It appears that folks here seem to be more interested in their scoring on the ‘Battleground God’ test (“Take the test” thread) and stroking in each other egos than in philosophy as such. The following analysis would probably not be their cup of tea. It assumes a philosopher (or the bud of one), i.e. someone who loves wisdom. People who love wisdom do not need to give themselves kudos for making intellectual discoveries; indeed they would think it too needy, childish, immature. Having said that, I want to join those who thank peapod for the link. It certainly is interesting. I am a ‘pig’ as she says, but I don’t think I am an ingrate.
The game creator(s) evidently belong to the school of logical positivism which holds, in its most pristine form (Alfred Ayer), that metaphysics does not belong to philosophy.
In a nutshell, Ayer , as well as those whom he followed and who follow him, treats philosophical questions as ‘analytical propositions’ and only facts ascertained by experience can be admitted to examination of truthfulness or falsity. However, logic isn’t constrained by experience and therefore no fact can be validated by experience ‘with certitude’. That God or immortal soul exist, are propositions that cannot be validated and therefore lie outside reasoned inquiry.
Ayer was a brilliant thinker which the game creators certainly are not. It may be inferred, that philosophically they are atheists, or people who reject theism. I have shown in my previous post (on take the test) where their belief that the game is ‘value free’ takes a direct hit, so to speak. They pretend that if I defend the internal consistency of belief in a mad rapist, then I am ‘biting a bullet’ because I have to ‘justify the rapist’. That is demonstrably false.
As I continued to play and analyze, I discovered further problems and inconsistencies:
1) The test of rationality in one’s belief in God, is made against a rational belief in the ‘Loch Ness monster’. Would it be rationally sufficient, the game asks, to reject the belief in Loch Ness monster on grounds there is no evidence for it ? The answer should be ‘yes’. This query is followed by a question if the ‘atheist’s’ view that God does not exist is a matter of belief or rationality. I guessed it was ‘rationality’, but really when you think about the proposition – it is a non-sequitur. (And yes, sure enough, if your answer is ‘belief’, you receive a direct hit. I tested it.). For one, such a link relies on the validity of the comparison made between ‘God’ and the Loch Ness monster. However, if one does not think of God as an anthromorphic entity, or finite being locatable in the blue sky blue above or in a Scottish lake, then one cannot make the inference about the nature of the atheist belief , on the basis of a highly improbable existence of a mythical reptile.
The second aspect, which flows from this, is even more troubling.
The creators of the game evidently believe, that if a belief is not rational, it is irrational in the sense that it violates ‘reason’. But beliefs are intuitions which most often precede facts (as in theses), and apparently exist independently from them. So I do not err if I say that the atheist may well act on ‘faith’ in taking the absence of proof in the finiteness of God as the proof of God who by nature is infinite. Now, if you follow this train to its logical conclusion, you will make an astonishing discovery: If God is God, he cannot be said to exist. The word ‘exist’ comes from the Latin exsistere, ‘coming into being’, it implies irreducibly that God is extant as a form in time and space. I deny that, and yet I believe in God.
2) Question #3 asks to assess the theory of evolution. It gives two choices: the theory is either ‘substantially true’ or it is ‘false’. No other choices. This of course is a patently illogical and dishonest manipulation of the ‘game’. If I am to assess something as ‘substantially true’ I must have the opportunity to grade my negative view in a congruous fashion. So I must be allowed to hold that while I accept some parts of the theory I do not believe the theory to be true ‘substantially’ or ‘on the whole’. So let us say that I believe that species indeed evolve, but that it has been demonstrated (e.g. by von Bartalanffy’s research on the reproductive patterns of guppies) that the view they do so by ‘natural selection’ is flawed both logically (natural selection is held to be both the premise and the effect of evolution) and empirically. So: a) does this make me a creationist ? b) can there be another school of thought on our origins which is neither Darwinist nor naively creationist ? c) what do I answer to this silliness ? (Consider also the silliness of asking the test subject to pass a judgement on a highly technical theory. Why would not there be an ‘out’, a don’t-have-a-clue option ?) I answered ‘false’ and got a lecture from the software. Indeed, my answer was held as ‘ammo’ against my views as a ‘creationist’ even though I do not believe that Creation is a biological fact.
