Koliko su racionalno konzistentna vasa religijska ubedjenja?

[Zvoncica]

Jedan interesantan test koji sam upravo radila, mozda jos nekom bude zanimljivo...

Odgovara se na 17 pitanja vezanih za verovanje/neverovanje u Boga i uporedjuje se konzistencija odgovora (verovanja). Test zahteva prilicno dobar nivo znanja engleskog. Evo opisa:

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.

http://www.philosophersnet.com/games/god.htm

Ja imala 1 hit i 1 bullet 

[Mi(k)losh]

Pa meni ni n e treba da postoji  veza izmedju religije i racije!
Puno njih su to pokusali na silu da povezu i svaki put se pokazalo kao lose!
Npr kad kazem 2+2=4 ja to ZNAMi nema sta da verujem u vezi toga
za boga se ne moze dokazati da postoji niti da ne postoji, pa razum tu nema sta da trazi, tu ulazi vera!

[CTEBA]

Интереасантан квиз.
Резултат:

Battleground Analysis
Congratulations!
You have been awarded the TPM service medal! This is our third highest award for outstanding service on the intellectual battleground.

The fact that you have progressed through this activity without suffering many hits and biting only one bullet suggests that whilst there are inconsistencies in your beliefs about God, on the whole they are well thought-out.

The direct hits you suffered occurred because some of your answers implied logical contradictions. The bitten bullet occurred because you responded in a way that required that you held a view that most people would have found strange, incredible or unpalatable. At the bottom of this page, we have reproduced the analyses of your direct hits and bitten bullet.

The fact that you did not suffer many hits and only bit one bullet means that you qualify for our third highest award. Well done!

Значи статистички спадам у 33,34% оних на дну.
Сад да видимо разлог:

Direct Hit 1

You answered "True" to questions 10 and 14.

These answers generated the following response:

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.


Са овим се не слажем. Лох Нес монстер ако постоји је физичко биће и самим тим за то је потребан физички доказ. Ако је Бог духовно или не физичко биће како може постојати физички доказ?

Други хит:

Direct Hit 2

You answered "False" to Question 7 and "True" to Question 17.

These answers generated the following response:

You've just taken a direct hit! 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!

Опет иста ствар. говори се о спољњем свету и о духовном. Како је могуће третирати их исто?

Bitten Bullet 1

You answered "True" to questions 4 and 12.

These answers generated the following response:

You claimed earlier that any being which it is right to call God must want there to be as little suffering in the world as possible. But you say that God could make it so that everything now considered sinful becomes morally acceptable and everything that is now considered morally good becomes sinful. What this means is that God could make the reduction of suffering a sin... yet you've said that God must want to reduce suffering. There is a way out of this, but it means biting a bullet. So you've got to make a choice: (a) Bite the bullet and say that it is possible that God wants what is sinful (to reiterate the argument here - she must want to reduce suffering; she could make the reduction of suffering a sin; but if she did so, what she wanted (reducing suffering) would be sinful). (b) Take a direct hit and say that this is an area where your beliefs are just in contradiction.

You chose to bite the bullet.

За ово сам знао да је контрадикторно али питање је тако да тражи контрадиктиван одговор. Дали Бог жели да смањи паћење свакако. Са друге стране дали може ако жели да измене све што је добро да буде лоше и обрнуто верујем да ако хоће може. Ако Бог има контролу над свим онда може и да одлучи шта је добро а шта није.
Да је питање постављено дали треба или дали жели одговор би био другачији али свако ко има ту моћ да нешто уради може то и да уради ако жели.

[tefter]

Heh, ja sam pao na pitanju 6 i 7 gde se pita o eksternom dokazu i teoriji evolucije.
Sajt kaze da vecina naucnika tvrdi da je teorija evolucije dokazana, ali ja mislim da nije
tj da grese te pojedoh metak. Nemam direkt hitova....

Mikloshe. Mislim da kad se kaze "vera" misli se da verujes u Boga kao sto verujes
ocu recimo, a ne da verujes da postoji ili ne postoji, jer to je irelevantno.
Recimo ljudi veruju da crne rupe postoje ne na osnovu toga sto se vide
nego na osnovu posledica koje ostavljaju. To verovatno isto vazi i za Boga
samo u mnogo vecem obimu. Ono u sta ja verujem je da kad
ljudi dostignu odgovarajuci napredak za ko zna koliko godina
moci ce i da skapiraju posledice U principu ono "znam da nista ne znam" je najpametnije

Pozzzzzzzzzzzzzz!

[Achilles]

Osto neogreban.

[Zvoncica]

Osto neogreban.

svaka cast

naravno pitanje za sebe je da li uopste verovanje (u bilo sta) moze i treba da bude racionalno konzistentno....

[John Doe]

Osto neogreban.

svaka cast

naravno pitanje za sebe je da li uopste verovanje (u bilo sta) moze i treba da bude racionalno konzistentno....

Svakako. Onda se tu namece i pitanje saznanja/ iskustva religije, i/ili vere, sto je otprilike ista, ali veome razudjena tema.