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

21–30 of 84 posts

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

#21

Post by anthonyb »

sliverstorm wrote: post #3
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. :-)

You don't have to get very technical to use the meaning of "irrevocable proof". Interpreting the definition to mean 'proof that cannot be refuted' is pretty straightforward, and not a technicality at all.

I'm not so sure that "irrevocable proof" really makes that much sense. How do you prove something and then revoke it?

Something like "irrefutable proof" would be better.

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

#23

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

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

#24

Post by ThomPete »

There are so many problems with this test.

For instance. It sets up evolutionary theory as a true false theory.

But evolutionary theory is a model to explain phenomena. It's neither true nor false. (I say that as an atheist btw.)

Edit: Instead of just down voting why don't you come forward with an argument?

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

#25

Post by ziadbc »

cwp wrote: post #18
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.

I have a firm inner conviction that this test is wrong, regardless of external evidence to the contrary.

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

#26

Post by timcederman »

andymorris wrote: post #16
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 impl…

The previous question said "Is evolution essentially true?" Well, yes. Plenty of physical evidence for it.

I read the question as "Do you need actual evidence to believe in a God." I say yes. I don't see how my views are conflicted there - evidence means something is "true" (ah, but what is the definition of truth? We end up going down the rabbit hole about evidence, models, likely truths, etc)

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

#27

Post by andymorris »

anthonyb wrote: post #19
klochner wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

There's plenty of stuff in the Bible about God allowing/condoning/performing murder and rape as well though ....

http://www.evilbible.com/Murder.htm http://www.evilbible.com/Rape.htm

-- Ayjay on Fedang

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

#28

Post by loup-vaillant »

anthonyb wrote: post #13
scotty79 wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The problem is, neither squares nor circles exist in our world. Talking about a world where square circles exist is meaningless.

Squares and circles are mathematical concepts. They often are a model of parts of our world. Of course, the fact that we created these concepts is a product of our universe. But the concepts themselves are independent of any universe. Therefore, they are independent of the will of God (if she exist).

The definitions of squares and circles alone are sufficient for us to tell that no square is a circle, and no circle is a square. That conclusion is likewise independent of our world and the will of God.

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

#29

Post by aaronblohowiak »

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 test refers to a belief as a conviction, not a supposition. You seem to use it in the opposite manner.

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

#30

Post by cwp »

I escaped unscathed, but I will say this: I was squirming as I answered a lot of the questions. Having denied the existence of God, how am I to have an opinion the nature of divinity?

But it made me realize that I'm actually more sympathetic to the notion of God than I had thought. Apparently, a preponderance of evidence suggesting the existence of a very wise and powerful being would be enough to make me a believer. That's a much lower bar than I would have expected.

Post reply on HN