Test Your Rational Consistency

[t̷s͢uk̕a͡t͜ư]

Blizz has undoubtedly been wondering when the hell I'm going to make a post about this here, and I think I've kept him waiting long enough.

Battleground God is a series of questions about religion that focuses on your rational consistency (the test is not about your knowledge).

I managed to get through with only one "bit bullet," but I disagree on the grounds. I'll let Blizz explain his own results.

Email I sent to the webmaster:

Mr. Stangroom,

I noticed that the Battlefield God FAQ was dated 2002, so I realize that the material I'm commenting about is rather dated, but I have enough pride in my general attempt at rational consistency that I'm writing you about it anyway. I hope you'll humor me.

To begin with, let me just say that I answered "False" to the first question ("God exists."), which should give you a general idea of my answers to the other questions.


Long story short, I bit a bullet where I didn't think I ought to have, and in another case didn't bite a bullet where I expected to.


Question #12:
"If God exists she could make it so that everything now considered sinful becomes morally acceptable and everything that is now considered morally good becomes sinful."
I answered in the affirmative for the simple reason that false can imply anything, i.e. "if p then q" is always true if p is false, regardless of whether q is true or false, e.g. "if pigs can fly, then the moon is made of cheese" is a true statement.
I did not bite or take a bullet for this, nor do I believe that I should have.
When I was asked Question #16, however...

Question #16:
"If God exists she would have the freedom and power to create square circles and make 1 + 1 = 72."
I answered "False" for the "does God exist" question, therefore it is only rationally consistent for me to read this question, "If God exists then [blah blah blah, absolutely fucking anything; I'm not obligated to care]," i.e. "If [false] then [irrelevant]." So I answered "True" for the same reason as Question #12: false can imply anything. But I took a bullet because apparently I was conceding that any discussion of God "cannot be constrained by basic principles of rationality," which makes "rational discourse about God impossible." I don't believe that that's a fair conclusion to make about my views on religion or my rational consistency, given the motivation I had for answering the way I did.

(Incidentally, while I do believe that rational discourse about God is impossible (although rational discourse about whether it's a good idea to believe in God is certainly possible, and done frequently), I think it would be more accurate to say that a discussion of God is /banished from/ rational inquiry, rather than the true but misleading notion that it /transcends/ rational inquiry.)


As for the place I thought I ought to have bitten a bullet:
Question #9:
"Torturing innocent people is morally wrong."
I answered "False," which I knew as I made that selection was an "implication that most would find strange, incredible or unpalatable," but I was very surprised to find that I had not bitten a bullet for choosing this answer.
I can explain my answer, too. While I am convinced that torture is a terribly ineffective means of discovering the truth about anything, and while I am unable to imagine any circumstance in which torturing innocent people is morally acceptable, I concede nonetheless that I could be misinformed, naive, and/or unimaginative. There is, after all, no inherent contradiction I can identify in torturing innocents for justice, so in my mind there's a chance that such a circumstance could be possible. Because I, as an atheist, have no basis for believing in moral absolutes, I didn't think it would be rationally consistent for me to agree that the torture of innocents is _unconditionally_ immoral. I answered the way I did through clenched teeth. I really should have been hit with a "you bit the bullet."

In any case, this was a fantastic game. Thank you for making it and putting as much thought into it as you did. I've just sent the link to a number of my friends.

[squibbles]

Yeah, this is fantastic.

Congratulations!

You have been awarded the TPM service medal! This is our third highest award for outstanding service on the intellectual battleground.

The fact that you progressed through this activity without suffering many hits and biting no bullets suggests that whilst there are inconsistencies in your beliefs about God, on the whole they are well thought-out.

The direct hits you suffered occurred because some of your answers implied logical contradictions. At the bottom of this page, we have reproduced the analyses of your direct hits. You would have bitten bullets had you responded in ways that required that you held views that most people would have found strange, incredible or unpalatable. However, this did not occur, and consequently, you qualify for our third highest award. Well done!

Comparative Statistics

• * 491228 people have completed this activity to date.
  * You suffered 2 direct hits and bit zero bullets.
  * This compares with the average player of this activity to date who takes 1.38 hits and bites 1.10 bullets.
  * 37.99% of the people who have completed this activity have, like you, been awarded the TPM Service Medal.
  * 8.02% of the people who have completed this activity emerged unscathed with the TPM Medal of Honour.
  * 45.94% of the people who have completed this activity took very little damage and were awarded the TPM Medal of Distinction.

Direct Hit 1

You answered True to questions 10 and 14.

These answers generated the following response:

You've just taken a direct hit! Earlier you agreed that it is rational to believe that the Loch Ness monster does not exist if there is an absence of strong evidence or argument that it does. No strong evidence or argument was required to show that the monster does not exist - absence of evidence or argument was enough. But now you claim that the atheist needs to be able to provide strong arguments or evidence if their belief in the non-existence of God is to be rational rather than a matter of faith.

The contradiction is that on the first ocassion (Loch Ness monster) you agreed that the absence of evidence or argument is enough to rationally justify belief in the non-existence of the Loch Ness monster, but on this occasion (God), you do not.

Direct Hit 2

You answered False to Question 7 and True to Question 17.

These answers generated the following response:

You've just taken a direct hit! Earlier you said that it is not justifiable to base one's beliefs about the external world on a firm, inner conviction, paying no regard to the external evidence, or lack of it, for the truth or falsity of this conviction, but now you say it's justifiable to believe in God on just these grounds. That's a flagrant contradiction!

Also, in regard to my taking a hit on 10 and 14, I think that the phrasing of the questions is very important here. While it is, in my opinion, irrrational to believe in something with no evidence of it existing, it is entirely justifiable. I personally consider blind faith to be enough to justify a belief, despite it, yes, being absolutely irrational.

I believe that the 7 and 17 clash also is somewhat due to symantics. I think it is justifiable to hold any belief you wish, regardless of whether it is true or not. Should you choose to believe something witout evidence or not, either way it is justifiable. This is, in my opinion, a question of faith, and thus has no clash, given you are an accepting person, who can live with others choosing what to believe.

[Universezero]

But what Peter Sutcliffe was doing was morally wrong and therefore I believe he has no valid justification. Dislike.

He did have a justification; he believed that God wanted him to do those things.

All over, this is an interesting test. I think I did alright... but I should try again and focus on what my real morals are.

[Rose]

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 very few 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. The bitten bullets occurred because you responded in ways that required that you held views that most people would have found strange, incredible or unpalatable. At the bottom of this page, we have reproduced the analyses of your direct hit and bitten bullets.

Because you only suffered one direct hit and bit very few bullets, you qualify for our second highest award. A good achievement!

Eh. Not bad, I suppose. Better than average, according to the site. I'm not so sure about my direct hit though. Earlier I had said that it was rational to believe that the Loch Ness Monster doesn't exist. I then said that atheism was, in a way, a matter of faith that there is no god. It said that I made a direct contradiction. Now, I get my definitions from context clues and conversation, not by reading a dictionary, so here's my question. Is all faith, strictly by definition, irrational?

[Tanner]

Everyone gets the same one wrong.

[squibbles]

But what Peter Sutcliffe was doing was morally wrong and therefore I believe he has no valid justification. Dislike.

He did have a justification; he believed that God wanted him to do those things.

All over, this is an interesting test. I think I did alright... but I should try again and focus on what my real morals are.

What I mean was that sure he can sincerely believe that God told him to do it however the fact that what he was being told to do something that was morally wrong which is against God I feel it is a contradiction. (That is a really long sentence and probably has horrible grammar. I'm so tired.)

It wasn't about whether it was justified or not, but that you gave differing answers in parallel scenarios, despite one being wildly more fantstic, and socially abhhorant.

[Slayr]

Congratulations!

You have been awarded the TPM medal of honour! This is our highest award for outstanding service on the intellectual battleground.

The fact that you progressed through this activity neither being hit nor biting a bullet suggests that your beliefs about God are internally consistent and very well thought out.

