Battlefield God
-
But if god did exist, he should be omnipotent, he should be able to do anything, even change what is evil and what is good, what is a lie and what is the truth. But then I don't think that what is moral and what is not depends on whether or not there is a god. Belief in god just gives us one more reason to be moral IMO. But things look OK if you accept the premise that god is beyond our perception of logic and rationality. If he does exist, he may have his own logic, something which we are just not capable to understand. But does it matter? ;P
Regards,Rohit Sinha
...celebrating Indian spirit and Cricket. 8MB video, really cool!
-
I have to agree with you, as a couple of the questions were couched in phrases that were ambiguous in meaning, but interpreted with a deliberate bias. On the whole, though, it is a thought provoking test, and I have no complaints about the illogical questions that I got hit by due to the scoring mechanism's penchant for changing the phrasing of the answer to mean something different from what the question asked. Such things are matters of opinion, it seems...:-D "Please don't put cigarette butts in the urinal. It makes them soggy and hard to light" - Sign in a Bullhead City, AZ Restroom
Roger Wright wrote: a couple of the questions were couched in phrases that were ambiguous in meaning, but interpreted with a deliberate bias. I have to agree. Besides, some of the questions were such that you will have to either bite a bullet or take a hit, no matter what you answer. One way or the other you are going to be inconsistent with what you answered previously.
Regards,Rohit Sinha
...celebrating Indian spirit and Cricket. 8MB video, really cool!
-
That was much more interesting. I answered them on my belief that love for an individual allows you infinite understanding, forgiveness, and moral exclusions, compared to those of a stranger. (Bare in mind I have no allusions of a higher being or greater purpose, but see things as a constant struggle with the priorities that affect and better your own life). As to the rest, I only view someone as responsible for the actions that have been made as a result of a conscious descision or deliberate negligence. I did not like question four however - it forced me to answer yes to 'either or' which I did not want to do. :( Final scrore: 59%. The interesting parts of the blurb I have repeated below: General The higher your percentage score the more parsimonious your moral framework. In other words, a high score is suggestive of a moral framework that comprises a minimal number of moral principles that apply across a range of circumstances and acts. What is a high score? As a rule of thumb, any score above 75% should be considered indicative of a parsimonious moral framework. However, perhaps a better way to think about this is to see how your score compares to other people's scores. In fact, your score of 59% is slightly lower than the average score of 66%. This suggests that you have utilised a somewhat wider range of moral principles than average in order to make judgements about the scenarios presented in this test, and that you have, at least on occasion, judged aspects of the acts and circumstances depicted here to be morally relevant that other people consider to be morally irrelevant. Family Relatedness In this category, we look at the impact of family loyalty and ties on the way in which moral principles are applied. The idea here is to determine whether moral principles are applied without modification or qualification when you're dealing with sets of circumstances and acts that differ only in whether the participants are related through family ties to the person making the judgement. Your score of 2% is a lot lower than the average score of 57% in this category. It seems then that family relatedness is an important factor in your moral thinking. Normally, this will mean feeling a greater moral obligation towards people who are related to you than towards those who are not. To the extent that issues of family relatedness form part of your moral thinking, the parsimoniousness of your moral framework is reduced. (My addition: I would not limit the above
-
(at least for me): Morality Play[^] OK, OK, I accept that my strong distinction between "acting knowingly" and "not preventing" is sub-average....
Italian is a beautiful language. amare means to love, and amara bitter.
sighist | Agile Programming | doxygen"A situation arises where you can either save your own child from death or contact the emergency services in order to save the lives of ten other children. You cannot do both, and there is no way to save everyone. Which course of action are you morally obliged to follow?" AAAAAAAAARGH! That was the worst for me! I consider "morality" to be a condition that should not be confused by geography, or biological links. The original quiz said you should answer according to what you thought was morally right, rather than what I would do, so I did, and that was reflected in my overall score (84%). I guess that makes me blatantly immoral, in reality, and I don't care :-D Debbie
-
just how internally consistent are you? http://www.philosophers.co.uk/games/god.htm[^] i took a couple of direct hits on what i consider to be bad questions / internal inconsistencies in the test itself. :) -c
Image tools: ThumbNailer, Bobber, TIFFAssembler
-
But if god did exist, he should be omnipotent, he should be able to do anything, even change what is evil and what is good, what is a lie and what is the truth. But then I don't think that what is moral and what is not depends on whether or not there is a god. Belief in god just gives us one more reason to be moral IMO. But things look OK if you accept the premise that god is beyond our perception of logic and rationality. If he does exist, he may have his own logic, something which we are just not capable to understand. But does it matter? ;P
Regards,Rohit Sinha
...celebrating Indian spirit and Cricket. 8MB video, really cool!
