Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Game - Battleground God
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 1 of 79 (456574)
02-18-2008 9:31 PM


First go play
http://www.philosophersnet.com/games/god.htm
Then discuss.
I scored a hit, but I'll take it again.
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
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) • • •

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Iname, posted 02-18-2008 9:52 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied
 Message 4 by Jaderis, posted 02-19-2008 3:52 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied
 Message 6 by anglagard, posted 02-19-2008 4:23 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied
 Message 8 by Larni, posted 02-19-2008 7:47 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied
 Message 10 by Modulous, posted 02-19-2008 12:59 PM RAZD has replied
 Message 11 by AZPaul3, posted 02-19-2008 1:59 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied
 Message 15 by BMG, posted 02-19-2008 3:52 PM RAZD has replied
 Message 37 by riVeRraT, posted 02-21-2008 7:19 AM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 9 of 79 (456632)
02-19-2008 10:07 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by Rrhain
02-19-2008 3:06 AM


I took a bullet, but only because the system is defining all justifications equally.
Specifically, I agreed 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."
I couldn't agree to that because it allowed one to believe something that is contradicted by evidence.
The rapist issue was used to distract you from the same question worded differently.
quote:
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.
The question is whether he was justified in believing that he was carrying out God's will, based on a a firm, inner conviction.
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.
I took a hit on the Loch Ness monster v atheism questions:
quote:
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.
If I had more options than true/false I would say that both are more a matter of faith rather than rationality, both are a belief that {X} does not exist, both are based on incomplete information, both are based on the assumption that all new evidence will confirm all the old evidence, but that rationally one would allow both beliefs to be falsified.
In other words both conclusions, imho, are more a matter of faith than of rationality.
What I see is that the question is changed from (a) "is it rational to believe that {X} does not exist" in 10 to (b) "is it more a matter of faith than of rationality to believe that {X} does not exist" in 14. Thus I did, and would continue to, answer (a) true for both 10 and 14 and (b) true for both 10 and 14.
But let's not open up the old atheist\belief argument that has already been done too many times on other threads ... it's just a game with some bad word choices.
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
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) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Rrhain, posted 02-19-2008 3:06 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Rrhain, posted 02-20-2008 1:42 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied
 Message 54 by Sour, posted 02-28-2008 12:54 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 12 of 79 (456667)
02-19-2008 2:05 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Modulous
02-19-2008 12:59 PM


Re: No bullets
I got through this without too much difficulty: no hits and no bullets.
Fairly easy if you know where it is coming from and what their innate biases would be for the answers.
quote:
You have been awarded the TPM medal of distinction! This is our second highest award for outstanding service on the intellectual battleground.
The fact that you progressed through this activity being hit only once and biting no bullets suggests that your beliefs about God are well thought out and almost entirely internally consistent.
The direct hit you suffered occurred because one set of your answers implied a logical contradiction. At the bottom of this page, we have reproduced the analysis of your direct hit.
I've already addressed the "hit" (Message 9) and why I think it is a bit of a reach, but it's not surprising within the limits of the format ... and the biases behind it ...
quote:
A direct hit occurs when you answer in a way which implies a logical contradiction. We have been very careful to make sure that only strict contradictions result in a direct hit. However, we do make two caveats.
First, because you only have choices between pre-selected and carefully worded statements, you might find that you have taken a direct hit because the statement closest to your own conviction leads into a contradiction. However, had you phrased the statement yourself, you may have been able to avoid the contradiction while expressing a very similar belief.
As noted before I feel they changed the question (or the emphasis) between 10 and 14 such that there is a gray area where both can logically be considered true.
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
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) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Modulous, posted 02-19-2008 12:59 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by Modulous, posted 02-19-2008 2:58 PM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 14 of 79 (456698)
02-19-2008 3:50 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by Modulous
02-19-2008 2:58 PM


