Battleground God

[Faramond]

If the test writers wanted to tweak "traditionally religious" people, one way to do this is to refer to God as She. However, there are a lot of other reasons why they might have chosen to refer to God as She.

[Jnyusa]

I managed to squeeze the following Stop Sign out of the system, Faramond:

(paraphrase; my bold)
You believe in evolution even though there is no proof for evolution but you demand proof for God. Either admit that you are inconsistent or admit that you demand more proof for God than you do for evolution.

I don't think there is much doubt what this test is about.

On the other test, they included the words "even though no one was harmed" on every question until they got to the middle, around question 5 or 6, and then they eliminated those words. If someone then attempted to answer on the basis of thinking that someone was harmed, they received an analysis that said: you already accepted that no one was harmed ... when in fact that was the one supposition that had been removed. The bait-and-switch was an attempt to make you doubt that "harm to others" could be logically applied to build a morality.

Anyway, the source of the magazine is not in doubt. It's listed on one of those "what to give for Christmas" sites as a religious-oriented gift. And their latest hard-copy issue is devoted to defense of intelligent design. The appearance of neutrality is fraudulent. I don't have to guess at that.

The only question, I think, is how the bait-and-switch actually operates, what it is that it makes you doubt about yourself. It causes the same self-doubt in the religious person, too, but for the religious person the self-doubt is instigated in a non-essential area. This is not to say that religion is always illogical, but it doesn't have to be logical in the same way that secular humanism has to be logical because it has no other leg to stand on.

Jn

[nerdanel]

If the test writers wanted to tweak "traditionally religious" people, one way to do this is to refer to God as She.

Well, conversely, if the test writers (or anyone else) wanted to "tweak" people with a spirituality that includes belief in a female God, or a belief that God has female attributes that cannot be adequately recognized if one incessantly refers to God as "He"...they could refer to God incessantly as "He" (which, of course, some of the traditionally religious people would not mind at all, where "traditionally religious" people is used to refer to the religions of the West only, of course. I imagine that a traditionally religious Hindu person (for instance) would not be offended by referring to God as female, since the religion does have female deities.)

[MithLuin]

Would a traditional Hindu refer to God at all? (As in, one God that we should capitalize...)

[nerdanel]

Mith, my Hindu friends do refer to "God" as such. That said, here's what Wikipedia says:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindu_deities

In Hinduism, when God is thought of as the supreme all-powerful person (rather than as the infinite principle called Brahman), God is called Bhagavān. Bhagavān is a word used to refer to the personal aspect of God in general; it is not specific to a particular deity. Bhagavān transcends gender, yet can be looked upon as both father and mother, child, or sweetheart.[1] Most Hindus, in their daily devotional practices, worship some form of this personal aspect of God, although they believe in the more abstract concept of Brahman as well. Sometimes this means worshiping God through an image or a picture. Sometimes it just means thinking of God as a personal being.

So Hinduism, in my view, does something commendable in not straitjacketing God into either "He" or "She". However, what I was getting at is that Hinduism, by having female goddesses, does recognize the female elements of the Divine, and therefore, it would seem strange to me if a Hindu person took offense simply to referring to God as female, as hal did (by calling it insulting). Really, referring to Hinduism was just intended as a reminder that "traditional religion" does not merely mean "conservative Christianity" or "conservative elements of the Judeo-Christian tradition" or even "conservative Judaism, Christianity, and Islam." Many things may be "traditional" for followers of other religions that are no less deserving of respect than those three.

[Democritus]

I think we've got a ringer here, Demo

This is the same magazine that put up the dead chicken morality questions, and I noticed that there was a bait-and-switch in the middle of those questions, so I thought this test was probably rigged the same, and it is.

The tests at the The Philosophers' Magazine are rigged to make you doubt your own rationality; and the rigging is not really playful as it is at some of those math sites designed to convince you you're no good at arithmetic ... though, personally, I find all "sucker" games distasteful, and when they are aimed at core beliefs I find them downright deceitful.

I did some googling around The Philosophers' Magazine. It is listed elsewhere among UK religious sites as the place to buy philosophy books for the religious person in your family, other recommendations being the Catholic Encyclopedia, the Philosophy of Chabad, Islam On-Line, etc.