Rohit Sinha wrote: But things look OK if you accept the premise that god is beyond our perception of logic and rationality. I believe he is. Image about the "afterlife" with me... If death is not an ending, then do our insignificant lives here really mean that much in the grand scheme of things? Not really. Therefore, I think God would have a different set of morals than we have. Not really an entirely new set, but a set with different priorities. For example, (in Christianity) to God the death of a lost soul is tragic, yet still just since that person was "lost" (dead to him anyway). The death of a "saved" soul is joyous and a time to rejoice since that soul has returned home. So all death to us is a bad thing, whereas to God it means something different. Of course I could be wrong, since the wisdom of man is foolishness to God. Rohit Sinha wrote: But does it matter? I think it does. :-D
Jason Henderson
"You must be the change you wish to see in the world." - Gandhi -
"A situation arises where you can either save your own child from death or contact the emergency services in order to save the lives of ten other children. You cannot do both, and there is no way to save everyone. Which course of action are you morally obliged to follow?" AAAAAAAAARGH! That was the worst for me! I consider "morality" to be a condition that should not be confused by geography, or biological links. The original quiz said you should answer according to what you thought was morally right, rather than what I would do, so I did, and that was reflected in my overall score (84%). I guess that makes me blatantly immoral, in reality, and I don't care :-D Debbie
Debs wrote: according to what you thought was morally right, rather than what I would do That's what did too. I answered according to what I think I should in fairness do, not what I would do once I added emotional attachment into the picture. BW "The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts." - Bertrand Russell
-
just how internally consistent are you? http://www.philosophers.co.uk/games/god.htm[^] i took a couple of direct hits on what i consider to be bad questions / internal inconsistencies in the test itself. :) -c
Image tools: ThumbNailer, Bobber, TIFFAssembler
Rather disappointing. I had a couple of direct hits, but what the test deemed to be hypocracy on my part was actually lacking of fact on their part. I never said God existed. However, when asked I said if God exists then God would be able to do impossible things. When it asked if God could make a square circle or make 1+1=72 I said yes. I was not inconsistent, the test was assuming that I belived God existed. The other hit it gave me was much the same. In then end, rather than seeing this "game" as being insightful it appears to be smarmy and uppity. -- If it starts to make sense, you're in a cult.
-
"A situation arises where you can either save your own child from death or contact the emergency services in order to save the lives of ten other children. You cannot do both, and there is no way to save everyone. Which course of action are you morally obliged to follow?" AAAAAAAAARGH! That was the worst for me! I consider "morality" to be a condition that should not be confused by geography, or biological links. The original quiz said you should answer according to what you thought was morally right, rather than what I would do, so I did, and that was reflected in my overall score (84%). I guess that makes me blatantly immoral, in reality, and I don't care :-D Debbie
Debs wrote: I consider "morality" to be a condition that should not be confused by geography, or biological links. I agree on the geography front, but not on the biological links front. Suppose that a parent regards his/her child's claims to happiness, security etc. to be no greater than that of any other child in the world. If this is the general attitude of the parent to the child, is the child going to feel loved? I suggest not. Would the world be a better place if all children grew up not feeling loved. Again, I suggest not. Justice is impartial but personal relationships, if they are to be at all satisfying, must involve regarding someone as special. There is an inevitable tension involved here between the demands of justice and the demands of good personal relationships. I don't think that giving absolute preference to either demand is a good solution. John Carson
-
But if god did exist, he should be omnipotent, he should be able to do anything, even change what is evil and what is good, what is a lie and what is the truth. But then I don't think that what is moral and what is not depends on whether or not there is a god. Belief in god just gives us one more reason to be moral IMO. But things look OK if you accept the premise that god is beyond our perception of logic and rationality. If he does exist, he may have his own logic, something which we are just not capable to understand. But does it matter? ;P
Regards,Rohit Sinha
...celebrating Indian spirit and Cricket. 8MB video, really cool!
