Game - Battleground God

No, statement 10 says "compelling" which means it's inconclusive. What this means is that there is evidence and argument, some people just dismiss it. With the addition of "compelling" yes -- but also that this does not rule out other rational beliefs that have the same lack of compelling argument or evidence that contradict the belief.Just as we should agree that the lack of compelling evidence for the absence of the IBW means the belief in it's existence was rational, as was the belief in the IBW being extinct. Before rediscovery both beliefs were equally rational according to the simple test of the game. Choosing between two equally rational beliefs, beliefs without any compelling evidence or argument one way or the other, cannot be done by rational logic alone, therefore the choice is not a matter of rationality, but a matter of which one you personally believe is true. Yes it is rational, but so are several alternative beliefs, so choosing between several different rational beliefs, based on a lack of compelling evidence on any side, is a matter of faith, not rationality. You can only base your choice in 14 on the assumption that there are no other equally rational but different beliefs - and this is not the case. So you are still arguing that "belief {A}" In the absence of compelling evidence or argument for {A} it is rational to believe not{A}.is rational while "belief {B}" In the absence of compelling evidence or argument for {B} it is rational to believe not{B}.is not rational, and that the difference is due to what {A} is, rather than to the structure of the argument: this is special pleading. Obviously it is special pleading, because you distinguish between "belief {A}" and "belief {B}" based on what {A} is.Nor is there any obligation to think that both statements cannot be rational when the measure is the lack of compelling contrary evidence and argument. Before the rediscovery of the IBW both positions were rational according to the simple measure of the game. They are compelling now, yes. In this case they found "nessie."Before the rediscovery, however, there was not compelling evidence or argument for the continued existence of the IBW. We also know that animals do go extinct, especially when an endangered species has it's habitat clear cut.If nessie were found tomorrow it would be the same kind of situation. Now put the word "compelling" back in there, and consider that there is some inconclusive evidence and argument.Also note that the game does not talk about having evidence or argument supporting the belief for it to be considered rational, but only about the lack of compelling argument or evidence contrary to it. You could have absolutely no evidence for your belief and it would still be rational by this measure. By this measure it is rational to believe that some kind of "nessie" exists, but we just haven't found what that something is yet. At the beginning of the thread (Message 1) I said "I scored a hit, but I'll take it again" -- and I see no reason to change my thinking or my answers, they are logically consistent with the terms of the game and the concepts presented in it.I also said in Message 9 that there was a significant difference between 10 and 14 that makes a direct comparison of answers between them invalid -- in other words that it is logically and rationally possible to answer true to both. I have demonstrated how and why this is possible.You have not shown my logic to be faulty, nor that my position is invalid. In fact you say you understand it, even though you disagree with my conclusions.In this regard my purpose is served: the results of the game are not a proper representation of the possible valid responses.There is no "hit"Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

Odd. I seem to recall saying this in Message 10

quote:

---

sometimes there is enough ambigiuty that what people understand the question to say, might be different that what they intended it to say.

---

Message 13

quote:

---

I guess we have differing understandings of the word, faith and/or rationality. Perhaps they should incorporate that into the game?

---

And after that you took it upon yourself to try and and demonstrate I was wrong in my interpretation somehow. I've been trying to explain my interpretation, why I think it is more natural etc since then - I had forseen the general area where you were coming from in Message 13.I have been having difficulty reconciling your attempt to demonstrate my position as wrong somehow with your earlier statement of "But let's not open up the old atheist\belief argument that has already been done too many times on other threads". It seemed like you were trying to open up that very argument, and I was trying more to get you to understand how I read the statements and what the author's were trying to communicate.If you are concluding that I haven't shown your thinking invalid, that's great. I wasn't trying to demonstrate that it was invalid, just different - and in my opinion, somewhat strained. If your conclusion is that the wording is suitably ambiguous so that some people can read into it differently - I agreed with that from my first post.We know that some people can read some of the strangest things into some things when not every word is explained, every statement disclaimed or entire philosophical treatises provided to justify their linguistic shortcuts etc etc. We both see certain members here concluding things quite contrary to the intent of the authors and everybody else reads things in an entirely different way. We can't 'prove' in any simple fashion, that the person is not understanding the the more accurate meaning of the words but we can simply try and explain that there is an alternative meaning of the words that would seem more to be closer to the intent of the authors or speakers.

