What's your spiritual type?

[Ruby]

Ok, it's another test from beliefnet.com, but I think it's better than the other one.

http://www.beliefnet.com/section/quiz/index.asp?sectionID=&surveyID=27

[Ruby]

My results: You scored 55, on a scale of 25 to 100.

50 - 59
Spiritual Straddler – One foot in traditional religion, one foot in free-form spirituality

Not much surprise there!

[Upchurch]

O pos.

er... I mean:

You scored 39, on a scale of 25 to 100. Here's how to interpret your score:

30 - 39 Spiritual Dabbler -- Open to spiritual matters but far from impressed

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

I got a 38. Some of the questions were, as usual, missing important possible answers.

~~ Paul

[Javalar]

32! The lowest score yet... :( Wait... Is that good or bad? ;)

30 - 39
Spiritual Dabbler -- Open to spiritual matters but far from impressed

[Seismosaurus]

Some of these questions were simply impossible for me to answer - they are even worse than that other quiz.

For instance, in Q15 we are given :

Regarding science and religion, I think:

1. Science eventually will disprove religion

2. We should be suspicious of scientists, since most of them are atheists

3. Scientific findings trouble me at times but do not reduce my faith, because science helps me understand God’s creation

4. Science and faith seem to me two aspects of the same search for ultimate truth

Option 1 is absurd - science will never disprove religion because it doesn't try to. It can disprove some aspects of some religions, but that's all. Option 2 is silly. Option 3 is not applicable to me because I don't have any faith to reduce. And Option 4 is nonsense because faith is not a search for truth at all; quite the opposite.

So what am I supposed to answer here?

Q14 is just as bad - the first three answers assume some belief in God, the last one assumes that disasters are proof against God. Personally I feel that disasters have absolutely nothing whatever to do with the existence of God, so I can't answer this one.

I could go on...

And since you can't get a score unless you answer all the questions, I guess I'm un-classifiable when it comes to matters of spirituality.

[Ruby]

Originally posted by Seismosaurus
Some of these questions were simply impossible for me to answer - they are even worse than that other quiz.



Sorry!!:(

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Ruby
My results: You scored 55, on a scale of 25 to 100.

50 - 59
Spiritual Straddler – One foot in traditional religion, one foot in free-form spirituality

Not much surprise there!

Hi Ruby,

I scored 60. I beat you :p :D

[Seismosaurus]

Originally posted by Ruby


Sorry!!:(

That wasn't a criticism of you, sorry if I came off as rude! Rather of the person who wrote the test.

It's just that almost all tests like this contain basic assumptions about people's beliefs, assumptions that I find often don't hold for me.

[Dancing David]

42- Spiritual Seeker, on the path but turned off by organized religion

Right Arm

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Dancing David
42- Spiritual Seeker, on the path but turned off by organized religion

Right Arm

I'm very much turned off by organised religion and I scored 60!

[PixyMisa]

Picking the best answers I could, 26. Since the best you can do is 25, and in some questions the skeptical answer is clearly illogical, I can live with that.

[Barkhorn1x]

Originally posted by PixyMisa
Picking the best answers I could, 26. Since the best you can do is 25, and in some questions the skeptical answer is clearly illogical, I can live with that.

...got a 28.

Barkhorn.

[Martin]

I got 26. No real surprise there.

[DialecticMaterialist]

33 guess I'm a "spiritual dabbler." Whatever that is. :rolleyes:

[Darwin]

Agreed that a few questions were foolishly built.

My score is 27.

[uneasy]

I tried to forget the whole thing when I took the link to be able to exchange messages with people of my same type and the first thing I saw was someone ranting about how we should not trust humans but only G-d just like the prophets have told us to. eh? A human telling me that some other humans told me that I should not trust humans? And he's my "type"? <run screaming into the night here>

[EdipisReks]

26. poorly put together test.

[justsaygnosis]

Interesting that there's no score lower than 25.
Could it be the site is in denial?
I liked the line,
'Interested otherwise you wouldn't be here.'
Investigators aren't always interested in what they investigate but they may be interested in finding out if what they're investigating is valid.

[Fade]

Switching out the bad answer for the good answer on a few of them, 27.

[Loki]

Score : 29 - Almost spiritual!!

For some reason, this question/answer reminded me of my sister!
Q12. Regarding those who hold beliefs that are sharply different from mine, I think:
1. It’s amazing the sort of nonsense some people will believe

[renata]

33- Dabbler

I concur, a pretty loaded quiz.

[Ruby]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


Hi Ruby,

I scored 60. I beat you :p :D

Gordon Bennett, you beat me!!!:D

[Ruby]

Originally posted by Seismosaurus


That wasn't a criticism of you, sorry if I came off as rude! Rather of the person who wrote the test.

It's just that almost all tests like this contain basic assumptions about people's beliefs, assumptions that I find often don't hold for me.

I totally understand and I'm glad you don't hold me accountable for the test! :D

[TylerD]

I scored 31, I'm a spiritual dabbler.

[triadboy]

I scored a 29, but some of the questions forced me down a path I didn't want. for instance:

Q17. I think children should:
1. Be raised to practice the faith of their parents
2. Be taught spiritual awareness but also to avoid affiliating with formal religion
3. Be encouraged to reject faith in favor of secular philosophy
4. Be exposed to many religious traditions and encouraged to make their own choices


I think children should be allowed to make their own choices. As a child, I was forced into a suit and dragged to church. The minute I had a choice I didn't go anymore. So how am I raising my child?

1? - I don't flaunt atheism to her. She's been to church with some of her friends and found it "weird".
2? - spiritual awareness? What is that?
3? - I've never told her not to believe in something or what to believe in. I try to let her make up her own mind. Thank god, my oldest daughter is agnostic. I'm just going to let the youngest one discover it on her own
4? - "OK, honey, tonight we are going to slay a goat and dance around this bonfire and chant." Puleeeeease!

