1. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    07 Jul '14 18:09
    Originally posted by CalJust
    What am I missing here? You must be meaning something else.
    Justification is about giving reasons for somthing ie justifying it. Those reasons may be invalid, or made up, or valid but not your primary reasons - as in the sense you are referring to. However if the reasons are valid, and the primary reasons you have, then the word is still the same.
    I think LemonJellos comment would be reasonable in two different cases:
    1. Where you give the reasons why you believe something to be the case.
    2. You attempt to give reasons why you believe something to be the case, even if they are not the primary reasons for your belief. If you then fail to give valid reasons, then you should consider revising your beliefs.
  2. Standard memberCalJust
    It is what it is
    Pretoria
    Joined
    20 Apr '04
    Moves
    66374
    07 Jul '14 18:243 edits
    Originally posted by twhitehead

    I think LemonJellos comment would be reasonable in two different cases:
    1. Where you give the reasons why you believe something to be the case.
    2. You attempt to give reasons why you believe something to be the case, even if they are not the primary reasons for your belief. If you then fail to give valid reasons, then you should consider revising your beliefs.
    OK, I think I get it.

    If someone were to say that Ireland is the Best "Good Country" in the world, (and that the US is only No 27) then it would be fair to challenge him as to how he arrived at that assessment. That would require justification.

    I might not agree with the conclusion, and suggest my own yardsticks, but at least the reasoning behind the first statement would be on the table.

    Thanks for the clarification.

    Edit: And "Because God said so!" is only a valid justification for persons within the same frame of reference.
  3. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    07 Jul '14 20:08
    Originally posted by CalJust
    Edit: And "Because God said so!" is only a valid justification for persons within the same frame of reference.
    For someone who agrees with you that a given text is Gods word, it is valid justification. For someone who does not, it requires further justification for why you believe the given text is Gods word (or whatever other source you might have for Gods word).
    In general, justification does usually assume some agreed facts.

    Of course the particular example (Gods word) suffers from various problems including interpretation, a large base from which to draw, and context. So you might say 'because God said so' and some other person will say 'but he said something else in a different verse'. This happens quite a lot in theist debates on this forum. At that point you should try to justify why you think one verse and interpretation is preferable over the other.
  4. Joined
    24 Apr '05
    Moves
    3061
    07 Jul '14 21:21
    Originally posted by CalJust
    Hi, LJ, welcome back. I was wondering what had happened to you. You sort of kicked off this thread and then disappeared!

    I must ask you to explain a bit more what you mean by value in the practices of justification. In my book justification is very much like rationalisation, i.e. pretending, and arguing, that something is right, when ...[text shortened]... t that I should not have done so.

    What am I missing here? You must be meaning something else.
    Hi CalJust, thanks. I was taking some time off for vacation.

    When I talk about 'justification', I typically mean it in an epistemic sense. In rough terms, justification is that which is added to true belief in order to arrive at knowledge. In other words, justification is a necessary component in the analysis of knowledge: in order for S to know that P and not just merely believe that P, it is necessary that S's belief that P is justified. In other terms, though, we could think of justification as that which undergirds the warrant one has in claiming or believing that P, if the claim or belief happens to be warranted. It is one thing for S to make the claim that P or for S to believe that P is the case; it is another thing for those attitudes to be warranted or justified. This is a thoroughly normative notion: it is concerned with how one ought to form and maintain propositional attitudes like beliefs. To first order, we could say that a belief is justified if it is an appropriate attitude for one's cognitive and epistemic environment. But that begs the question of what it means to be appropriate in this sense. There are many different theories on this. Some will claim that the belief, to be justified, needs to be properly apportioned to the evidence one has; others will claim that the belief needs to fit in coherently with one's belief structure; others will claim that it has to do with the processes or methods under with the belief forms; others will claim that it has to do with pragmatic considerations; etc. Whatever account one thinks is correct in this regards, there will be explanative reasons in virtue of which a belief is justified, if it happens to be justified on that account. So, by the "practices of justification" I am talking about the give and take of these sorts of reasons in debate. Typically, in these sorts of debates, one tries to argue for his or her view on the grounds that the view is factually correct; and so the natural reasons to offer are evidential ones, since those are the ones that should have direct bearing on the question of whether or not P is true. However, I am not excluding other sorts of justification, although I think other sorts tend to be ineffective in debates.

