Pluralism in this case, refers to “believing there is more than one way of knowing.” (aka religion & science both)
You and i got a very similar result!
I’d like to think that’s where I am as well. Unfortunately but there are too many questions that are unanswerable for me to find out with this quiz. I tried leaving two unanswered of the first ten questions but they having it.
And to think, i’d assume it would be easy for you
Third try was the charm. I’m as much of a leftist as you but a bit south.
My profile:
“ Live and let live, what’s all the fuss? ”
If you find yourself here, you probably don’t think a lot about this, or indeed, care very much about this whole debate. As far as you are concerned, religion is a cultural thing and there are different ways of finding out about reality, not just science. Frankly, you can’t see what the fuss is all about. Why can’t people just live and let live? People here often have a tepid temperature on the science and religion thermometer, because they are not overly fussed about the whole debate.
3 Likes
Welp I guess they got ya after all.
1 Like
Like @Terry_Sampson, I find #3 problematic.
The stories in holy books, like the Bible or the Qur’an, are not supposed to be taken literally
Is there an implied universal (all) of the stories are not to be taken literally? Most? Some? Any?
And even if that is cleared up, it would still leave the matter of what it means to take something ‘literally’ which we’ve seen around here doesn’t mean the same thing to everyone.
4 Likes
I decided on that one that the should in question wasn’t what was best for everyone in all cases but just what was more true as it seemed to me. Those were the kinds of compromises I had to find to finally finish the questions.
1 Like
- Having overcome my initial protest, I tried to take the test again.
- Because I failed to notice and “capture” my place on the the “Thermometer Scale” [i.e. the compatible-incompatible scale], I had to take the test a third time. (Ugh!)
- As an experiment, I took the test twice.
- The first time, I focused on three possible answers:
- I agree;
- I disagree or
- “50/50” - I neither agree nor disagree.
- The second time, I allowed the “strength” of my opinion to enter into the choice that I made: i.e. I totally agreed, strongly agreed, or simply agreed, totally disagreed,, strongly agreed, or simply agreed.
- The first time, I focused on three possible answers:
- The results of my “Three Choices” focus:
- The results of my “Seven Choices” focus:
- Take-aways:
- I’m comfortable with my answers, intrigued by the influence that “Totally” and “Strongly” has on my results, and I notice that I can have similar views with other people in the Forum and they are on my Ignore list, or would be if I could put them on it.
3 Likes
I rationalize that question by thinking that literalness is really a secondary issue and largely irrelevant, as the lesson or message we are to understand from those stories is always an abstraction and figurative in nature. So guess I would almost completely agree with the statement, as even if literal, their message is not.
I placed close to Huxley but it left me wondering which Huxley. Off hand I can name three famous Huxleys who are scientists and two of them outspoken on the religion/science divide.
I agree that many of the questions were squishy.
1 Like
It’s interesting to me seeing how the questions seemed to throw a wrench in it. As mentioned earlier, I felt their purpose was to polarizing statements , but allowing you to decide where you landed. I guess it’s my general skepticism in people experiencing the supernatural that drove me to the right side. It’s neat that everyone landed in very different spaces. I assumed those who landed on the right would be on the right with the exception of Kendel. I thought Kendel and Mark would have each others dots.
2 Likes
My location on the graph wasn’t nearly as odd to me as the text description: “Faith is a virus, science is the cure. You think religion claims truth but you believe it is wrong, perhaps even dangerous……And while you think it’s possible for science and religion to live an dlet live ,deep down you thinkthere is an irreconcilable tension there.” This just doesn’t describe what I think at all.
You’re right about some parts of Mark’s description. Live and let live for sure. Although……
1 Like
Hmmm … that’s too many -os endings for me to follow. Let’s try switching in some more recognizable cognates:
‘An understanding based on pathology. Not logistics. With little ethics. And a lot of phobias and potholes.’
Nope that isn’t helping. 
It’s interesting to think about what the left side of the graph means. The right side is identified with scientism, something very different than science which requires some global human disorientation to embrace. I would expect everyone here to land on the left side except the YEC pitch men who wander through occasionally.
It’s also interesting to be to see how most in the upper half are not floating toward the top. After all it isn’t any kind of diminishment of true faith to be cognizant of culture, psychology, linguistics and so on. I suspect being even higher on the chart would reflect an aversion to that sort of wider education than correlation with strong belief.
2 Likes
I am really surprised by your answer! I would have expected you to be in a similar place to me and Phil.
1 Like
My results:
Almost hit the bulls eye.
My neighborhood doesn’t look too bad, either. Just for future reference, this atheist lands far away from the new atheists.
6 Likes
Nah that’s Twitter and 4Chan
2 Likes
Don’t know what it means, but here I am:
Edit: Seems I’m pretty close to @jpm and @Paraleptopecten, for whatever that’s worth.
1 Like
I am, kind of. Thus: I feel so misunderstood, and all my laments about the survey design.
2 Likes
You just didn’t take enough Cosmo magazine personality tests when you were younger. haha
3 Likes
You are absolutely right. I don’t think I have ever opened a Cosmo magazine.
I think the first such assessment was the Meyers-Briggs for work, when I was 23ish. I’ve taken that a few times formally and informally. My results used to be more consistent……
I find myself rather fascinated with most surveys I take and how the questions are posed and could be interpreted. They ALWAYS give me trouble. Maybe the Cosmo ones are easier: Stillettos or Wedges? Boho or Sequins? Coffin shape or squared? Matte or glossy?
I imagine…
1 Like