according to clifford, what the shipowner did was wrong because
Next page.
Yous Should Believe You're Millionaire Because It Would Be Prissy If You Were.
77. In the story of the shipowner, how did the shipowner come to his "sincere and comfortable confidence that his vessel was thoroughly safety and seaworthy?"
77. Does Clifford think that the shipowner is guilty or innocent of the deaths of those who went down at sea?
77. Why doesn't the fact that the shipowner sincerely believed in the soundness of his send diminish his guilt?
77. According to Clifford, is taking a belief on insufficient prove ever justified? Is it ever even a little scrap justified?
77. If the ship had turned out to be sound after all, would that let the shipowner off the hook? Why or why non?
78. What might be argued against Clifford'due south judgment of the shipowner?
78. Under this anti-Clifford argument, what kind of things tin exist right or wrong, and what kind can't exist right or wrong?
78. Does Clifford acknowledge this distinction?
78. Why does Clifford insist that the shipowner's belief too must be condemned?
78. What would happen to a person who habitually believes things on insufficient evidence?
Thinky question. What if this person at least never believed something when there was a reasonable argument against it?
78. According to Rowe, what kind of beliefs would it be wrong to take upwards on bereft testify?
78. According to Rowe, what kind of beliefs would information technology not be wrong to accept upward on insufficient evidence?
78. According to Rowe, what kind of beliefs might information technology be good to take up on insufficient prove?
Thinky question. Can you think of a case in which it would be a very bad idea to human action on the belief that all human beings are basically skillful and kind?
78. Why doesn't Clifford hold that it'south okay if harmless things are believed on insufficient evidence?
78. How does Clifford think that taking up unjustified behavior will impairment society?
Thinky question. How practice societies that accept belief on insufficient reason compare to societies that insist on sufficient reason in terms of savagery?
78. According to Clifford, what has been the result of the habit of requiring evidence for our beliefs?
78. Put the remark quoted by James into your own words.
79. If Clifford is right, when would information technology be morally okay to believe in the existence of some god or gods?
79. If Clifford is right, when would information technology be morally okay to believe that no gods exist?
79. If Clifford is correct, what would be our moral duty to believe if we had no logically sufficient argument either way?
79. What is the offset way that William James agrees with Clifford?
79. What is the second style that James agrees with Clifford?
79. If we separate Clifford'southward view into two rules, what is the first rule?
79. What is the second rule?
79. Which dominion does James hold with? Which rule does James disagree with?
79. According to James, what are the only two determinants of our beliefs?
79. Since Plato, what have philosophers generally said almost the passions?
79. Does James hold that wherever reason is neutral information technology is not wrong for us to believe as our passions direct?
79. What does James agree exactly?
80. Under what circumstances does James think it is not wrong to permit our passions determine what nosotros believe?
80. Practise these circumstances ever include cases where there is sufficient logical reason for a detail belief?
eighty. What are the three things that make something a genuine choice?
80. What makes something a living choice?
80. What makes something a momentous option?
fourscore. What makes something a forced option?
81. What makes something an avoidable option?
81. What are the iii different ways of responding to any given hypothesis?
81. Can an option be forced if the only consequences in question are truth or error? Why or why non?
Thinky question. If James is right nigh these circumstances, does this let Clifford's shipowner off the hook? Why or why not?
Thinky question. Would information technology permit a religious fanatic who persecuted those non of his faith off the hook? Why or why not?
81. What is the commencement part of James's religious hypothesis?
81. What is the 2d role of James'due south religious hypothesis?
81. How does Rowe say that the thought that what is best is eternal may be interpreted differently?
Thinky question. Does Rowe give any reason why any person should be concerned with whatsoever religious tradition whatsoever?
Thinky question. Does Rowe give any reason why individuals should not figure out for themselves what is best or supreme?
Thinky question. Does Rowe give whatever reason why we shouldn't exist concerned with the older, polytheistic, western religious traditions?
