1. In the section on the "Ethics of Belief", Pojman describes a doctor who fails to fulfill his moral obligations. What moral obligations does Pojman think the doctor had in this case--obligations he failed to fulfill? What is the point about religious belief that Pojman is trying to get us to buy into with this story?
2. Define "perspectivism" about rationality. Why does Pojman think perspectivism is a better theory of rationality than nonperspectivism?
3. What is the difference between hard perspectivism and soft perspectivism?
4. When Pojman talks about a "perspective", he seems to be talking about something fairly close to a worldview, or at least the belief portion of a worldview. Now, think about what he says about the correctness of soft perspectivism, and what he says about being rational (as illustrated by the three women example), what he says about the ethical obligations we have to believe according to the best evidence, and what he says about being impartial. Taking all this into account, you should try to answer the following key question: would Pojman agree that the religious person and the naturalistically-minded person cannot have any basis for critiquing each other's points of view, since they each evaluate all evidence and reasons from within their own perspectives? (This is a tough question. Do your best with it; it is the key to much of the rest of the semester. We'll talk about it in class.)