onegoodmove

I scored 10, but then I'm way heavy into metaphysics and meditative bullshit with a righteous dose of science fiction. I'd argue that my answers weren't all that deluded.

Hilarious. Something about that deadpan, robotic-like tone drove home the plain absurdity of some of those questions, esp. 12.

Damnit. I'm normal.

melpomenh - what, you'd rather be bat-shit crazy??

Thanks Norm; I can always use a laugh, and have forwarded the link to others.

wait - fp, did you watch the score interpretations? I don't think you need to put up a fight.

We probably answered the questions the same way, since out score is identical.

I received a score of 5. I believe that meditation, or self hypnotism or a similarly contemplative act can result in knowledge or understanding not attainable through ordinary thought.

PREMISE: "The God Delusion Index measures your desire to view the world in terms of the supernatural, rather than the plainly evident."

2. Do you believe that a higher consciousness or intelligence may have been involved in the origin of the universe?

YES. Of course. Believing this is a possibility does not require a belief in the supernatural, just a belief that there may exist other universes. Nothing supernatural here.

So what's the basis for scoring this +10 ?

3. Do you believe that an intelligent being may have created the universe with intent, actually knew what it was doing, and had a plan to carry out creation?

Again. Accepting the possibility that an intelligent society may have evolved in another universe and intentionally provided the catalyst necessary to inflate our own universe does not require a belief in the supernatural.

We have no reason to believe that his did in fact happen, but it's a natural possibility. And yet this get's scored +25 points?

Do you believe that a deeply contemplative act such as prayer or meditation can result in knowledge or understanding not attainable by ordinary thought?

I generally agree with Riley. This "test" is useless, because the introduction itself will deter any deeply religious person (hell, even the name of the test will do exactly that). Secondly, some of the +5, +10 questions have nothing to do with a supernatural, but more with the freaky modern physics theories - 11 dimensions and such.

/agree, but it was still an amusing quiz.

I scored 45, and proud of it. Until the scientific method can tell me what triggered the Big Bang, I'll remain a Deist.

Thanks for the last comment, Brett.

I scored zero in the test (which is obviously intended to be a giggle) and until you can tell me what triggered the existence of your Deity, I'll remain an atheist.

"...and until you can tell me what triggered the existence of your Deity, I'll remain an atheist."

That is the most intelligent, and eloquently expressed opinion I've seen in a long, long while. Nice one.

I received a score of 5. I believe that meditation, or self hypnotism or a similarly contemplative act can result in knowledge or understanding not attainable through ordinary thought.

Me too. Aside from being funny, what I thought was pretty brilliant about the test is that they ask as a separate follow up question, here as elsewhere, separating an anodyne from the more extreme or 'spooky' versions, such as, in this instance, whether the source of an introspective insight depends upon a supernatural source. The claim that mental states which tend to be introspective lead to insights is, on its own, hardly a supernatural, or for that matter an implausible, one.

Brett:

Until the scientific method can tell me what triggered the Big Bang, I'll remain a Deist.

How is this simply not another version of the claim that because we cannot presently understand something by scientific means, the explanation must be god? I'm not trying to be ungenerous or dismissive--and feel free to clarify--but that is exactly the same general principle that creationist's appeal to when citing supposed "counter-instances" to evolutionary theory. Obviously your claim looks much more innocent, but I reject creationist claims for precisely the same general reason I reject your argument: the inference 'we can't explain it, therefore god did it' is not valid.

As an aside, I see no reason to assume that the universe had a beginning. Some contemporary cosmologists have speculated that "the" big bang was only the most recent of an ongoing--and perhaps eternal--series of contractions and expansions.

I see no reason to assume that the universe had a beginning. Some contemporary cosmologists have speculated that "the" big bang was only the most recent of an ongoing--and perhaps eternal--series of contractions and expansions.

the idea of anything being eternal is not even hypothesis- it's pure speculation. there's no empirical evidence or precedent whatsoever. it's one of the main arguments AGAINST an eternal "first cause".

Jonathan: I don't quite get what your driving at, unless you are making a semantic point about the word "eternal", which I admit is counter intuitive. I had something like this in mind. Examples are easily multiplied.

