Here's a little test that checks to see if your attitudes and views toward religion are rationally consistent. It does not make judgements and no answers are "right", of course, but it is in my opinion an excellent test.
If any were curious, I suffered no "direct hits" and never had to "Bite the bullet", both terms of which are explained on the site.
08-05-2010, 06:08 PM #1
Battleground God--Are your attitudes towards religion rationally consistent?
08-05-2010, 09:33 PM #2
I took it but don't think it's that good of a test. The "problem of evil" and my understanding of God, good and evil, doesn't match up with how the maker perceives them.
08-05-2010, 09:41 PM #3
08-05-2010, 10:06 PM #4SnifflesGuestCongratulations!
You have been awarded the TPM medal of distinction! This is our second highest award for outstanding service on the intellectual battleground.
The fact that you progressed through this activity being hit only once and biting very few bullets suggests that your beliefs about God are well thought out and almost entirely internally consistent.
The direct hit you suffered occurred because one set of your answers implied a logical contradiction. The bitten bullets occurred because you responded in ways that required that you held views that most people would have found strange, incredible or unpalatable. At the bottom of this page, we have reproduced the analyses of your direct hit and bitten bullets.
Because you only suffered one direct hit and bit very few bullets, you qualify for our second highest award. A good achievement!
08-05-2010, 10:14 PM #5
08-05-2010, 10:31 PM #6SnifflesGuest
--GK Chesterton Orthodoxy, pg. 230
Yeah that's my answer.
08-05-2010, 10:36 PM #7You 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!
08-05-2010, 10:49 PM #8
I don't really care about "rational consistency," but I took the test anyway and got one direct hit and one bit bullet. The reason I got those was because I place a weight on my convictions that I don't place on those of other people unless they happen to agree with me. Naturally, I understand where people who disagree with me are coming from and consider them to be right in their own limited ways; a similar limitation applies to me, as well, but to a lesser extent since, like everyone else, I see reality primarily from my own point of view, a fact that means my beliefs automatically take priority over theirs.
To other people I'm basically what "God" is to me: my convictions stand trial before a Truth beyond reality, and in the same manner, other people's convictions stand trial before my own (which isn't to say accountability is a one-way street; the point is that the traffic is heavier in one direction, and that everything lying in the opposite direction is relatively contingent, which gives it the appearance of something you can override to the point of discarding it altogether; it's only there because you [must] permit it). In the mind of the test maker, that was not a possibility; it was a contradiction.[ Ni > Ti > Fe > Fi > Ne > Te > Si > Se ][ 4w5 sp/sx ][ RLOAI ][ IEI-Ni ]
08-05-2010, 10:50 PM #9
08-05-2010, 11:04 PM #10GinkgoGuest
You answered True to Question 16.
This answer generated the following response:
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.
(Ironically, the passage of my signature addresses the same basic principle, I intentionally answered this way to see what would happen).