Re: No bullets
Yet I see no gray area whatsoever When I read the question I see them both saying exactly the same thing.
Would you agree that in 10 the choice was that belief AND rational was true, while in 14 the choice was that belief OR rational was true?
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
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) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Modulous, posted 02-19-2008 2:58 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by Modulous, posted 02-19-2008 4:31 PM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 17 of 79 (456703)
02-19-2008 4:25 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Chiroptera
02-19-2008 3:54 PM


However, if I may try to weasel out of it, I misread the question about God.
Or you read them the way I did (see Message 9 and Message 14).
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
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) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Chiroptera, posted 02-19-2008 3:54 PM Chiroptera has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 19 of 79 (456707)
02-19-2008 4:50 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by BMG
02-19-2008 3:52 PM


I bit one bullet, but had no direct hits. I bit the bullet by answering false to question 10 and true to question 14.
Interesting.
I just went through with 10 false & 14 false, and then with 10 true & 14 false, both with no hits and no bullets, so it appears that the criteria is your answer to 14 alone.
Seems to me we have a problem there Houston.
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
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) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by BMG, posted 02-19-2008 3:52 PM BMG has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by BMG, posted 02-20-2008 4:43 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 20 of 79 (456723)
02-19-2008 6:20 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by Modulous
02-19-2008 4:31 PM


Re: No bullets
... is a rational position to take.
In other words you think the rationality of the decision is the primary criteria, and ignore the degree of faith that is involved.
The way I see it the choice is made based on faith, not rationality: faith that evidence will continue to be negative.
It cannot be based on rationality because there is no evidence. As a result you can rationally chose either position -- you have the same degree of evidence.
Thus for the Loch Ness monster, you have faith that the evidence will continue to be negative, and it is rational to believe it does not exist based on that faith.
While for the existence of god, you still have faith that the evidence will continue to be negative, and it is still rational to believe it does not exist based on that faith.
But the choice is made based on faith, not rationality.
Question 10 asks you if it is rational to base your choice on the faith that evidence will continue to be negative:
quote:
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.
Question 14 asks you whether faith OR rationality is more critical to the decision. It's not the same question:
quote:
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.
There is not conflict between faith and rationality in question 10, but in question 14 you have to decide which is the critical element, faith OR rationality.
The problem as I see it is that there is an unstated premise in both questions -- the faith\belief that the evidence will continue to be negative.
Premise 1: no strong evidence has been found to show that {X} exists
Premise 2: we have faith\believe that the evidence will continue to be negative
Conclusion: therefore {X} does not exist.
This is a rational conclusion based on the premises being true.
Premise 1: no strong evidence has been found to show that {X} exists
Premise 2: we have faith\believe that positive evidence will be found
Conclusion: therefore {X} may exist.
This is a rational conclusion based on the premises being true (note - several scientific discoveries in physics have been based on this kind of faith).
The only difference between the contradictory conclusions is premise 2, therefore the critical element is the faith element - you cannot conclude the non-existence without faith that the evidence will continue to be negative.
Analogy:
Take a mixed pile of cards and turn one over at a time.
In case (A) you have turned over 99 cards with no joker and there is one card left -- can you rationally conclude there is no joker in the deck?
In case (B) you have turned over 10 cards with no joker and there are 90 cards left -- can you rationally conclude that there is no joker in the deck?
Your answer depends on your amount of faith\belief that the lack of jokers will continue to be true.
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
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) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Modulous, posted 02-19-2008 4:31 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Modulous, posted 02-19-2008 7:56 PM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 22 of 79 (456746)
02-19-2008 9:30 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by Modulous
02-19-2008 7:56 PM


