Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Are your beliefs consistent? Take the test...

philosophersnet.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 84 posts

Re: Are your beliefs consistent? Take the test...

#11

Post by anthonyb »

ziadbc wrote: post #5

Was going well. However, one of my 'misses' had a logical flaw in it. I previously responded that it is ok to believe something spiritually based on a firm inner conviction, without external evidence. It then posed that a person raped someone because an inner voice told them it was ok. I responded that this was not ok. It said that I had now some logical conflict. This is not the case. I said it was ok to believe in…

It is a survey on your beliefs though, not on whether you act on them. What are the differences in kind between your firm, inner convictions and Peter Sutcliffe's?

Re: Are your beliefs consistent? Take the test...

#12

Post by timcederman »

You stated earlier that evolutionary theory is essentially true. However, you have now claimed that it is foolish to believe in God without certain, irrevocable proof that she exists. The problem is that there is no certain proof that evolutionary theory is true - even though there is overwhelming evidence that it is true.

It is foolish to believe in something with zero evidence for it. Whether it's the celestial teacup or invisible pink unicorns. That's quite different to physical evidence of evolution.

The author of this test loves playing semantic games.

Re: Are your beliefs consistent? Take the test...

#13

Post by anthonyb »

scotty79 wrote: post #8
Deestan wrote: post #2

A useful and somewhat though-provoking test. But, it feels really frustrating not being able to argue back; especially when the test starts claiming logical conclusions regarding my beliefs and opinions based on technical definitions ("irrevocable proof", "justifiable", etc) that I disagree with. :-)

No hits. My two bullets: ## You stated earlier that evolutionary theory is essentially true. However, you have now claimed that it is foolish to believe in God without certain, irrevocable proof that she exists. The problem is that there is no certain proof that evolutionary theory is true - even though there is overwhelming evidence that it is true. So it seems that you require certain, irrevocable proof for God's e…

I got bitten by that second one too. My reasoning was that rationality (or at least part of it) is likely to be a product of the universe in which you live. Assuming that God created it, they might be just as likely to create a different one where square circles might exist.

Re: Are your beliefs consistent? Take the test...

#14

Post by klochner »

ziadbc wrote: post #5

Was going well. However, one of my 'misses' had a logical flaw in it. I previously responded that it is ok to believe something spiritually based on a firm inner conviction, without external evidence. It then posed that a person raped someone because an inner voice told them it was ok. I responded that this was not ok. It said that I had now some logical conflict. This is not the case. I said it was ok to believe in…

The wording of the questions is fairly precise, although the explanations may be a bit sloppier:

  He was, therefore, justified in believing that he was  
  carrying out God's will in undertaking these actions.
So according to your belief system, he was justified in believing it was God's will, but he was not justified in actually doing it.

(I didn't get any wrong :-P)

Re: Are your beliefs consistent? Take the test...

#15

Post by dkersten »

You claimed earlier that any being which it is right to call God must want there to be as little suffering in the world as possible. But you say that God could make it so that everything now considered sinful becomes morally acceptable and everything that is now considered morally good becomes sinful.

This is stupid. I said that god COULD change what is considered sinful and that god would WANT to minimize suffering. Being able to do something isn't a contradiction with wanting something else if they never do it. I'm ABLE to kick the cat, but I don't WANT to hurt it - my beliefs about the cat aren't a contradiction.

I never said that such a god would change the definition of sin to make decreasing suffering a sin, just that they would be able to and wouldn't want to. Where is the contradiction?

Re: Are your beliefs consistent? Take the test...

#16

Post by andymorris »

timcederman wrote: post #12

You stated earlier that evolutionary theory is essentially true. However, you have now claimed that it is foolish to believe in God without certain, irrevocable proof that she exists. The problem is that there is no certain proof that evolutionary theory is true - even though there is overwhelming evidence that it is true. It is foolish to believe in something with zero evidence for it. Whether it's the celestial tea…

I think it's getting at: say you had more actual evidence for the God theory than you did for evolution. Your response seems to indicate that you would STILL prefer evolution, as you would require certain, irrevocable proof for God. Your previous response said that you didn't need that level of proof for evolution, hence it states your views are logically inconsistent.

I made the same "mistake", as I intended to imply that I would need "very strong" (but not "certain" proof) for the God theory.

Basically, the question's are a bit ambiguous (especially with only True/False responses), but logically I think the site is correct.

-- Ayjay on Fedang

Re: Are your beliefs consistent? Take the test...

#17

Post by cema »

Deestan wrote: post #2

A useful and somewhat though-provoking test. But, it feels really frustrating not being able to argue back; especially when the test starts claiming logical conclusions regarding my beliefs and opinions based on technical definitions ("irrevocable proof", "justifiable", etc) that I disagree with. :-)

I think the authors did not think of all possibilities. "Arguing back" might help them to improve the logical engine. I guess what I mean to say is that, rather than arguing back, we could contact them with suggestions.

Eg one thing they did not seem to consider is (my case) some of the implications of differences between the natural and the supernatural (say, God and the hypothetical Loch Ness monster).

Re: Are your beliefs consistent? Take the test...

#18

Post by cwp »

ziadbc wrote: post #5

Was going well. However, one of my 'misses' had a logical flaw in it. I previously responded that it is ok to believe something spiritually based on a firm inner conviction, without external evidence. It then posed that a person raped someone because an inner voice told them it was ok. I responded that this was not ok. It said that I had now some logical conflict. This is not the case. I said it was ok to believe in…

Actually, the question was not whether Sutcliffe was justified in committing rape, but whether he was justified in believing that he was doing the will of God. If "firm inner conviction" justifies a belief, and Sutcliffe had firm inner conviction, then Sutcliffe was justified in his belief.

Re: Are your beliefs consistent? Take the test...

#19

Post by anthonyb »

klochner wrote: post #14
ziadbc wrote: post #5

Was going well. However, one of my 'misses' had a logical flaw in it. I previously responded that it is ok to believe something spiritually based on a firm inner conviction, without external evidence. It then posed that a person raped someone because an inner voice told them it was ok. I responded that this was not ok. It said that I had now some logical conflict. This is not the case. I said it was ok to believe in…

The wording of the questions is fairly precise, although the explanations may be a bit sloppier: He was, therefore, justified in believing that he was carrying out God's will in undertaking these actions. So according to your belief system, he was justified in believing it was God's will, but he was not justified in actually doing it. (I didn't get any wrong :-P)

But if he goes against the will of God, surely that's inconsistent - given the emphasis that (eg.) the Bible places on unquestioning obedience to God?

Unless he believes in an evil God...

Re: Are your beliefs consistent? Take the test...

#20

Post by dkersten »

timcederman wrote: post #12

You stated earlier that evolutionary theory is essentially true. However, you have now claimed that it is foolish to believe in God without certain, irrevocable proof that she exists. The problem is that there is no certain proof that evolutionary theory is true - even though there is overwhelming evidence that it is true. It is foolish to believe in something with zero evidence for it. Whether it's the celestial tea…

Anyway, theres a lot more to evolutionary theory than that we all evolved from single celled organisms many billions of years ago. Some of the theory has been proven (for example, we do know that organisms evolve by replicating and mutation and that environmental pressure will allow certain traits to survive and other die), so that doesn't necessarily make you wrong here. This test makes too many assumptions about your belief based on simple questions.
Post reply on HN