So I picked 3 as the lesser of the evils

[sorgoth]

Hardcore atheist. What I thought.

Lots of the questions were crap, though.

[ebola]

30.

With such a high score, I must be doing something wrong.

Eric

[Whomp]

50. It doesn't get more wishy-washy than that! :p

Whomp!

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Whomp
50. It doesn't get more wishy-washy than that! :p

Whomp!

No-ones beaten me yet with my score of 60! :D I honestly answered all the questions as truthfully as possible. I'm somewhat amazed I've got the highest score though! :confused: I do suspect though that at least some people were deliberately trying to acheive a low score. What a pity.

[triadboy]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Interesting Ian
No-ones beaten me yet with my score of 60! :D I honestly answered all the questions as truthfully as possible. I'm somewhat amazed I've got the highest score though!

It's what I suspected - Pope Ian. :-)

[UnrepentantSinner]

You scored 38, on a scale of 25 to 100.

Loaded, and I tried to skip 2 of them that I just could not answer honestly, but not entirely worthless. I feel my score reflects my overall feelings about sprituality (which is I know it works for some people) than my own near complete lack of it.

[bjornart]

27. And yes, Ian, when faced with stupid choices I picked the one most likely to give me a low score. Doesn't make it less valid since the test is inherently biased.
"Interested or you wouldn't be here." Riight, mind readers they are.

[ImpyTimpy]

I scored 43... I tried to answer with an open mind but couldn't pick anything on some question so just picked randomly. Sorry Ruby, the test is pretty shoddy.



Active Spiritual Seeker – Spiritual but turned off by organized religion



I suppose in a purely philosophical sense I am.

[CSSMariner]

Howdy Ruby;

A 29 of all things, and far too high me thinks.

What hacked me off was the little comment that I must be seeking or I wouldn't be there almost made me send them a little note that I was sent there for some multiple-choice test that is meaningless in and of itself. However, I did not want them to get my Email address.

There were no questions for a born again pagan. However, I am hardcore in my disbeliefs of anything having to do with the supernatural in any form, which equates to a hardcore atheist. I seek not and am not interested in doing so.

[Seismosaurus]

Well, I went through and chose the closest thing I could find on the impossible questions...

I got 29. Not bad I guess.

[LW]

I didn't get past question 13. That was the first one where I couldn't choose any choices. (I do not have a faith that has any teachings).

[Peach Jr.]

I scored a 36 - "spiritual dabbler".

I agree with some of the other comments on the test; it was very poorly worded and skewed toward believers. But interesting anyway.

[DrMatt]

I got a 31 but I really should have had a 3 or 4. They counted appreciation of books and encouragement of free individual religious choice as "spiritual", and several questions only had spiritualist answers. The whole questionnaire is nastily slanted and shows a strong misunderstanding of the nature of science, reality, and freethought. I find most of the non-spiritualist answers offensively worded.

[Seismosaurus]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
I do suspect though that at least some people were deliberately trying to acheive a low score. What a pity.

Why is that a pity? Religious folks strive to be more religious all the time, why shouldn't us godless spiritless heathens try to be more spiritless and godless?

Edited to fix a typo (strike into strive). (Is it a rule that you have to say that when you edit a post, or what?)

[jimlintott]

30 spiritual dabbler ???:eek:

I'm not sure I can be a spiritual dabbler when I couldn't answer question 22 at all. I have no spiritual quest. Questions 14 and 25 could also not be answered. I had to go back and try again.

I should have scored lower.:mad: But I kicked Ian's butt. Low scores are better, right.:D

[PixyMisa]

Originally posted by jimlintott
30 spiritual dabbler ???:eek: Well, if you rescaled the test so that scores were in the range 0 to 100, that would be a 7. Sounds a lot more reasonable, doesn't it?I should have scored lower.:mad: But I kicked Ian's butt. Low scores are better, right.:D Indubitably.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Seismosaurus


Why is that a pity? Religious folks strive to be more religious all the time, why shouldn't us godless spiritless heathens try to be more spiritless and godless?

Edited to fix a typo (strike into strive). (Is it a rule that you have to say that when you edit a post, or what?)

I really don't see the purpose of taking the quiz unless you're going to be honest in your answers!

[stamenflicker]

And Option 4 is nonsense because faith is not a search for truth at all; quite the opposite.

How insanely limited the scope of such a world view.

Flick

[PixyMisa]

Originally posted by stamenflicker
And Option 4 is nonsense because faith is not a search for truth at all; quite the opposite.

How insanely limited the scope of such a world view.How so? This statement clearly follows from the dictionary definition of faith. Faith is belief without evidence, which is intrinsically a repudiation of the search for truth.

[Fade]

Originally posted by stamenflicker
And Option 4 is nonsense because faith is not a search for truth at all; quite the opposite.

How insanely limited the scope of such a world view.

Flick

Pixy beat me!

Anyway, as with most things, you are wrong :)

[LW]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian

I really don't see the purpose of taking the quiz unless you're going to be honest in your answers!

For me, it was impossible to be honest in my answers. None of the given choices matched what I would have answered honestly.

[Seismosaurus]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


I really don't see the purpose of taking the quiz unless you're going to be honest in your answers!

Think of them as being the answers that you aspire to...

[Seismosaurus]

Originally posted by PixyMisa
How so? This statement clearly follows from the dictionary definition of faith. Faith is belief without evidence, which is intrinsically a repudiation of the search for truth.

Perfectly said.

Faith is a statement that a particular view is true, without evidence to support it - or even despite evidence to contradict it.

How can this possibly be called a search for truth?

[ehbowen]

OK, Ian, read it and weep:

(quote)

What's Your Spiritual Type?

You scored 91, on a scale of 25 to 100. Here's how to interpret your score:

25 - 29
Hardcore Skeptic -- but interested or you wouldn't be here!
30 - 39
Spiritual Dabbler -- Open to spiritual matters but far from impressed
40 - 49
Active Spiritual Seeker – Spiritual but turned off by organized religion
50 - 59
Spiritual Straddler – One foot in traditional religion, one foot in free-form spirituality
60 - 69
Old-fashioned Seeker -- Happy with my religion but searching for the right expression of it
70 - 79
Questioning Believer – You have doubts about the particulars but not the Big Stuff
80 - 89
Confident Believer – You have little doubt you’ve found the right path
90 - 100
Candidate for Clergy

(Eric)

And, yes, I was as honest as possible.

If you'd like to have some more fun, try this:

The Philosophers' Magazine--Battleground God (http://www.philosophers.co.uk/games/god.htm)

My score: No direct hits, two bullets bitten.

(quote)

You have been awarded the TPM medal of distinction! This is our second highest award for outstanding service on the intellectual battleground.

The fact that you progressed through this activity without being hit and biting very few bullets suggests that your beliefs about God are internally consistent and well thought out.

[stamenflicker]

This statement clearly follows from the dictionary definition of faith. Faith is belief without evidence, which is intrinsically a repudiation of the search for truth.

Pixy & Fade,

You are so mistaken in regards to what you accept as "truth." Truth mainifests itself at numerous levels. As I've said before, we can take the statement--

"The grass is always greener on the other side of the fence."

Then we can take our color cards from the local paint store, pull a blade of grass from each side of the fence and come back with the response and compare it to our color cards. "No it isn't. Your statement is not true," we can reply with accuracy.

Or we can learn to think outside the box, discover meaning and truth in the sentence and see where or how it applies to human experience.

Like I said, you blade pickers and color patch freaks live extremely limited lives in your quest for truth.

Flick

PS-- Ruby, I scored 73.

[Fade]

You are so mistaken in regards to what you accept as "truth." Truth mainifests itself at numerous levels. As I've said before, we can take the statement--

No.

Truth is truth.

All your silly theologizing doesn't change that simple fact.

Try again though. Maybe one of these days you'll hit on something meaningfull.

[PixyMisa]

Originally posted by stamenflicker
Blah blah.

None of which is relevant. Faith is belief without evidence. If you have faith, you are not seeking the truth, you're assuming it. If you have evidence, it's not faith.

[stamenflicker]

FADE -- All your silly theologizing doesn't change that simple fact.

PIXY -- None of which is relevant

The depth of these responses will keep me occupied for hours. Thanks for the philos-OH-phizing. I check back later to see if you have contributed something a little deeper.

Flick

[evildave]

You didn't answer all of the questions so we can't tally your score.
Hit your browser's back button to finish answering the questions.


After going back and poking radio buttons for unanswered questions: 38; Dabbler.

Taking the test is a bit like explaining a "False Dilemma (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/false-dilemma.html)" to Franko again.

Several of the questions were better candidates for "no answer". I can't just leave the "Have you stopped kicking babies?" questions blank and get a score out of it. I suppose the deeper question to ask ourselves is, what do we expect from the spiritual equivalent of a "Is your boyfriend cute enough?" quiz in a teeny bopper magazine.

[aerosolben]

31. Usually the skeptical answer, but for a few pragmatic uses of tolerance (such as prayer, which isn't useless just because it doesn't do what you think it does).

Originally posted by stamenflicker
Like I said, you blade pickers and color patch freaks live extremely limited lives in your quest for truth.

You're misusing the word truth, methinks. Perhaps you mean fulfillment.
You also seem to have developed a very antagonistic view of skepticism, I'm sorry to see.

[BillyJoe]

Originally posted by PixyMisa
Faith is belief without evidence. If you have faith, you are not seeking the truth, you're assuming it. If you have evidence, it's not faith. We all have faith.

It's a question of whether we have blind faith or evidence-based faith.
(See Randi's take in this weeks Commentary)


BTW, Score: 28 - Hardcore Skeptic.

[Mercutio]

Wow. I don't know what it says about me, but I did not even go to the site. I have a problem with the use of the phrase "spiritual type" in the first place--it would be a little like asking what sort of a flower a socket wrench is, or what sort of model ship a spiral galaxy is, or some other impossiblilty. Reading through the posts, seeing the scores, I still have absolutely no interest in going to this site. It did surprise me to see nobody else here with this comment--yes, at least one unable to finish the test, but you all at least tried. Again, I don't know what this says about me...

:confused:

[stamenflicker]

You're misusing the word truth, methinks. Perhaps you mean fulfillment.

I disagree. If I had used the word fact, perhaps. Truth and fact are very different things. Take the example I provided...

"The grass is always greener on the other side of the fence."

Is this a true statement? The answer is that it depends.
Is this a factual statement? The answer is a resounding no.

Here we see perfectly that truth is the interplay of language: the intent of the communicator and the ability of the receipent to decipher the statement's validity.

What we have on this board are people uncapable of finding "truth" because they have been blinded by facts. This ultimately results in meaning deprivation in the individual's life. I can only suggest that such individuals expand their ability to receive truth.

Flick

[Seismosaurus]

Or we can learn to think outside the box, discover meaning and truth in the sentence and see where or how it applies to human experience.

Like I said, you blade pickers and color patch freaks live extremely limited lives in your quest for truth.

You are simply playing with words here. The phrase "the grass is always greener..." is not a literal one. But it is meant to represent a real truth. Stated properly, it would say "people always believe that the situation others are in is better than their own situation" - or similar.

But this is still a completely testable statement; we can do research to find out if this statement really is true, just as you describe. Or, we can simply have faith that it is even though we lack evidence, or in spite of whatever evidence we do have.

If we do take that latter path, then we are not searching for the truth of the statement - we are still just deciding that it is true no matter what.

[Loki]

Flick,

I know what you're trying to say here, but I think your oversimplifying Fade/Pixy's statements...

Is this a true statement? The answer is that it depends.
Is this a factual statement? The answer is a resounding no.
Look at your first point : "Is this a true statement? The answer is that it depends.". Neither Fade or Pixy are disagreeing with you (neither is claiming that (a) it's a true statement; or (b) it's an irrelevant or undeterminable statement).

