Hit 1 - Said "false" for 7 and "true" for 15.
Hit 2 - Said "false" for 7 and "true" for 17.
I took a bullet, but only because the system is defining all justifications equally.
Specifically, I agreed that "it is justifiable to base one's beliefs about the external world on a firm, inner conviction, regardless of the external evidence, or lack of it, for the truth or falsity of this conviction."
But, I disagreed that a rapist who believes god told him to rape was justified. It claims this is a contradiction, but only if we assume that all beliefs can be justified this way, and I don't think they can. Some beliefs are justifiable without external evidence. Some are not. For example, beliefs about socially constructed models can only be justified by inner conviction for that is their place of origin.
I took a hit on this pair, but my responses were the opposite of yours.
I disagreed that "it is justifiable to base one's beliefs about the external world on a firm, inner conviction, regardless of the external evidence, or lack of it, for the truth or falsity of this conviction." To agree would be to be like a creationist who believes that "the great flood" happened, despite the worldly evidence to the contrary. You seemed to have restricted things to considerations of morality. If such is to be the constraint, then I would have had your position.
Concerning the rapist - I agreed that the rapist was justified in believing he was doing God's will. To me, such a belief is independent of any belief of morality or immorality. The rapist may well have believed that God's will was for him to do something that he personally found to be immoral.
My other his was on 17) "It is justifiable to believe in God if one has a firm, inner conviction that God exists, even if there is no external evidence that God exists.", to which I replied "true". I had earlier replied "false" to 7) "It is justifiable to base one's beliefs about the external world on a firm, inner conviction, even in the absence of any external evidence for the truth of these convictions."
Many people believe in God without any evidence one way or the other. I have no problem with that. For #7 I again bring up "the great flood". I don't think an "inner conviction" justifies a belief that is contrary to the external ("real world") evidence or lack of evidence.
Belief in God in not a matter of worldly evidence; Belief in "the flood" is a matter of worldly evidence.
Boy, it's hard to coherently discuss this stuff. But the bottom line is, I'm not buying their reasonings for the "hits".
I seem to recall saying that lack of evidence for God justifies atheism, and also saying that lack of evidence does not dis-justify belief in God. It would seem that should have set off bells.
Moose
Added by edit - OK, here's a copy/paste of their evaluation:
quote:
Direct Hit 1
You answered "False" to Question 7 and "True" to Question 15.
These answers generated the following response:
You've just taken a direct hit!
Earlier you claimed that it is not justifiable to base one's beliefs about the external world on a firm, inner-conviction, paying no regard to the external evidence, or lack of it, for the truth or falsity of this conviction. But now you say that the rapist Peter Sutcliffe was justified in basing his beliefs about God's will solely on precisely such a conviction. That's a bull's-eye for the intellectual sniper!
****************
Direct Hit 2
You answered "False" to Question 7 and "True" to Question 17.
These answers generated the following response:
You've just taken a direct hit! Earlier you said that it is not justifiable to base one's beliefs about the external world on a firm, inner conviction, paying no regard to the external evidence, or lack of it, for the truth or falsity of this conviction, but now you say it's justifiable to believe in God on just these grounds. That's a flagrant contradiction!
****************
Edited by Minnemooseus, : See above.
™ Version 4.2
