What's your spiritual type?

Flick,

I know what you're trying to say here, but I think your oversimplifying Fade/Pixy's statements...

Is this a true statement? The answer is that it depends.
Is this a factual statement? The answer is a resounding no.
Click to expand...
Look at your first point : "Is this a true statement? The answer is that it depends.". Neither Fade or Pixy are disagreeing with you (neither is claiming that (a) it's a true statement; or (b) it's an irrelevant or undeterminable statement).

Seems to me that the "it depends" part is crucial, and the point being expressed here is it *should not depend* solely upon faith. If faith is your only, or even the most frequently used, tool for determining truth, then you're in trouble.

For me, the bigger the question, the less I feel that faith alone is a good guide to truth.
For (many) theists, the bigger the question, the more they feel the need to turn to faith for the truth.
 
29

No doubt these results will be displayed as a chart with no-one scoring less than 25 % spirituality.

Regards,

asthmatic camel.

(edited as a result of poor typing skills)
 
stamenflicker said:

Is this a true statement? The answer is that it depends.
...
Here we see perfectly that truth is the interplay of language: the intent of the communicator and the ability of the receipent to decipher the statement's validity.
Click to expand...

You are misapplying the word true. What I (now) think you mean to say, is that the statement has meaning or value, beyond the direct literal interpretation (which is obviously incorrect) and the literal interpretation of the metaphor (there are probably circumstances in which you are quite happy with the things you have, creating a exception which negates the universal). A better version would be perhaps "The grass is frequently greener on the other side".

Even this, though, merits empirical investigation, which is why empiricism trumped logical deduction in philosophy some time ago (I forget the philosopher who conclusively proved that deduction does not lead to the discovery of new information).

What about "Absence makes the heart grow fonder" and "Out of sight, out of mind"? These could be considered 'true' (by your usage), but in many cases, are clearly contradictory. The best approach is, of course, to determine empirically which is actually correct in a situation.

I seem to be rambling. I hope my position is a bit clearer now, though.
 
ehbowen said:
OK, Ian, read it and weep:

(quote)


If you'd like to have some more fun, try this:

The Philosophers' Magazine--Battleground God

My score: No direct hits, two bullets bitten.

__________________________________________________


Two bullets bitten here too. Did you try the "Taboo" game? How incredibly bizarre that is; not to be attempted by any readers with a distaste for necrophilia combined with frozen bestiality.

The mind boggles.

Regards,

asthmatic camel
Click to expand...
 
ehbowen,

OK, Ian, read it and weep:
...
If you'd like to have some more fun, try this:
...
My score: No direct hits, two bullets bitten
Click to expand...
Ian has already taken that test, and failed pretty spectacularly. He had this to say after his first attempt :
I took 5 direct hits. But the reasons given as to why I "contradicted" myself were clearly fallacious, so I shouldn't have taken any hits.
Click to expand...
hmmmm......
 
asthmatic camel said:
Two bullets bitten here too.
Click to expand...
I took a hit, but I'd argue with the way they worded that question.
Did you try the "Taboo" game? How incredibly bizarre that is; not to be attempted by any readers with a distaste for necrophilia combined with frozen bestiality.

The mind boggles.
Click to expand...
It does indeed.

Moralising: 0.33
Interference: 0.00
Universalising: 0.50
 
asthmatic camel said:
If you'd like to have some more fun, try this:

The Philosophers' Magazine--Battleground God
Click to expand...
No direct hits, no bullets bitten.
Did you try the "Taboo" game? How incredibly bizarre that is; not to be attempted by any readers with a distaste for necrophilia combined with frozen bestiality
Click to expand...
Your Moralising Quotient is: 0.00.

Your Interference Factor is: 0.00

Your Universalising Factor is: 0.00
 
Zero direct hits, one bullet bitten.

Is biting a bullet meant to be a bad thing? My analysis said :

"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."

This seems obviously true to me - extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and god is surely the most extraordinary claim of all. Perfectly consistent.

Once again I had some problems with the questions, though this one was far better designed than the others.
 
Seismosaurus said:
Zero direct hits, one bullet bitten.

Is biting a bullet meant to be a bad thing? My analysis said :

"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."

This seems obviously true to me - extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and god is surely the most extraordinary claim of all. Perfectly consistent.

Once again I had some problems with the questions, though this one was far better designed than the others.
Click to expand...
Actually, I think the test is right. There is a difference between extraordinary evidence and irrevocable evidence.
 
I for one find this test to be very biased. The questions did not cover all (or even the most likely, in some cases) of the answers to the questions that were asked. For instance, on the question of God they make you say he either does or doesn't exist. There should have been an option that said "There is no enough evidence to warrent a belief in God". On top of that I went back after I took the test again, gave the most skeptical answer that I could think of to every question, and I still came out a spiritual dabbler. Maybe they're simply trying to get more people to declare themselves "spiritual".
 