It is incomplete, imho, because it doesn't consider if other conclusions are also rational. No, what I want to look at is the logic embedded in the game, where it is wrong or incomplete. What you make of it in regard to your position is what you make of it.Note you can go through the game and only answer certain questions and there is no back check, for instance answering only questions 10 and 14 with all permutations you get this result:

quote:

---

10 true
14 true
= hit

​

You've just taken a direct hit!

​

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.

​

10 true
14 false
= no hit or bullet

​

10 false
14 true
= bullet

​

You've just bitten a bullet!

​

You say that if there are no compelling arguments or evidence that show that God does not exist, then atheism is a matter of faith, not rationality. Therefore, it seems that you do not think that the mere absence of evidence for the existence of God is enough to justify believing that she does not exist. This view is also suggested by your earlier claim that it is not rational to believe that the Loch Ness monster does not exist even if, despite years of trying, no evidence has been presented to suggest that it does exist.

​

There is no logical inconsistency in your answers. But by denying that the absence of evidence, even where it has been sought, is enough to justify belief in the non-existence of things, you are required to countenance possibilities that most people would find bizarre. For example, do you really want to claim that it is not rationally justified to believe that intelligent aliens do not live on Mars?

​

10 false
14 false
= no hit or bullet

---

If the game was consistent, then the last iteration should have scored the same "hit" as the first one did, instead you get a "bye" because you endorse the atheist position while contradicting it for nessie. This shows bias - or myopia.You get either a "hit" or a "bullet" if you answer 14 false no matter what you answer on 10, and this too shows bias.Further the "bullet" employs an argument from incredulity and a straw man -- it does not show the position to be invalid, false or irrational.The Ivory Billed Woodpecker is, again, an example where believing that absence of evidence for 60 years was not sufficient to justify not assuming\believing the absence of the woodpecker. One such example is sufficient to invalidate the claim that "absence of evidence is evidence of absence" -- all it shows is that you have not found {X} where you have looked for {X} (and it depends on how you define {X}). To believe it means anything else is a matter of faith."In the absence of compelling evidence or argument for {B} it is rational to believe not{B}" is thus demonstrated to be a rational option. The game does not consider this possibility to be rational (see "bullet" above) due to the bias built into it.Now we could also look at the other questions that also deal with "faith" issues (see Rrhain in Message 3 and Message 25):

quote:

---

Question 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.

​

Question 15
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.

---

The problem is that this doesn't use a proper definition of faith, but the definition of delusion (3) -- and it uses an example of a delusional person, in case you missed it, in 15: vs Neither of the faith definitions (1 or 2) imply "belief strongly held in spite of invalidating evidence" as is implicated in question 7: belief "... regardless of the external evidence, ... for the ... falsity of these convictions."Thus these questions do not really address faith, although they may demonstrate the authors bias that faith is delusional.Looking at the grid of responses for these questions we see:

quote:

---

7 true
15 true
= bullet

​

You've just bitten a bullet!

​

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.

​

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.

​

7 true
15 false
= hit

​

You've just taken a direct hit!

​

Earlier you said 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 of this conviction. But now you do not accept that the rapist Peter Sutcliffe was justified in doing just that. 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. So you need to revise your opinion here. The intellectual sniper has scored a bull's-eye!

​

7 false
15 true
= hit

​

You've just taken a direct hit!

​

Earlier you claimed 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 that the rapist Peter Sutcliffe was justified in basing his beliefs about God's will solely on precisely such a conviction. That's a bull's-eye for the intellectual sniper!

​

7 false
15 false
= no hit or bullet

---

Again we get a smug little lecture for not taking the authors position, but at least both contradicting positions take a hit.However there is no direct comparable relation\dependence between the answers to the questions on belief\rationality to the questions on delusion\faith, where a proper survey would have explored this side of the issue -- fairly.To me this is a sadly missed opportunity to truly explore the faith issue. Instead it uses an extreme straw man to stand in for faith, and a weak easy to pass criteria for rationality to justify the opinion of the author without confronting the contradictions in that position. Yes, but then each person interprets according to their world views, and may have "cognitive dissonance" blinders on for views that disagree with them.Why should I be more concerned with properly answering according to the biases and blind spots of the author vs understanding the issues?Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : deluge

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

I don't think any of your conclusions contradict anything the maker of the game has said, so I'll just leave it to Jeremy Stangroom to conclude:

quote:

---

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.

---

quote:

---

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!

---

And with the final word to RAZD: