Test Your Rational Consistency

[rocket_thumped]

Yeah, this is fantastic.

--

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.

[epigone]

Thanks for posting this Tsukatu, really an interesting exercise.

edit

The other "games" on the site are fun and interesting as well.

[乳头的早餐谷物]

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

Found my old report from that aforementioned 2006 class:
'In this exercise I did not take any direct hits and bit only one bullet—was because I said that God could theoretically do the irrational. This suggests that my beliefs about God “are internally consistent and well thought out”.'

[Donfuy]

This test must be wrong. it just told me i'm internally consistent.

[Skyling]

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.

Personal bias exposed! I'm glad this test made me aware of this.

[otters]

Personal bias exposed! I'm glad this test made me aware of this.

I thought "overwhelming evidence" and "irrevocable proof" were all but synonymous. My bad.