8.03% of the people who have completed this activity emerged unscathed with the TPM Medal of Honour.

Sup' Bitches!

[乳头的早餐谷物]

I remember doing this test back in my Year 11 philosophy class.

"You took zero direct hits and you bit zero bullets", but that's mostly because I have no strong feelings about what God should be.

[SlappyMcGee]

Earlier you agreed that it is rational to believe that the Loch Ness monster does not exist if there is an absence of strong evidence or argument that it does. No strong evidence or argument was required to show that the monster does not exist - absence of evidence or argument was enough. But now you claim that the atheist needs to be able to provide strong arguments or evidence if their belief in the non-existence of God is to be rational rather than a matter of faith.

The contradiction is that on the first ocassion (Loch Ness monster) you agreed that the absence of evidence or argument is enough to rationally justify belief in the non-existence of the Loch Ness monster, but on this occasion (God), you do not.

The problem for this is that they did not give me the same options for both questions. If I had the option to highlight the fact that a non-belief in the existence of or against the loch ness, I would have chosen that one, given the lack of evidence.

[Vyacheslav]

[noops]

Congratulations!

You have been awarded the TPM service medal! This is our third highest award for outstanding service on the intellectual battleground.

The fact that you progressed through this activity without suffering many hits and biting no bullets suggests that whilst there are inconsistencies in your beliefs about God, on the whole they are well thought-out.

The direct hits you suffered occurred because some of your answers implied logical contradictions. At the bottom of this page, we have reproduced the analyses of your direct hits. You would have bitten bullets had you responded in ways that required that you held views that most people would have found strange, incredible or unpalatable. However, this did not occur, and consequently, you qualify for our third highest award. Well done!

Woo. This pisses me off, though:

Direct Hit 1

You answered True to questions 6 and 13.

These answers generated the following response:

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 existence, but accept evolutionary theory without certain proof. So You've got a choice: (a) Bite a bullet and claim that a higher standard of proof is required for belief in God than for belief in evolution. (b) Take a hit, conceding that there is a contradiction in your responses.

You chose to take the direct hit.

So basically, overwhelming proof that it is true actually isn't the same as it being irrevocable. Hrmph.

Oh hey look:

Direct Hit 2

You answered True to questions 10 and 14.

These answers generated the following response:

You've just taken a direct hit! Earlier you agreed that it is rational to believe that the Loch Ness monster does not exist if there is an absence of strong evidence or argument that it does. No strong evidence or argument was required to show that the monster does not exist - absence of evidence or argument was enough. But now you claim that the atheist needs to be able to provide strong arguments or evidence if their belief in the non-existence of God is to be rational rather than a matter of faith.

The contradiction is that on the first ocassion (Loch Ness monster) you agreed that the absence of evidence or argument is enough to rationally justify belief in the non-existence of the Loch Ness monster, but on this occasion (God), you do not.

[T3chno]

Congratulations!

You have been awarded the TPM service medal! This is our third highest award for outstanding service on the intellectual battleground.

The fact that you have progressed through this activity without suffering many hits and biting only one bullet suggests that whilst there are inconsistencies in your beliefs about God, on the whole they are well thought-out.

The direct hits you suffered occurred because some of your answers implied logical contradictions. The bitten bullet occurred because you responded in a way that required that you held a view that most people would have found strange, incredible or unpalatable. At the bottom of this page, we have reproduced the analyses of your direct hits and bitten bullet.

The fact that you did not suffer many hits and only bit one bullet means that you qualify for our third highest award. Well done!

Woo?

[t̷s͢uk̕a͡t͜ư]

While it is, in my opinion, irrrational to believe in something with no evidence of it existing, it is entirely justifiable. I personally consider blind faith to be enough to justify a belief, despite it, yes, being absolutely irrational.
...
Should you choose to believe something witout evidence or not, either way it is justifiable.

Presumably the justification is a rational justification (I don't know of any other kind of justification, really), which makes this statement a contradiction. How on Earth could something be justifiable if it is "absolutely irrational"?
Seems to me you definitely earned your rational inconsistency bullet here.