Besides the online magazine they also publish a hard-copy magazine called THINK, available in the US and UK. The most recent issue is devoted to Intelligent Design. All the articles are in defense of it. The other topic given airing in this issue is homosexuality, the abnormality of it.

The tests are a very clever attack on humanism, actually. They don't tell you outright that you must believe in God; they simply lead you to question whether anyone is truly capable of rationality. By actively disguising their own agenda they lead you to believe that professors of logic have designed the test and this makes you more inclined to accept the results, even though everyone who reports their analysis here does feel that something was wrong with the logic of the analysis even if they can't explain exactly what it is.

The other thing that makes the test convincing is the fact that religious believers also do poorly, giving the test an appearance of neutrality. But a bait-and-switch aimed at eroding confidance in rationality can roll off the backs of religious believers because the foundation of faith is not rationality. No religious person ever turned away from their belief in God because of being told it was not logical! Whereas rationality is the foundation of secular philosophies and anything that attacks reasoning ability attacks the belief system directly and effectively.

I noticed when I took the other test about the dead chickens, that all the analysis of answers boiled down to "proving" that moralities based on anything other than God were not logical. Here the analysis boils down to convincing you that you do not have the empirical evidence you think you have for all beliefs other than belief in God. The purpose is to convince you that it is illogical to disbelieve in God due to lack of empirical evidence.

So .... test-takers beware! (if you're secularist)


Jn

Well, as a secularist and a Humanist I got a perfect score by answering in the following way

(1.) F (2.) F (3.) F (4.) F (5.) F (6.) T (7.) F (8.) T (9.) T (10.) T (11.) F (12.) F (13.) F (14.) F (15.) F (16.) F (17.) F

The line of reasoning that underpins those answers are bang in line with Humanist thinking on these issues and if there is an attack on secularism then it is very subtle one. I also took all the other tests on the site and they all seemed very even-handed and non-judgemental, this is reflected by good results in the philosophical bill of health test as well.

[truehobbit]

Still wondering what a ringer is.

[Democritus]

I managed to squeeze the following Stop Sign out of the system, Faramond:

(paraphrase; my bold)
You believe in evolution even though there is no proof for evolution but you demand proof for God. Either admit that you are inconsistent or admit that you demand more proof for God than you do for evolution.

I don't think there is much doubt what this test is about.

On the other test, they included the words "even though no one was harmed" on every question until they got to the middle, around question 5 or 6, and then they eliminated those words. If someone then attempted to answer on the basis of thinking that someone was harmed, they received an analysis that said: you already accepted that no one was harmed ... when in fact that was the one supposition that had been removed. The bait-and-switch was an attempt to make you doubt that "harm to others" could be logically applied to build a morality.

Anyway, the source of the magazine is not in doubt. It's listed on one of those "what to give for Christmas" sites as a religious-oriented gift. And their latest hard-copy issue is devoted to defense of intelligent design. The appearance of neutrality is fraudulent. I don't have to guess at that.

The only question, I think, is how the bait-and-switch actually operates, what it is that it makes you doubt about yourself. It causes the same self-doubt in the religious person, too, but for the religious person the self-doubt is instigated in a non-essential area. This is not to say that religion is always illogical, but it doesn't have to be logical in the same way that secular humanism has to be logical because it has no other leg to stand on.

Jn

Ok, I give you this Jnyusa, you are dead right that that phrase

there is no proof for evolution

is both plain wrong and deeply suspect. I will do some further digging on this outfit just like you did.

Thanks for bringing this issue up by the way.

[elfshadow]

Still wondering what a ringer is.

Same here...a little help please!

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Hobby, and Elsha, I think that the best way to define a "Ringer" is something that appears to be something that it is not. From the ubiquitous Wikipedia "In colloquial English language, it refers to a superior contestant or specialist who is clandestinely brought into an event or team to bolster its capabilities. In horse or greyhound racing, a ringer is a fast animal pretending to be another, with poorer or no 'form', in the expectation that bookmakers will offer better odds than if they knew its real abilities."

Alternatively, "In Tolkien fandom, a ringer is a fan of J.R.R. Tolkien novels and characters."

[vison]

Did we not have the word "ringer" in the famous "string" answer to the cryptic puzzle on the crossword thread? If not, we should have.