So far as I know, most of the evidence about the origin of the universe is indirect, and speculative, based on the things and principles we do know. If you've imagined an experiment to directly test empirically whether and how time began, there's some cosmologists the world over who'd probably like a word with you. All I meant to suggest is that there are many respectable cosmologists who deny the universe had an official "beginning," and so appeal to the Big Bang--or the fact that anything exists at all--is not a good argument for theism or deism. To determine whether the universe was "created" by a big bang --even if a purposeless one--is of course an empirical question--but prima facie, it smacks to me of being a remnant of a theological mind-set. I see no a priori reason, and certainly no empirical one--see link above--to suppose the universe had a "beginning".

it's very simple, i think. everything we know of has a beginning. the origins of the universe we don't know of (though we can point to certain patterns, many of which are mutually contradictory). therefore, the burden of proof would be on one who claims that the universe, of all known objects and processes, has no beginning. the same argument is used,probably more frequently, against the idea of a creator god. it just works both ways, is all i'm "driving at".

i'm really not trying to be a hotshot here. there are plenty of 1gm readers who know a lot more about the various arguments than i do, perhaps including yourself. erick is particularly good at this stuff. i'm speaking from "child mind" here. i'm not trying to trick you, really.

btw, i'm aware of what are essentially mystical understandings about the nature of time itself... oh, ok, i suck. never mind.

Hawking presents a view that there are no discontinuities, that the Big Bang is just a point in the space-time continuum. It just curves there, like the bottom of a bowl, and the laws of physics apply everywhere and all the time, if they're formulated the right way.

So you don't need a creator to spark the Big Bang, because the beginning of time isn't a distinguished point.

Now, before I proceed, I'll state here that my God Delusion score is 5, for the meditation question. I do not want my words mischaracterised.

I want to turn the question round. It's pretty clear that homo sapiens is different from rocks, trees, bacteria and even chimpanzees in our self-awareness and appreciation for design. Why would a creator of the universe wait 15 billion years to bring into existence a species with a lifespan of about 100 years at best to be aware of and admire the creator's handiwork? Such a god would have to be either very lazy or completely indifferent to our fate, living as we do on this tiny dustball. Surely if there must be a creator to satisfy a personal need for meaning, it would be better to choose one who worked on a more personal timescale? Like 4,000 years? I simply don't see that positing a creator who ignited the Big Bang can be any comfort, and as such I fail to see that there is any benefit from the model. What does it explain? One thing, and badly. What does it predict? Nothing.

I received a score of 5. I believe that meditation, or self hypnotism or a similarly contemplative act can result in knowledge or understanding not attainable through ordinary thought.

Hey JoAnn! We finally agree on something! That was exactly my result. I knew this day would come.

Adam said:

The claim that mental states which tend to be introspective lead to insights is, on its own, hardly a supernatural, or for that matter an implausible, one.

Precisely. I was confused why being introspective would have anything to do with a "God Delusion".

Hey JoAnn! We finally agree on something! That was exactly my result. I knew this day would come.

Wonderful BigDaddyMalcontent! May we celebrate this moment. ;)

I scored 20 and I share the same quasi-concern that, despite the thigh-slapping nature of this video, ceding the possibility of a higher intelligence says nothing about your rationality. Also, meditation - as I understand it - has really helped me mellow down, so I'll gladly take the 5-point consequence.

Now a question: was anyone else being pulled along with the message of this video until 600 points? I really let out the giggles when he got to that. It reminded me of this video.

I get why the five-point people are clustered around the meditation question, but I would like to argue for the delusory affirmative answer to question number one, to evangelize, in other words, to recruit you to the Church of the Ten-pointers:

Do you believe that there exists (or may exist) a higher consciousness or a great intelligence that is somehow associated with the entirety of the universe?

I answered "yes" because of the weasel wording: or may exist and somehow associated. These phrases leave room for an awful lot of analytic what-iffery. And while I think Ray Kurzweil is batshit crazy regarding his hopes for eternal life through upload of his consciousness to a machine intelligence following an imminent "singularity," that doesn't mean that I dismiss the possibility that some set of imaginary conditions currently beyond the perceptive range of my sensorium and instrumentation may already or someday exist including the freakazoid "higher consciousness."

(Although, admittedly I think the pervasive "great intelligence" is about as likely as the possibility that the universe comprises a super-saturated solution of tapioca and the next raisin added to the mixture will condense the entire space-time continuum into a vast all encompassing room temperature glob of pudding.)

fp,

I hear ya. I went ahead and voted no on this one because of the as you state "weasel wording".

As you stated:

that doesn't mean that I dismiss the possibility that some set of imaginary conditions currently beyond the perceptive range of my sensorium and instrumentation may already or someday exist including the freakazoid "higher consciousness."