    As I mentioned, I think there are many reasons why the practices of justification is valuable, regardless of whether or not there is expectation that the primary parties will be particularly receptive to countervailing ideas. These practices inherently promote confluence of ideas, which is something that lends itself to healthy perspective and mutual understanding, and these discussions are often public and documented and thus are often far-reaching beyond the primary parties involved. If I recall correctly, you have stated before that instead of engaging in such discussion, it is often better to have a program of tolerance and understanding instead. However, what I think needs to be emphasized here is that a program of tolerance and healthy understanding often goes hand-in-hand with the practices of justification, in a synergistic relationship. After all, I can have a much healthier appreciation and understanding for another's view, even if it differs radically from my own, if I have some knowledge of the reasons with which they moor that view. Of course, there is never any guarantee that the discussion will go well, and the value may not manifest. And, of course, there is always the potential that in trying to tease out whatever justification one has for a view, you find their attempts at justification so poor that you lose whatever respect you had for that view. Sometimes, them's the breaks, but there is value in that too. However, when the discussion goes well, you gain newfound respect for that person's view, even if you still disagree. When it goes really well for you, you capsize someone else's beliefs. When it goes extremely well for you, your own beliefs get capsized.

    I would treat the question of God's existence (for some particular conception of 'God', case by case) as a theoretical question, not distinct in this sense from any other theoretical question. The value added by the practices of justification will apply, just like any other area of inquiry or discourse. If you are trying to give this particular area of discourse a special exemption for some reason, I do not understand what would merit that special treatment.
  5. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    08 Jul '14 06:59
    Originally posted by LemonJello
    However, when the discussion goes well, you gain newfound respect for that person's view, even if you still disagree. When it goes really well for you, you capsize someone else's beliefs. When it goes extremely well for you, your own beliefs get capsized.
    I like that. We too often forget that correcting our own mistaken beliefs is a good thing.
  6. Standard memberCalJust
    It is what it is
    Pretoria
    Joined
    20 Apr '04
    Moves
    66374
    08 Jul '14 08:06
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    In general, justification does usually assume some agreed facts.

    Of course the particular example (Gods word) suffers from various problems including interpretation, a large base from which to draw, and context. So you might say 'because God said so' and some other person will say 'but he said something else in a different verse'. This happens quite a ...[text shortened]... u should try to justify why you think one verse and interpretation is preferable over the other.
    Yes, the key words here are "some agreed facts". Your example of discourse on biblical texts is a case in point.

    What I find most frustrating about some of the debates on RHP (actually mainly on this Forum, the others don't seem to suffer much from this malady) is that often the posters live in two different universes, with absolutely zero common ground!
  7. Standard memberCalJust
    It is what it is
    Pretoria
    Joined
    20 Apr '04
    Moves
    66374
    08 Jul '14 08:381 edit
    Originally posted by LemonJello
    I would treat the question of God's existence (for some particular conception of 'God', case by case) as a theoretical question, not distinct in this sense from any other theoretical question. If you are trying to give this particular area of special exemption for some reason, I do not understand what would merit that special treatment.
    To first order, we could say that a belief is justified if it is an appropriate attitude for one's cognitive and epistemic environment. But that begs the question of what it means to be appropriate in this sense. There are many different theories on this. Some will claim that the belief, to be justified, needs to be properly apportioned to the evidence one has; others will claim that the belief needs to fit in coherently with one's belief structure; others will claim that it has to do with the processes or methods under with the belief forms; others will claim that it has to do with pragmatic considerations; etc. Whatever account one thinks is correct in this regards, there will be explanative reasons in virtue of which a belief is justified, if it happens to be justified on that account.
    I wish i could write like this - you are a skilled words-craftsman!

    Overall, it must make sense, what one believes, and furthermore, one should preferably be able to verbalise such reasons to somebody else's satisfaction, if not agreement. " I can see how and why you should believe such-and-such".

    If I recall correctly, you have stated before that instead of engaging in such discussion, it is often better to have a program of tolerance and understanding instead. However, what I think needs to be emphasized here is that a program of tolerance and healthy understanding often goes hand-in-hand with the practices of justification, in a synergistic relationship. After all, I can have a much healthier appreciation and understanding for another's view, even if it differs radically from my own, if I have some knowledge of the reasons with which they moor that view.
    Agreed. My option of "agreeing to differ peacefully" is based on my firm conviction that relationships are far more important than "winning", which merely encourages one's ego. However, the first prize remains what you call a "synergistic relationship", i.e. one built on mutual trust and love (as I have with my Buddhist son) although we certainly do not agree on every point.

    However, when the discussion goes well, you gain newfound respect for that person's view, even if you still disagree. When it goes really well for you, you capsize someone else's beliefs. When it goes extremely well for you, your own beliefs get capsized.
    Absolutely beautifully said!

    Finally, to get back to your closing statement (the one highlighted at the top) I can only say, no, there is no reason why a discussion on the question of God cannot be held on the same terms as you so eloquently portrayed here. The only caveat that I would add, however, would be that past experience has shown that such discussions tend to become emotional and defensive, leaving a bad taste in everybody's mouth. But theoretically, yes, it should be absolutely possible.

    Thanks again for this very clear treatise.

    CJ
Back to Top

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.I Agree