Test your consistency!!!

Is your thinking consistent? Find out with this fun little test:

BATTLEGROUND GOD

Can your beliefs about religion make it across our intellectual battleground?

In this activity you’ll be asked a series of 17 questions about God and religion. In each case, apart from Question 1, you need to answer True or False. The aim of the activity is not to judge whether these answers are correct or not. Our battleground is that of rational consistency. This means to get across without taking any hits, you’ll need to answer in a way which is rationally consistent. What this means is you need to avoid choosing answers which contradict each other. If you answer in a way which is rationally consistent but which has strange or unpalatable implications, you’ll be forced to bite a bullet.

Some warnings:

  • Don’t be tricked by them calling God “she”, and so saying those statements are false. I dunno why they’ve done it, but oh well.
  • If you’re like me and have done a bit of philosophy, you’ll realise you want them to make many of the statements clearer/ more nuanced, before you could definitely answer true or false… it’s not perfect, and you have to pick something eventually, but it’s a fun exercise anyway.

I got the “TPM medal of distinction”, which is apparently their “second highest award for outstanding service on the intellectual battleground”, for taking one hit. Might reveal on which one in a bit, after some of you have done it.

So, how consistent are YOU? 😉

+AMDG

Advertisements

8 thoughts on “Test your consistency!!!

  1. Daniel says:

    “You’ve just taken a direct hit! You say that God does not have the freedom and power to do impossible things such as create square circles, but in an earlier answer you said that any being which it is right to call God must be free and have the power to do anything. So, on your view, God is not free and does not have the power to do what is impossible. This requires that you accept – in common with most theologians, but contrary to your earlier answer – that God’s freedom and power are not unbounded. He does not have the freedom and power to do literally anything.”

    I would question the definition of ‘anything’, as “God can do anything” can either mean the way they’ve put it or God is unbounded in the real realm regarding any action. The ‘burrito so hot even God can’t eat it’ thing comes to mind here. Logical contradictions like square circles can’t exist, therefore creating them isn’t possible.

    Then again, I’m not a philosopher. 2 DHs and no bullets bitten.

  2. Awesome fun! I didn’t take any hits but I bit one bullet – but I stand by it! Which hit did you take? Tell! 🙂

    • Monica says:

      I said the Loch Ness skeptic was cool with not having to give solid evidence of his position, but then the atheist wasn’t. I maintain that it’s not a contradiction, because the Loch Ness claim is about something existing or not existing within the universe, as one being among many, while God isn’t even within the universe. Thus, different situations!

      • Interesting! I tend to agree with you but the atheist obviously doesn’t have to grant that God isn’t a being in the universe, but the ground of being – because if he did, he’d be much more well-favoured toward theism and we can’t have that! I was logically consistent on both of those :p The one bullet I bit was that the crazy man was justified in believing that God wanted him to kill all the people because of a sure, internal conviction… but surely, he’s justified in believing that, just not in doing it? And he certainly isn’t justified in the Pauline sense of the world 😉 But if I bit a bullet, doesn’t that make me even *more* logically consistent? Or maybe a monster who’s cool with crazy people killing kids… It’s a fine line :p

      • Monica says:

        Ha! Well of course the atheist can do whatever he wants… but he can’t get away with no solid arguments, which answering “false” would have implied, so I said true. Again, the nuance thing…

        Hmmm. So does that mean you said earlier that the inner conviction thing was enough for faith?

        But St Thomas would say that if he believed that’s what God’s will was but didn’t do it, he’d be at fault… we are bound by our consciences! but that also means we are bound to form them very very carefully… so if he were to act on it, he’d be at fault for coming to such a dogdy conclusion. so no, I think he isn’t justified. He’s dead wrong!! Being wrong isn’t justifiable! ;P

      • Daniel says:

        YES I said the same thing! We had the same hits!

  3. Monica says:

    Great minds… 😉

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s