You've just taken a direct hit! Earlier you said 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. But now you do not accept that the rapist Peter Sutcliffe was justified in doing just that. The example of the rapist has exposed that you do not in fact agree that any belief is justified just because one is convinced of its truth. So you need to revise your opinion here. The intellectual sniper has scored a bull's-eye!

But what Peter Sutcliffe was doing was morally wrong and therefore I believe he has no valid justification. Dislike.

Morality is irrelevant -- you said that it is justifiable to base one's beliefs on a firm inner conviction, and Sutcliffe based his beliefs on a firm inner conviction, so it is rationally inconsistent for you to say that his views were not justified. Hell, in his mind, his beliefs were moral because he was obeying God's orders. In other words, you are condemning the sense of morality he obtained from his firm inner conviction with your own understanding of morality derived from your own firm inner conviction --- how do you know that you are not in his shoes, with a reprehensible sense of morality derived from a schizophrenic inner conviction?

What I mean was that sure he can sincerely believe that God told him to do it however the fact that what he was being told to do something that was morally wrong which is against God I feel it is a contradiction.

What is "good" but what God wills? If the man had a firm inner conviction that raping and killing prostitutes was God's will, and you believe that a firm inner conviction is enough to justify beliefs about reality, then how could you possibly condemn the man? He was only doing what he felt was right, and you either agree that he was justified in believing it was right or you must abandon the idea that a firm inner conviction is justification for anything.

Is all faith, strictly by definition, irrational?

Definitionally, faith is belief without evidence, including belief despite evidence to the contrary.
If the above definition is accurate, then yes, I'd say that faith is irrational by definition.

"You took zero direct hits and you bit zero bullets", but that's mostly because I have no strong feelings about what God should be.

I managed to get a perfect score by consistently answering "Select From...".

[Universezero]

While it is, in my opinion, irrrational to believe in something with no evidence of it existing, it is entirely justifiable. I personally consider blind faith to be enough to justify a belief, despite it, yes, being absolutely irrational.
...
Should you choose to believe something witout evidence or not, either way it is justifiable.

Presumably the justification is a rational justification (I don't know of any other kind of justification, really), which makes this statement a contradiction. How on Earth could something be justifiable if it is "absolutely irrational"?
Seems to me you definitely earned your rational inconsistency bullet here.

So are you saying, even though it is irrational for people to believe in God, it is unjustified? I think that you don't have to rationally explain why you believe in something. But if that's true, then do you think that that person is unjustified to believe that?

[Zephyr]

Congratulations!

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 without being hit and biting only one bullet suggests that your beliefs about God are internally consistent and well thought out.

A direct hit would have occurred had you answered in a way that implied a logical contradiction. The bitten bullet occurred because you responded in a way that required that you held a view that most people would have found strange, incredible or unpalatable. However, because you bit only one bullet and avoided direct hits completely you still qualify for our second highest award. A good achievement!

The one question in which I bit the bullet, I went back and tried it again with the other option and took a direct hit.

[Rose]

Is all faith, strictly by definition, irrational?

Definitionally, faith is belief without evidence, including belief despite evidence to the contrary.
If the above definition is accurate, then yes, I'd say that faith is irrational by definition.

Mm. Then I earned my hit, I suppose.

[OneSevenNine]

well, Something is potentially wrong with 10 and 14, because i emerged unscathed except for those two (or that's just commonly missed. would love to see detailed statistics on which contradictions were most often made, etc.)

i think it could've been a lot clearer about the word "Justify." I guess it meant "rationally justify."

edit: eh, just read the faq, and there's a long section about questions 10 to 14. I guess it makes sense that i contradicted myself...

[t̷s͢uk̕a͡t͜ư]

How on Earth could something be justifiable if it is "absolutely irrational"?

So are you saying, even though it is irrational for people to believe in God, it is unjustified? I think that you don't have to rationally explain why you believe in something. But if that's true, then do you think that that person is unjustified to believe that?