81. How tin we understand the first part of James's hypothesis within the western religious tradition?
81. According to Rowe, what does the second part affirm?
81. According to Rowe, why are nosotros better off even now if we believe in his theistic god?
Thinky question. Can we exist made immediately improve off by things that won't affect usa until after the end of our lives?
Thinky question. If the question of Rowe'south god's being cannot be settled past reason, can Rowe requite us any reason to believe that merely believing in his god will actually provide usa with the benefits that we would get if his god existed and was moved to exist nice to the states? If Rowe can't requite us a reason for this belief, how can he maybe argue that belief in his god fits the second part of James's religious hypothesis?
82. How does Rowe think that the sentence "perfection is eternal" will be interpreted in nontheistic religions?
Thinky question. How practise y'all think that sentence volition exist interpreted in polytheistic religions?
Thinky question. In your stance, can that sentence exist interpreted in a way that doesn't bother with any religion whatsoever?
At this point, I would like to point out that many atheists, maybe a bulk of atheists, rationally judge that the lack of any credible argument or evidence for the existence of whatsoever god is a logically compelling, in fact conclusive, argument confronting the existence of whatever god, just equally the lack of any credible statement or bear witness for the existence of any dragons unicorns is a logically compelling argument against the beingness of dragons and unicorns. For many atheists, the problem of evil is gravy. Be that every bit it may, I don't think we will get far wrong if we assume at this point, at least for the sake of statement, that the existence or nonexistence of any and all of the various possible gods is intellectually undecidable.
82. What does James think we should believe if there is adequate rational grounds for ane view, but our passions make us want to believe the opposite?
82. What does Clifford think we should believe if the claim that some god or other exists cannot be proved or disproved?
82. Why does James disagree?
83. Does James testify that the choice between believing that his god exists and believing that he does not is either momentous or forced?
83. What does James succeed in proving? What is the all-time we tin can say about what James has shown?
83. How does Rowe revise James's basic thesis?
Thinky question. In your opinion, does this revision succeed in preserving the spirit of what James is trying to bear witness?
83. On the arguments presented and then far, is James trying to prove that we should believe in his god, or that nosotros may believe in his god?
Earlier nosotros go along, I want to point out that, if the existence or nonexistence of gods is intellectually undecidable, then we have no rational reason to prefer 1 religious tradition over another, and in fact no rational reason to bother with religious traditions at all. All that James's reasoning compels usa to bargain with is the existence or nonexistence of logically possible gods. Fifty-fifty if we presume that James'southward god is logically possible, we accept to admit that infinitely many and infinitely variously different other gods are logically possible. The logically possible god I want to mention at this bespeak is Phobodisda. Phobodisda is an interesting god. If she exists, she is the merely god, and she is such that she infinitely despises people who choose their behavior mainly on the basis of the costs and benefits they would incur if those beliefs turned out to exist true. Phobodisda punishes such people with space torment, punishes malicious people, and rewards everyone else with infinite pleasure. If yous believe in Phobodisda, you lot get infinite pleasure. If you are an atheist or an doubter, you also get infinite pleasance. If y'all believe in some other god or gods for virtually any reason, you likewise get the space pleasure. In fact, the only way to avoid infinite pleasure (apart from being malicious), is to believe in some god because yous think your odds of making out well are better that way. If Phobodisda exists, believing in some god only considering you recall not doing so volition lose you a chance at gaining a vital skilful is an absolutely guaranteed road to space and eternal torment. He he he.
83. Co-ordinate to Rowe, what policy is adopted past the theist in the western tradition?
83. According to Rowe, what does the theist risk? Why does he risk that?
Given that Phobodisda is but as logically possible as that of any other god, what else does the theist gamble if he believes on the basis of James's statement?
83. Co-ordinate to Rowe, what does the theist have a risk of getting?
Given that Phobodisda might exist, is the theist the only one that has that chance?
