Justification for belief

Originally posted by DeepThought
This is the stupidest comment I've read in these forums for years. People who believe nothing, and other than possibly new born children I doubt such a person exists, have no beliefs which can contradict new information. On the other hand those that do believe things are far more likely to fail to recognize truth as there is the risk that it contradicts their prior beliefs.

Everyone comes with their own baggage. Those who believe nothing still believe something.

When I said "believe nothing", I was using the religious meaning of "belief".

Let me go back to what I said and undress it for a moment.

I said, "To those who don't believe anything, even truth is a lie." This is what I meant: To those who do not believe in a God, the truth of what I believe in is a lie to them. I was being more general in order to reduce the cumbersome line to something easier to communicate. I suppose the fact that I had to revisit this to explain my meaning says I was wrong. I underestimated the pedantry in this forum, I guess.

I suppose this is why pedants like FMF think they can have their way with me. But then, I usually do not pass what I say through a filter just for pedants like him. If people like him don't get it, too bad. What I take issue with him about is that I know he does get it, but pretends he doesn't so that he can try to shove me around in these forums, and I don't stand for it.

Similarly, you can pedantically try to call me "stupid" all day, but no, I'm not standing for it.


And while I'm at it, let me address this throwaway line of yours at the end.

"On the other hand those that do believe things are far more likely to fail to recognize truth as there is the risk that it contradicts their prior beliefs."

I do not "fail to recognize truth". All of your vaunted and valued "science", I believe in all of it too. None of it contradicts any of my beliefs. As I see it, there is NO "risk that it [truth] contradicts my prior beliefs". But my beliefs, even though they cannot be proven, are truths, too. But they're my truths, not necessarily yours or anyone else's. And again, your failure to recognize my truths doesn't really affect me in any way.

Originally posted by DeepThought
I went back and had a look at what you said, I'll copy and paste the last paragraph to here for our convenience:[quote]When we respond to the gospel and live as children of God, He changes our hearts and makes us want to obey out of love. God is a being of love, and His plan for us is rooted in love. And this is all the justification my faith needs, His ...[text shortened]... ably not possible, but one that does not require that one believes in it all in the first place.

The problem is this. Some people are so sceptical that they can't even be sure of their own existence. So if their own experiences can't even justify their own existence, then nothing can ever justify anything for them.

Originally posted by DeepThought
I went back and had a look at what you said, I'll copy and paste the last paragraph to here for our convenience:[quote]When we respond to the gospel and live as children of God, He changes our hearts and makes us want to obey out of love. God is a being of love, and His plan for us is rooted in love. And this is all the justification my faith needs, His ...[text shortened]... ably not possible, but one that does not require that one believes in it all in the first place.

Isn't all justification "post hoc"?

Look, I understand that atheists desire "proof". Well, it just "ain't happenin' ". When I replied to this OP, I answered the question of how I justify my faith. And, with this comes the plain and clear fact that this cannot be sufficient for an atheist. The other thread may be concerned with "proving" one's beliefs, but this thread appears to be a little more narrowly focused and this is why I replied to it in the first place. I probably cannot "prove" my beliefs to anyone. I didn't think that was what this thread was about.

One can have any number of discussions about faith or beliefs, and "justification". But if you start throwing "proof" into the discussion, it becomes an entirely different discussion. I want to make clear that I never intended my reply in this thread to have anything to do with another thread that I did not read past page one.

Originally posted by Suzianne
Isn't all justification "post hoc"?

Look, I understand that atheists desire "proof". Well, it just "ain't happenin' ". When I replied to this OP, I answered the question of how I justify my faith. And, with this comes the plain and clear fact that this cannot be sufficient for an atheist. The other thread may be concerned with "proving" one's beliefs ...[text shortened]... ply in this thread to have anything to do with another thread that I did not read past page one.

As an atheist I don't desire proof, I require it.

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
As an atheist I don't desire proof, I require it.

Can you prove that you exist? Did someone have to prove to you that your purpose in life is to take care of your family? Point is you only demand proof when it suits you.

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
The problem is this. Some people are so sceptical that they can't even be sure of their own existence. So if their own experiences can't even justify their own existence, then nothing can ever justify anything for them.

That is a problem of your own creation.

Originally posted by DeepThought
Basically, you've said that you feel God's love because of your faith and have faith because of God's love for you, which is somewhat circular.

Let me remove the 'circularity' of this for you.

"you've said that you feel God's love because of your faith and have faith because of God's love for you"

This is not what I said or meant. If you had said, "you've said that you feel God's love because of your faith and feel justified in that faith because of God's love for you" then you would be far closer to what I said and meant.

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
Can you prove that you exist?

My atheism relates to whether God exists or not, nothing more. For that I require proof.

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
My atheism relates to whether God exists or not, nothing more. For that I require proof.

If you can't know with absolute certainty that you exist, why do you need absolute certainty that God exists?

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
As an atheist I don't desire proof, I require it.

Are you joining "the pedantic gang"?

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
As an atheist I don't desire proof, I require it.

So you require proof in order to have faith.

Do you understand the definition of "faith"?

Originally posted by Suzianne
So you require proof in order to have faith.

Do you understand the definition of "faith"?

I have faith that the friend I lent 10 pounds to will pay me back. This faith is based on the friend having proved his trustworthiness to me over years of friendship. If a stranger on the street asked to borrow some money I would not have faith that the money would be paid back to me, the stranger not having proved his reliability.

God is a stranger to me. On what am I to base any sense of faith?

Originally posted by Suzianne
Are you joining "the pedantic gang"?

Do you have a membership form? 😉

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
I have faith that the friend I lent 10 pounds to will pay me back. This faith is based on the friend having proved his trustworthiness to me over years of friendship. If a stranger on the street asked to borrow some money I would not have faith that the money would be paid back to me, the stranger not having proved his reliability.

God is a stranger to me. On what am I to base any sense of faith?

If you were drowning and a stranger threw you a life line would you catch it?

Originally posted by Suzianne
Everyone comes with their own baggage. Those who believe nothing still believe something.

When I said "believe nothing", I was using the religious meaning of "belief".

Let me go back to what I said and undress it for a moment.

I said, "To those who don't believe anything, even truth is a lie." This is what I meant: To those who do not believe in ...[text shortened]... e's. And again, your failure to recognize my truths doesn't really affect me in any way.

For the record, I did not call you stupid, I called what you said stupid which is not the same thing. Although what you were trying to communicate is not stupid - someone with a strong bias will fail to recognize the truth if their bias is incorrect, I agree.

Isn't all justification "post hoc"?

Well, it doesn't normally require that one already believes the proposition. I'm justified in my belief that someone is at the door because the doorbell rang. So the justification is an association between the ringing noise and the requirement of human agency to cause it. I don't have to answer the door to be justified in the belief. However, I don't have to be right either. It may have been a child playing games who has run away, so that there isn't someone at the door but I would still be justified in thinking that there was. The proof lies in answering the door, and that would be post hoc but the justification isn't.

With faith I think there are multiple questions. First is one justified in believing in a supreme creator, second is one justified in thinking that the supreme creator is benevolent, and third in believing that that belief is important in some way. The others flow from the first as if one does not believe in God then the other questions are rendered irrelevant. It strikes me that faith isn't really about the existence question, it is more to do with the idea that believing in God is important, but to get there one first has to justify the notion that God exists somehow and I don't see an easy way of doing any better than "Why not?".