[truehobbit]

Ah, thanks Voronwë! - At least I knew the second definition, although I kind of guessed that this was not the one applying here.

And thanks for backing me up, elsha!


But isn't it the opposite here, rather?

a ringer is a fast animal pretending to be another, with poorer or no 'form'

I think what Jny meant is a contestant who pretends to be superior, but really isn't...?

[Faramond]

Jn ---

I've done some more looking around and I'm even more convinced you're wrong about this now. I probably can't convince you about the test, and I don't care about that as much, but I'd like to set the record straight ( as I see it ) about the magazine Think. If I was an editor of this magazine I'd be very upset at your characterizations.


1. Here's what the test creators say on their FAQ about the evolution matter:

3. Evolutionary theory has been proved certainly and irrevocably.

This one catches the atheists, and boy, they don't like it. The problem emerges (it's a bullet) if one accepts that evolutionary theory is true, but want certain and irrevocable proof for God before accepting God's existence.

Well, sorry guys, you don't get certain and irrevocable proof in science - and if you think that you do, then it is you that doesn't understand how science works, not us! The point is, of course, that irrevocable certainty is not required before it is reasonable to accept scientific propositions as being true (i.e., as being facts). Here's Stephen Jay Gould on this matter:

"In science, 'fact' can only mean 'confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent.' I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms."

If they really had an agenda of discrediting evolution, why quote Gould?

They are saying that if your standard for believing in God is certain and irrevocable proof, then it is inconsistent to not have the same standard for anything else, including evolution! This is not the same as saying that it's illogical to disbelieve in God because of lack of empirical evidence. They are saying that the threshold of belief chosen is logically inconsistent. Having an inconsistent theshold of belief in God does not make a non-belief or belief in God illogical.

I'm not saying they explained this very well, or presented it well on their test, but it's clear to me that their position is not what you said it is.


2. There are a bunch of other bullets, none having anything to do with evolution or a suppose illogic to believing in God. It's all very well to say that those bullets will not affect religious people, but the thing is there are plenty of religious believers in God who also have a rational worldview and could be affected by a slick site telling them they are irrational.


3. A past article from THINK magazine:

"Richard Swinburne's Is There a God?" by Richard Dawkins

In this review of Richard Swinburne’s Is There a God? (which contains the same two arguments from design that may be found in his article in issue one of Think), Richard Dawkins admires Swinburne’s clarity but is unconvinced by his arguments. Dawkins questions, in particular, Swinburne’s suggestion that the hypothesis that God exists and sustains his creation is simpler than the hypothesis that there is no God.

From the above link, click on Home to get to the magazine homepage. This is the same THINK magazine linked to from the philosophernet shop.

Why is a magazine suppostedly hostile to evolutionary theory home to an article by Richard Dawkins?


4. Here's the table of contents that you refer to:

Contents

Michael Ruse. Intelligent design theory and its context

Phillip E. Johnson. Intelligent design in biology

Michael Behe. Evidence for intelligent design from biochemistry

H. Allen Orr. Darwin v. intelligent design (again)

Hugh Mellor. Accepting the universe

Stephen Law. Thinking Tools: The lottery fallacy

Sharon Kaye and Robert Prisco. In the end it's the tail: Aquinas's fifth proof

Antony Flew. My 'conversion'

Dene Bebbington. The wrong way to infer design

Richard D. Ryder. The case against hunting and for democracy

Thomas Riggins. Michael Levin on gay sex

David Robjant. Levin on the abnormality of homosexuality

Mikel Burkel. Biology and anti-homosexual disgust

The problem here is that one can't read these articles, so it's hard to know exactly what they are arguing for. It's not clear to me that all these ID articles are in favor of ID. It appears to me that the magazine is having an issue tackling the philosophical ramifications of ID. That doesn't mean they are pushing it! This isn't a science magazine, after all. And there is not an article here about homosexuality being abnormal. There is an article reviewing someone's stance that homosexuality is abnormal.

I want to see if I can find some back issues of this magazine sometime and get a definitive answer on what these articles are really about.


5. It's also worth noting that on the submission page for the magazine they don't say anything about being Christian or religious or anything like that. Surely they would, if they were?


