This Year's Easter Quiz (Same As Last Year's)

Philosophy Forums Religion and Spirituality
1

This Year’s Easter Quiz (Same As Last Year’s)
The answer is breathtakingly obvious. That it remains unanswered for a year is, too, no big mystery. It was given to a 10-year-old and some his siblings, up to age 15, read it and a few adults have; I don’t know who has read it on a blog post that has 8 pageviews.

It came with a “giveaway hint” but won’t include that. Here it is for the knuckleheads here…and the rest of you; no offense to knuckleheads.

The Most Vicious Animal: Easter’s Quiz.

Humans. That’s what my sister’s husband said to his four kids and me at my niece’s Catholic Confirmation party.

He asked, “What is the most vicious animal?” We had just come from the Confirmation ceremony and I, at least, could feel still the priest’s heavy words and I wondered whether he (sister’s husband) knows that the Catholic Church does not consider humans to be animals.

I do believe that he was being literal: that he thinks the difference between humans and all other species is our advanced brains, plus that opposable thumb thing–no design by the deity, whether suddenly or from the primordial ooze.

Perhaps not. Many American Catholics take the Pu Pu Platter method toward adherence and rejection of doctrine. He might reject part or all of the Bible: take the pork spare-rib but not the sliced beef and only half an egg-role. I don’t admire this, though I don’t have much to offer as an alternative–other than thoroughly examined opinions and a general agnosticism in all matters.

(When one comes to believe that all forms of error have been indispensable to the survival of the human species, then that person is on the road to, if not very close to, Agnosticism.)

On Easter (this is leading to an “Easter” quiz), while we have, fresh in our minds, an object–and abject–lesson on the difficulties of getting reliably factual versions of an event (NBC, Martin & Zimmerman et al, FLA), I can’t avoid drawing a parallel to the leap of faith required to be genuinely Catholic: The resurrection of Jesus.

There was a public crucifixion with witnesses and a burial, yes.

The quiz: What is the reason for the existence of all the religions of the world as well as those that have existed or may be created in the future? Put another way, what is the reason that only one religion does not exist for all people?

As always, the winner will get the keys to the forum.

2

Oh, by ‘quiz’ you mean ‘guess my opinion’. I see.
Also, just for the sake of reader-friendliness, I would suggest just leaving out that whole bit about humans being animals or whatever. I thought it was going to be relevant to the ‘quiz’, so I read it, but now that I know it wasn’t it just felt tedious.

3

Because the inductive and deductive processes of the human brain partly rely on imbuement of stimuli by the amygdala for resolving assessments for conclusions lacking full disclosure of complete information of any given matter, and the neurological processes dealing with value placement, empathy, and sympathy through the associative truncation of relative identity of the existential experience of the sensual relationship with existing are partly subject to the individual brain’s acceptance of the sympathetic imbuement sensation of a given conceptual framework conceived unto the brain for digestion of appropriately feeling if a given proposition of this form agrees with the experiential sense of the individual’s existent relationship with experiencing existence.

Or to put it into simpler words:
Because different people feel that differing propositions feel less like, or more like, what they feel when they experience living.

It’s like asking why human beings don’t have a single piece of food that is species rated as the best tasting food.

For instance, why am I not Catholic?
Is it because of some scientific claim, empirical evidence, or calculations of probabilities?
No; it’s because the Catholic conception of what it is to experience existing doesn’t feel like the existence that I feel when I experience existing.

4

Answer : Dunbar’s number :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunbar’s_number

5

Because it has never been complete.
Without completeness in principle, entropy takes over and things get really, really messy, especially the closer to perfect it was to begin with.

6

No–obviously so, with respect to a correct answer.

I beg everyone’s indulgence about the content that was meaningful to my nephew’s family: he was confirmed (Catholic ritual) near Easter and his Father made this remark after the ceremony.

Bravo for that thoughtful, intricate response; and I thank you for offering an answer.

No–with respect to a correct answer.

Remember what I said about the simplicity of the answer.

Probably No–with respect to a correct answer; a number is not part of the answer. If there is something about “Dubar’s number” that leads one, reasonably, to the correct answer, then you will win the keys to the forum, retroactively.