Re: No bullets
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.
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.
Which are, imho, both true -- you don't know, so it is a matter of faith, faith that the evidence will continue to be negative.
It is not irrational (ergo it is rational) to base conclusions on absence of evidence and what you believe the ultimate outcome will be, but you are still stuck on needing to assume that element of faith\belief is true to make the conclusion. If your belief about the ultimate outcome is different then you will come to a different conclusion that is just as rational (ie not irrational, not held in spite of contradictory evidence).
The purpose of the game was to use the same logic and precepts to come to decisions, regardless of how extreme those positions are (ie rape is justified by firm convictions of faith). Thus it should not matter to the structure how confident you are in your faith that the evidence for the existence of {X} will continue to be negative.
transforming further
Which gets us away from the way question 14 is fundamentally different from question 10, and what you end up with is a different question again.
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.
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.
So you can think of no scientific discoveries where evidence was found only after many many years of persistent looking and coming up empty?
Enjoy.
Edited by RAZD, : word
Edited by RAZD, : word

we are limited in our ability to understand
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) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Modulous, posted 02-19-2008 7:56 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by Modulous, posted 02-19-2008 9:59 PM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 30 of 79 (456796)
02-20-2008 7:53 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by Modulous
02-19-2008 9:59 PM


Re: No bullets no quarter
Mod,
I see the two questions as asking the same things in a different way, evidently you see a difference between the two.
Yes, can you show me where in question 10 you have to choose between rational and belief? It's rather blatant in question 14.
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.
This is equivocating. Using different words to say the same thing: it is still belief.
This is like the cards I mentioned earlier in Message 20
quote:
Analogy:
Take a mixed pile of cards and turn one over at a time.
In case (A) you have turned over 99 cards with no joker and there is one card left -- can you rationally conclude there is no joker in the deck?
In case (B) you have turned over 10 cards with no joker and there are 90 cards left -- can you rationally conclude that there is no joker in the deck?
Your answer depends on your amount of faith\belief that the lack of jokers will continue to be true.
Make that the confidence you have that the lack of jokers will continue to be true.
It is still what you believe will happen. The amount of confidence doesn't change the fact that it is what you believe will happen.
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
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) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Modulous, posted 02-19-2008 9:59 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by Modulous, posted 02-20-2008 8:32 AM RAZD has replied
 Message 33 by Zawi, posted 02-20-2008 11:12 AM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 34 of 79 (456945)
02-20-2008 8:34 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by Zawi
02-20-2008 11:12 AM


Re: No bullets no quarter no question?
... far more believable than that of there being a monster in the Loch Ness.
The problem most people see is that you have a condition where virtually every stone has been turned over, every nook and cranny investigated, with subs, sonar and acoustic recordings.
And you are trying to hide a huge prehistoric (or unknown similar) beast that is voracious of appetite, mortal, sexually reproductive, etc.
That's why I think that if there was no evidence yet of there being a Loch Ness monster then it's reasonable to assume that it doesn't exist, because the premise is so bizarre.
But are you looking for the "monster" or the myth of the monster?
Let me pose the question a different way: do you think it is possible to find an explanation for the various sightings?
ie -- do you think that every single sighting, blurred photo etc is faked or do you think that some are a sighting of something natural, but rare, and unusual.
Would finding the dead body of something like Tesla's oarfish qualify as "finding the monster"?
Enjoy.
click for google maps of Loch Ness

we are limited in our ability to understand
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) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Zawi, posted 02-20-2008 11:12 AM Zawi has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 35 of 79 (456954)
02-20-2008 10:40 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by Modulous
02-20-2008 8:32 AM