Javalar said:
Actually, I think the test is right. There is a difference between extraordinary evidence and irrevocable evidence.
Click to expand...

What I'm asking is does my making this distinction and thus having to "bite the bullet" translate into a bad thing in this test? It seems to, but I don't think it should.
 
Wow! My score was "Baby-eating Atheist".







Just kidding, I got a 30. Though some of the answers had to be fudged since they didn't quite fit.
 
Sheesh, this quiz was awful. And I'm a Christian, which makes this a little odd.

I couldn't even get past Q7:

Q7. I think that following life:
1. There is an afterlife for the virtuous but no hell; the evil simply cease to exist
2. There is reincarnation or some other condition
3. There is nothing
4. There is an afterlife in which we are judged, then rewarded or punished

The closest answer to my belief is number 1, but that's still not quite it; it's certainly not number 4, either. I guess being an ENFP I never liked multiple-choice tests anyway. :)

And Q5??

Q5. I believe that the universe we observe:
1. Is natural in origin, but has higher spiritual aspects
2. Was created supernaturally
3. Is completely natural and has no higher aspect
4. Was created under divine guidance, but using natural physics

It's none of these; I believe God is natural, God made natural laws, and God is also spiritual. Option 4 is closest to my beliefs, but it sounds like "natural physics" is outside of God, like he had to follow some laws that he had nothing to do with. Which is not how I see it at all. Option 3 sounds like God "poofed" everything into existence all at once, and is too close to a literal 6-day creation scenario for me.

BTW, my man made me do the Philosopher's Magazine thing a while back, I took a couple bullets. But I didn't like their questions, either -- God isn't always rational, which makes rational questions about him/her silly sometimes. IMO. :)
 
Seismosaurus said:
What I'm asking is does my making this distinction and thus having to "bite the bullet" translate into a bad thing in this test? It seems to, but I don't think it should.
Click to expand...
The awnser is: not really... This only means that according to your awnsers you believe the theory of evolution to be essentially true because it presents extraordinary evidence, but would demand irrevocable evidence before you would believe in the existance of a God.

Thus, theoretically you are not totally consistant in your belief: you demand a higher standard for the existance of a God than you demand for the theory of evolution.

I believe it is simply a matter of mixing up extraordinary and irrevocable.

Am I making any sense?
 
Finella,

God isn't always rational, ...
Click to expand...
Gasp! He's not? You mean you think god behaves irrationally sometimes?

...which makes rational questions about him/her silly sometimes. IMO
Click to expand...
Or do you mean he's always rational, but sometimes we mere mortals lack the 'big picture' informatoin to understand the rationale behind god's behaviour?
 
Javalar said:
Thus, theoretically you are not totally consistant in your belief: you demand a higher standard for the existance of a God than you demand for the theory of evolution.
Click to expand...

But I don't see this as a contradiction, as such. I acknowledge that I am using different standards of evidence, but I see that as a good and desirable thing.

I believe it is simply a matter of mixing up extraordinary and irrevocable.

Am I making any sense?
Click to expand...

Yes. My only argument is that the test seems to have an inbuilt assumption along the lines of "to be consistent, you should believe that all theories should be regarded as true if the supporting evidence reaches a certain standard".

Whereas in actuality different standards are and should be applied, depending on the nature of the claim. With god needing the highest standard of all, since he/she/it ranks as the most extraordinary claim possible.

Well anyway, flawed as it is at least the test is provoking people to discussion, so some good has come of it.
 
Loki said:
Finella,


Gasp! He's not? You mean you think god behaves irrationally sometimes?


Or do you mean he's always rational, but sometimes we mere mortals lack the 'big picture' informatoin to understand the rationale behind god's behaviour?
Click to expand...

Hm. Let's put it this way. Is love rational? Is self-sacrifice rational?
 
38. curious, but far from impressed, which sounds right.

As for the test, I think they could have tilted the choices less toward religion (about a 3:1 ratio). Also, the scoring should emphasize to people the difference between spirituality vs. religion.

For me, one of the interesting questions was:

Q19. What frustrates me most about faith is:

1. That even having faith and treating others well does not prevent bad things from happening to me or my loved ones
2. That ultimate events such as the Second Coming do not happen
3. That religions continue to create barriers and hostility between people
4. That God allows so much suffering and evil

My answer was "That having faith doesn't change anything, other than, possibly, make you yourself feel and act better".

I think that fits better for #1, but I agree more with #3 which is what I picked. Thought provoking quiz, Ruby!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom