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.

Of course, you may go along with thinkers such as Kierkegaard and believe that religious belief does not need to be rationally consistent. But that takes us beyond the scope of this activity, which is about the extent to which your beliefs are rationally consistent, not whether this is a good or a bad thing.

I had to bite 2 bullets but I didn't get hit once.

Battleground God

I bite one bullet.


Congratulations!

The fact that you progressed through this activity without being hit and biting only one bullet suggests that your beliefs about God are internally consistent and well thought out.

Ouch!

You took 3 direct hits and you bit 1 bullets. The average player of this activity to date takes 1.39 hits and bites 1.10 bullet.

I sense an F and T at odds with each other.

You have reached the end!
Congratulations! You have made it to the end of this activity.
You took zero direct hits and you bit zero bullets. The average player of this activity to date takes 1.39 hits and bites 1.10 bullets. 484064 people have so far undertaken this activity.
Click the link below for further analysis of your performance and to see if you've won an award.

Congratulations!
You have been awarded the TPM medal of honour! This is our highest award for outstanding service on the intellectual battleground.
The fact that you progressed through this activity neither being hit nor biting a bullet suggests that your beliefs about God are internally consistent and very well thought out.
A direct hit would have occurred had you answered in a way that implied a logical contradiction. You would have bitten bullets had you responded in ways that required that you held views that most people would have found strange, incredible or unpalatable. However, you avoided both these fates - and in doing so qualify for our highest award. A fine achievement!

You have reached the end!

Congratulations! You have made it to the end of this activity.

You took zero direct hits and you bit zero bullets. The average player of this activity to date takes 1.39 hits and bites 1.10 bullets. 484074 people have so far undertaken this activity.

Click the link below for further analysis of your performance and to see if you've won an award.




Out of boredom I answered for deism. Just to see if that belief could make it threw.

You have reached the end!
Congratulations! You have made it to the end of this activity.
You took zero direct hits and you bit zero bullets.

Ha--this reminded me a lot of this:

You've just bitten a bullet! 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. This would seem to make rational discourse about God impossible. If rational discourse about God is impossible, there is nothing rational we can say about God and nothing rational we can say to support our belief or disbelief in God. To reject rational constraints on religious discourse in this fashion requires accepting that religious convictions, including your religious convictions, are beyond any debate or rational discussion. This is to bite a bullet.

I don't agree with that statement. Rational discourse about the metaphysical nature of God is out of our epistemological bounds, so there should have been no inconsistency there.

However, that is not to say that rational discourse about religion is also out of our epistemological grounds -- we can easily describe religion within the framework of human reason (pragmatism, morality, objectivity, etc.).

You have reached the end!
Congratulations! You have made it to the end of this activity.
You took zero direct hits and you bit 1 bullets. The average player of this activity to date takes 1.39 hits and bites 1.10 bullet. 484088 people have so far undertaken this activity.
Click the link below for further analysis of your performance and to see if you've won an award.


and here's the one I bit the bullet on, and I still think it is justified.


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.