Seems to me that the "it depends" part is crucial, and the point being expressed here is it *should not depend* solely upon faith. If faith is your only, or even the most frequently used, tool for determining truth, then you're in trouble.

For me, the bigger the question, the less I feel that faith alone is a good guide to truth.
For (many) theists, the bigger the question, the more they feel the need to turn to faith for the truth.

[asthmatic camel]

29

No doubt these results will be displayed as a chart with no-one scoring less than 25 % spirituality.

Regards,

asthmatic camel.

(edited as a result of poor typing skills)

[aerosolben]

Originally posted by stamenflicker

Is this a true statement? The answer is that it depends.
...
Here we see perfectly that truth is the interplay of language: the intent of the communicator and the ability of the receipent to decipher the statement's validity.


You are misapplying the word true. What I (now) think you mean to say, is that the statement has meaning or value, beyond the direct literal interpretation (which is obviously incorrect) and the literal interpretation of the metaphor (there are probably circumstances in which you are quite happy with the things you have, creating a exception which negates the universal). A better version would be perhaps "The grass is frequently greener on the other side".

Even this, though, merits empirical investigation, which is why empiricism trumped logical deduction in philosophy some time ago (I forget the philosopher who conclusively proved that deduction does not lead to the discovery of new information).

What about "Absence makes the heart grow fonder" and "Out of sight, out of mind"? These could be considered 'true' (by your usage), but in many cases, are clearly contradictory. The best approach is, of course, to determine empirically which is actually correct in a situation.

I seem to be rambling. I hope my position is a bit clearer now, though.

[asthmatic camel]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by ehbowen
[B]OK, Ian, read it and weep:

(quote)


If you'd like to have some more fun, try this:

The Philosophers' Magazine--Battleground God (http://www.philosophers.co.uk/games/god.htm)

My score: No direct hits, two bullets bitten.

__________________________________________________


Two bullets bitten here too. Did you try the "Taboo" game? How incredibly bizarre that is; not to be attempted by any readers with a distaste for necrophilia combined with frozen bestiality.

The mind boggles.

Regards,

asthmatic camel

[Loki]

ehbowen,

OK, Ian, read it and weep:
...
If you'd like to have some more fun, try this:
...
My score: No direct hits, two bullets bitten
Ian has already taken that test, and failed pretty spectacularly. He had this to say after his first attempt :
I took 5 direct hits. But the reasons given as to why I "contradicted" myself were clearly fallacious, so I shouldn't have taken any hits.
hmmmm......

[PixyMisa]

Originally posted by asthmatic camel
Two bullets bitten here too.I took a hit, but I'd argue with the way they worded that question.Did you try the "Taboo" game? How incredibly bizarre that is; not to be attempted by any readers with a distaste for necrophilia combined with frozen bestiality.

The mind boggles.It does indeed.

Moralising: 0.33
Interference: 0.00
Universalising: 0.50

[Martin]

Originally posted by asthmatic camel
If you'd like to have some more fun, try this:

The Philosophers' Magazine--Battleground God (http://www.philosophers.co.uk/games/god.htm)No direct hits, no bullets bitten.Did you try the "Taboo" game? How incredibly bizarre that is; not to be attempted by any readers with a distaste for necrophilia combined with frozen bestialityYour Moralising Quotient is: 0.00.

Your Interference Factor is: 0.00

Your Universalising Factor is: 0.00

[Seismosaurus]

Zero direct hits, one bullet bitten.

Is biting a bullet meant to be a bad thing? My analysis said :

"You stated earlier that evolutionary theory is essentially true. However, you have now claimed that it is foolish to believe in God without certain, irrevocable proof that she exists. The problem is that there is no certain proof that evolutionary theory is true - even though there is overwhelming evidence that it is true. So it seems that you require certain, irrevocable proof for God's existence, but accept evolutionary theory without certain proof."

This seems obviously true to me - extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and god is surely the most extraordinary claim of all. Perfectly consistent.

Once again I had some problems with the questions, though this one was far better designed than the others.

[Javalar]

Originally posted by Seismosaurus
Zero direct hits, one bullet bitten.

Is biting a bullet meant to be a bad thing? My analysis said :

"You stated earlier that evolutionary theory is essentially true. However, you have now claimed that it is foolish to believe in God without certain, irrevocable proof that she exists. The problem is that there is no certain proof that evolutionary theory is true - even though there is overwhelming evidence that it is true. So it seems that you require certain, irrevocable proof for God's existence, but accept evolutionary theory without certain proof."

This seems obviously true to me - extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and god is surely the most extraordinary claim of all. Perfectly consistent.

Once again I had some problems with the questions, though this one was far better designed than the others. Actually, I think the test is right. There is a difference between extraordinary evidence and irrevocable evidence.

[Jet Grind]

I for one find this test to be very biased. The questions did not cover all (or even the most likely, in some cases) of the answers to the questions that were asked. For instance, on the question of God they make you say he either does or doesn't exist. There should have been an option that said "There is no enough evidence to warrent a belief in God". On top of that I went back after I took the test again, gave the most skeptical answer that I could think of to every question, and I still came out a spiritual dabbler. Maybe they're simply trying to get more people to declare themselves "spiritual".

[Seismosaurus]

Originally posted by Javalar
Actually, I think the test is right. There is a difference between extraordinary evidence and irrevocable evidence.

What I'm asking is does my making this distinction and thus having to "bite the bullet" translate into a bad thing in this test? It seems to, but I don't think it should.

[Agammamon]

Wow! My score was "Baby-eating Atheist".







Just kidding, I got a 30. Though some of the answers had to be fudged since they didn't quite fit.

[Finella]

Sheesh, this quiz was awful. And I'm a Christian, which makes this a little odd.