3) Can God make 1 + 1 = 72, and can ‘she square circles’? The answer is ‘yes’ if one holds consistently that God can do anything, and is ‘beyond good and bad’. This argument calls for mental acuity in appraising what is objectively true, what is subjectively true and in whether we may have absolute certainty about any fact (I agree with Ayer that we may not). Objectivity then becomes ‘fluid’ and a label for human subjectivities agreeing on how to grasp, order and name physical and spiritual phenomena. So, properly, we would not be speaking of some absolute standard of objectivity but one that is a moving target, as a historically determined intersubjectivity.
Now the game assesses my ‘yes’ in this fashion:
a. In saying that God has the freedom and the power to
do that which is logically impossible.., you are saying that
any discussion of God as ultimate reality cannot be
constrained by basic principles of rationality.
I agree with this proposition and moreover consider the
adjective ‘basic’ superfluous. If God was fully
apprehended by reason, then God being ‘the ultimate
reality’, further evolution of reason would
be impossible, or purposeless at any rate.
b. That would seem to make rational discourse about God
impossible, there is nothing rational that we can say
about God and nothing rational we can say about God
and nothing rational we can say to support our belief or
disbelief in God.
This proposition makes a demonstrably false inference.
Can you spot the problem ? In agreeing that God can
make nonsense become sense, I am not agreeing that
God actually does just that. God not being constrained
by reason (in its historical manifestation) does not in any
way imply that God does ‘behave’ irrationally. So, this
assertion demonstrably misapprehends potentiality for
actuality and makes hilariously inept conclusions on that
basis. Dr Jeremy Stangroom is potentially a
murderer. Does that make the presumption of innocence
impossible in his case ? No, it is possible and therefore
the potentiality of God perverting logic does not in any
way preclude a rational view of God. Since I believe that
God as ultimate reality lies beyond reason,
my faith does not rest on reason but I am surely glad I
don’t have to resort to perverse logic to make my case
for my belief in God. Until indeed God does square circles
or fiddles with my brain to prevent me from seeing the
difference between what is merely possible and what is
real.
As peapod prefers poetry, here is one of the most beautiful expressions of devotion (that I know of) to that which holds us and that which we may not see lest the game of life and death be spoiled. It does not say that God exists – that is folly – it simply describes a philosophical mind that knows God, and the extent it may know God without being presumptuous:
You're inside every kindness.
When a sick person feels better, you'that
and the onset of the disease too.
You're sudden, terrible screaming.
Some problems require that we go for help:
when we knock on a stranger's door,
you sent us. Nobody answers: it's
you! When work feels necessary, you
are the way workers move in rhythm,
you are what is: the field, the players,
the ball, those watching. Someone
claims to have evidence that you do
not exist. You're the one who brings
the evidence in, and the evidence
itself. You are inside the soul's
great fear, every natural pleasure,
every vicious cruelty. You are in
every difference and irritation.
Someone loves something; someone else
hates the same. There you are.
Whatever eyes see, what anyone wants
or not: political power, injustice,
material possessions, those are your
script, the handwriting that we study.
Body, soul, shadow. Whether reckless
or careful, you are what we do. It's
absurd to ask your pardon. You're
inside repentance, and sin! The wonder
of various jewels, agate, emerald.
How we are during a day, then at night,
you are those moods and qualities.
The pure compassion we feel for each
other. Every encampment has a tent
where the leader is and also the wide
truth of your majestic tent overall.....
Jelaluddin Rumi (1207-73).
In conclusion, there is an interesting incident in the life of Sir Alfred J. Ayer. Shortly before his death, he had an out-of-body experience while choking on a sandwich. A ferocious atheist, he denied that the experience was 'proof of God's existence'. Logically, he was correct, and I truly respect the integrity of the man. He could have simply stayed silent on his experience.
But what do you think ? On the terms that I have outlined here, did Ayer experience 'God' ? (The reason I am putting the word in quotation marks is that, he may not have believed in that which overwhelmed him at the point of near-death, but indeed he could have inferred that the mind-state he was in was what religious people point to as the 'presence of God'.) Here is what JC would likely say about the incident:
The kingdom of heaven can be likened unto a philosopher who choked on his fish meal and went to God. Howbeit he recovered for it was not his time yet. And when the doctors gathered he said unto them ‘Nay, God was not there and I was Nowhere, for it could be proven only that I devoured more of the fish than I could swallow’. And the doctors were astonished at the cleverness of the man. But verily, I say unto you, the kingdom of heaven is not given unto them that seek in the clutter of this world that which puts forth and puts away; even the philosopher.
