Why I Can’t Participate in a Turing Test with Fellow Christians

[ 10 ] July 18, 2011 |

Leah @ Unequally Yoked is recruiting Christians for her Ideological Turing Test and a couple of my blogger friends mentioned it (JC @ EQUUS NOM VERITAS, Julie @ The Corner With A View, and Anthony @ The Impractical Catholic). I took a look and made an effort to participate. I’m sorry though guys, I can’t do it and I’ll explain why.

First, Leah has good intentions with this test and I browsed her blog and she has, in my opinion, laid out the expectations and methodology fairly; she will “bop you on the nose” if you try to use the results of her test to claim your side is “better informed and thus correct.” For anyone not familiar with a Turing test, it is basically a test of how well someone or something can pretend to be someone or something else. It was developed to study artificial intelligence. A computer and a human answer carefully chosen questions and another human studies the answers and evaluates whether a machine or a man formulated them. It’s a test to see if a computer can convincingly pass as a human. Remember the recent Watson vs. man Jeopardy match? That was a Turing test of sorts.

Leah’s idea is to apply the test to Christians and atheists. First a group of Christians and atheists answered four questions as if they were all atheists. Then Leah received votes from others, the goal being to decide if each answer came from an atheist or a Christian. The second part of the test involves switching that around. Christians and atheists answer questions as if they were all Christians and others vote whether each person who answered is a Christian or not. That’s where I came into this test. I was asked to vote to see if I could tell the difference between an atheist shamming as a Christian and a real Christian.

I tried Leah. As I read the responses I found myself unable to make such a judgement. These are people, not computers trying to pass as people, but real people. I know this test was used to study economists and how well economists of opposing ideologies understood the other side; I get that. But this is about something much deeper than economics. It’s about a person’s faith, and faith is a tender thing. As I read the responses I kept wondering, “What if this is a ‘real’ Christian, possibly new in his faith, or struggling in his faith, and I judge him to be an atheist based on his responses?” That could be damaging to a person’s soul.

The truth is, Leah, if I asked someone 1) what his best reason for being a Christian is, 2) what would cause him to stop believing in God or 3) why he believes Christianity is more true than other religions, I’m asking him or her very personal questions that can take a lifetime to answer. The last question is a matter of careful theology over two thousand years old. “How do you read the Bible? Do you study the history of its translations? How do you decide which translations/versions/books are the true Bible? How does it guide you if you have a moral or theological dilemma?” The simple answer to question 1 is Christ, but if someone doesn’t answer the way I think they should, I’m not in any position to judge his or her heart, and far be it from me to do damage to another person’s soul. Nose bops aside, I’d rather plunge my hand into fire than type such words.

P.S.

I propose that if two people are going to debate a belief, that first each party put the facts down on the table very clearly and debate from that, if and only if, both parties agree that the facts are indeed facts. Otherwise it’s not really debate. It’s more like monkeys flinging poo at the zoo. Trust me, I learned that the hard way.
________________________________________________

Category: Personal

Comments (10)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

Sites That Link to this Post

  1. Ethical Problem in the Turing Test? | October 26, 2012
  1. Wow, good response, Stacy! I ended up not taking the test directly, although I posted some thoughts after reading all the answers.

  2. Tony, I added a link to your post! Thanks. Your comments are along the same line as mine (no surprise).

  3. Brilliant! I used this in my own response. Thank you for the inspiration!

  4. Sarah says:

    I like your perspective here… who knows what effect these votes could have.

  5. Louise says:

    Really excellent post! I felt the same way, but you put it into words much better than I could!

  6. Anonymous says:

    First of all, Stacy, I completely respect your reasoning here and your decision to abstain from voting. But I'd like to point out, as one of the fifteen participants, that all of us volunteered to be part of the exercise and knew, from the beginning, that we were being judged first and foremost on our ability to “pass” for a member of the group in question, and not necessarily on the strength of our arguments or emotion. Thus, the “results” of the survey are less likely to have an impact on our actual convictions (whether or not this is a good thing is up for debate) and more on the way we express ourselves and communicate those convictions. If, for instance, a Christian strikes most people taking the survey as an atheist-pretending-to-be-Christian, that might provoke some reflection regarding why they came across that way (e.g. as insincere, having faulty reasoning, etc.). How could they adjust their message to connect with others in a more constructive way? Yes, there's the potential for hurt — which is why I wholeheartedly support your decision not to participate — but I also think there's opportunity for great growth — which is why I'm taking part in it.

  7. Anonymous says:

    sssss

  8. Anonymous says:

    Agree with Anonymous. I read Stacy's post as saccarine and self-congratulatory. If I were a tester, I'd be offended that she was so arrogant as to presume that she knew better than we actual volunteers and felt the need to protect us from ourselves.

    A far more plausible but less flattering possibility is that Stacy can't tell the difference between an athiest pretending to be Christian and a true Christian, and this made her upset, so she took her ball and went home. And rather than acknowledge your failure, why not reposition it as something noble you have done?

    Perhaps Stacy realizes that she doesn't know her opponents' position as well as they know hers? What do you think, Stacy? Could you fool an atheist by advancing their position?

  9. Well those are my thoughts and they resonate with others for a reason. Perhaps it is something to think over – how such a test cannot possibly make any conclusions beyond the one's directly given by the participants because there is almost endless subjectivity from all parties involved.

    If anything upsets me, it is that people may erroneously think that anyone's ability to imitate another and be judged by yet another can reveal anything meaningful at all about something so deep and philosophical as one's faith. People are going to read whatever they want to read into this test without realizing the question that it is begging.

Leave a Reply