Comments on: Battleground God

By: Richard

Richard — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 +0000

I dislike this part:

“Evolutionary theory maybe false in some matters of detail, but it is essentially true.”

True seems to me to be a loaded term, bearing in mind that Popper assigned a provisional character to truth in science. Provisionally true would have been fine.. particularly since it later blames you if you attempt to reject god on a preponderance of evidence (but retain a provisional possibility regarding his existence).

By: Timothy Burke

Timothy Burke — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 +0000

I took one direct hit, and I profound disagree with it. I agreed that it is rational at a certain point to reject the existence of the Loch Ness monster, but took the agnostic position on God. I absolutely reject that these are the same thing, or that there is a logical inconsistency in this case. There is a difference in scale and type of phenomenon here. To believe in the Loch Ness monster is to believe that an animal, a physical creature, inhabits a lake. That’s a very different claim than to talk about God, and the evidence required for the two is different.

By: marcum

marcum — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 +0000

I too, took one direct hit. It was the Loch Ness rationality versus antheistic faith that did me in; the same as Timothy Burke. My defense is basically the same, though not as concise, as Burke’s.

By: davidkrew

davidkrew — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 +0000

I took zero direct hits and bit zero bullets.

Ha! Who says guys in advertising can’t think straight?

By: ryker

ryker — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 +0000

Great link. Like the other posters above I bit one bullet over the Loch Ness vs. atheism inconsistency. The FAQ talks about this distinction in some detail and I have to say that, unlike the other posters, I have to agree that this is a valid “bullet.” The upshot of getting it wrong is that I can improve!

By: marcum

marcum — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 +0000

In regards to ryker,
“The upshot of getting it wrong is that I can improve!”
While we can work on the continuity of our logic/rationality we can never improve on this test. It is not reasonable to take the test again in hope to receive a better score; it would not be fair to ourselves. Has anyone run-across similar types of these online ‘tests’?

By: Bernard Yomtov

Bernard Yomtov — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 +0000

I took the Loch ness hit also. I think part of the problem is that I sort of took the word “rational” to mean something different in the two cases. With Nessie it meant “sensible,” and with God it meant “logically required.”

Are there any mathematicians in the crowd? Is it really impossible to describe a surface on which a circle could be square? And isn’t saying it’s “impossible” that 1+1=72 like saying it’s impossible that V+V=X? really just a question of notation? Just asking. Needless to say, they didn’t like my answer there.

By: Don P

Don P — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 +0000

I think the analysis of this question depends in part of what kind of God you’re talking about. I think there is evidence that a benevolent and omnipotent God (such as the one proposed by Christianity) does not exist. There isn’t merely an absence of evidence for such a God, but evidence of absence.

If the Loch Ness Monster does exist, we would expect to have found some credible evidence that it exists. We have found no such evidence, so we conclude that it probably does not exist.

If a benevolent and omnipotent creator God exists, we would expect to find a world that is consistent with such a creator. Instead, we find a world, as revealed by science, that is characterized by great suffering and imperfection. Human life appears to be the product of a series of accidents. Biological evolution is a violent and chaotic process, full of false starts, dead ends, and jerry-rigged designs, undirected, and utterly indifferent to concerns about suffering or justice. It is difficult to understand the world we observe as the creation of a benevolent and omnipotent God. I therefore conclude that such a God probably does not exist.

By: ryker

ryker — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 +0000

marcum – obviously a person can’t improve on this test but they can improve the consistency of their thinking. That you didn’t get my meaning suggests I could improve my clarity as well. Like you I would also be interested in similar logic tests. It’s interesting to contrast the thought process undertaken when teasing apart these statements versus the similar process used to assess, say, arguments expressed in symbolic logic systems. I guess that’s my interest – to make sure the baggage we bring to the table when looking at these statements doesn’t commit us to irrational conclusions or, if it does, to have the opportunity to revise our beliefs.

By: dre

dre — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 +0000

I took two hits and bit two bullets. On both hits the contradiction was False to 7 “justify your belief on inner conviction” and True to 15 and 17. My objection is that even though I cannot justify my beliefs based on only inner conviction that does not make me capable of denying others’ justifications of their beliefs.

I also bit the Nessie/God bullet, Bernard, and agree that there is a difference between sensible (no Nessie) and necessary (no God.)

I agree with the assessment of my last bite, True on 16. “saying that any discussion of God…cannot be constrained by basic principles of rationality… would seem to make rational discourse about God impossible.” Anyone who has tried to make rational discourse about God with someone who disagrees with your answer on question 1 knows that that is the deal.

It was fun to play though.