Thommo wrote:

UndercoverElephant wrote:Yeah, but then I got a bullet for saying it wasn't OK for the Peter Sutcliffe to believe it was OK to murder prostitutes on a firm inner conviction.

Sure, which is because in the simple terms of the test those statements are contradictory.

If you can formulate some rational criteria for distinguishing between "things it's ok to believe based solely on a firm inner conviction" and "things it's not ok to believe based solely on a firm inner conviction" then you may indeed have found another weakness of the quiz.

If you do have such a criteria, I'd be interested to hear it.

Directly contradicts science = not OK.
Blatantly illogical (square circles) = no OK.
Most other things = OK.

These are relatively simple. Ethics is much more complicated. On the one hand, we have to respect consensus ethics. But if you say this then you are open to a "the german people were complicit in the crimes of the nazis" line of attack. If you find yourself in a situation where the consensus ethics within your local environment include that it is OK to murder people because they are Jewish, then you must reject consensus ethics. But how do you decide which is which?

Okay, I played. I took no hits, and . . . :::drumroll::: I was awarded the TPM Medal of Honour. Yay!

Here's what my feedback said:

Congratulations!

You have been awarded the TPM medal of honour! This is our highest award for outstanding service on the intellectual battleground.

The fact that you progressed through this activity neither being hit nor biting a bullet suggests that your beliefs about God are internally consistent and very well thought out.

A direct hit would have occurred had you answered in a way that implied a logical contradiction. You would have bitten bullets had you responded in ways that required that you held views that most people would have found strange, incredible or unpalatable. However, you avoided both these fates - and in doing so qualify for our highest award. A fine achievement!

UndercoverElephant wrote:Directly contradicts science = not OK.
Blatantly illogical (square circles) = no OK.
Most other things = OK.

These are relatively simple. Ethics is much more complicated. On the one hand, we have to respect consensus ethics. But if you say this then you are open to a "the german people were complicit in the crimes of the nazis" line of attack. If you find yourself in a situation where the consensus ethics within your local environment include that it is OK to murder people because they are Jewish, then you must reject consensus ethics. But how do you decide which is which?

Well, that's interesting, because the bullet you picked up:

UndercoverElephant wrote:Yeah, but then I got a bullet for saying it wasn't OK for the Peter Sutcliffe to believe it was OK to murder prostitutes on a firm inner conviction.

Doesn't fit with that rule, so it seems the quiz was on the money in highlighting a weakness in your position.

Thommo wrote:

UndercoverElephant wrote:Directly contradicts science = not OK.
Blatantly illogical (square circles) = no OK.
Most other things = OK.

These are relatively simple. Ethics is much more complicated. On the one hand, we have to respect consensus ethics. But if you say this then you are open to a "the german people were complicit in the crimes of the nazis" line of attack. If you find yourself in a situation where the consensus ethics within your local environment include that it is OK to murder people because they are Jewish, then you must reject consensus ethics. But how do you decide which is which?

Well, that's interesting, because the bullet you picked up:

UndercoverElephant wrote:Yeah, but then I got a bullet for saying it wasn't OK for the Peter Sutcliffe to believe it was OK to murder prostitutes on a firm inner conviction.

Doesn't fit with that rule, so it seems the quiz was on the money in highlighting a weakness in your position.

The bullet I picked up does fit with that rule. Consensus ethics says it is not OK to murder people because they are prostitutes, and no amount of inner conviction can over-rule this. Peter Sutcliffe deserves to spend the rest of his life in prison (and co-incidentally it was announced earlier this week that this is precisely what is going to happen.)

Is it a weakness to say that ethics is complicated and that each situation must be assessed on its own merits?

UndercoverElephant wrote:The bullet I picked up does fit with that rule. Consensus ethics says it is not OK to murder people because they are prostitutes, and no amount of inner conviction can over-rule this. Peter Sutcliffe deserves to spend the rest of his life in prison (and co-incidentally it was announced earlier this week that this is precisely what is going to happen.)

Is it a weakness to say that ethics is complicated and that each situation must be assessed on its own merits?

Well, yes, because you're assuming your ethics are valid from his viewpoint. They aren't.

Whether or not it's acceptable to you for him to murder prostitutes is not the same question as whether it's ok for him to believe that it's ok to murder prostitutes.

You've justified a prohibition on his actions, not a prohibition on his beliefs.

Just as a reminder the full text of question 15 is:

The serial rapist Peter Sutcliffe had a firm, inner conviction that God wanted him to rape and murder prostitutes. He was, therefore, justified in believing that he was carrying out God's will in undertaking these actions.

The question is about justification for belief, not about one's personal moral judgement of his action.

Thommo wrote:

UndercoverElephant wrote:The bullet I picked up does fit with that rule. Consensus ethics says it is not OK to murder people because they are prostitutes, and no amount of inner conviction can over-rule this. Peter Sutcliffe deserves to spend the rest of his life in prison (and co-incidentally it was announced earlier this week that this is precisely what is going to happen.)

Is it a weakness to say that ethics is complicated and that each situation must be assessed on its own merits?

Well, yes, because you're assuming your ethics are valid from his viewpoint. They aren't.