Rohit Sinha wrote: But things look OK if you accept the premise that god is beyond our perception of logic and rationality. It is not just religious belief that looks OK if you accept that the truth concerning it is beyond human logic and rationality. Everything looks OK. Saddam Hussein's policies look OK as do the policies of George Bush --- they are both just beyond our understanding. This "beyond our understanding" argument is a complete fraud. It is just a way to defend the indefensible. John Carson
-
I got caught with this one too. To me if I say God would be all powerful, then He would be able to change the definition of a circle to be square, I mean we can do that! To me I was being perfectly consistant. Baaahhh!! KaЯl wrote: This would seem to make rational discourse about God impossible We manage to prove that quite frequently here. :) BW "The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts." - Bertrand Russell
-
Michael A. Barnhart wrote: My personal take on the morality question. If God does not exist there is not a fixed basis for morality. I.E. Morality is then a general will of the people and that morality may change over time. Except to the extent that human biology pre-disposes human beings to come up with a particular morality --- a very strong effect in my opinion (e.g., almost all societies are against murder). Michael A. Barnhart wrote: With God it is fixed and does not change. You consider Old Testament and New Testament morality to be identical? John Carson
John Carson wrote: (e.g., almost all societies are against murder). Really? Through out history many societies have murdered. Cannibalism was practiced into the 1900's and human sacrifices were common. How many died in Stalin's Soviet Union or Hitler’s Germany? John Carson wrote: You consider Old Testament and New Testament morality to be identical? YES ""
-
John Carson wrote: (e.g., almost all societies are against murder). Really? Through out history many societies have murdered. Cannibalism was practiced into the 1900's and human sacrifices were common. How many died in Stalin's Soviet Union or Hitler’s Germany? John Carson wrote: You consider Old Testament and New Testament morality to be identical? YES ""
Michael A. Barnhart wrote: Really? Through out history many societies have murdered. Cannibalism was practiced into the 1900's and human sacrifices were common. How many died in Stalin's Soviet Union or Hitler’s Germany? Murder was typically a crime in the societies to which you refer (certainly it was a crime in Stalin's Soviet Union and Hitler's Germany). It is simply that those societies did not count certain types of killing as murder; a practice that all societies today maintain to some extent. This distinction should be familiar to you from the Old Testament. For example: Judges 11:30-39 And Jephthah made a vow to the Lord.: "If you give the Ammonites into my hands, whatever comes out of the door of my house to meet me when I return in triumph from the Ammonites will be the Lord's, and I will sacrifice it as a burnt offering."...When Jephthah returned to his home in Mizpah, who should come out to meet him but his daughter...and he did to her as he had vowed" Numbers 31:7-18 They fought against Midian, as the Lord commanded Moses, and killed every man...Moses was angry with the officers of the army---the commanders of thousands and the commanders of hundreds---who returned from the battle. "Have you allowed all the women to live?" he asked them...Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man. Michael A. Barnhart wrote: John Carson wrote: You consider Old Testament and New Testament morality to be identical? YES Exodus 21:17. Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death. Exodus 21:20. If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property. Numbers 15:32-36. While the Israelites were in the desert, a man was found gathering wood on the Sabbath day...Then the Lord said to Moses, "The man must die. The whole assembly must stone him outside the camp." So the assembly took him outside the camp and stoned him to death, as the Lord commanded Moses. Still applies? John Carson
-
Michael A. Barnhart wrote: Really? Through out history many societies have murdered. Cannibalism was practiced into the 1900's and human sacrifices were common. How many died in Stalin's Soviet Union or Hitler’s Germany? Murder was typically a crime in the societies to which you refer (certainly it was a crime in Stalin's Soviet Union and Hitler's Germany). It is simply that those societies did not count certain types of killing as murder; a practice that all societies today maintain to some extent. This distinction should be familiar to you from the Old Testament. For example: Judges 11:30-39 And Jephthah made a vow to the Lord.: "If you give the Ammonites into my hands, whatever comes out of the door of my house to meet me when I return in triumph from the Ammonites will be the Lord's, and I will sacrifice it as a burnt offering."...When Jephthah returned to his home in Mizpah, who should come out to meet him but his daughter...and he did to her as he had vowed" Numbers 31:7-18 They fought against Midian, as the Lord commanded Moses, and killed every man...Moses was angry with the officers of the army---the commanders of thousands and the commanders of hundreds---who returned from the battle. "Have you allowed all the women to live?" he asked them...Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man. Michael A. Barnhart wrote: John Carson wrote: You consider Old Testament and New Testament morality to be identical? YES Exodus 21:17. Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death. Exodus 21:20. If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property. Numbers 15:32-36. While the Israelites were in the desert, a man was found gathering wood on the Sabbath day...Then the Lord said to Moses, "The man must die. The whole assembly must stone him outside the camp." So the assembly took him outside the camp and stoned him to death, as the Lord commanded Moses. Still applies? John Carson
John Carson wrote: It is simply that those societies did not count certain types of killing as murder; a practice that all societies today maintain to some extent. So you beleive if you change the name of something, it now is in a different group. By that standard I can claim anything I wish as consistent or not as I define the segement of facts I choose in my set of facts to work with. John Carson wrote: Still applies? Yes, All of the items you mention I still think are wrong. ""
-
John Carson wrote: It is simply that those societies did not count certain types of killing as murder; a practice that all societies today maintain to some extent. So you beleive if you change the name of something, it now is in a different group. By that standard I can claim anything I wish as consistent or not as I define the segement of facts I choose in my set of facts to work with. John Carson wrote: Still applies? Yes, All of the items you mention I still think are wrong. ""
Michael A. Barnhart wrote: So you beleive if you change the name of something, it now is in a different group. By that standard I can claim anything I wish as consistent or not as I define the segement of facts I choose in my set of facts to work with. My original claim was that there is a tendency (obviously far from complete) for human societies to have a common morality. Thus almost all human societies have prohibitions against what is termed murder and almost all human societies accept some killing as not coming under that heading. The society portrayed in the Old Testament is an illustration. Plainly different societies differ in the rules that they apply in judging what killing is acceptable and what is not (and sometimes powerful individuals or groups within societies get away with committing killings that are contrary to the prevailing morality). In my own personal morality I do not for a moment think that killing becomes OK just because the prevailing group says it is OK --- nor do I think for a moment that killing is OK because it is claimed to be sanctioned by God. Michael A. Barnhart wrote: Yes, All of the items you mention I still think are wrong. You are deliberately not confronting the issues. The point is not whether you think gathering wood on the Sabbath is wrong. The point is whether you think a person should be stoned to death for it. You might also tell me whether the many massacres of women and children in the Old Testament still represent acceptable moral practice. Incidentally, the point of one of my quotations was not to identify something as wrong; it was to note something judged as acceptable. If you beat a slave and the slave is able to stand up within a day or two after the beating, then that is judged acceptable. Is it acceptable in terms of your (presumably New Testament-based) moral standards? John Carson
-
Michael A. Barnhart wrote: So you beleive if you change the name of something, it now is in a different group. By that standard I can claim anything I wish as consistent or not as I define the segement of facts I choose in my set of facts to work with. My original claim was that there is a tendency (obviously far from complete) for human societies to have a common morality. Thus almost all human societies have prohibitions against what is termed murder and almost all human societies accept some killing as not coming under that heading. The society portrayed in the Old Testament is an illustration. Plainly different societies differ in the rules that they apply in judging what killing is acceptable and what is not (and sometimes powerful individuals or groups within societies get away with committing killings that are contrary to the prevailing morality). In my own personal morality I do not for a moment think that killing becomes OK just because the prevailing group says it is OK --- nor do I think for a moment that killing is OK because it is claimed to be sanctioned by God. Michael A. Barnhart wrote: Yes, All of the items you mention I still think are wrong. You are deliberately not confronting the issues. The point is not whether you think gathering wood on the Sabbath is wrong. The point is whether you think a person should be stoned to death for it. You might also tell me whether the many massacres of women and children in the Old Testament still represent acceptable moral practice. Incidentally, the point of one of my quotations was not to identify something as wrong; it was to note something judged as acceptable. If you beat a slave and the slave is able to stand up within a day or two after the beating, then that is judged acceptable. Is it acceptable in terms of your (presumably New Testament-based) moral standards? John Carson
John Carson wrote: You are deliberately not confronting the issues. No, I am deliberately pointing out the extreme double standard you are using. You asked if morals have changed, what is right and wrong and it has not. Because scales have changed over centuries you say my beliefs have been inconsistent (which I assume your intent is to discredit) but when applied to what you want to say is consistent you apply whatever generalities you choose. ""
-
John Carson wrote: You are deliberately not confronting the issues. No, I am deliberately pointing out the extreme double standard you are using. You asked if morals have changed, what is right and wrong and it has not. Because scales have changed over centuries you say my beliefs have been inconsistent (which I assume your intent is to discredit) but when applied to what you want to say is consistent you apply whatever generalities you choose. ""
Michael A. Barnhart wrote: No, I am deliberately pointing out the extreme double standard you are using. You asked if morals have changed, what is right and wrong and it has not. Because scales have changed over centuries you say my beliefs have been inconsistent (which I assume your intent is to discredit) but when applied to what you want to say is consistent you apply whatever generalities you choose. Of course I am applying different standards because the nature of the claims is so different. My claim is simply that human biology pre-disposes human beings to certain types of morality, so one can see elements of commonality in moral systems. To take a term from programming, one can see "patterns", even where the implementation and feature set are significantly different. I claim no more than this. I certainly don't claim that morals haven't changed. Your claim is that God has laid down an unchanging set of moral standards. This vastly stronger claim must plainly meet a much stronger empirical test. I note that for the third time in a row you have been unwilling to address any specific moral question. "Scales have changed". That's a good one. When moral standards are spectacularly different, you use the sophistry that morals are the same, it is just the "scales" (whatever that might mean) that have changed. John Carson