So far, we have been discussing the manner in which Clifford argues that it is sometimes impermissible to believe something when one lacks adequate evidence. But remember: Clifford’s position is that it is never permissible to believe anything for which one lacks adequate evidence. How does Clifford extend the argument we’ve considered into one(s) whose conclusion(s) is/are that it is never permissible to believe anything for which one lacks adequate evidence? To what extent are his arguments for this conclusion successful? Explain. Clifford argues that actions cannot be separated from belief, therefore any belief held without adequate evidence caries the potential for morally blameworthy consequences. I don't believe this argument is successful, simply because it is possible to believe something with no evidence whatsoever, the consequences of which may or may not be blameworthy; such as believing that there exists somewhere in the world a living Tyrannosaurus Rex. To use the example of the ship captain, believing the ship was seaworthy was in and of itself a morally blameworthy situation, whereas the belief in a tyrannosaurus rex is not in and of itself a morally blameworthy situation. 2. 1. Does anyone, in your opinion, have adequate evidence that God exists? That God does not exist? Why? There is no adequate evidence that God exists, nor is there adequate evidence that God does not exist. We are looking for evidence god exists, so we turned to an evidential argument in favor of God: the cosmological argument. According to the cosmological argument, if every positive fact that has ever obtained has an explanation, then there must have existed at least one self-existent thing. It cannot be know whether such a being still exists, or if it satisfies any particular definition of God. If PSR is not always true, and there were no self-existent thing, existence would have no explanation, which in and of itself does not constitute evidence that God does not...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document