Thank you for showing that athiests can be just as arrogant, holier-than-thou and condescending as theists :rolleyes:. I “took a direct hit” for saying that it is justifiable to believe something without evidence, and then saying “no” when presented with a situation and asked whether a particular belief is justiable. As if “some beliefs are justifiable” means that “all beliefs are justifiable”.
Beelzebubba, I got the same response as you did, and apparently the author of this site is not famiuliar with the basic logical convention that all statements of the form “If A then B” are true, regardless of what B is, if A is false.
Damn… that is a cool site. 
And here is my response to them:
I founds your “test” to be more revealing of your own misconceptions and logical failings than its subjects. For instance, I received the response “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.” Huh? I never said that every belief is justifiable, only that it is possible for a belief to be justifiable. Perhaps you should actually listen to what people have to say, instead of just waiting to jump on them.
Then you say “In saying that God has the freedom and power to do that which is logically impossible (like creating square circles), you are saying that any discussion of God and ultimate reality cannot be constrained by basic principles of rationality.” I never said that God can do something impossible, I said that if He exists, then He can. Strange how you just forget about the most important part of the sentence when it suits you. How would you answer the question? “Suppose that basic rules of logic do not hold. Would basic rules of logic hold?”
Tacking onto TheRyan’s comments, it’s important to realize that logic has nothing to do with truth. Logic is only the correct ordering of information. Classic point:
Given: God is love.
Given: Love is blind.
Given: Ray Charles is blind.
Then: God is Ray Charles.
This statement obviously defies truth, but is completely logical. Still confused? Consider the way a computer works: raw logic. It can only take the information it’s given and spit back the results. If you tell a computer that 1 + 1 = 3, that’s what it will always tell you back. So the God=Charles scenario above only takes words to be words, and doesn’t apply context to them.
This is my problem with the website in question. Its conclusions are more CREDIBLE, IMHO, because it’s taking into account more information. However, the information is still limited. Hence, a number of us were frustrated when we answered the questions as we understood them in a Christian context, whereas the website took the information literally.
As much I as I don’t appreciate you agreeing with you, I find that I must disagree with you. That is not a logical progression. Simply because Ray Charles is blind, that does not mean that blind is Ray Charles. I think that the following is a better example something which is logically sound but is not true:
God is Love.
God hates fags.
Therefore, Love hates fags.
Kinda creates an odd juxtaposition, doesn’t it?
Also tripped over the rapist. Annoyed at the author. Not only are “justified” and “justifiable” used inconsistently, but as far as I can tell the only way to avoid a bullet or hit over 15 is to answer “false” to questions 7 (“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.”) and 17 (same vis-à-vis God specifically.) In other words, the author implies, belief in God based on faith alone means acceptance of serial rapists. That’s absurd, and insulting. And I’m an atheist. But I don’t have the arrogance to believe my belief system is the only one that can be justified, in the ordinary sense of the word.
I agree. An interesting study in logical fallacies. PBear, for example, found an equivocation. And ResIpsaLoquitor, though I understood his point, mistakenly called his syllogism logical.
A syllogism of this form
fails because cats aren’t the only thing that die. Just as, in ResIpsaLoquitor’s example, love isn’t the only thing that is blind.
In general, all syllogisms of the form
fail.
A syllogism must be of the form
as in this example
Libertarian and TheRyan,
But, see, you both proved my point by inserting new information into the equation. For example, Libertarian’s syllogism about the cats can be proven to be wrong because he added new information which MADE it wrong. The “Hitler is a cat” thing is correct only if we assume that the only thing in existence is cats.
That’s my whole point: logical exercises are essentially a closed universe problem. Conclusions can only be made from the information which is gathered. Hence, we can logically conclude that Hitler wasn’t a cat becase we KNOW (or, if you will, we have the information that) 1) there’s more living things than just cats, and 2) Hitler wasn’t a cat.
The syllogism must fail if it looks like this:
The above syllogism (except the last time) is reflective of truth because we’ve entered more information into the equation. Hitler can’t necessarily be a cat if the third point is correct.