enough.
Mod, I don't want to tie up the thread with this, so this will likely be my last run at it. I've stated my position, you've stated yours, they are different.
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.
So you distinguish belief as rational and faith as irrational? That would explain your understanding of question 14 -- to paraphrase: "it's a matter of irrationality, not rationality?"
be·lief -noun1. The mental act, condition, or habit of placing trust or confidence in another: My belief in you is as strong as ever.
2. Mental acceptance of and conviction in the truth, actuality, or validity of something: His explanation of what happened defies belief.
3. Something believed or accepted as true, especially a particular tenet or a body of tenets accepted by a group of persons.
(American Heritage Dictionary, 2008)
I see no need for belief to necessarily be rational. Without evidence one way or the other (for or against), it is something assumed to be true, but that you cannot be sure is true.
faith -noun 1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See Synonyms at belief, trust.
3. Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one's supporters.
4. often Faith Christianity The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will.
5. The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith.
6. A set of principles or beliefs.
(American Heritage Dictionary, 2008)
Nor do I see faith as being necessarily irrational. Without evidence one way or the other (for or against), it is something that is assumed to be true, but that you cannot be sure is true.
Looks to me like they are synonyms, that neither rest on facts, evidence or logical proofs, but both are assumed to be true.
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.
Thanks for the honest answer ... before you went off on a tangent.
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.
All you are doing is increasing your hypothetical level of confidence to the point where you are comfortable saying that faith\belief in a joker is irrational ... however in reality -- with both nessies and religions, you also have reports of people seeing jokers, people you may not take seriously because you think they are irrational ...
It is strange that you see faith and belief as being the same. Especially since number 10 asks you about rationality and belief.
As I said at the beginning I see question 10 - "it is rational to believe" - as being a question of faith AND rational -- faith that the evidence will continue to come up negative and rational to conclude that nessie -- certainly as the "hollywood myth" version of events - does not exist. But that you cannot make that conclusion without the hidden premise based on faith\belief that the evidence will continue to be negative.
I see question 14 - "is a matter of faith, not rationality" - as being a question of faith OR rational, and which is more critical to the conclusion. To me there is no question that the hidden premise - whether it is faith that the evidence will continue to be negative OR faith that positive evidence will be found OR that it may be one or the other -- is the critical element to whether the conclusion is atheism, theism or agnosticism, and thus the conclusion is one based on faith more than rationality. Whether it is god, nessie or jokers in the deck.
And I do seem to remember going through all of this once before ... but I can't find an old thread on this game.
I just note one last thing ... Message 19
... I bit the bullet by answering false to question 10 and true to question 14.
Interesting.
I just went through with 10 false & 14 false, and then with 10 true & 14 false, both with no hits and no bullets, so it appears that the criteria is your answer to 14 alone.
So there is something wrong however you look at it:
10 true + 14 true = hit
10 false + 14 true = hit
10 true + 14 false = bye
10 false + 14 false = bye
If true\true is a hit, then false\false should be a hit and either true\false or false\true should be a bye.
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
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) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Modulous, posted 02-20-2008 8:32 AM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by Modulous, posted 02-21-2008 8:16 AM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 36 of 79 (456956)
02-20-2008 10:49 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by Zawi
02-20-2008 10:55 AM


The God in question could well be a Greek God who is subject to all the immoral urges that a man is. So I answered false for any statement about God's perfect morality or ability to do anything.
Or american indian?
Do you think that it is consistent then to think that such a kind of god could not exist?
Let me phrase it a little differently: the god you end up with doesn't necessarily leave evidence of godly behavior - perhaps they can teleport from planet to planet and shape change to party with the locals - so is the absence of evidence a valid criteria to believe they don't exist?
Enjoy.
Edited by RAZD, : amerind

we are limited in our ability to understand
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) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Zawi, posted 02-20-2008 10:55 AM Zawi has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 41 of 79 (457361)
02-22-2008 8:58 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by Modulous
02-21-2008 8:16 AM


Re: enough.
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.
I was pointing out how similar belief/2 and faith/1 were, as you asked if I thought they were synonyms. They are, and even definition 2 says it. The only difference I see is that faith has religious overtones that are tenuous with belief (as it is more general, dealing with ufo, nessies etc).
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.
You talked about having different levels of confidence, and I find it a little amusing that you needed to make the case even stronger than 99% of the cards known ... you can do all kinds of things to the parameters, but the essential point is that you really are not sure with either case -- you may have a high degree of confidence in your belief (faith/1) when you've seen 99% of the cards vs 10%, but you still don't know for sure.
You are, of course, free to interpret it your way. My main problem with the questions is that they are supposed to be catching you out for being inconsistent. To do that the questions need to be consistent, and I don't see they are. But it also appears to be a beta version that never went further, so there are some rough edges. I see a fundamental difference between the two questions.