That first question confuses me. It strikes me as an plainly true statement, but your choice of words makes it come off as though you're incredulous, that you're presenting some clear contradiction to me and expecting that I deny what you've just said. But to ask me, "do you believe that something can be unjustified even though it's irrational," I can't help but wonder what you were expecting. You might as well have asked me, "do you believe that something can be big, even though it's large?"
A justification for something is one or more reasons. Why does it surprise you to hear me say the obvious consequence that an unreasonable thing cannot have this list of supporting reasons?

I think that you don't have to rationally explain why you believe in something.

Why?
Or is this statement something you believe which you don't think you have to rationally explain?

[Universezero]

I think that you don't have to rationally explain why you believe in something.

Why?
Or is this statement something you believe which you don't think you have to rationally explain?

Because you don't have to have a reason to believe something. Even if it may be irrational, as long as it's justified (ie, you feel that there is no strong reason not to believe it) then it's usually okay to believe it.
For instance, religion. Why do people believe in God even if it's irrational? Because there's no reason not to. Apparently, there's nothing wrong with believing in something even though it's irrational.
I'm not sure I'm making sense here; and if I am, I'm probably conveying the wrong message. I'm not saying Christians are such just because they can. But, for instance, a friend of mine started believing in God a while ago because his theory was that if God existed, he'd go to heaven, and if God didn't exist, he'd have nothing to lose. He's now a devout Christian, but I suppose he no longer has those same ideals.

[t̷s͢uk̕a͡t͜ư]

you don't have to have a reason to believe something. Even if it may be irrational, as long as it's justified (ie, you feel that there is no strong reason not to believe it) then it's usually okay to believe it.
For instance, religion. Why do people believe in God even if it's irrational? Because there's no reason not to. Apparently, there's nothing wrong with believing in something even though it's irrational.

I don't know where you're getting this idea that there's nothing wrong with this, as I and every atheist and self-described agnostic I've ever met would vociferously disagree, and it seems likely to me that most religious people would attempt to give at least one reason if asked why they have faith.
More importantly, you appear to have unwittingly attempted to give a supporting reason for having irrational beliefs: "because there's no reason not to." As soon as you said the word "because", you were doomed, for reasons are sure to follow a "because". This poses a considerable problem when, as in this case, you end up providing reasoning for doing something irrational.
It's both highly distressing and disappointing to me that a lack of a solid opposing case is enough in your mind to base an understanding of reality itself upon, not to mention a system of morality. The same school of thought could just as easily justify any absurd or terrible belief system. It is intellectual dishonesty in the extreme. Your sense of reason ought to be throwing every alarm bell it has when you read what you've just written. Hell, when it comes right down to it, from a nihilistic point of view there is no valid reason to oppose anything; would you say that a killer is justified in his beliefs if he says that nothing has significance in the grand scheme of things and that there was therefore no compelling reason not to kill his victims?

Otherwise, I'm not sorry to tell you that this is simply not how reality works. I'm sure this is something I've rambled about before, but I'm too lazy to dig up a link, so for the time being you'll have to accept a link to iangb quoting me paraphrasing myself.

I'm not sure I'm making sense here; and if I am, I'm probably conveying the wrong message.

As I've said to someone else before: you are not making a mistake in presenting your point unambiguously; I understand your point quite clearly, and I believe firmly that it is wrong.

But, for instance, a friend of mine started believing in God a while ago because his theory was that if God existed, he'd go to heaven, and if God didn't exist, he'd have nothing to lose. He's now a devout Christian, but I suppose he no longer has those same ideals.

I'm afraid your friend has done something very typical of fundamentally unreasonable people with an overblown appreciation of their own cleverness: he has reinvented Pascal's Wager. I'll let you read the sizable Criticisms section of that article for yourself, but suffice it to say for now that anyone who can begin to take himself or his personal convictions seriously would hide his face in shame if it were revealed that Pascal's Wager played any influential role whatsoever in his religious beliefs.