I couldn't even get past Q7:

Q7. I think that following life:
1. There is an afterlife for the virtuous but no hell; the evil simply cease to exist
2. There is reincarnation or some other condition
3. There is nothing
4. There is an afterlife in which we are judged, then rewarded or punished

The closest answer to my belief is number 1, but that's still not quite it; it's certainly not number 4, either. I guess being an ENFP I never liked multiple-choice tests anyway. :)

And Q5??

Q5. I believe that the universe we observe:
1. Is natural in origin, but has higher spiritual aspects
2. Was created supernaturally
3. Is completely natural and has no higher aspect
4. Was created under divine guidance, but using natural physics

It's none of these; I believe God is natural, God made natural laws, and God is also spiritual. Option 4 is closest to my beliefs, but it sounds like "natural physics" is outside of God, like he had to follow some laws that he had nothing to do with. Which is not how I see it at all. Option 3 sounds like God "poofed" everything into existence all at once, and is too close to a literal 6-day creation scenario for me.

BTW, my man made me do the Philosopher's Magazine thing a while back, I took a couple bullets. But I didn't like their questions, either -- God isn't always rational, which makes rational questions about him/her silly sometimes. IMO. :)

[Javalar]

Originally posted by Seismosaurus
What I'm asking is does my making this distinction and thus having to "bite the bullet" translate into a bad thing in this test? It seems to, but I don't think it should. The awnser is: not really... This only means that according to your awnsers you believe the theory of evolution to be essentially true because it presents extraordinary evidence, but would demand irrevocable evidence before you would believe in the existance of a God.

Thus, theoretically you are not totally consistant in your belief: you demand a higher standard for the existance of a God than you demand for the theory of evolution.

I believe it is simply a matter of mixing up extraordinary and irrevocable.

Am I making any sense?

[Loki]

Finella,

God isn't always rational, ...
Gasp! He's not? You mean you think god behaves irrationally sometimes?

...which makes rational questions about him/her silly sometimes. IMO
Or do you mean he's always rational, but sometimes we mere mortals lack the 'big picture' informatoin to understand the rationale behind god's behaviour?

[Seismosaurus]

Originally posted by Javalar
Thus, theoretically you are not totally consistant in your belief: you demand a higher standard for the existance of a God than you demand for the theory of evolution.

But I don't see this as a contradiction, as such. I acknowledge that I am using different standards of evidence, but I see that as a good and desirable thing.

I believe it is simply a matter of mixing up extraordinary and irrevocable.

Am I making any sense?

Yes. My only argument is that the test seems to have an inbuilt assumption along the lines of "to be consistent, you should believe that all theories should be regarded as true if the supporting evidence reaches a certain standard".

Whereas in actuality different standards are and should be applied, depending on the nature of the claim. With god needing the highest standard of all, since he/she/it ranks as the most extraordinary claim possible.

Well anyway, flawed as it is at least the test is provoking people to discussion, so some good has come of it.

[Finella]

Originally posted by Loki
Finella,


Gasp! He's not? You mean you think god behaves irrationally sometimes?


Or do you mean he's always rational, but sometimes we mere mortals lack the 'big picture' informatoin to understand the rationale behind god's behaviour?

Hm. Let's put it this way. Is love rational? Is self-sacrifice rational?

[Clancie]

38. curious, but far from impressed, which sounds right.

As for the test, I think they could have tilted the choices less toward religion (about a 3:1 ratio). Also, the scoring should emphasize to people the difference between spirituality vs. religion.

For me, one of the interesting questions was:

Q19. What frustrates me most about faith is:

1. That even having faith and treating others well does not prevent bad things from happening to me or my loved ones
2. That ultimate events such as the Second Coming do not happen
3. That religions continue to create barriers and hostility between people
4. That God allows so much suffering and evil

My answer was "That having faith doesn't change anything, other than, possibly, make you yourself feel and act better".

I think that fits better for #1, but I agree more with #3 which is what I picked. Thought provoking quiz, Ruby!

[TheERK]

Originally posted by Finella


Hm. Let's put it this way. Is love rational? Is self-sacrifice rational?

Yes. What is irrational about either of these things?

[BillyJoe]

Originally posted by ehbowen
The Philosophers' Magazine--Battleground God (http://www.philosophers.co.uk/games/god.htm) I just joined the 7.53% with no hits and no bites.
If you regard yourself as a sceptic, it is actually a good test of how rationally sceptic you are.

[Loki]

Finella,

(Like theERK said...)
Hm. Let's put it this way. Is love rational? Is self-sacrifice rational?
Of course! Are you equating 'irrational' with 'unknown reasons'? I would normally use the term to mean "without reason".

[Darwin]

They can be seen as very rational.
To answer these questions rationally may not please many people though.

[Finella]

Ah, since I made the claim, then I must back it up, eh? :)

But then I would love to hear how love and self-sacrifice ARE rational from you folk, then. Deal?

Love cannot be rationally assumed, it is not something you decide upon to do. One does not look at your newborn child and say, "Ah, this is my kid. I will love it because that it how I will best facilitatie its growth and nurturance." No, love comes from within, unbidden, and without regard for your rational faculties and will. When you fall in love with someone, it may be with the wrong person, and it may be that the love is not reciprocated. Why would you do such a thing, as a rational person, if you deemed it was irrational to do so? The answer is you cannot help it. Again, love arises, unbidden, from within.

Note I am not talking about lust or reproductive drives. I am talking about the ineffible desire to care for and adore another person. This can span all ages, all generations, and all social classes and schemas.

This love can move one to do acts of self-sacrifice. There is certainly nothing rational about such acts. For example, consider a situation where a 90-year-old woman falls as she is crossing a busy street. A 30-year-old computer programmer rushes into the street to stop traffic and pull her to safety, risking his own life. Rationally, his life is more beneficial to society; he may have a family at home to support and protect. The 90-year-old woman, however, is a drain on resources. She may be demented, even, and not capableof imparting any wisdom or insight to the younger generation. Does the 30-year-old stop and rationally decide that his life is worth risking for this woman? No. He has no time. He does it out of love, out of an impulse, for other human beings. He does it selflessly, and possibly to the loss of society.