I don’t use icky-pee-dee as I boycott it. I humbly suggest that you (everyone) use other sources.

No–with respect to a correct answer; though I will bet my last dollar that you will claim this is the right answer when I reveal it as your statement can apply to anything not proved empirically; and we all know that religious principles of faith are, by definition of faith, not proved empirically.

Do you follow? Do you really think you are going to get something past me?

I thank you for offering a non-answer; and you may want to rethink the “especially the closer to perfect” clause and it’s wording (If you’re going to write potential profundities, then they must be worded properly.).

7

Anyone who enjoys exercises in futility will love playing this little game.

8

Empiricism had nothing to do with it.

What I think is that a great many things get past you.
…including that they do.

9

Wiki isn’t a source. Wiki is just a starting point for information gathering.

And Dunbar’s number isn’t a number. It’s the average capacity of social relationships that people are able to maintain.

And that, I maintain, is why there isn’t one religion on the earth. Tribes differ.

10

I have not defined Empiricism.

Empiricism had nothing to do with what?–I dare ask.

Keep thinking; not that it will make you a “thinker”.

11

My contention with Dunbar’s Number is merely that it presumes a limited social networking scheme which depends on mental capacity. It is a reflection of what is typically going on, but not why it has never been different. Why hasn’t anyone gotten over that effect? To get past it, there has to be a “proper scheme” which accounts for it. It’s actually quite easy, but no one wants to do it who also understands it and is in any position to accomplish it. Perfection waits, patiently.

12

I wasn’t attempting to answer your quiz. I was answering your question.
But as you indicated yourself, you are not aware of the things that get past you.

If an algorithm is complete, then it is complete.
By definition, if an algorithm is complete, it completely handles all situations;
all for one algorithm and one algorithm for all.

13

One more response like that and you are going on my ignore list.

One more response like that and you are going on my ignore list; I repeat myself.

I have no confidence is something that isn’t what it is named–I’m being kind here.

I will look into it after the quiz is done which, mercifully, won’t be long.

14

There is one correct answer?

This should be good.

Pass the popcorn, please. :obscene-drinkingcheers:

15

Duh. Please see red.

Possibly…maybe

16

“Duh.” Please think (preferably before posting).

17

If that is it, then we are done with respect to the quiz.

Thanks anyway.

18

PRIDE

19

For the same reason there’s differences of opinion on every other matter of human inquiry. I’ll leave the specifics to somebody else.

20

Thanks for your entry.

No - the answer is something that would render pride impotent in all but, let’s guess, 1/(10^3) of the population; these suffering some pathology. (There is a clue about the classification of your answer at end of post.)

Thanks for your entry.

No - the answer is something that would silence all opinion on the matter (oops).

Rendering all opinion irrelevant, this may gave it away, I think.

We can argue that later, Cottony Saviour.

The answer is not something found within ourselves, such as pride or opinion.

Hint Grande Giveaway: Given the answer, I am making an assumption that there would be any religion at all, though I do believe that we would, being “all too human”, continue with one. On the other hand, having thought about it and given the answer, there may be more than a few dozen or more pockets of nut-jobs spread around the world who would practice their religions and modify their creation schtickloc. (Pardon my Hebrew and spelling.)

W-w-w-what do you mean “would be”, “continue with”, “who would” and so on?!?!?

Ahhhh!, shut up, KEVIN!

This should, mercifully, be the end of Easter’s quiz.

----------Edit: beginning of THE END------------

It may be true that if there were one shred of demonstrable, observable proof of God’s existence then there would be no conflict over it and one could simply point to it and say, “There it is” and, if we thought it necessary, we would establish a global religion–for there need be only one–and we could then commence to kill each other–or not–over something else, unless there be proof of Hell, of course.

Given the “there it is” proof, we may decide that no religion is necessary. For this possibility, the wording of the quiz should be/have been "…what is the reason that there is not either one religion for all people or none at all?

Given the “there it is” proof, there may be perpetual atavists who won’t “give up the ghost”. These freaks (pathological contrary-persons?) don’t invalidate the quiz’s premise, of course.