I'm inclined to reject the idea that we have any control whatsoever over our beliefs. We do, however, have control of our actions (not "judgments," which seem to me only to cloud the issue). Thus arises the meta/self-referential problem of what we believe about acting on less than sufficient evidence. Sometimes, maybe most times, we have less-than-sufficient evidence for decisions. One can be 55% "certain" of a fact, but there is no middle ground between doing and not doing. (Yes, there are ways to hedge some choices, but one either does or does not accuse a child of drug use.)

Is it unethical to believe that providence will protect those we put at risk? I don't know. I think it's stupid; "providence" protects them by making us smart enough to know better. (Schmuck! I sent you two boats and a helicopter!) But unethical? What does Clifford mean by "wrong," anyway? But I believe it is wrong to launch the ship when belief in providence is the driving element of decision. Doesn't humility demand, even of the religious, that they not risk others' lives on their own sense of what the Almighty intends?

At the end of the day, though, it remains very difficult to convince a man that something is false when his salary depends on its being true. That's got nothing to do with ethics. That's just how the species rolls.