[Darwin]

"Ah, since I made the claim, then I must back it up, eh? "

You sure are entering the realm of rational thought,he,he.
I´ll have to give you props for that.


"Love cannot be rationally assumed, it is not something you decide upon to do. One does not look at your newborn child and say, "Ah, this is my kid. I will love it because that it how I will best facilitatie its growth and nurturance." No, love comes from within, "

Hmmm.
As I did say,this kind of an interpretation may be offending to some but I´ll try to express it as clearly as possible.
Our understanding may differ but sticking to words,I agree such a response can come from within.
A dog,having given birth to her puppies,probably does not think "ah,this/these are my kid(s).I better take good care of them until they can do on their own".
Yet she knows exactly what to do,this we call "maternal instincts".As far as I understand,mammals share the "program" of maternal instincts to some degree at least (my interpretation is that with mammals,may it be hominidae or canine,do share certain parts of brain called "mammalian" and "limbic" system)
"Lower" animals which basically refers to non-mammals of reptiles,amphibians and related species do have more primitive brains than mammals,this is considered a rule (they are without mechanisms like those)
When it comes to "within" (what could imo more correctly be termed "unconcious" in this case) we could posit that this kind of action rises from there.
It is very rational for our dog to take care of her pups,after all she "knows" (I´ll be adding "" since I honestly do not know how dogs think) that they´re there for a reason.She is being "told" to take care of them.She realizes they are of her blood and most importantly,genes.Under her care,they will develop and one day after reaching fertility,be able to pass on their own offspring (ultimately,their offspring stems from their parents whose genes they will carry in a manner or another)
Again I state,may it be hominidae or canine...
As an additional note to push my point,I shall add that there is considerable evidence between differing treatment,from loving to highly dangerous,between BIOlogical mothers and non-biological/stepmothers.


"Note I am not talking about lust or reproductive drives. I am talking about the ineffible desire to care for and adore another person. This can span all ages, all generations, and all social classes and schemas."

Cooperation works.
We may be dealing with altruism.

[TheERK]

Originally posted by Finella
Ah, since I made the claim, then I must back it up, eh? :)

Love cannot be rationally assumed, it is not something you decide upon to do. One does not look at your newborn child and say, "Ah, this is my kid. I will love it because that it how I will best facilitatie its growth and nurturance." No, love comes from within, unbidden, and without regard for your rational faculties and will.

One does not think "Ah, my eyes hurt. I think I'll blink to apply some moisture." No, blinking comes from within, unbidden, and without regard for your rational faculties and will.

Love is like an instinct. You are correct in stating that loving someone is not always rational. The human brain is sloppy. For example, we have some sort of process which helps us to recognize faces everywhere we go, but this results in seeing faces when there are none. Similarly, we have the instinct to love people, particularly our children becuase it's a survival advantage, and not surprisingly, sometimes our love is applied in the wrong places.

Originally posted by Finella
When you fall in love with someone, it may be with the wrong person, and it may be that the love is not reciprocated. Why would you do such a thing, as a rational person, if you deemed it was irrational to do so? The answer is you cannot help it. Again, love arises, unbidden, from within.

Basically, all you're saying is that humans do random things, sometimes stupidly so. This is not at all surprising, because, once again, we aren't perfect in any way.

Originally posted by Finella
Note I am not talking about lust or reproductive drives. I am
talking about the ineffible desire to care for and adore another person. This can span all ages, all generations, and all social classes and schemas.

That may not be what you're talking about, but there's essentially no difference between them. They're just different emotions that occur for different reasons.

Originally posted by Finella
This love can move one to do acts of self-sacrifice. There is certainly nothing rational about such acts. For example, consider a situation where a 90-year-old woman falls as she is crossing a busy street. A 30-year-old computer programmer rushes into the street to stop traffic and pull her to safety, risking his own life. Rationally, his life is more beneficial to society; he may have a family at home to support and protect. The 90-year-old woman, however, is a drain on resources. She may be demented, even, and not capableof imparting any wisdom or insight to the younger generation. Does the 30-year-old stop and rationally decide that his life is worth risking for this woman? No. He has no time. He does it out of love, out of an impulse, for other human beings. He does it selflessly, and possibly to the loss of society.

In some cases, indeed, there is nothing rational about such acts--like in your example. However, there's nothing mysterious or romantic about what you're saying. In most cases, these acts of sacrifice ARE beneficial to society. In other words, altruism is a survival advantage to the species as a whole (an aspect of evolution that many people overlook). Yet, once again, the methods of the brain are sloppy, and our instincts will force us to apply such altruism to situations where they don't help anything--like your example.

[Loki]

Finella,

But then I would love to hear how love and self-sacrifice ARE rational from you folk, then
Forgive the rather 'nasty' tone of this example. You want some 'evidence' that love is rational? Imagine for a moment that you have just discovered that your husband has been raping your own daughter, repeatedly, for years. Are you trying to tell me that your feelings for him would be unaffected by this sudden revelation? The point of this - a simple example of how 'love' is clearly affected by rational thought. Proof that love is entirely rational? No - that's more complicated to demonstrate, but no less true just because it requires more depth!

[Finella]

I'm afraid, Loki, that your crass example has hit a little close to home -- and not literally, but in the sense that a loved one has done quite terrible things (and not of the magnitude you describe, but terrible enough) and yet I am in the process of realizing that yes, I do love this person despite all of this. Why? Because I understand this person, deep inside. Love and empathy are very closely related.

Another example: a rational thing for a person to do in your situation would be to chop the husband's testicles into tiny little pieces. Yet you still see women in such situations loving their husbands -- to their own perplexity and confusion -- and remaining in the relationship. I'm not saying this is right, and I'm not saying it's healthy. But again, it demonstrates that love is not rational.