6. This stuff about Think being recommended by religious websites is guilt by association, isn't it? I don't believe Think is hostile to either the religious or secularist perspective.


edit for clarity and spelling

[elfshadow]

Yes, thanks Voronwë, and thank you to Hobby for asking the question in the first place! I'd only ever heard the term before to describe we Tolkien fans before (I hope y'all won't hold that against me ) so I was a little confused.

I think Jny is right when she says that it's a ringer. Not to say that simply because I was hit several times! But I still have some issues with a few of the questions that they asked, such as the bullet I had to bite about God being able to change rationality as I explained in my few previous posts. And maybe this is a result of the beliefs that I've grown up with, but I can easily see scientific proof for evolution while I cannot see scientific proof for God. This is, of course, not to say that God does not exist (I'm still undecided about that) but I don't think that issue is something you can prove. Besides, evolution/creationism is, to me, not as important a spiritual question as the existence of a deity, so it seems to me that it would be unfair to require the same evidential proof for the both of them--I don't think that you can prove or disprove the existence of a God, but I believe that we may be able to prove or disprove evolution.

[Democritus]

Thanks Faramond, having done some digging I can further confirm that Jny's hunch is incorrect.

The metasite that the games and quizes are located on is TPM or the The Philosophers Magazine, which is a periodical that I read semi-regularly and is definitely not a theist production of any kind. If anything it orientates slightly towards the rationalist by having its website news provided by the rationalist meta-news site butterflies and wheels.

http://www.philosophersnet.com/news/
http://www.butterfliesandwheels.com/

The fax that Faramond partly quotes certainly doesn't have a theist bent and actually attempts to answer many of the objections raised on the thread, including the reference to God as a "she". The full transcript is as follows:

http://www.philosophersnet.com/games/godfaq.htm

Battleground God FAQ

FAQ written 30/04/02

[Note this is the first version, and it was written under considerable time pressure, so apologies if it is a bit rough around the edges or you find something silly]

Okay, this is where we try to deflect some of the email that we get sent about this game. I'm afraid that we will not be able to get involved in debates about the various issues here (because it'd involve way too much time), but if you spot any blindingly obvious or daft logical errors (we've made them before and no doubt will again!), please do let us know. [But really, I mean "very obvious, you must have been asleep when you wrote that", kind of stuff!]

1. What are you going on about the Loch Ness monster for, surely you're just confused?

The Loch Ness Monster/atheism comparison has to do with the oft heard claim of theists that atheism must be a faith because there isn't any evidence or compelling argument for the non-existence of God. It's the "you can't prove God doesn't exist, so believing that she doesn't is not rational" argument.

So question 14 is: As long as there are no compelling arguments or evidence that show that God does not exist, atheism is a matter of faith, not rationality.

This amounts to the following claim: In the absence of argument or evidence to show that God doesn't exist, atheism is faith.

Or, more formally (but, before I'm jumped on, not formal in the "formal logic" sense):

If there is no evidence for not-P, then belief in not-P is faith (where P is God's existence).

So what's this got to do with the Loch Ness monster? Well, question 10 is:

If, despite years of trying, no strong evidence or argument has been presented to show that there is a Loch Ness monster, it is rational to believe that such a monster does not exist.

At first sight, this is a different kind of question. It's asking about evidence for the existence of something, not the non-existence of something.

But, of course, that's the whole point.

If you answer "True" to question 10, then you're committed to the view that evidence for the non-existence of Nessie is not required in order to come to the conclusion that the monster does not exist; that is, evidence of absence is not required - rather, in certain circumstances, absence of evidence is enough to conclude that Nessie does not exist. In other words, the fact that there are no compelling arguments or evidence to show that Nessie does not exist (and now we have equivalence with question 14) is not, in and of itself, sufficient to rule out, in principle, a justified belief in Nessie's non-existence.

So returning to question 14 - if you answer "True" to question 10, to remain consistent you have to answer false to question 14. The point is that there are circumstances where it might be rational to believe in the non-existence of God, even in the absence of compelling arguments or evidence to show that God does not exist. These circumstances might include: where science uncovers all the secrets of the universe, understanding its origins and final destiny; where we find out (positively) that our existence and the universe's is the product of some entity that we wouldn't want to call God (which, of course, is not itself positive evidence for the non-existence of God).

