God Game

[jcmmanuel]

In the Philosophy / Religion forum an interesting link to a quiz was posted, you can find it here:

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/53853-god-game/

 

and the link to the quiz is here: http://www.philosophersnet.com/games/god.php

 

I cannot yet post anything in on this forum, which is a bit frustrating (and I do not want to hurry to make up for 50 posts either) so I post it here, with my own reaction. I'm curious how atheists defend their "rational position", because it seems to me that an atheist can always bend the idea of rationalism to his advantage if he wants. I am also well aware that not all atheists do that - it is more common among strong atheists as far as I know.

 

Here is a report on this quiz, especially the 4 questions (2 x 2) that delivered me some "injuries".

 

A/ I answered True to question 10 and 14, which made me take a hit on Q14.

 

 

Quotation Q10: "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."

 

Quotation Q14: "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".

 

The argument offered to me by the questioner after Q14 was as follows:

 

"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."

 

My reaction:

 

In philosophy (which I regard as knowledge gathering in a wider, but still rational & scientific sense - just not according to the rules of what we usually call the 'exact sciences'), rationality is not usually taken to the extremes of reductionism. Rationalism is not the same thing as taking a reductionist point of view as being all there is. Reason is more than just applying logic thought to an object or idea.

 

I can rationally believe that no Loch Ness monster is expected to be witnessed in that particular area, because it is by no means logical that such an animal would not yet have been detected and recorded (in some detail) by serious observers during all that time. The 'monster' of Loch Ness is also not reported to be a spirit or a conceptual conjecture of some kind, rather is it supposed to belong to the animal kingdom (the Animalia). The God-idea however belongs to a totally different category of thought.

 

While Q10 posited "regardless of the external evidence, or lack of it", it totally ignores the nature of the object subject to this "lack of evidence" observation. One could just as well compare the lack of evidence for pink unicorns with the lack of evidence for love. There's something seriously wrong with the way 'logic' is being applied here.

 

- - -

 

B/ I answered False to Question 7 and True to Question 17 (and this time I expected to be hit on Q17 as the questioner would otherwise contradict his own methodology).

 

Quotation Q7: "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 these convictions."

 

Quotation Q17: "It is justifiable to believe in God if one has a firm, inner conviction that God exists, regardless of the external evidence, or lack of it, for the truth or falsity of the conviction that God exists."

 

The argument of the questioner: "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!"

 

My reaction:

 

Similar to the previous case, I posit that there is a fundamental qualitative difference between basing a belief on a ridiculous assuption and doing so on the basis of a reasonable conjecture. The fallacy hidden behind those 2 questions are two anisochronous juxtapositions, the first being the juxtaposition of the expression "the external world" & "God", the second being the juxtaposition of "beliefs about" & "to believe in".

 

The idea that there is something (god) which might be the cause behind the origin of all things does not simply belong to "the external world", it is a thing of the past to begin with, and then we have to look at history and to the development of humanism and religion - none of these have simply to do with the "external world". Also, a deep inner "belief in" God is not the same thing as "beliefs about" things vagualy attributed to an "external world" - exactly because the character of such a belief is 'internal' and therefore subjective. Subjective thought is not invalid, irrational or illogical only because it falls outside the domain of, say, the natural sciences. These things simply do not compare this way. This is the same mistake as the popularized habit to compare God with unicorns, myths, fairies or Santa Claus - those belong to different categories.

 

More than 2 categories by the way. Myths do for instance rely upon a true historical origin on one way or another, while fairies do not (but they may have mythical connotations); Santa Claus is a mythologized historical figure, unicorns are either real (the Rhinoceros as observed from aside) or mythical, and God may appear in mythology but also in human experience in a great variety of ways (including but certainly not limited to religious fundamentalism) and is also a conceptual idea of origin, which is often seen as in competition with religion but not by everyone.

 

Any other ideas about this - or a rebuttal - in the "Lounge"?

 

J.

[swansont]

In the Philosophy / Religion forum an interesting link to a quiz was posted, you can find it here:

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/53853-god-game/

 

and the link to the quiz is here: http://www.philosophersnet.com/games/god.php

 

I cannot yet post anything in on this forum, which is a bit frustrating (and I do not want to hurry to make up for 50 posts either) so I post it here, with my own reaction.

 

!

Moderator Note

No. We have a post-count restriction for a reason. You don't get to circumvent it by posting in The Lounge.