Love may be affected by rational thought, but that doesn't make it rational.

[Finella]

Originally posted by TheERK


One does not think "Ah, my eyes hurt. I think I'll blink to apply some moisture." No, blinking comes from within, unbidden, and without regard for your rational faculties and will.

Love is like an instinct. You are correct in stating that loving someone is not always rational. The human brain is sloppy. For example, we have some sort of process which helps us to recognize faces everywhere we go, but this results in seeing faces when there are none. Similarly, we have the instinct to love people, particularly our children becuase it's a survival advantage, and not surprisingly, sometimes our love is applied in the wrong places.



Basically, all you're saying is that humans do random things, sometimes stupidly so. This is not at all surprising, because, once again, we aren't perfect in any way.



That may not be what you're talking about, but there's essentially no difference between them. They're just different emotions that occur for different reasons.



In some cases, indeed, there is nothing rational about such acts--like in your example. However, there's nothing mysterious or romantic about what you're saying. In most cases, these acts of sacrifice ARE beneficial to society. In other words, altruism is a survival advantage to the species as a whole (an aspect of evolution that many people overlook). Yet, once again, the methods of the brain are sloppy, and our instincts will force us to apply such altruism to situations where they don't help anything--like your example.

So if I understand you, then, you're saying that because our brains are "sloppy" they make "irrational" commands, and therefore love seems "irrational" when really it is "rational," we're just mistaking it for something more mysterious.

Oooookay.

"You are correct in stating that loving someone is not always rational. "

Isn't that what I was saying?

[eli54]

What's Your Spiritual Type?

You scored 34, on a scale of 25 to 100.

Some of the questions just pissed me off with the lack of choices.

Seems like most of the people I have learned most from are agnostic or atheist, but uphold the behaviors most desired by the religious machines.

[Loki]

Finella,

I'm afraid, Loki, that your crass example has hit a little close to home
Apologies for the crassness - I thought about trying for a different analogy, but it seemed "the best" (on short notice) to make the point. Sorry for 'lowering the tone'!

... yet I am in the process of realizing that yes, I do love this person despite all of this
You missed my point (perhaps?). I didn't intend to say that such an event *must* force you stop loving someone - but rather, it exposes that *there is a process* that humans go through. You use the exact words here! "Love" is a process that you go through, and it is driven by rational thought. You may come to a point where you "love...despite all of this", and someone else will not. The difference is in your experiences, and how you reason through your needs and desires.

And sorry again that this conversation took on a "personal edge" for you. I'm more than happy to change the subject, or just drop it!

[Finella]

Originally posted by Darwin
You sure are entering the realm of rational thought,he,he.
I´ll have to give you props for that.
I didn't realize I had yet to "enter the realm," as it t'were...

Hmmm.
As I did say,this kind of an interpretation may be offending to some but I´ll try to express it as clearly as possible.
Our understanding may differ but sticking to words,I agree such a response can come from within.
A dog,having given birth to her puppies,probably does not think "ah,this/these are my kid(s).I better take good care of them until they can do on their own".
Yet she knows exactly what to do,this we call "maternal instincts".As far as I understand,mammals share the "program" of maternal instincts to some degree at least (my interpretation is that with mammals,may it be hominidae or canine,do share certain parts of brain called "mammalian" and "limbic" system)
"Lower" animals which basically refers to non-mammals of reptiles,amphibians and related species do have more primitive brains than mammals,this is considered a rule (they are without mechanisms like those)
When it comes to "within" (what could imo more correctly be termed "unconcious" in this case) we could posit that this kind of action rises from there.
It is very rational for our dog to take care of her pups,after all she "knows" (I´ll be adding "" since I honestly do not know how dogs think) that they´re there for a reason.She is being "told" to take care of them.She realizes they are of her blood and most importantly,genes.Under her care,they will develop and one day after reaching fertility,be able to pass on their own offspring (ultimately,their offspring stems from their parents whose genes they will carry in a manner or another)
Again I state,may it be hominidae or canine...
As an additional note to push my point,I shall add that there is considerable evidence between differing treatment,from loving to highly dangerous,between BIOlogical mothers and non-biological/stepmothers.

You have dealt with the lovely familial relationship, but you have not dealt with loving relationships outside of this situation, which, as I said, "can span all ages, all generations, and all social classes and schemas." Are you attributing the loving long friendship of two straight men in their 60s to maternal instinct? What about if a woman you love goes off and sleeps with three other guys, and you find yourself still loving her? We find ourselves in situations all the time loving people where there is no biological call to do so.

Cooperation works.
Say that to the computer guy's boss who was expecting a presentation the following day. :P
We may be dealing with altruism.

I think you'll find in dictionary.com that altruism and selflessness are synonyms. Yes, we are dealing with altruism.

[Finella]

Originally posted by Loki
Finella,


Apologies for the crassness - I thought about trying for a different analogy, but it seemed "the best" (on short notice) to make the point. Sorry for 'lowering the tone'!
apology accepted... you didn't know, of course!

You missed my point (perhaps?). I didn't intend to say that such an event *must* force you stop loving someone - but rather, it exposes that *there is a process* that humans go through. You use the exact words here! "Love" is a process that you go through, and it is driven by rational thought. You may come to a point where you "love...despite all of this", and someone else will not. The difference is in your experiences, and how you reason through your needs and desires.

And I think you missed my point as well. I am in the process of discovering that I still love this person in spite of the very rational reasons that I should not. There is no reason involved at all. It is uncovering the feeling that I have and realizing that I have it.

[Loki]

Finella,

Okay, let me try to provide some solid information on the "love is rational" claim. The basic principle is shown here : (http://mitpress.mit.edu/catalog/item/default.asp?ttype=2&tid=4062)
The latest scientific findings indicate that emotions play an essential role in decision making, ... they influence the very mechanisms of rational thinking.
...
we must give computers the ability to recognize, understand, even to have and express emotions.