As an aside, I'm still waiting for someone I meet to ask me directly if I'm religious, so that I can respond with,
"Well, I pay tribute to the Great Juju On The Mountain. I don't actually believe in it, but, you know, Pascal's Wager."
And if he's ignorant enough to pursue the point,
"Think about it this way: if you give the Great Juju its annual virgin sacrifice and it exists, then it'll let you live, whereas it will gobble you up if you don't. By not giving the Great Juju its sacrifice, the best you could gain is nothing, whereas this is the worst you could be stuck with if you do pay tribute. So overall, it's better to appease the Great Juju than to act as though it didn't exist."

[Rose]

Pascal's Wager is a good reason to consider religion and look into it. It is not, in itself, a good reason to actually believe it. You can want to believe something all you want, but if you can't, there's really nothing Pascal's Wager is going to do for you. If your crazy ex-girlfriend who is really good at telling when someone's lying holds a gun up to your head and screams "LOVE ME OR I'LL SHOOT", you can want to really love her all you want so you don't die, but simply wanting to believe something != actually believing.

In short, I agree with Tsukatu on this one.

[ENT474]

Just copying and pasting this:

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 without being hit and biting only one bullet suggests that your beliefs about God are internally consistent and well thought out.

A direct hit would have occurred had you answered in a way that implied a logical contradiction. The bitten bullet occurred because you responded in a way that required that you held a view that most people would have found strange, incredible or unpalatable. However, because you bit only one bullet and avoided direct hits completely you still qualify for our second highest award. A good achievement!

I'm a bit mad that at that Peter Sutcliffe question, I either would have taken a direct hit or bit a bullet. (Checked both.)

[otters]

I've bitten two bullets on this test. They complain about logically contradictory responses, yes, but the only being that I ever thought of as God was the Christian God, which is inherently contradictory.

[t̷s͢uk̕a͡t͜ư]

Pascal's Wager is a good reason to consider religion and look into it. It is not, in itself, a good reason to actually believe it. You can want to believe something all you want, but if you can't, there's really nothing Pascal's Wager is going to do for you. If your crazy ex-girlfriend who is really good at telling when someone's lying holds a gun up to your head and screams "LOVE ME OR I'LL SHOOT", you can want to really love her all you want so you don't die, but simply wanting to believe something != actually believing.

When you say Pascal's Wager is a good reason to "consider religion and look into it," this describes a methodical investigative process that presumably ends with a decision to have or refrain from having faith based on the reasons gathered.
For one thing, this seems to me to be a pointless exercise simply because "having faith" is, as we discussed earlier, irrational, meaning that if one does find anything about "having faith" to consider or to look into, one is guaranteed to be mistaken if he finds what he believes is a reason to have faith, again because having faith is irrational.
And for another, while you started off saying that Pascal's Wager is a good reason to "consider religion and look into it," you say in the same breath that belief is not something you can impose upon yourself. So if Pascal's Wager helps you to decide whether or not to have faith, but faith is not something you can decide to have or not, then what the hell is the value of Pascal's Wager?

[Rose]

Pascal's Wager is a good reason to consider religion and look into it. It is not, in itself, a good reason to actually believe it. You can want to believe something all you want, but if you can't, there's really nothing Pascal's Wager is going to do for you. If your crazy ex-girlfriend who is really good at telling when someone's lying holds a gun up to your head and screams "LOVE ME OR I'LL SHOOT", you can want to really love her all you want so you don't die, but simply wanting to believe something != actually believing.

When you say Pascal's Wager is a good reason to "consider religion and look into it," this describes a methodical investigative process that presumably ends with a decision to have or refrain from having faith based on the reasons gathered.
For one thing, this seems to me to be a pointless exercise simply because "having faith" is, as we discussed earlier, irrational, meaning that if one does find anything about "having faith" to consider or to look into, one is guaranteed to be mistaken if he finds what he believes is a reason to have faith, again because having faith is irrational.
And for another, while you started off saying that Pascal's Wager is a good reason to "consider religion and look into it," you say in the same breath that belief is not something you can impose upon yourself. So if Pascal's Wager helps you to decide whether or not to have faith, but faith is not something you can decide to have or not, then what the hell is the value of Pascal's Wager?

I'm saying that Pascal's Wager describes a good reason to not totally dismiss all religion before learning about it first.