I seriously doubt it, but there is some room for what you call "what-iffery". Basically, though, I only have experience with the beneficial aspects of meditation and self hypnosis. When I first discovered some of the unusual benefits of self hypnosis (which I got into in order to quit smoking) I was amazed. However, anyone who has never experienced this wouldn't understand, so I don't bother to attempt to explain it to them as it would be a waste of time.

Wow. Did you see the size of that RSS button on the Listics site? Holy crap!

Adam,

I was just making a (purposeful) flippant remark. What I really mean is that I have seen both sides of the argument (raised Episcopalian), and I think both sides could use some humility. The utter certainty of many Atheists and many believers really irks me.

The utter certainty of many Atheists and many believers really irks me.

On this we agree, although perhaps for different ways. I think two issues need to be separated: is it possible that there is a deity? Is it likely or even remotely plausible that there is? I think the answer to the first could be yes, but I cannot image, or at least have never found, any evidence that would convince to answer the second in the affirmative.

Perhaps that sounds dogmatic. Surely it would require a longer argument than I'll offer here. But I do get annoyed when atheists who have never studied religion in its vast empirical details, complicated history, and often intricate doctrines make sweeping claims about it--or religious believers of vastly different faiths are lumped together--or it is assumed anyone who believes in anything supernatural is some kind of ignoramus. I think the motivations that draw people to religion are not, strictu dictu, rational or scientific; I think in many cases they are understandable, and ultimately have less to do with the content of any particular doctrine than the kind of emotional reassurance, sense of belonging and purpose, and community support which religious organizations are highly effective at making available.

Adam,

We actually agree for the same reasons. My original statement was a satire. If my friend Bradley had taken this quiz he would have said something like:

"I scored 1,500,000, and proud of it. Until your scientific method can tell me what started the Big Bang, I'll stay a Baptist."

I grew up in Oklahoma, by the way. Just for a frame of reference.

It's difficult to be sarcastic on a board when my beliefs are not well known. Maybe I should take a cue from my friends who play World of Warcraft, and just say '/sarcasm' to signify my intent.

Speaking to your response, I think your point about community is exactly correct, especially in places like Oklahoma, Texas, etc. In this part of the world, the church is actively involved in many community events. The church runs the local softball and basketball leagues. FCA and Young Life meet at the middle schools and high schools.

Many churches, especially the new big rock-concert churches, are not talking about Thomas Aquinas on Sunday. It's a steady diet of St. Paul, St. Paul, a little Jesus during the holidays, then more St. Paul.

But the people aren't showing up for the sermon, as much as they are coming for the sense of community and for the fellowship.

I really enjoy reading your posts. Keep up the good work.

Brett

jonathan,

I'm not sure why the Universe would follow the "everything we know has a beginning" idea or even why that idea is supportable.

First off, everything we know has a moment that it is a recognizable object that we can name. The Stuff that made it was always there. A star. A planet. A cup of tea.

All of that Stuff came from some part of the Universe. The First Law of Thermodynamics indicates that energy is always the same, but in different forms. Thus, before the Big Bang, the Stuff (that would eventually become yrou cup of tea) was already there, though perhaps in a different form than we can imagine.

I see no reason why this moment in the universe's full span of existance should be particularly special, aside from the fact that we are here to observe it.

PS: A moment for Arthur C. Clarke.

Arthur C. Clarke is up in heaven right now, with Asimov and Vonnegut.

Sadly, I only scored a 20, so I'm stuck on earth until my body rots and my consciousness fades away into nothing.

Hmm. Maybe I do believe in God after all.

and just say '/sarcasm' to signify my intent.

Dear God, not that! (ehem! [/sarcasm])

It's a steady diet of St. Paul, St. Paul, a little Jesus during the holidays, then more St. Paul.

I find that frightening but informative.

I really enjoy reading your posts. Keep up the good work.

Same!

Jonathan and Robinson:

First off, everything we know has a moment that it is a recognizable object that we can name.

Yup, the universe contains everything we know, so it's a little question-begging to stimulate 'everything we know had a beginning' in order to argue that the universe must have as well. But I think the problem is as much empirical as conceptual, as Robinson seemed to suggest. Phrases like 'At the beginning of time...' appear to be nonsense because to have a beginning is already to be 'in' time.

What I still don't quite understand is Jonathan's thought that postulating a beginning is somehow less metaphysical or theological a notion than the idea that the "universe" has always existed and goes through random, chaotic cycles to expansion and contraction, over the course of which even the laws of nature may change, and of which not only our planet and our lives but our entire universe with its physical laws are merely a contingent happenstances, without origin, inherent purpose, or sense.

"Deeply contemplative acts" worked for me when I was younger, now I just fall asleep.

Scored a goose egg.