Whether or not it's acceptable to you for him to murder prostitutes is not the same question as whether it's ok for him to believe that it's ok to murder prostitutes.

You've justified a prohibition on his actions, not a prohibition on his beliefs.

Just as a reminder the full text of question 15 is:

The serial rapist Peter Sutcliffe had a firm, inner conviction that God wanted him to rape and murder prostitutes. He was, therefore, justified in believing that he was carrying out God's will in undertaking these actions.

The question is about justification for belief, not about one's personal moral judgement of his action.

Ah yes. I didn't pay close enough attention to the wording.

I bit a bullet because I said that I required overwhelming evidence of the existence of a god. I think this is rational, considering that whether evolution is true or not doesn't not affect me in any way but the existence of a being of such power has the potential to affect me greatly.

Eryemil wrote:I bit a bullet because I said that I required overwhelming evidence of the existence of a god. I think this is rational, considering that whether evolution is true or not doesn't not affect me in any way but the existence of a being of such power has the potential to affect me greatly.

Is this the question you are referring to?

Question 13:

It is foolish to believe in God without certain, irrevocable proof that God exists.

Thommo wrote:

Eryemil wrote:I bit a bullet because I said that I required overwhelming evidence of the existence of a god. I think this is rational, considering that whether evolution is true or not doesn't not affect me in any way but the existence of a being of such power has the potential to affect me greatly.

Is this the question you are referring to?

Question 13:

It is foolish to believe in God without certain, irrevocable proof that God exists.

I'm sure it is. It seems like quite a few have gotten hit by that one, me included. As I mentioned in my first post, I said that it would be foolish because the more fantastic the notion, the more fantastic the evidence required.

After seeing your objection to this, mainly:

Thommo wrote:

Absolute proof of god is not required for belief in god to be legitimate. Just as absolute proof is not required for evolution, or my belief that England won't win the next world cup.

Demanding absolute proof for god's existence is indeed a double standard, demanding a high evidentiary standard (e.g. that the existence of god-like entities has occured before and thus is possible) is sufficient.

I'm now not so sure. That seems pretty sound to me, and there's a good possibility it may very well be a double standard. I'll have to think about this one.

Thommo wrote:

Eryemil wrote:I bit a bullet because I said that I required overwhelming evidence of the existence of a god. I think this is rational, considering that whether evolution is true or not doesn't not affect me in any way but the existence of a being of such power has the potential to affect me greatly.

Is this the question you are referring to?

Question 13:

It is foolish to believe in God without certain, irrevocable proof that God exists.

Yes. The quiz said I had to bite a bullet because I said I needed more evidence to believe in god than in evolution.

Eryemil wrote:

Thommo wrote:

Eryemil wrote:I bit a bullet because I said that I required overwhelming evidence of the existence of a god. I think this is rational, considering that whether evolution is true or not doesn't not affect me in any way but the existence of a being of such power has the potential to affect me greatly.

Is this the question you are referring to?

Question 13:

It is foolish to believe in God without certain, irrevocable proof that God exists.

Yes. The quiz said I had to bite a bullet because I said I needed more evidence to believe in god than in evolution.

Not just more evidence than evolution - irrefutable, 100% proof of his existence.

jaredennisclark wrote:I'm now not so sure. That seems pretty sound to me, and there's a good possibility it may very well be a double standard. I'll have to think about this one.

One possible approach I'd suggest based on my own reasoning is to consider what actually makes a claim foolish or extreme in the first place. For me it's exactly that a claim has little or no prior evidence.

E.g.

I lost my wallet when I was in town yesterday:

Claim 1) A pickpocket stole it
Claim 2) A leprechaun stole it.

Now, to me claim (2) sounds foolish/extreme precisely because I have no reason to think leprechauns exist (and existence is necessary for stealing). Pickpockets on the other hand are known to exist, I have access to multiple, independent attestations of people having been pickpocketed, there exists legislation under the law to deal with pickpockets, I have met people and know they exist... etc...

The difference between claim (1) and claim (2) - the thing that makes claim (2) extreme, and thus in need of extreme evidence, is precisely a gulf of background evidence/existing knowledge that already exists for claim (1) that is not present for claim (2) - the burden of proof on the positions is consistent, the evidentiary standard is the same. The sole difference lies in the amount of evidence presented/available for claim (1) compared to claim (2) to actually meet the claim. Claim (2) has a huge burden to shift in showing that leprechauns exist that claim (1) does not.

Edit: And I should like to add that even given the above, claim (1) is not necessarily plausible or true. It is merely lightyears ahead of claim (2), it may well turn out that I simply dropped my wallet somewhere.

I'd think the big difference is that gods and leprechauns are supernatural beings; they don't appear to be entirely verifiable or falsifiable by empirical means, which is in stark contrast to a scientific theory like evolution which makes no supernatural claims.

So, you might well find lots of evidence that points to a short man in a green hat running away with your wallet, but you shouldn't really be calling him a leprechaun until you've located his pot of gold at the end of a rainbow somewhere which isn't going to happen because rainbows don't have ends.

What did you say about leprechauns now, mate?