Can this 3-Question Quiz Predict Whether You Believe in God?

[YESLORDIWILL]

 

[keith99]

The article says:

If, however, your answers were what the authors label “analytical” (also known as “correct”), you are probably in the quarter of Americans who do not profess religious belief.

So is that to say, if you got these "incredibly easy" questions right, you are probably not a believer, or am I misreading?

Not exactly.

It says if you jump to an intuitive but incorrect answer you are more apt to be a believer.

The claim is getting these wrong is because of not stopping and thinking, not because of lacking the ability to work out the answer.

I'd be curious about a breakdown by denomination. One might hunt a lifetime and never find a Jesuit that got a single one of those wrong.

 

[dms1972]

Put them here, alone with no time pressure and most will get them right. Well at least those who are not too casual about it.

Yeah, I was thinking something similiar in regard to asking the questions without any preface that these are to test how religiously minded, or not, you are. That set me wondering what are they up to from the start, so I was analysing the questions on two levels, and probably why they seemed so difficult - I was performing some very complicated analytics

 

[dms1972]

One might hunt a lifetime and never find a Jesuit that got a single one of those wrong.

"What thought can think, another thought can mend" Robert Southwell

 

[SillyFool]

keith99 "Bury them in 10 questions the rest of which are not tricksey and get ready for people to miss them."

True. I got the questions right, but I expected them to be tricksy. I also immediately saw the intuitive answer. I don't know whether I would have caught them in other circumstances.

So, the article does lead to some interesting questions.

Is analytic or intuitive thought more effective at grasping abstract realities?

Claiming that "God is beyond our analytic reasoning" can be a lazy cop-out... but it's also generally acknowledged to be true by smart people.

Einstein's theories started as abstract, intuitive thought experiments... it wasn't until later that mathematical analysis was able to confirm his intuition. Sometimes reality is apprehended much more effectively through abstract intuition.

 

[True Scotsman]

This 3-Question Quiz Predicts Whether You Believe in God | Big Think | Praxis

Before you put your martyrdom tunic on, it isn't the point of the quiz that IQ determines religious belief. The explanation for the reasoning behind the quiz is at the end of the article.

So, do the creators of the quiz have a point here?


eudaimonia,

Mark

I got 2 and 3 right, missed question 1.

 

[keith99]

Yeah, I was thinking something similiar in regard to asking the questions without any preface that these are to test how religiously minded, or not, you are. That set me wondering what are they up to from the start, so I was analysing the questions on two levels, and probably why they seemed so difficult - I was performing some very complicated analytics

Decades ago I saw a math problem that was a major setup. I'm not going to do the setup right here. You have 2 trains that start 25 miles apart. They are heading towards each other on the same track same track. The first one is going 15 miles per hour and a bee with great acceleration and a cool trick of bouncing off train cattle guards takes off from the cattle guard of the first train. After a half hour the bee meets the second train after going 20 miles. It pounces off the cattle guard of that train and heads back toward the first train always maintaining a speed of 40 MPH. (The right setup gives the time and distance for this trip also). The bee keeps doing this until the trains collide in a great wreck killing all on board and the bee of course.

How far does the bee travel in total?

Surprisingly a cleaver schoolboy can get the answer where many college math majors simply give up.

I can do the answer in my head. I made the numbers here so that it would be easy.

Hint: If you look at this the right way every single person on this site can do the math in their head.

 

[Eudaimonist]

I got 2 and 3 right, missed question 1.

I had seen question 1 a few years ago while surfing. I was mentally lazy and jumped to the intuitive answer.

This time I was mentally prepared for trickery, and gave analytical answers for 2 and 3. But maybe that doesn't count. *shrug*


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Simmeh]

I got #1 wrong, but I realized I had gotten it wrong before I saw the correct answer. As I was answering #2 and #3, I realized the nature of the quiz was about analytical thinking and that my intuitive answer to #1 was probably incorrect.

 

[Nithavela]

The only thing that I would have been able to predict was that religious people would get awfully defensive.

 

[Colter]

Could a set of clever questions be developed to demonstrate that a skeptical, analytical type of mind would miss the spiritual meaning of a statement, hindered by critical evaluation? Jesus' use of parables as a teaching method seemed to have had that effect.



.

 

[com7fy8]

No one said that it did.


eudaimonia,

Mark

That's right But I am an analytical person; so I need to make an effort to not use analyzing for finding out how to love and relate with a person

I did the test and I got them all right.

But I tricked myself, at first, before taking a second look at the first one. And I "tried" to do the last one "the easy way", first, but then realized it was easier the right way!!

That can be a good lesson . . . how the right way can be the easiest

 

[com7fy8]

If a person is analytical but not religious . . .

is the person analytical because the person is not religious,

or > is the person not religious because the person is analytical??

 

[variant]

If a person is analytical but not religious . . .

is the person analytical because the person is not religious,

or > is the person not religious because the person is analytical??

Being more analytical may just lead people to tend to be less religious.

I doubt the test is predictive of this when people know why they are taking it.

 

[Colter]

If a person is analytical but not religious . . .

is the person analytical because the person is not religious,

or > is the person not religious because the person is analytical??

The human mind is unifying, to put too much emphasis on either the material or the spiritual is to view the universe in distortion.

 

[NannaNae]

I got all three "right" actually I saw the trick too and saw both answers for each and totally believe in God..... but the test ticked me off..

and I pray that a bridge-builder , and aircraft engineer and architects remain very mathematical in their observations .
Doctors and firemen , race car drivers and military commanders should remain intuitive in their observations.

 

[NannaNae]

and all men should know and be warned of their natural weakenesses!

 

[Cearbhall]

I got all 3 right, but I'm not sure if I think there's causation there.

So is that to say, if you got these "incredibly easy" questions right, you are probably not a believer, or am I misreading?

I think that's what it's saying, yes.

I wondered if the questions were deliberately trick questions to achieve the desired result?

Yes, they're deliberately tricky, but that doesn't affect theists any more than it affects atheists.

 

[NannaNae]

well what really ticked me off about it is I knew both answers but put down the most obvious answer for the first two ..
because of that thing we are taught to do .
you know Oscam's razor, " Other, more complicated solutions may ultimately prove correct, but—in the absence of certainty—the fewer assumptions that are made, the better." so was it that the atheist were all in all rebellious and wanted to show off..
and the christians were doing what they were told and or taught to do?


Occam's razor which is used to prove or disprove everything scientism wishes it too. when everything they stand on and in and hope for , is anything except simple.
but we are told over and over... the most simplest and more obvious answer is probably correct. which of course is bs.. because they only use it when they want too, to prove what they want it too prove like these questions... everything else so complicated you can only see the poetic beauty of it, if you are high or hung over in a special class being taught in a class with a professor who is high or hung over. only then can people really see the simplicity and munchy crunchy poetry of being a true believer of lucky monkey ... these are where their truest believers spring from.. and the more high the more poetic it appears in all it's complex simplicities and unreasoned seasonable loveliness .

 

[JGG]

Either way I agree with the conclusion, an analytical approach to spirituality or faith is using an apple when you need a wrench.

I think you missed the point. Some people are just analytical, others are inuitive.

I have a hard time seeing certain types movies with certain people. For instance, I just saw Interstellar and walked out with tons of questions and problems with the story. Don't get me wrong, I loved all the ideas about blackholes and passage of time stuff. But the story presented too many problems for me to let go. I find often that's how I enjoy a movie. As I result I tend to gravitate to comedies and documentaries. I especially like absurd comedies like Monty Python because they're not supposed to make sense.

There's a group on YouTube with videos with the title "Everything Wrong With..." and they pick apart a movie. I love these guys, I feel a certain kinship with them.