Adam C. Lipscomb wrote: >A nifty little game that checks to see how internally consistent your >religious beliefs are. >http://www.philosophers.co.uk/games/god.htm > Their hits are based on fairly narrow criteria. I'm surprised the average hits are as low as they are. For example I got hit for the following:
Earlier you said that it is justifiable to base one's beliefs about the external world on a firm, inner conviction even when there is no external evidence for the truth of this conviction. But now you do not accept that the rapist Peter Sutcliffe was justified in doing just that. 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. That's not actually true - his belief may be justified, his actions weren't, and they asked was he justified in his actions. To me it is clear that Sutcliffe should have been able to see the amorality and inherent evil of his actions, and questioned God's commands to him, in fact to the point where he could see that the God most of the world follows could never command such actions. He can have all the firm inner convictions he wants, but they mustn't automatically, absolutely override all the other cues around him... Cheers Russell C.