Remember: this is purely a question of logic, not truth.
OK, discuss.
I don’t know, Lib, I don’t seem to agree with any poster’s analysis of fallacies here. I agreed with everything the test I took said to me, about me.
I don’t justify rapists; I understand that there exist frames of relevence where rapists can be justified. I don’t think God can act logically impossible, and I don’t think that God must, by virtue of being God, be able to do anything whatsoever even within the confines of rationality and the logically permissible.
I’m going to take it again and detail why I chose what I chose.
[list=1]
[li]God exists. Don’t know. I don’t think there is much else to say here, actually.[/li][li]**If God does not exist then there is no basis for morality. ** *False. * Morality is simply a framework for judging behavior, behavior patters, actions and consequences. No mention of God seems required to do such a thing, regardless of whether or not we would be “correct” in doing so.[/li][li]**Any being which it is right to call God must be free to do anything. ** *False. * A god could certainly be compelled to do something and still be called a god. A god may be entirely deterministic and yet all powerful (that is, able to affect all material things non-godly).[/li][li]**Any being which it is right to call God must want there to be as little suffering in the word as is possible. ** *False. *The possibility of deciet is always present at a minimum, nevermind that god needn’t necessarily be good by any definition, including its own![/li][li]**Any being which it is right to call God must have the power to do anything. ** *False. * I do not believe that any arbitrary god must be able to have infinite power, or even that such a thing exists itself.[/li][li]**Evolutionary theory maybe false in some matters of detail, but it is essentially true. ** *True. * What can I say, I accept the truth of inference from empirical propositions (unlike, say, Popper, who would say we can never say that evolution is true).[/li][li]**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. ** *True. * It seems it must be so that some things we believe can never be proven (like, for example, “the proper method to prove one’s beliefs”, or, “the external world exists”).[/li][li]**Any being that it is right to call God must know everything that there is to know. ** *False. * A condition of omnipotence, if even possible, does not seem to me to be a requirement for god-like status. How do I know this? See previous response ;)[/li][li]**Torturing innocent people is morally wrong. ** *False. * I can certainly conceive of hypothetical, though rare, circumstances where I would not only feel compelled to torture innocent people, but that in doing so I could be considered doing a good thing. (if this seems to far-fetched, consider torturing yourself in order to please, save, or otherwise aid others as a starting point for hypotheticals).[/li][li]**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. ** *True. * Dunno what to say about this.[/li][li]**People who die of horrible, painful diseases need to die in such a way for some higher purpose. ** *False. * Dunno what to say about this, either.[/li][li]**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. ** *False. * People don’t need a god for morality.[/li][li]**It is foolish to believe in God without certain, irrevocable proof that God exists. ** False. Certian, irrevocable proof that my hand exists isn’t forthcoming, nevermind god.[/li][li]**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. ** False. Someone else addressed this previously when they said, “I think they’re defining atheism as a lack of belief, not a belief of lack…” (thanks for stating that clearly, Beelzebubba)[/li][li]**The serial rapist Peter Sutcliffe had a firm, inner conviction that God wanted him to rape and murder prostitutes. He was, therefore, justified in believing that he was carrying out God’s will in undertaking these actions. ** *True. * I didn’t say I justified it, but clearly this response must come as a consequence of my response to question number seven. this is, of course, the bullet-biter. Their analysis of my bullet-biting behavior is this: *"You are consistent in applying the principle 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 this conviction. The problem is that it seems you have to accept that people might be justified in their belief that God could demand something terrible.[/li]
This is something many religious people are willing to accept. For example, Kierkegaard believed that it is precisely because Abraham had to contravene established morality to follow God’s will and attempt to sacrifice his son which made his act the supreme act of faith.
But as Kierkegaard also stressed, this makes the act incomprehensible from a rational point of view. The rational alternative - that people should require more than such an inner conviction to justify such a belief - is more attractive to most people, but you reject this alternative and bite the bullet."* Yep.
[li]If God exists she would have the freedom and power to create square circles and make 1 + 1 = 72. False. Again, these things are matters of logical definition, and there is no reason to assume that either god can act outside of logic or, if she could, that it must imply that things could be changed in such a way as to forbid a common-sense mapping of symbols and meaning/objects (something else I reject).[/li][li]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. *True. * What can I say that I haven’t already said with respect to our rapist friend?[/li][/list=1]
Res, some people like to make distinctions of type or class with regards to subjects and predicates of different rules of implication, tautology, and so on. This is not necessarily clear but it is often assumed. You are correct, however, that not assuming it is not necessarily an error.
PBear,
Then I don’t know why you answered the way you did. Question seven is, quite clearly, “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.” The rapist in question had a belief about the external world based on inner conviction instead of external evidence. This doesn’t mean you cannot condemn his action; it just means that you should be able to understand why he thinks he is justified. You don’t have to think that way if you don’t have that firm, inner conviction.
I see no reason for anyone to feel insulted at this, and Lib, unless you read question seven in a way I don’t, the eequivocation is certainly correct.
Hmph.
I scored a hit because I thought it was internally consistent for Peter Sutcliffe to commit murder coz God told him to. Damned moral relativistic empathy. Then I scored another hit because of my Peter Sutcliffe answer. 
Then I did it imagining I was a fundie, and got a perfect score, despite several bullets. 
The Peter Sutcliffe business is what really annoyed me. (the 1+1=72 business was also stupid).
The site thought they had tripped me up because I agreed that it is acceptable to believe in a god based upon inner conviction, rather than rational evidence, but believed that Sutcliffe’s murders were wrong, even though he thought god was telling him to do them.
Um, there is quite a difference between belief alone and actions taken because of belief.
Sua
Congratulations!
You have been awarded the TPM medal of honour! This is our highest award for outstanding service on the intellectual battleground.
I rock…
Hey erislover. I answered 7 and 15 just as you did, for almost exactly the same reasons. Where we parted company was 12, which I answered true on the ground that consistency of moral standards over time is not, imho, a required characteristic of God; cf. your answer to 8. Those three together were scored as biting a bullet. Hence my objection.
Sua, they didn’t ask if you felt he was wrong for doing those things, but rather was he justified in thinking he should?
dang, PBear, snuck a response in on me! I don’t know that I agree with your objection even at that. If we agree on 7 (and 15 is just a trolling form of 7, sort of a Godwin’s Law of extreme hypotheticals), then morality can exist outside of God, so God cannot simply change morality (unless you answered that God could square a circle) since some morality need not be sourced from god. Of course, the inherent “correctness” of morality isn’t in question here.
What do you think?
ResIpsaLoquitor, with all due respect, I recommend that you review classical logic. What you gave in your last post is not a syllogism at all. In fact, I gave much leeway in refering to your original four-line construction as a syllogism, working on the presumption that you were merely clarifying your B assertion.
Please understand that I mean no offense. Long ago I learned to take a cue from Bobby Fischer, who regularly reviewed basic chess openings, endings, tactics, and strategies. He reasoned that, in the course of continued advancement, he might lose touch with one or more critical principles. I’m sure that’s what happened to you.
Eris, I like your reasoning. Impeccable as always. Please understand, however, that there was a bit of luck in selecting the author’s own interpretations of the amphibolies. What the scoring of this test measures, in fact, is how much like the author one thinks, and nothing else.
Hmm… perhaps, Lib, perhaps…
eris, that distinction may make a difference in determining whether Sutcliffe should get the chair or whether he goes to the nuthouse, but it’s still (to modify) equate justification for belief and justification for actions based on belief. Still two very different things.
Sua
I took a hit on this one, too, but my objection is different. Evidence for the monster would have to be coming from a definite localized area which can be and has been surveyed fairly thoroughly. Evidence for god can be found where? Who can claim to have surveyed the required territory?
Interesting exercise, tho.