I was nailed once, and bit one bullet. I answered false to:
"It is justifiable to base one's beliefs about the external world on a firm, inner conviction, even in the absence of any external evidence for the truth of these convictions."
And true to:
"It is justifiable to believe in God if one has a firm, inner conviction that God exists, even if there is no external evidence that God exists."
Given those questions again, I'd answer the same way. I believe it's perfectly acceptable (though perhaps incorrect) to base your faith on what you strongly believe - however I think it's flakey to dictate the composition of the external world based on a (perhaps erroneous) gut feeling.
Thanks for the link, Curt!
I was nailed once, and bit one bullet. I answered false to:
"It is justifiable to base one's beliefs about the external world on a firm, inner conviction, even in the absence of any external evidence for the truth of these convictions."
And true to:
"It is justifiable to believe in God if one has a firm, inner conviction that God exists, even if there is no external evidence that God exists."
Given those questions again, I'd answer the same way. I believe it's perfectly acceptable (though perhaps incorrect) to base your faith on what you strongly believe - however I think it's flakey to dictate the composition of the external world based on a (perhaps erroneous) gut feeling.
Thanks for the link, Curt!
I agree, the wording is the most difficult part. I still think it's a worthwhile excersize.
I agree, the wording is the most difficult part. I still think it's a worthwhile excersize.
Worthwhile, but the authors seem to be assuming that God, if such a being exists, is part of the "external world". I think most religious believers would say that God is a part of their internal world.
Worthwhile, but the authors seem to be assuming that God, if such a being exists, is part of the "external world". I think most religious believers would say that God is a part of their internal world.
Thanks for the link to the test, Curt. I bit the same bullet you did -- I actually disagree with the engineers of the quiz on this one -- seems to me that proving a negative is a lot harder (even if it's intelligent life on mars) than the authors seem to think.
I also had one injury -- I claimed not to know for sure whether God existed, but also claimed that morality had its basis in God and claimed that torturing innocents was wrong. But here again, I'd still stick to my answers. There are shades of certainty vs. what one thinks is most likely. Perhaps the question should have allowed me to say, "I think it likely that God exists, unlikely that morality can have a basis outside of God, and that torturing innocents is wrong."
Thanks for the link to the test, Curt. I bit the same bullet you did -- I actually disagree with the engineers of the quiz on this one -- seems to me that proving a negative is a lot harder (even if it's intelligent life on mars) than the authors seem to think.
I also had one injury -- I claimed not to know for sure whether God existed, but also claimed that morality had its basis in God and claimed that torturing innocents was wrong. But here again, I'd still stick to my answers. There are shades of certainty vs. what one thinks is most likely. Perhaps the question should have allowed me to say, "I think it likely that God exists, unlikely that morality can have a basis outside of God, and that torturing innocents is wrong."
I got through unscathed and avoided biting any bullets. I only had three "true" answers and opened up with "I don't know."
My God in do-it-your-self was completely consistant with the world, but then I did some experiments... the more options you pick the lower your consistancy became. A trap!
I got through unscathed and avoided biting any bullets. I only had three "true" answers and opened up with "I don't know."
My God in do-it-your-self was completely consistant with the world, but then I did some experiments... the more options you pick the lower your consistancy became. A trap!
I've been pondering this a bunch since I took the test. The inconsistency it attributed to me is only valid if God and the external world are seperate entities, with no common links. If God is a part of the external world, and thus plays by its rules, then I have no inconsistencies.
At that point it's justifiable to believe in God in the absence of evidence(since we may not have detected that evidence yet) but it's not justifiable to contradict observed and/or proven facts about the external world based on "gut feeling".
In this model the external world is greater than God, or else (at the extreme) the external world is God.
I've been pondering this a bunch since I took the test. The inconsistency it attributed to me is only valid if God and the external world are seperate entities, with no common links. If God is a part of the external world, and thus plays by its rules, then I have no inconsistencies.
At that point it's justifiable to believe in God in the absence of evidence(since we may not have detected that evidence yet) but it's not justifiable to contradict observed and/or proven facts about the external world based on "gut feeling".
In this model the external world is greater than God, or else (at the extreme) the external world is God.
Just to clarify what philosophers mean by part of the "external world," since orbitron's comment is begging for some clarification.
When philosophers speak of something existing in the external world, we mean it exists independent of our thoughts. For example, the fact that London is the capital of England is true means it exists in the external world--it is true regardless of my thoughts about that fact.
On the contrary, facts that only exist in the internal world are wholly dependent on subjective thoughts. For example, I might think about a pink elephant. That pink elephant would only exist in my mind, but has no reality in the external world.
When you think about it this way, you realize that most theists (with the exception, perhaps, of Hegel) understand God to exist in the external world.
Just to clarify what philosophers mean by part of the "external world," since orbitron's comment is begging for some clarification.
When philosophers speak of something existing in the external world, we mean it exists independent of our thoughts. For example, the fact that London is the capital of England is true means it exists in the external world--it is true regardless of my thoughts about that fact.
On the contrary, facts that only exist in the internal world are wholly dependent on subjective thoughts. For example, I might think about a pink elephant. That pink elephant would only exist in my mind, but has no reality in the external world.
When you think about it this way, you realize that most theists (with the exception, perhaps, of Hegel) understand God to exist in the external world.
Andrew- I think I'd get out of that jam but changing this "It is justifiable to believe in God if one has a firm, inner conviction that God exists, even if there is no external evidence that God exists" to false. There are proofs for God, although they may not be purely deductive. I'm hesitant to dismiss millions of people all through time, including some great thinkers. That's not a slam dunk, but it tilts the odds quite a bit in my book.
Andrew- I think I'd get out of that jam but changing this "It is justifiable to believe in God if one has a firm, inner conviction that God exists, even if there is no external evidence that God exists" to false. There are proofs for God, although they may not be purely deductive. I'm hesitant to dismiss millions of people all through time, including some great thinkers. That's not a slam dunk, but it tilts the odds quite a bit in my book.
I'm with you on this last comment Curt. I think to have a justified belief in something, especially something as important as God, It needs more than just a firm inner-conviction. There is good evidence to believe in God, even if everyone doesn't acknowledge it. By answering false on that question, I avoided some inconsistencies on the quiz.
I'm with you on this last comment Curt. I think to have a justified belief in something, especially something as important as God, It needs more than just a firm inner-conviction. There is good evidence to believe in God, even if everyone doesn't acknowledge it. By answering false on that question, I avoided some inconsistencies on the quiz.
Commenting by HaloScan
