|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,913 Year: 4,170/9,624 Month: 1,041/974 Week: 368/286 Day: 11/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Game - Battleground God | |||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
So I see it saying 'is it a rational belief?' Pretty much the way I see it on 10, but 14 doesn't ask the same question. In 14 it asks 'is it belief, not rational?' The problem is that you have limited options with the true\false format, and thus you are stuck with either saying: (1) true -- it is belief devoid of rationality(2) true -- it is belief more than rationality (3) false -- it is both belief and rationality (4) false -- it is rationality more than belief (5) false -- it is rational devoid of belief 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. Thus we know there are elements of both, so we can eliminate (1) and (5) above as a valid answers. You are left with gray answers, of which (3) is a false negative ... you are left choosing which is more critical to the conclusion -- the belief element or the rational element. To be consistent you have to answer true. You've already admitted it is a belief (in 10 and above), and you've noted that it is the assumption that is critical to the conclusion.
Message 41 10. When you have a belief that is not supported or contradicted by loads of evidence and logic - is it rationality to conclude 14. When you have a belief that is not supported or contradicted by loads of evidence and logic - is it more a matter of faith (the confident belief in the truth of your conclusion) or one of rationality to conclude For me, the answer to both questions is "yes" to both options, and the only way to show this is to answer "true" to both 10 and 14. Only that way does the answer to 10 modify and inform the answer to 14. Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : sp by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
In 14 it asks 'is it belief, not rational?' The problem is that you have limited options with the true\false format, and thus you are stuck with either saying: 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.
To be consistent you have to answer true. You've already admitted it is a belief (in 10 and above) 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.
Thus we know there are elements of both, so we can eliminate (1) and (5) above as a valid answers. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
If the first one is rational, so is the second one. And it is still a belief.
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. It's in the words Mod, there is a difference between 10 and 14 that makes them different questions. 14 asks you to distinguish between the belief part and the rational part, 10 doesn't.
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. It's belief. The question is, is it a belief or a fact? If the first one is a belief so is the second. Enjoy. by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
compmage Member (Idle past 5183 days) Posts: 601 From: South Africa Joined: |
Zero hits and zero bullets. I remember taking the test a few years ago with the same result.
Also did the Do-It-Yourself God test, though it wasn't much of a test since I don't think that any of the attributes mentioned is an absolute requirement so without selecting any attributes I couldn't really contradict myself.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
And it is still a belief. Yes, I think we agree on that don't we?
14 asks you to distinguish between the belief part and the rational part, 10 doesn't. 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.
It's belief. The question is, is it a belief or a fact? 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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
I understand your reading - .... Do you understand mine? Not really. I can't see how those two questions can possibly be the same. No mental squinting or contortions on my part, they are different. The only way I see you parsimoniously parsing the questions to get your answers is by leaving parts out, parts that relate to the questions asked. Removing critical elements is not parsimonious.
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). Such as the belief that the evidence will continue to be negative? Enjoy. by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Sour Member (Idle past 2277 days) Posts: 63 From: I don't know but when I find out there will be trouble. (Portsmouth UK) Joined: |
Brilliant link.
I also took two bullets on the justifying belief issue, I don't agree with them.
quote: Isn't a 'firm inner conviction' a belief?Answered false. quote: Answered true.
quote: I say no such thing. I say that he is justified in believing that his actions are justified by his beliefs. In fact, the second sentence of the question, "He was, therefore, justified in believing that he was carrying out God's will in undertaking these actions." is redundant. The first sentence states that he believed it was God's will. Am I meant to judge whether he actually did believe it? Maybe I'm missing something. Seems like I'm meant to think that just because HIS beliefs are irrational he doesn't actually believe them.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
compmage Member (Idle past 5183 days) Posts: 601 From: South Africa Joined: |
quote: I think so, at least the way I read the question.
quote: I have bolded the part I think is important. The question is asking if he is justified in believing, not if that belief justifies his actions.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Sour Member (Idle past 2277 days) Posts: 63 From: I don't know but when I find out there will be trouble. (Portsmouth UK) Joined: |
quote: The question is whether he was justified in believing that he was carrying out God's will, based on a a firm, inner conviction.
You later in this thread define belief as :
So isn't 'firm inner conviction' the same as belief? Which would mean that the question is whether he was justified in believing that he was carrying out God's will based on a belief.