The game creator(s) evidently belong to the school of logical positivism which holds, in its most pristine form (Alfred Ayer), that metaphysics does not belong to philosophy.
In a nutshell, Ayer , as well as those whom he followed and who follow him, treats philosophical questions as ‘analytical propositions’ and only facts ascertained by experience can be admitted to examination of truthfulness or falsity. However, logic isn’t constrained by experience and therefore no fact can be validated by experience ‘with certitude’. That God or immortal soul exist, are propositions that cannot be validated and therefore lie outside reasoned inquiry.
Ayer was a brilliant thinker which the game creators certainly are not. It may be inferred, that philosophically they are atheists, or people who reject theism. I have shown in my previous post (on take the test) where their belief that the game is ‘value free’ takes a direct hit, so to speak. They pretend that if I defend the internal consistency of belief in a mad rapist, then I am ‘biting a bullet’ because I have to ‘justify the rapist’. That is demonstrably false.
As I continued to play and analyze, I discovered further problems and inconsistencies:
1) The test of rationality in one’s belief in God, is made against a rational belief in the ‘Loch Ness monster’. Would it be rationally sufficient, the game asks, to reject the belief in Loch Ness monster on grounds there is no evidence for it ? The answer should be ‘yes’. This query is followed by a question if the ‘atheist’s’ view that God does not exist is a matter of belief or rationality. I guessed it was ‘rationality’, but really when you think about the proposition – it is a non-sequitur. (And yes, sure enough, if your answer is ‘belief’, you receive a direct hit. I tested it.). For one, such a link relies on the validity of the comparison made between ‘God’ and the Loch Ness monster. However, if one does not think of God as an anthromorphic entity, or finite being locatable in the blue sky blue above or in a Scottish lake, then one cannot make the inference about the nature of the atheist belief , on the basis of a highly improbable existence of a mythical reptile.
The second aspect, which flows from this, is even more troubling.
The creators of the game evidently believe, that if a belief is not rational, it is irrational in the sense that it violates ‘reason’. But beliefs are intuitions which most often precede facts (as in theses), and apparently exist independently from them. So I do not err if I say that the atheist may well act on ‘faith’ in taking the absence of proof in the finiteness of God as the proof of God who by nature is infinite. Now, if you follow this train to its logical conclusion, you will make an astonishing discovery: If God is God, he cannot be said to exist. The word ‘exist’ comes from the Latin exsistere, ‘coming into being’, it implies irreducibly that God is extant as a form in time and space. I deny that, and yet I believe in God.
2) Question #3 asks to assess the theory of evolution. It gives two choices: the theory is either ‘substantially true’ or it is ‘false’. No other choices. This of course is a patently illogical and dishonest manipulation of the ‘game’. If I am to assess something as ‘substantially true’ I must have the opportunity to grade my negative view in a congruous fashion. So I must be allowed to hold that while I accept some parts of the theory I do not believe the theory to be true ‘substantially’ or ‘on the whole’. So let us say that I believe that species indeed evolve, but that it has been demonstrated (e.g. by von Bartalanffy’s research on the reproductive patterns of guppies) that the view they do so by ‘natural selection’ is flawed both logically (natural selection is held to be both the premise and the effect of evolution) and empirically. So: a) does this make me a creationist ? b) can there be another school of thought on our origins which is neither Darwinist nor naively creationist ? c) what do I answer to this silliness ? (Consider also the silliness of asking the test subject to pass a judgement on a highly technical theory. Why would not there be an ‘out’, a don’t-have-a-clue option ?) I answered ‘false’ and got a lecture from the software. Indeed, my answer was held as ‘ammo’ against my views as a ‘creationist’ even though I do not believe that Creation is a biological fact.
3) Can God make 1 + 1 = 72, and can ‘she square circles’? The answer is ‘yes’ if one holds consistently that God can do anything, and is ‘beyond good and bad’. This argument calls for mental acuity in appraising what is objectively true, what is subjectively true and in whether we may have absolute certainty about any fact (I agree with Ayer that we may not). Objectivity then becomes ‘fluid’ and a label for human subjectivities agreeing on how to grasp, order and name physical and spiritual phenomena. So, properly, we would not be speaking of some absolute standard of objectivity but one that is a moving target, as a historically determined intersubjectivity.