2. That's all very well, you say, but the Loch Ness monster isn't the same kind of thing as God - and, in principle, God is the kind of entity that might forever be beyond our knowledge.

This response gets caught in a pincer movement. But the argument is quite involved - and it would be disingenuous to claim that our rejoinder is decisive!

The essence of the objection is this: Nessie is a physical entity, in a confined space, so the presence or absence of Nessie is verifiable in a way that God's is not.

At first sight, this seems reasonable, although some people will feel slightly uneasy at the idea that it is possible to make definitive claims about an entity which might not exist.

So what's the problem?

Well, imagine yourself confronted by a Nessie non-existence sceptic. They're part of some Nessie worshipping cult (and remember that many people do believe truly bizarre things, so this is not entirely gratuitous)! And they say to you: "Sure, Nessie is a physical entity, but it has the rather extraordinary (indeed unique - and possibily mystical) ability to remain forever beyond detection."

How does one respond? Well, it is extremely difficult - indeed it is probably impossible - to disprove this proposition. But equally, most people would consider it absurd to continue to believe in Nessie, if, for example, the whole of Loch Ness was drained of water, and at the bottom one found no Nessie, but a large Nessie shaped submersible.

If this is right (we're correctly reporting how most people would react), it means that most people don't require the absolute, beyond all possibility, refutation of a non-existence sceptic's challenge, even where this challenge involves a mystical, beyond human knowledge, component, in order to discount it, and to conclude that belief in the non-existence of an entity is rational.

What's this got to do with God? Well, it has to do with God, because the can't prove the non-existence of God move, in certain circumstances, is analogous to the Nessie non-existence sceptic move. It is so, in those circumstances mentioned above (whilst discussing objection 1): where science uncovers all the secrets of the universe, understanding its origins and final destiny; where we find out (positively) that our existence and the universe's is the product of some entity that we wouldn't want to call God, etc.

In other words, it is analogous to the Nessie non-existence sceptic move, in those circumstances where we don't require further explanations of the universe and our place in it.

Okay, so many of you are not going to be convinced. You'll say, but God is a different kind of thing from Nessie. Well, to that, the Nessie non-existence sceptic will reply - "No, she's not; not in the important sense that absence of evidence is never enough to justify belief in the monster's non-existence"; and the atheist will reply, "Hey, you didn't allow the Nessie non-existence sceptic to make that move, so how come you get to make it"? And this is the pincer movement. Sure, it is always possible to claim that God is, in principle, and in all circumstances, forever opaque to us - but you can't do this and deny the Nessie non-existence sceptic the same move. Or, to put it another way, you can claim that it is possible to make reasonable assumptions about Nessie's non-existence, but only if you concede that there might be circumstances where one can do the same about God's non-existence.

The final point to mention is that it is of no consequence that we might not yet be at the point where it is possible to make the reasonable assumption that lack of evidence for God's existence justifies atheism. The conditional in the question was not qualified (i.e., it didn't say something like: "Given the state of knowledge about the universe today, as long as there are no compelling...).

3. Evolutionary theory has been proved certainly and irrevocably.

This one catches the atheists, and boy, they don't like it. The problem emerges (it's a bullet) if one accepts that evolutionary theory is true, but want certain and irrevocable proof for God before accepting God's existence.

Well, sorry guys, you don't get certain and irrevocable proof in science - and if you think that you do, then it is you that doesn't understand how science works, not us! The point is, of course, that irrevocable certainty is not required before it is reasonable to accept scientific propositions as being true (i.e., as being facts). Here's Stephen Jay Gould on this matter:

"In science, 'fact' can only mean 'confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent.' I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms."

4. God is the basis of morality, but he doesn't choose morality.

This is an objection to the contradiction that arises when people claim that God is the basis of all morality, but that she can't make good bad, and bad good. The objection is simply that God has an immutable nature, morality is a reflection of her nature, but because she can't change her nature, she can't change morality.

This works! Except that there is a complicated interplay between notions of immutability and omnipotence. Where someone has also answered "True" to the proposition that God is omnipotent it is a lot less clear that this way of escaping the contradiction is open to them. There are a variety of problems, which we won't go into, but here's a flavour of two:

a) Can a being be said to be omnipotent if it doesn't have the power to change its own nature? [The answer is likely "yes" because omnipotence isn't normally felt to require the ability to do the logically impossible];

b) If an immutable God is not able to change her own nature isn't she less powerful than an entity that is de facto identical except in being able to change her own nature but choosing not to?

5. The test says I justify rape, but I didn't do any such thing!

This is a reference to the Peter Sutcliffe question. But if you read the question carefully, you'll see that it is not talking about justifying the act of rape at all. It is talking about whether or not Peter Sutcliffe was justified in believing that he was doing the will of God. Mind you, having said that, I think we may have been a bit provocative in the wording of one of our analyses! Sorry!

6. What a silly question about God being able to do contradictory things!

Okay, it's a fair cop. Many people will consider question 17, and the hit that results if you answer "No" (having previously claimed that God is omnipotent), to be a little unfair. Question 17 effectively asks whether God is able to do logically impossible things (that's the point of it, even if some people want to argue about whether there are such things as square circles, etc!). The criticism is that omnipotence doesn't require that we're able to do logically impossible things. We agree! But:

a) Many people do not (you should see the email I get!);

b) It isn't straightforwardly the case that propositions which are contradictory or absurd are meaningless. If that is your claim, then it needs to be grounded in a proper theory of meaning;

c) There is always the thought that God might somehow not be constrained by logic (which, of course, is a thought that theologians and philosophers of religion have been keen to distance themselves from!);

7. The bullet I've bitten isn't really a bullet.

See our disclaimer at the beginning of the game. You may well be right.

8. Religion isn't about the consistency of beliefs; religion embraces paradox; religion is not about rationality; religion is about faith; etc.

Yes, we know! See our disclaimer at the beginning of the game (about Kierkegaard). But it doesn't follow that there is no value in examining a set of beliefs.

9. How dare you call God "she".

Errr. Sorry!

10. There are a set of objections that have to do with things like Plantinga's reformed epistemology, Tillich's thoughts about the kind of existence God has, etc. Basically, it's the set of responses that have come from professional theologians and philosophers of religion.

To which we reply, yes, yes, you're right! It is complicated, but this is an online game!

11. Ridiculous - the questions are all open to various interpretations.

This is a bit of an odd objection. I mean, obviously, questions are open to interpretation - and, indeed, we try very hard in this activity not to force particular intepretations of God, omnipotence, etc., on people. [If there wasn't any room for interpretation, we'd get complaints about forcing people down fixed routes; actually, come to think of it, we do get complaints about this!]. It doesn't follow that as a consequence, the activity has no relevance in terms of finding out about the internal coherence of a set of beliefs. The point, of course, is that you know how you interpreted the question. Therefore, you're in a position to judge whether the hits and bullets are fair given the way that you interpreted it. Sometimes you'll conclude that they are - sometimes you'll conclude that they aren't.

12. This is just an exercise to trap theists.

Just not true. Only three out of the 25 or so hits and bullets require a "True" response to the proposition that "God exists".

13. It's silly having a test with just "true" and "false" answers.

This is the internet, guys, and Battleground God is a computer program, be reasonable! Also, did you know that a guy called Harold Garfinkel developed a whole new approach to counselling based on "Yes/No" answers. Kind of...

14. Will you develop one which uses Modal Logic?

No!

15. Is it possible that you've made obvious logical errors, missed get outs, etc., in this test?

Yes, of course it is. Part of the story here has to do with how it was developed. Before it went live, the activity was beta-tested via a variety of online forums (i.e., the link was posted, and discussion ensued). Urban75 was one of them, for example. As a result of the feedback we received, we made a number of changes (because some stuff was just wrong). The problem with making changes is that there can be unforeseen ramifications in terms of the logic of the thing. Just a slight alteration in wording - or even a typo [e.g., throwing in a not in a crucial place!] - can throw things out completely.

Most of the complaints that we get are not about obvious logical errors. Given that it has been played so many times, that suggests that there may not be any (if we're lucky!). But, of course, even obvious logical errors can be hard to spot (if that's not a contradiction in terms!) because human beings have a tendency to think habitually. So they may be lurking around in the game! If so - ooops!

