Philosophical Health Check

Akkarin wrote: As a philosophy student I dislike this test lol, some of the questions are philosophically ambiguous.

Agreed:

Statements 8 and 18: What is faith?

25% of the people who have completed this activity have this tension in their beliefs.

You disagreed that:
It is quite reasonable to believe in the existence of a thing without even the possibility of evidence for its existence
But agreed that:
Atheism is a faith just like any other, because it is not possible to prove the non-existence of God

In disagreeing with the first statement, you are acting consistently with the general principle which states that in the absence of good grounds for believing something, it is not rational to believe it. For example, it is not possible to disprove the possibility that there are invisible pink fairies at this moment circling the planet Pluto, but we don’t countenance it as a real possibility because there is no evidence for their planetary activities. This is not to be thought of as a matter of faith, but of sound reasoning. But asserting that atheism is a faith just like any other, because it is not possible to prove the non-existence of God contradicts this principle. It replaces the principle 'in the absence of good grounds for believing something, it is not rational to believe it' with the principle, 'in the absence of good grounds for believing something, it requires faith not to believe it'. For this reason, atheism is not a matter of faith in the same way as belief in God. In short, belief without evidence (a form of faith) is not the same as non-belief due to lack of evidence (rational refusal to assent).

I simply don't agree with that assessment. If it is wrong to believe in something something because it is impossible to prove one way or the other, it is equally wrong to believe in the absence of that thing. If we can't know either way, then neither abject belief or abject denial are rational.

I understand the point it makes about the burden of proof, but I feel that's an unhelpful concept in metaphysics. Even if you disagree with my viewpoint, surely that's an obvious conclusion. It's known as agnosticism... pretty common perspective. Theists "strongly" believe in something I feel they have no evidence for; atheists "strongly" disbelieve in something I feel they have no evidence for. The point is, I believe we (should) require evidence before forming a strong opinion either way. There's no "tension" there.

I could not copy the graph, however I scored 40 and the average is 27. It said I had 6 tensions...however, I believe that some of these questions were not entirely fair:

Statements 10 and 23: Is there an all-good, all-powerful God?
28% of the people who have completed this activity have this tension in their beliefs.
You agreed that:
There exists an all-powerful, loving and good God ( yes, I was raised to believe in God and Jesus, the Bible, it wasn't until much later that I broadend my beliefs)
And also that:
To allow an innocent child to suffer needlessly when one could easily prevent it is morally reprehensible( I was raised that this was a given)


You agreed that:
There are no objective truths about matters of fact; 'truth' is always relative to particular cultures and individuals
And also that:
The holocaust is an historical reality, taking place more or less as the history books report
( To both of these, It is something I just believe in my heart. The question of Objective truth: Everyone has a different view on what the truth is)


54% of the people who have completed this activity have this tension in their beliefs.
You agreed that:
The environment should not be damaged unnecessarily in the pursuit of human ends
But disagreed that:
People should not journey by car if they can walk, cycle or take a train instead
( I live in Georgia, My parents live in Virginia. While I agree that if you can afford it, taking a Train is beneficial...not everyone can afford it. and If I walked or rode my bicycle to my parents house, I'd have to sleep for 3 days just to get my energy back... :lol:


You agreed that:
Individuals have sole rights over their own bodies ( you try to tell a woman how to or not to feel and see what happens...there are some women out there that if you tell them what to do or how to feel, they will react so badly it would scare the sith emperor into hiding) ....and no, I'm not married for those of you who joke about " you must be married SilverWolf" :lol:
And also that:
Voluntary euthanasia should remain illegal

( If the person is truly suffering and it is a last resort method because keeping them alive would mean they would live in constant pain, then yes, euthanize them. But to take a life needlessly, is not right)


You agreed that:
Severe brain-damage can rob a person of all consciousness and selfhood ( If a Invididual is so severely damaged they are basically kept alive by a machine, in my belief, that is not a healthy way to live, because it does take a mental toll on everyone in that person's life)
And also that:
On bodily death, a person continues to exist in a non-physical form ( watch the clip of Yoda explaining the force to luke before Yoda lifts the x-wing out of the Water, There is a lot of truth in what he says)

You agreed that:
The government should not permit the sale of treatments which have not been tested for efficacy and safety ( a lot of companies make medicines and I believe cut corners to get it out quickly, I believe that this is wrong)
And also that:
Alternative and complementary medicine is as valuable as mainstream medicine ( herbal medicine has been around for centuries in Asia, and in Native American culture, so it must have some value.I am currently learning all I can about it.

Anyway, This is what the results of my test were



SilverWolf

People seem to struggle with Atheism. Atheism means "no faith in god". NOT "faith in no god".

Agnosticism means there is no way to know.... And you can bet the vast majority of atheists are agnostics, as the main reason for lack of belief in god is the lack of evidence for a god.

The atheist lack of belief in allah is different from let's say, christians' belief that allah doesn't exist.

It said I have 4 tensions...

I read what they had tooffer and respectively, I don't believe I have any.

in my opinion 2 of the tensions were not tensions. First the thing about art being a taste... my reply to the second question was MY taste. Then the things about truth... oh god I don't even want to enter that discussion!!! Also morality,... again I gave MY opinion... ×_×

I didn't recognize one of the words in a question that resulted in a tension

ren wrote: People seem to struggle with Atheism. Atheism means "no faith in god". NOT "faith in no god".

Agnosticism means there is no way to know.... And you can bet the vast majority of atheists are agnostics, as the main reason for lack of belief in god is the lack of evidence for a god.

The atheist lack of belief in allah is different from let's say, christians' belief that allah doesn't exist.

Indeed, most people are agnostic atheists: they don't know if there is no God but they don't believe in one.

It is different to a gnostic atheist: they know they is no God.

A gnostic atheist you might argue is representing a belief, they choose to believe that there is no God in the same way a gnostic theist believes there is definitely a god.

Akkarin wrote:

ren wrote: People seem to struggle with Atheism. Atheism means "no faith in god". NOT "faith in no god".

Agnosticism means there is no way to know.... And you can bet the vast majority of atheists are agnostics, as the main reason for lack of belief in god is the lack of evidence for a god.

The atheist lack of belief in allah is different from let's say, christians' belief that allah doesn't exist.

Indeed, most people are agnostic atheists: they don't know if there is no God but they don't believe in one.

It is different to a gnostic atheist: they know they is no God.

A gnostic atheist you might argue is representing a belief, they choose to believe that there is no God in the same way a gnostic theist believes there is definitely a god.

I have an atheist friend who used to go on and on about how god isnt real, blah-blah....

He would post links and articles on it...

I ask him, why he did it, he said something about 'waking people up' and 'protecting them'....

I said, "From what"... He basically said "the evils of religion"....

I said,"so you are basically a 'Atheist Preacher'?"

The posts slowed, lol...

Third times a charm for me... :laugh:
No tensions in my belief...
First Average
Second time around, below average
third time, no tension...
I would have gotten it right the second time around, accidentally clicking on an agree, when I disagreed.

I enjoyed seeing the contradictions, and the explanation of analysis.

Br.John, how did you score? If you do not mind the question.

ren wrote: Atheism means "no faith in god". NOT "faith in no god".

It can be either. From the OED:

atheism
Line breaks: athe|ism
Pronunciation: /ˈeɪθɪɪz(ə)m /
NOUN

[MASS NOUN]
Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

Or, from the eternally reliable Wikipedia:

Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.

tzb wrote:

ren wrote: Atheism means "no faith in god". NOT "faith in no god".

It can be either. From the OED:

atheism
Line breaks: athe|ism
Pronunciation: /ˈeɪθɪɪz(ə)m /
NOUN

[MASS NOUN]
Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

Or, from the eternally reliable Wikipedia:

Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.

It's after the time at which my mind functions properly and I probably shouldn't post this...

But aren't these same tzb?

Mine were;
1. Statements 1 and 27: Is morality relative?
I have my own definition of evil which supports this, and is not subjective.

2. Statements 5 and 29: Can you put a price on a human life?
Option seemed to be to vulnerable to waste or mismanagement, not direct enough to be a contradiction.

3.Statements 24 and 3: How much must I protect the environment?
The problem here is the word 'unnecessary'.

4. Statements 26 and 6: Can I make choices for my own body?
Contradiction is subjective, termination of the body exceeds parameters for survival and so I consider it a breach of rights. (typed in automoton voice).

5. Statements 22 and 15: What is the seat of the self?
I wonder how many Jedi get the tension for "What is the seat of the self?".. perhaps the seat transforms/changes rather then exists in one state or the other.

6. Statements 14 and 25: How do we judge art?
Tension yes, but not a contradiction.

7. Statements 16 and 21: What should be legal?
Personal experience, on at least two examples.