both believe Nessie doesn't exist and to accept that it might, and that you would eagerly soak in the evidence should it emerge. It is also rational to believe that my computer desk exists but accept that evidence might be presented to question that belief."? (emphasis added this time round)My beliefs might be wrong and I accept that - that's part of not having faith.If I didn't believe in X-rays, I'd be forced to reevaluate my position after their discovery and after evidence of their existence became apparent. My belief would have once been wrong and I would have learned something - it's the best possible thing that can happen!

I have no idea what the relevance is. In number 10 it simply states it is rational to believe in the non-existence of an entity that has been looked for and not found. In number 14 it states that it is not rational (faith) to believe in the non-existence of an entity that has been looked for and not found.In the latter you are asked to decide whether or not it is rational to believe that God doesn't exist, or whether it is a matter of faith. And hence why I started off saying that we evidently think that faith means something different. It seems to me you are equivocating between faith and belief. Faith is belief with no rationality behind it. No, but if I believe that the next card revealed will contain my soul, and I can give you no rational reason why...then that belief is faith-based. If jokers have never been seen in 900 years of card searching, and I believe that a joker will be revealed in this 99-card deck for not rational reason...that is faith.It is strange that you see faith and belief as being the same. Especially since number 10 asks you about rationality and belief.

You can add sightings of jokers into the equation if you'd like. You'd have to make them the same kind of level of sightings of Nessie and religious icons: vague, perhaps contradictory, few witnesses, little investigation (or biased investigation) into their genuineness etc etc. It doesn't really change my overall point, it just makes it more involved to type it out.But the bottom line is that as I said in the beginning we are using different definitions of the word faith - I appreciated you didn't want a debate over it so I didn't go into specifics, but you seemed to want more explanation from me. You were using definition 1 from your list. I was using definition 2. I used definition 2 because of the context: it seemed to be contrasting rationality with faith. In question 10 it was asking whether the belief was rational or not. In question 14 it was asking whether the the belief was rational or not. No. I think there are many categories of belief. Some of them are faith-based (Belief that does not rest on logical proof, to quote your dictionary) some of them are rational.

Definition 2 indicates that faith is a specific type of belief. 'Church' and 'building' are not synonyms even if a definition of 'Church' indicates that it is a building. I never stated that can know for sure - that would be an absurd claim. I understand that using your definition this is the case. That is why I said that the difference that separates us is that we are using two different definitions of the same word. There's no need to repeat your position again - if we are using the words differently, we're going to reach different conclusions about the meaning of the sentences in the quiz. Exactly - and it's interesting to explore just how differently people interpret short statements. The reason we don't see eye to eye here, for example is interesting. I see faith and rationality to be contrasted. I consider it rational to have developed a strong confidence in the truth of the conclusion of the lack of existence. That is why answered true for the first of the pair. It looks impossible to answer true to this, without also concluding it is a matter of rationalism in the latter case. You saw the word faith here to mean confident belief which you don't consider to be rational. So how did you answer true for the first one? It seems like you didn't see it as an either/or - but thought that it was asking about which is more true. Well of course, but then, as I said, any conclusion is faith-based since all conclusions rely on at least one epistemological assumption. Of course you wouldn't be sure then, if it came up no joker - maybe you missed it, forgot it or misinterpreted it. Maybe you slipped past a card. Maybe you are hallucinating, or have 'joker blindness'. There is no way to know anything for sure, as you have just said - even empirical tests such as examining all cards in a 99 card deck.

Yes, once again - a difference in the way we interpret the words. It just asks if the belief in the absence of a monster is rational. So I see it saying 'is it a rational belief?' Well of course not. Do you think that there is some labelling of insane implied by myself or the questions? Right - the epistemological assumption is what leads to the conclusion. If you conclude that the Nessie case is rational, but you use a contradictory epistemological assumption in the God case to conclude that it is not rational - there is a contradiction. And yet when I read question 14 I see it asking is atheism rational xor is it based on faith. If you answer that it is based on faith you are necessarily saying (according to the structure of the question as I read it) that it is not rational. Out of curiosity, did you see it the 'or' as inclusive? That would be an interesting alternative angle to explore.

When I see that it is only true/false I conclude by context that the two options presented are meant to be exclusive - so if possible I try and interpret the text that way. In 14 it asks 'is it faith or rational', so I take it to imply that is asking if atheism is a faith-based belief or a rational-based belief. I understand, but I still disagree. Of course it is a belief. The question is, is it rational or faith-based? If the first one is rational, so is the second one. That is, assuming they are using faith to mean 'any philosophical assumption'. That doesn't seem implied by the questions, and it seems to run counter to normal usage. I'm not saying it is entirely invalid, and I'm not saying that the quiz is 100% unambiguous. However, I am saying that it seems to be something of a stretch, some gymnastics, are required to find the kind of problem with this question that you see.

Yes, I think we agree on that don't we? As I said, I understand you but I don't think that is the most parsimonious reading of it. 14 is asking you is the belief in the absence of god a matter of faith (and not a matter of rationality). 10 is asking if the belief in the absence of Nessie is a matter of rationality. Facts in your world are near non-existent if they are contrasted with belief. It is a belief that the sun exists, it is a belief that I have a pet cat, it is a belief that when I die I will meet my departed family members. Reading your words here would imply some kind of Kantian divide between noumena and phenomena in your thinking.Now - given we agree that believing that Nessie exists is a belief by definition, and we probably agree that the structure of 14 implies that atheism is a belief, the question is not of facts. Facts are irrelevant to the discussion.There are different kinds of belief. For example there are beliefs which are rational. And beliefs that are not rational (for instance, beliefs that based solely on a strong conviction that they are true and nothing else - aka faith).The questions in the little game don't ask us "is belief belief"? Question 10 tells us that it is a belief. Question 14 implies that it is, and I'm willing to go along with it. It asks us about that belief, it asks us if it is rational. In the first case (10) you agree that it is a rational belief. In the second one (14) you answered that it was 'true' that it was 'not rational'So anyway, I'm still a little unsure: I understand your reading - though it requires mental squinting for me with a mental turning of the head sideways and really trying. Do you understand mine?

By answering true, you are explicitly saying that it (not believing in the existence of x) is not rational when it comes to God but it is rational when it comes to monsters. That is the reading as far as I can see it (and this is confirmed by the stated intent of the authors - you have to accept that my interpretation successfully uncovered the intended meaning which in communications is the most important part).What critical element am I missing from the actual statements?

quote:

---

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.

---

quote:

---

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.

---

Do you want to understand my reading or should we just leave it at that?

Yes they are both beliefs, but the true/false statement isn't 'it is a belief'. The true/false statement is "it is rational to believe" You suggest that not believing in Nessie is rational by answering true to that question. Then it is rational the second time too, right? Yet I have said numerous times that it is a belief. It's the type of belief that the statements are probing. Is it a rational belief or is it a belief centred around faith? Those are the options. So believing Nessie does not exist is not rational, it is faith based - right? I don't ignore belief. They are beliefs and statement 10 makes this explicit. If not believing in Nessie is a rational belief so is not believing in God. If not believing in Nessie is not a rational belief then neither is not believing in God.

And that depends on the definition of faith in play. The context implies the dichotomy definition and I see no reason to ignore that context. I am not sure why you continue to explain your position to me, since I already understand it.Are you disinterested in trying to understand my position? That's not a problematic position to take - but my point is that if it is not a matter of rationality in statement 14, then it isn't a matter of rationality in statement 10, either. In statement 10, you think that choosing blue is rational, but it becomes a matter of faith, not rationality in statement 14.

Yes, for certain definitions of faith. No, for others. The context implies that it is contrasting rational beliefs with faith based beliefs. There is no need to insert the idea that technically rational beliefs are also based on epistemological or metaphysical faith - that is already taken care of in the word 'belief'. I know that if not believing Nessie exists is rational so is not believing in God. So when a statement says that not believing in god is not rational I have to say 'false'. Being a true/false statement implies that there is only one criteria to judge it by hence we should understand it to mean faith in the sense of 'the opposite of rationality'. First we need to add an equivalent 10b:

quote:

---

10b: 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 exists.

---

To which I say: false. Then

quote:

---

14b: As long as there are no compelling arguments or evidence that show that God does exist, theism is a matter of faith, not rationality.

---

To which I say: true. So for number 10b, we conclude that it is not rational since there is a lack of compelling argument. And for 14b we see that theism is belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence so it is faith.

quote:

---

10c: If, despite years of trying, no strong evidence or argument has been presented to show that there is no Loch Ness monster, it is rational to believe that such a monster exists.

---

I actually don't think the premises allow for the conclusions here but if I have to answer then, based on the premises 14c is true and 10c is false. It is a matter of faith to believe something exists just because it has not be shown not to. It is not rational to believe something exists just because it has not be shown not to.