© Jeremy Stangroom, 2002

[Democritus]

The final proof that the test is above board is that Jeremy Stangroom who co-wrote the quiz and wrote the above fax is a co-founder of both The Philosophers Magazine and the above mentioned rationalist news site Butterflies and Wheels. He co-founded The Philosophers Magazine with Julian Baggani who is one of the UK's most noted philosophers, a famous atheist, and a distinguished supporter of the British Humanist Association. The Wikipedia entry on Jeremy Stangroom is at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeremy_Stangroom

[Primula Baggins]

The final point to mention is that it is of no consequence that we might not yet be at the point where it is possible to make the reasonable assumption that lack of evidence for God's existence justifies atheism. The conditional in the question was not qualified (i.e., it didn't say something like: "Given the state of knowledge about the universe today, as long as there are no compelling...).

This was playing dirty. It is not unreasonable to assume that a question is asked about the world we live in, not about all possible future states of the world.

[vison]

The final point to mention is that it is of no consequence that we might not yet be at the point where it is possible to make the reasonable assumption that lack of evidence for God's existence justifies atheism. The conditional in the question was not qualified (i.e., it didn't say something like: "Given the state of knowledge about the universe today, as long as there are no compelling...).

This was playing dirty. It is not unreasonable to assume that a question is asked about the world we live in, not about all possible future states of the world.

I agree.

It would have been a better quiz had it been more logical.

[Jnyusa]

If Demo has external sources that indicate the editors of the magazine are not pushing a surreptitious religious view, then I freely acknowledge that I read them the wrong way. But to be honest, I am not at all satisfied. The analysis in all three of the tests in their on-line magazine struck me as direct attacks on rationality. And I'm sorry, but there is only one kind of philosophy magazine that I'm aware of that would take intelligent design seriously enough to devote an issue to it and that would be the turncrank of the new religious epistomologists who have devoted themselves to the destruction of the theory of knowledge.

The explanation of the evolution question is also fraudulent, excuse me:

3. Evolutionary theory has been proved certainly and irrevocably.

That is not what the question about evolution asserts. And in any event we are not asked to evaluate the validity of the assertion but to answer all the questions in a consistent manner.

This one catches the atheists, and boy, they don't like it. The problem emerges (it's a bullet) if one accepts that evolutionary theory is true, but want certain and irrevocable proof for God before accepting God's existence.

Well, sorry guys, you don't get certain and irrevocable proof in science -
and if you think that you do, then it is you that doesn't understand how science works, not us!

It catches the atheists? Nonsense. It's the deists who want certain and irrevocable proof of evolution, and believe they already possess it for God (based on inner certainty). No scientist requires certainty for empirical propositions, nor would any scientist compare empirical evidence to the kind of evidence offered for the existence of God.

The question asked was whether it was rational to reject GOD in the absence of irrevocable proof, not whether it was rational to reject evolution in the absence of irrevocable proof. What their answer implies is that if you accept evolution on less than irrevocable evidence then you must accept God on less than irrevocable evidence too or else you are irrational. But the evidence for these two beliefs fall into completely different categories. It is not irrational to demand different criteria for different categories of evidence. Do we give to eyewitness passers-by the same level of credulity that we give to DNA results from a lab? When people do NOT make distinctions of that sort we call them morons, right?

Pascal's wager, which is neither certain nor irrrevocable, is accepted by many as sufficient justification for belief in God, but no scientist would believe in evolution based on that kind of proposition - it is perfectly acceptable for God and utterly unconvincing for science - nor would any person, religious or atheist, be irrational for finding Pascal's wager unconvincing as a proof of God's existence.

I did not take this whole test, by the way, though I did take the other one about the dead chickens. So I saw maybe 20 questions altogether, and every one of them was disingenuous and angled, in my opinion. I also took that "simple" test at the beginning where you get to construct your own God. The answer they gave me was that my choices were 100% consistent but what I had constructed was not really God, was it. Well, their premise was that it was God if I said it was, so .... I have to conclude that they do have a notion of God that they are pushing, and pushing as the only source of morality and the antidote to human rationality based on the kinds of answers they provide.

I do think that there is plenty going on here that is kept from full view.

Jn

[truehobbit]

Then why don't we just discuss among ourselves the nice questions asked (if answered inadequately ) by the quiz, instead of wondering whether the quiz is reliable?

(Because I agree with the quiz-designers in responding: This is the internet, guys, and Battleground God is a computer program, be reasonable! )