Part 2 discusses ... recent and ongoing efforts to build models of emotion for synthesizing emotions in computers...

And also here : (http://reason.com/0210/fe.rb.biology.shtml)

(Evolutionary psychologist Steven Pinker deconstructs the great myths about how the mind works.)
Pinker: Neuroscience is showing that all aspects of mental life -- every emotion, every thought pattern, every memory -- can be tied to the physiological activity or structure of the brain. Cognitive science has shown that feats that were formerly thought to be doable by mental stuff alone can be duplicated by machines, that motives and goals can be understood in terms of feedback and cybernetic mechanisms, and that thinking can be understood as a kind of computation.

That's the overview, in a nutshell. The details are contained in two separate topics. First, at the conscious level emotions are a key part of how we 'think'. This, I think (!!), is what you mean by 'love' being 'irrational' - it appears to be a 'cause', not an effect. This is not being disputed - in fact, it's a point we'd agree on (depending upon how we wish to word it!).

From Emotion and the function of consciousness (http://www.imprint-academic.demon.co.uk/SPECIAL/03_05.html#200)
Research from psychology further supports the view that emotions are necessary to rationality while suggesting that emotion can function independently of the traditional categories of cognition. The mere exposure effect shows that subjects can show affective responses to stimuli shown to them for a period of time too brief for conscious recognition to occur.
...
the quintessential popular case of qualitative experience seems to be felt emotion. Along with perceptual experiences -- if not instead of them -- emotions are primary qualitative experiences. The qualitative dimension of emotions, coupled with the necessary role of emotions in rationality, is best explained by taking the qualitative experience of emotions as motivations.

But you'd agree (I hope) that emotions change over time. You love someone, that love can 'grow' or it can 'die'. What causes 'change' in emotions? Basic brain activity at the 'non-conscious' level, based upon memory (experience), etc.

from Mandler George: MIND AND BODY (Norton, 1984) (http://www.thymos.com/mind/m.html)
Emotions are constructed out of autonomic arousal (arousal of a part of the nervous system called autonomic nervous system, which determines the intensity of the emotion) and evaluative cognition (meaning analysis, which determines the quality of the emotion).

And for more information that you or I can probably understand ( sorry to project my limitations onto you !!!) :

From Emotional Circuits and Computational Neuroscience (http://www.cnl.salk.edu/~fellous/pubs/emo2.pdf)
The disparate theories of emotional experience thus
all point to a common mechanism—an evaluative system
that determines whether a given situation is potentially
harmful or beneficial to the individual.
...
The amygdala therefore serves as an experimentally accessible
entry point into the distributed network of brain regions
that mediate complex emotional evaluations.

From The Neuromodulatory Basis of Emotion (http://www.cnl.salk.edu/~fellous/pubs/emo.pdf)
The neural basis of emotion can be found in both the neural computation and the neuromodulation of the neural substrate mediating behavior. I review the experimental evidence showing the involvement of the hypothalamus, the amygdala and the prefrontal cortex in emotion.
...
Rooting the emotional state in neuromodulatory phenomena allows for its quantitative and scientific study and possibly its characterization.

There's plenty more if you want to spend some time reading....

[Finella]

Thank you, Loki, for your time spent posting this... I regret my brain is in need of some rest, so I can't rationally reply to you tonight. :)

At a glance, the theory sounds quite reasonable, but that is if you ascibe to only one theory. Perhaps tomorrow we can get into some other forms of psychology. ::rubs hands together in anticipation::

Good night (for me)!

[Loki]

Finella,

We cross-posted!! Just quickly...

I am in the process of discovering that I still love this person in spite of the very rational reasons that I should not. There is no reason involved at all.
I'd suggest that there *is* reason involved, but if I want to try and "work through" the "feeling" to expose the underlying reasons then I'd need to get far more involved in your situation that either you or I probably want! So, I guess we'll have to leave it as "I say, you say..." Can I just add that I think "love" is a high level concept composed of many different 'sub-emptions' (to invent some terminology) like 'sympathy', 'guilt', 'need', 'empathy', 'lust', 'fear', etc. The feeling you ahve that you love is "irrational' is simply (IMHO) the result of you rejecting some rational objections in favour of a cocktail of these 'sub-emotions' - all of them (ultimately) understandable/explainable with sufficient effort. The "intensity" of the emotion is explained in some of the links of my previous post.

[Darwin]

"You have dealt with the lovely familial relationship, but you have not dealt with loving relationships outside of this situation, which, as I said, "can span all ages, all generations, and all social classes and schemas." Are you attributing the loving long friendship of two straight men in their 60s to maternal instinct? What about if a woman you love goes off and sleeps with three other guys, and you find yourself still loving her? We find ourselves in situations all the time loving people where there is no biological call to do so."

I think there always is a biological call of some sort involved,but certainly I´m not trying to narrow it all into the same model.
I did only try to handle a part of this phenomena.

"I think you'll find in dictionary.com that altruism and selflessness are synonyms. Yes, we are dealing with altruism."

Y´yes.
But it is not all black and white.

[TheERK]

Originally posted by Finella


So if I understand you, then, you're saying that because our brains are "sloppy" they make "irrational" commands, and therefore love seems "irrational" when really it is "rational," we're just mistaking it for something more mysterious.

Oooookay.

"You are correct in stating that loving someone is not always rational. "

Isn't that what I was saying?

I hate to play the word game here, but it depends on what you mean by rational. If you meant the kind of rational that concerns 'the best decision I could make', then I can agree that love isn't always rational, and the same goes for many other cognitive processes, such as seeing faces in a block of marble. If you meant rational as in 'being able to understand why it happened', then I must disagree that love is not rational. My bit about the 'sloppy' brain explains how I view the cause of the emotions you're talking about.

In other words, even though it isn't the best decisions our brains can make rationally, our brains make that decision regardless, because of the way they are structured.

I hope this makes sense.

Eric