Now the game assesses my ‘yes’ in this fashion:
a. In saying that God has the freedom and the power to
do that which is logically impossible.., you are saying that
any discussion of God as ultimate reality cannot be
constrained by basic principles of rationality.
I agree with this proposition and moreover consider the
adjective ‘basic’ superfluous. If God was fully
apprehended by reason, then God being ‘the ultimate
reality’, further evolution of reason would
be impossible, or purposeless at any rate.
b. That would seem to make rational discourse about God
impossible, there is nothing rational that we can say
about God and nothing rational we can say about God
and nothing rational we can say to support our belief or
disbelief in God.
This proposition makes a demonstrably false inference.
Can you spot the problem ? In agreeing that God can
make nonsense become sense, I am not agreeing that
God actually does just that. God not being constrained
by reason (in its historical manifestation) does not in any
way imply that God does ‘behave’ irrationally. So, this
assertion demonstrably misapprehends potentiality for
actuality and makes hilariously inept conclusions on that
basis. Dr Jeremy Stangroom is potentially a
murderer. Does that make the presumption of innocence
impossible in his case ? No, it is possible and therefore
the potentiality of God perverting logic does not in any
way preclude a rational view of God. Since I believe that
God as ultimate reality lies beyond reason,
my faith does not rest on reason but I am surely glad I
don’t have to resort to perverse logic to make my case
for my belief in God. Until indeed God does square circles
or fiddles with my brain to prevent me from seeing the
difference between what is merely possible and what is
real.
As peapod prefers poetry, here is one of the most beautiful expressions of devotion (that I know of) to that which holds us and that which we may not see lest the game of life and death be spoiled. It does not say that God exists – that is folly – it simply describes a philosophical mind that knows God, and the extent it may know God without being presumptuous:
You're inside every kindness.
When a sick person feels better, you'that
and the onset of the disease too.
You're sudden, terrible screaming.
Some problems require that we go for help:
when we knock on a stranger's door,
you sent us. Nobody answers: it's
you! When work feels necessary, you
are the way workers move in rhythm,
you are what is: the field, the players,
the ball, those watching. Someone
claims to have evidence that you do
not exist. You're the one who brings
the evidence in, and the evidence
itself. You are inside the soul's
great fear, every natural pleasure,
every vicious cruelty. You are in
every difference and irritation.
Someone loves something; someone else
hates the same. There you are.
Whatever eyes see, what anyone wants
or not: political power, injustice,
material possessions, those are your
script, the handwriting that we study.
Body, soul, shadow. Whether reckless
or careful, you are what we do. It's
absurd to ask your pardon. You're
inside repentance, and sin! The wonder
of various jewels, agate, emerald.
How we are during a day, then at night,
you are those moods and qualities.
The pure compassion we feel for each
other. Every encampment has a tent
where the leader is and also the wide
truth of your majestic tent overall.....
Jelaluddin Rumi (1207-73).
In conclusion, there is an interesting incident in the life of Sir Alfred J. Ayer. Shortly before his death, he had an out-of-body experience while choking on a sandwich. A ferocious atheist, he denied that the experience was 'proof of God's existence'. Logically, he was correct, and I truly respect the integrity of the man. He could have simply stayed silent on his experience.
But what do you think ? On the terms that I have outlined here, did Ayer experience 'God' ? (The reason I am putting the word in quotation marks is that, he may not have believed in that which overwhelmed him at the point of near-death, but indeed he could have inferred that the mind-state he was in was what religious people point to as the 'presence of God'.) Here is what JC would likely say about the incident:
The kingdom of heaven can be likened unto a philosopher who choked on his fish meal and went to God. Howbeit he recovered for it was not his time yet. And when the doctors gathered he said unto them ‘Nay, God was not there and I was Nowhere, for it could be proven only that I devoured more of the fish than I could swallow’. And the doctors were astonished at the cleverness of the man. But verily, I say unto you, the kingdom of heaven is not given unto them that seek in the clutter of this world that which puts forth and puts away; even the philosopher.
Nice to see you back. Checking out my ass are you? Next time let me know, and I will put a little strut into it for you :wink: You got work to do for change? no sleeping at your desk today? Send some my way would ya.