What that conviction actually was and what the subsequent behavior involved are irrelevant to the question of whether he was justified in his belief or not.
Right, I get that it's meant to be about whether his initial belief is justified, but isn't the conviction the same thing as his belief? He believed it, but is he justified in believing that he believed it?I'm having comprehension problems with this question.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Sour Member (Idle past 2277 days) Posts: 63 From: I don't know but when I find out there will be trouble. (Portsmouth UK) Joined: |
Right, I think I understand why my answer was wrong. I'm making a mistake by putting too much weight on the first sentence and thinking that it says he believes that God wanted him to do these things (which it does right?). The bit you bolded makes it clear, if that's all the question is meant to be about.
The way it is phrased is confusing, it doesn't seem to be asking if his 'firm inner conviction' is justified, but if his belief in his own 'firm inner conviction' is. Aye yay yay, much ado about nothing
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
compmage Member (Idle past 5183 days) Posts: 601 From: South Africa Joined: |
quote: I does, but it emphasises that his basis for that belief is a 'firm, inner conviction'. Which ties the question into the earlier question about whether or not it is justifiable to base once's beliefs on a 'firm, inner conviction'. At least, this is how I understood it. ABE: To illistrate: If I believe that you are about to kill me then I am justified in killing you first, in self defence, based on that belief. If my belief that you are about to kill me stems for the fact that you shouted "I'm going to kill you" and then came at me with a meat cleaver, then that belief is justified. If however, it stems from the fact that you are wearing a pink shirt and said "Hello", then that belief isn't justified. I think that, and this is just my opinion, most people are justified in their actions based on their beliefs. The problem lies with the justification for those beliefs. In my example above, I would be stupid not to defend myself if I though you were about to kill me. That doesn't mean that my belief that you are about to kill me is justified though. Edited by compmage, : No reason given. Edited by compmage, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
Not really. I can't see how those two questions can possibly be the same. No mental squinting or contortions on my part, they are different. The only way I see you parsimoniously parsing the questions to get your answers is by leaving parts out, parts that relate to the questions asked. Removing critical elements is not parsimonious. 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: quote: Do you want to understand my reading or should we just leave it at that?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
. I'm making a mistake by putting too much weight on the first sentence and thinking that it says he believes that God wanted him to do these things (which it does right?). Also see Rrhains comments in Message 25 The way it is phrased is confusing, it doesn't seem to be asking if his 'firm inner conviction' is justified, but if his belief in his own 'firm inner conviction' is. Part of the problem is the true\false format.
Aye yay yay, much ado about nothing Yep. Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : added by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
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. By answering true you are explicitly saying it is belief. It was a belief in 10, and it is still a belief in 14. When belief {A} is rational and belief not{A} is rational, then whether {A} or not{A} is rational is not relevant to -- does not predict -- the result.
quote: It is a belief.
quote: It is the same kind of belief. As long as there is no compelling arguments or evidence one way or the other, it is as rational to believe one thing as the other. Therefore what you believe is a matter of faith rather than rationality.
What critical element am I missing from the actual statements? That "it" - no matter how rational - is belief. That when you come to your conclusion, it is a matter of your faith in the truth of your belief - rather than rationality - that makes the difference.
Do you want to understand my reading or should we just leave it at that? What I see it that you put all the emphasis on rationality, and ignore belief and that the other choice is equally rational. It's like being asked to choose one of two chips, and you say the reason you chose your chip is because it is blue when both chips are blue. The reason you chose your chip is because you liked it, not because it was blue. Enjoy. by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
By answering true you are explicitly saying it is belief. It was a belief in 10, and it is still a belief in 14. 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"
As long as there is no compelling arguments or evidence one way or the other, it is as rational to believe one thing as the other. Therefore what you believe is a matter of faith rather than rationality. You suggest that not believing in Nessie is rational by answering true to that question. Then it is rational the second time too, right?
That "it" - no matter how rational - is belief. 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.
That when you come to your conclusion, it is a matter of your faith in the truth of your belief - rather than rationality - that makes the difference. So believing Nessie does not exist is not rational, it is faith based - right?
What I see it that you put all the emphasis on rationality, and ignore belief and that the other choice is equally rational. 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.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024