Game - Battleground God

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.But things of material origin, on the other hand, don't depend upon what you believe.The test even makes this explicit claim, "The example of the rapist has exposed that you do not in fact agree that any belief is justified just because one is convinced of its truth," but it doesn't understand the issue is centered on the term "any."Not "any" belief, but there is at least one.Ah, but morality is a socially constructed model! So why does the rapist get punished? Because the rapist doesn't really believe rape is a good thing. He's only doing it because he thinks god told him to. That's coercion. And since it was established (in a previous question) that god does not necessarily have the good of the world at heart, "god told me to" is not necessarily justification.Because there is a difference between things that affect only yourself and things that affect others. F'rinstance, if I want to take my car to the junkyard and have it crushed into a cube, that's my business. But if you do it without my permission, even though I was going to do it anyway, that's theft. That's because it is conceivable that I would have changed my mind at the last moment or wanted the experience of doing it myself etc.Rape involves more than one person and we have to take that other person's opinion into account.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

RAZD responds to me:

quote:

---

I couldn't agree to that because it allowed one to believe something that is contradicted by evidence.

---

As a general rule, I'd agree with that, but there are times when things have no evidence and yet there is tantalizing suggestions for such. In some sense, it's what drives science: You have to believe six impossible things before breakfast in order to figure out how to show which one is actually possible.Now, one might say that that is evidence, but I make a distinction between evidence that definitively justifies a stance and evidence that only suggest things.

quote:

---

The question is whether he was justified in believing that he was carrying out God's will, based on a a firm, inner conviction.

---

But in that case the question is either a tautology (who are we to contradict what he says he believes...if he believes god told him, then he believes god told him) or a non sequitur (just what is being questioned: The belief? That it's god's will?)The site makes a point of saying that it isn't perfect. It's trying to be pithy and distinct and its dealing with things that are very hard to reduce to such.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minnemooseus responds to me:

quote:

---

You seemed to have restricted things to considerations of morality. If such is to be the constraint, then I would have had your position.

---

Well, I used morality as an example, but the larger category I mentioned was socially constructed models. Things like economic policy, governmental systems, how to do a tea ceremony, these are all things for which you can have a "firm, inner conviction" and be justified about it because the entire reason these things exist is because of those "firm, inner convictions." How does one make a "rational" decision regarding which is better...the Klingon or the Japanese tea ceremony?A global flood, however, is not a socially constructed model. It's a physical act. My point is that there is a difference between $ (there exists) and " (for all). There exists a concept for which "firm, inner convictions" are sufficient to justify. But not all concepts can be justified this way.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.