84. Co-ordinate to Rowe, what policy does the agnostic prefer?
84. According to Rowe, what two things does the agnostic risk?
Given that Phobodisda might exist, does the agnostic risk anything else?
84. According to Rowe, what does the agnostic certainly gain?
If it turns out that theism imposes significant costs, what does an agnostic certainly proceeds by being an agnostic?
Given that Phobodisda might exist, what does the agnostic likewise have a chance at gaining?
84. According to Rowe, what two things does the atheist take chances?
Given that Phobodisda might be, does the atheist risk anything else?
84. Co-ordinate to Rowe, what does the atheist accept a hazard at gaining?
If it turns out that theism imposes significant costs, what does an atheist certainly gain by being an atheist?
Given that Phobodisda might exist, what else does the atheist have a chance at gaining?
84. According to Clifford, which policies would be morally wrong?
84. According to Clifford, which policy is information technology our moral duty to prefer?
84. According to James, what does Clifford'due south position corporeality to?
Thinky question. Does Clifford requite us any reason to remember that James is right about Clifford's position?
Thinky question. Is information technology the instance that Clifford gives no reason (apart from passion) for his position?
84. Does James detect annihilation appealing in the determination that he thinks Clifford has made?
84. What does James compare Clifford's supposed decision to?
84. Does James compare Clifford's supposed decision to a instance that is genuinely undecidable by rational means?
84. Does James or Rowe requite us any reason to think that Clifford argues that people should never take risks?
84. Does James or Rowe requite united states any reason to call back that Clifford argues for heaviness of heart?
84. Does James or Rowe give u.s.a. any reason to recall that Clifford argues for nervousness?
Thinky question. If James is correct about Clifford'due south position, then Clifford'southward position implies the post-obit principle: "If you are faced with a state of affairs where you cannot rationally decide which of the two all-time bachelor options is actually the best option, you should not deed at all, fifty-fifty if it is rationally clear that the consequences of inaction are vastly worse than the consequences of either of the two all-time options."
Practise you lot run into whatsoever reason to think that Clifford'due south argument implies such a principle? If y'all do, explain that reason in your own words.
84. Does James say we we have a duty to follow the theist'south policy? What does he say almost the theist'south policy?
84. Does James attack Clifford's right to follow the agnostic's policy? Where does James think Clifford goes wrong?
84. Put James'due south "no bell in us tolls" quote into your own words.
Thinky question. Tin you detect any place where Clifford says we have to know things for certain before we can believe them?
Thinky question. Do you recall that it'due south possible that James is distorting Clifford's position?
Thinky question. Is in that location a reasonable style to interpret both James and Clifford so that their views are compatible?
84-85. In what mode is James maybe unfair to Clifford?
85. Is Clifford personally afraid of making a mistake?
85. What is it that Clifford knows perfectly well?
85. What is it that Clifford thinks happens when we let ourselves to believe something on insufficient evidence?
85. What is Clifford's basic reason for urging us never to believe on insufficient evidence?
85. What is the first thing that James might argue in response?
85. What is the second thing that James might argue in response?
Thinky question. Is Clifford's statement, as presented in this form, just almost theism, disbelief and religious agnosticism?
Thinky question. Has James or Rowe given us whatsoever reason to call back that Clifford is incorrect well-nigh undecidable secular questions?
Thinky question. Call back virtually the consequence of whether or not it is possible to gear up things up so that people have perfect liberty to believe whatever they desire about intellectually undecidable questions and the resulting rationally unjustified beliefs never result in any increase of savagery, and then that the habit of rationally deciding rationally decidable questions is maximally effective in its work of raising the man race upwards out of savagery. If it turns out that this is possible, would that mean that James is right? If it turns out that this is impossible, would that mean that Clifford is correct?
Copyright � 2004 by Martin C. Young
Next folio.
This Site is Proudly Hosted By:
Source: http://www.madwizard.com/faith11.htm
0 Response to "according to clifford, what the shipowner did was wrong because"
Post a Comment