10. When you have a belief that is not supported or contradicted by loads of evidence and logic - is it rationality to conclude
  • the belief is true
  • the belief is false

    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
  • the belief is true
  • the belief is false

    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.
    I don't know of belief that is founded on evidence and logic without being based on at least one assumption. There is always a question at the end - the last card - where you don't know, and you assume one way or the other. That is why I made the analogy of the deck of cards and the joker. You have to turn over the last card to know for sure.
    In the end, without sure knowledge, you have to make an assumption that your belief is correct. In the end your choice is made based on your belief - whether you consider the belief rational or not.
    Enjoy.

    we are limited in our ability to understand
    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) • • •

  • This message is a reply to:
     Message 40 by Modulous, posted 02-21-2008 8:16 AM Modulous has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 43 by Modulous, posted 02-22-2008 9:37 PM RAZD has replied

      
    RAZD
    Member (Idle past 1405 days)
    Posts: 20714
    From: the other end of the sidewalk
    Joined: 03-14-2004


    Message 42 of 79 (457362)
    02-22-2008 9:02 PM
    Reply to: Message 37 by riVeRraT
    02-21-2008 7:19 AM


    I think the website is pure bullshit.
    I think it is self-indulgent, and blind to it's own biases.
    Enjoy.

    we are limited in our ability to understand
    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) • • •

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 37 by riVeRraT, posted 02-21-2008 7:19 AM riVeRraT has not replied

      
    RAZD
    Member (Idle past 1405 days)
    Posts: 20714
    From: the other end of the sidewalk
    Joined: 03-14-2004


    Message 44 of 79 (457447)
    02-23-2008 2:26 PM
    Reply to: Message 43 by Modulous
    02-22-2008 9:37 PM


    what is rational then?
    Thanks Mod,
    The reason we don't see eye to eye here, for example is interesting. I see faith and rationality to be contrasted.
    In question 14, agreed, but not in question 10. Question 10 asks if the faith\belief in the absence of a monster nessie is rational.
    I consider it rational to have developed a strong confidence in the truth of the conclusion of the lack of existence. ... 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?
    Perhaps the key is the meaning of rational.
    ra·tion·al -adj 1. Having or exercising the ability to reason.
    2. Of sound mind; sane.
    3. Consistent with or based on reason; logical: rational behavior. See Synonyms at logical.
    4. Mathematics Capable of being expressed as a quotient of integers.
    (American Heritage Dictionary, 2008)
    Is it rational to believe in the non-existence of the "hollywood monster" version of nessie? Yes, because such belief is not contradicted by the evidence and it is consistent with your experiences and beliefs and the experiences of people who have not been witness to a sighting.
    Is it rational to believe in a natural explanation for some of the sightings known collectively as "nessie"? Yes, because such belief is not contradicted by the evidence and it is consistent with your experiences and beliefs and the (anecdotal) experience of people who have been witness to a sighting.
    It is rational to believe something that is not contradicted by facts and that is consistent with your experiences and beliefs and the (anecdotal) experiences of others.
    There are many people that believe in possibility of things that others don't -- ghosts for example -- and we don't label them insane because of that belief.
    Thus the answer to 10 is that it is rational to believe that "nessie" exists, and it is rational to believe that it doesn't: the belief either way is rational.
    Well of course, but then, as I said, any conclusion is faith-based since all conclusions rely on at least one epistemological assumption.
    And when your answer to the question "does god exist" depends on your assumption to determine whether your answer is yes or no, then your answer either way may be rational -- not contradicted by the facts and consistent with your experiences and beliefs and the (anecdotal) experiences of others -- but it is based on the assumption, and the faith that you are right in making that assumption.
    The rational element does not predict what the individual answer will be, the assumption (belief\faith) does.
    If both answers are rational, which is the way I see it, then the choice of which you believe is based on (belief\faith\assumption).
    Enjoy.
    Edited by RAZD, : format

    we are limited in our ability to understand
    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) • • •

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 43 by Modulous, posted 02-22-2008 9:37 PM Modulous has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 45 by Modulous, posted 02-23-2008 4:00 PM RAZD has replied

      
    Newer Topic | Older Topic
    Jump to:


    Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

    ™ Version 4.2
    Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024