Monday, August 31, 2009

The consistency test

This is a fascinating little philosophical test.

I scored 1 which meant I was inconsistent once and which was also slightly below the test-taker average (1.36). Apparently only a little over 7% of the test-takers are perfectly consistent. Although of course these results are grossly unrepresentative and may be skewed by people seeking a perfect score rather then an accurate reflection of their beliefs.

How did my readers go?


Will Briggs said...

Nice link Luke
A test which demonstrates atheistic weasel words. What do they mean by "justifiable"? What do they mean by "basis of morality"? Black-and-whiting these things into true and false is the basis of the atheistic delusion of consistency. I didn't do too well because I wanted to hit a "it depends" button all the time.

Andrew Bowles said...

I agree with Will, this test is not really about logical consistency. I scored 1 because I said that it is 'justifiable' to believe internal convictions in the absence of external evidence, but that the serial killer was not 'justified' in his conviction that murder was okay. If that is 'illogical', then so is our general trust of visual data even though occasionally we suffer from optical illusions. I'm willing to take that 'hit'.

Gordon Cheng said...

Zero hits, and the TPM medal of honour. But what does it all mean?

Luke said...

Gordon, you have the mind like a steel trap, why am I not surprised by that result! I agree Will, the boundaries are set by our cultural handlers, we're playing their game rather then working to establish agreed starting points. I did like the way however the test made me think, although the question referring to God as a 'she', made me think I stumbled on a section of The Shack!

Anonymous said...

Good to come across this again. I took no hits and bit one bullet -- for believing that absence of evidence is not a positive proof -- which gets a "medal of distinction".

Donners said...

I didn't like the 'loaded terminology" either Will!

John Dekker said...

I took four hits.

First hit: I said that (a) there is no basis for morality if God does not exist, and (b)if God does exist, [he] cannot make what is sinful good and vice-versa.

BUT that misses the point of what I actually believe, which that God himself is the only perfect standard of morality, but that he cannot arbitrarily change is own character.

Second hit: I said that (a) no strong evidence or argument was required to show that the Loch Ness monster does not exist and (b) 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.

BUT this is assuming that faith is somehow the opposite of rationality.

What did other people answer on these issues?

Donners said...

I did the same John, particularly the a) and b) you mention.

That was what irritated me, that I was trying to assert that God is powerful enough to make decisions, but that he could never say good was evil or evil was good.

however, this is not to do with his power, it's to do with His consistency and perfection.

The Borg said...

Yeah, this test annoyed me too. Like the evolution one, for example. I'm skeptical about evolution and neither "true" or "false" captures that.

The test manufactures inconsistencies because of all the false dichotomies it is setting up. Like faith vs. rationality.

John, I answered the same as you for the first hit, for the same reason.

Gordon, how did you get 0??