Has anyone tried the religious belief consistency test?

[Shadow Wolf]

"Can you provide consistent answers (subject irrelevant) ? "

But as you found it's not just answers but views, such as the question about evolution and the question about believing god without impossibly high standards for the evidence. You indicated your views are not consistent in this area.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Amd everyone complaining is Western.
Looks like some people aren't as good as they claim or think.

The grapes were probably sour anyway.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I got a 100% score with 0 "hits" or "bullets." So I'm intellectually consistent and without cognitive dissonance, at least within the parameters of this test. Sounds about right.

That was how I scored, as well. On a couple of questions, it pays to be aware of what "knowledge" really means, in an epistemological sense.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Same here.

It was a little unclear, but I think that means it is safe to assume that we are better than everyone.

Which also means we may have to fight to the death. There can only be one.

No, not better -- it just means that we are more consistent in our analyses, and understand the difference between knowing and believing.

 

[Left Coast]

Sorry, gave up at 5. What do I know about upper case god? True or false the only answers. Rubbish.

I agree, which is why I answered those "false." But agree that for an agnostic the questions were sort of N/A.

 

[fantome profane]

I remember taking this test many years ago, and back then I managed to get through unscathed.

I just took it again and the only difference was on the last question. It turns out I am much older now.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

The reason I started this thread is because I have found a lot of thinking about religious topics (by both the religious AND the non-religious) to be frequently inconsistent. You'll find examples coming out the ying-yang in threads about the Problem of Evil, or Evolution versus Creation.

When I took the test, the very first question gave me pause: "God exists" -- now I do not believe in God (or gods), but I accept that my belief is not the same thing as knowledge, and so while I am an atheist, I had to answer, "I don't know."

All that aside, in navigating life and important considerations, I truly think it best that we go with the best information that we have. Thus, if there is a lot of evidence that something is essentially true (evolution, for example), and very little evidence for some contrary theory for the variety of life on earth, we're probably better off going with the evidence. The same thing, by the way, ought to be true in questions of pandemics and vaccines. Vaccine hesitancy is certainly a contributor to increasing infections, while vaccine uptake has been demonstrated to dramatically reduce serious illness and death. This allows one to infer, without certainty but with a good deal of confidence, that getting everybody vaccinated would be a good thing.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I remember taking this test many years ago, and back then I managed to get through unscathed.

I just took it again and the only difference was on the last question. It turns out I am much older now.

Well, that's unfortunate -- that you've gotten older but apparently no wiser!

 

[Secret Chief]

Asking if you believe in god or not and your views on some characteristics and properties isn't asking you about your religious beliefs?

That's right.

 

[savagewind]

It's interesting, and only takes a few minutes. And you might be surprised at how you fare.

Battleground God

I think that I might know what this is about! I'm in...if I don't get distracted too much

 

[Secret Chief]

But as you found it's not just answers but views, such as the question about evolution and the question about believing god without impossibly high standards for the evidence. You indicated your views are not consistent in this area.

Yes, I had one inconsistent answer. Perhaps I should have not rushed through it. Evolution has zero to do with my religious beliefs, which, anyway, are not enslaved to notions of consistency, rationality or other tenets of Western analytical philosophy. But then that is why there is so much talking past each other on this forum.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Yeah, you have be some what Western and understand logic. It is biased.

I seem to recall that studies in the History of Logic trace it back to Omaha, NE, but I could be mistaken. In any event, it is clearly Western (or, perhaps not).

 

[savagewind]

I shall call it fun if I am understanding Page One correctly.... here goes nothing. (god is inclined to let me know that I SHOULD NOT! tell you which two posters have appeared in my vision right now.)

 

[Secret Chief]

I agree, which is why I answered those "false." But agree that for an agnostic the questions were sort of N/A.

I decided to be an atheist to do the quiz as a good shot at a consistent easy-to-answer position.

 

[Moonjuice]

I also scored 100%, which made me feel pretty good about myself when I read that 100% of scores are worse than mine! However, since so many also scored the same, that victory is tarnished.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Battleground God - Analysis

You navigated the battlefield suffering 0 hits and biting 0 bullets, which represents an overall performance at the 100th percentile (i.e., 100% of scores are worse than yours).

 

[savagewind]

I might call question eight full of nonsense.

Question 8
It is justified to base one's belief about the external world - i.e., the world outside one's head - on a firm inner conviction, even in the absence of any independent evidence for the truth of this conviction... never mind - ie., I think upon three times try...I understand the question. Just so you know, I shall answer it NO!

 

[firedragon]

It's interesting, and only takes a few minutes. And you might be surprised at how you fare.

Battleground God

Haha. I know this one. Its a cheap trick. This one is used to demonstrate how people can manipulate others to get pretty much whatever they want.

 

[Left Coast]

I decided to be an atheist to do the quiz as a good shot at a consistent easy-to-answer position.

In fairness, I retook the test a second time through the lens of a classical theist and also made it through without any issues. So it's not a test designed only for atheists to pass with a perfect score, I don't think.

 

[Secret Chief]

In fairness, I retook the test a second time through the lens of a classical theist and also made it through without any issues. So it's not a test designed only for atheists to pass with a perfect score, I don't think.

Certainly. I could have tossed a coin and gone with either.