Justification for belief

In one of the other threads LJ made the following claim: it is reasonable to expect that in attempting to justify that belief in God, they ought to be able to point to something other than a lame appeal to consequences regarding perfect justice (or lack thereof).

From this claim I gather that LJ was claiming to know exactly what the justification for belief in God is, since he was claiming that something was not adequate reason to justify belief in God. So I asked him what he deems to be adequate reason to justify belief in God since his post implied that he knew.

He has not responded to my post. So I open this up to anyone else for their thoughts.

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
In one of the other threads LJ made the following claim: it is reasonable to expect that in attempting to justify that belief in God, they ought to be able to point to something other than a lame appeal to consequences regarding perfect justice (or lack thereof).

From this claim I gather that LJ was claiming to know exactly what the justifica ...[text shortened]... knew.

He has not responded to my post. So I open this up to anyone else for their thoughts.

Justification is a funny word. I'm going to assume you do not mean the definition of justify in a theological sense, meaning "to declare innocent or guiltless; absolve or acquit", but rather the usual definition of "to show (an act, claim, statement, etc.) to be just or right" or "to defend or uphold as warranted or well-grounded".

If LJ indeed made that claim, let me start at the beginning. A "lame appeal to consequences" is not what our justification of faith is about.

When a child is asked, "Do you love your mom?", he or she usually responds with with an emphatic "Of course!" Then, if they are asked, "When she asks you to do something, like clean your room, what do you think would make her happier: if you cleaned your room because you love her, or if you cleaned your room because you were afraid she would punish you?", most children instantly make the connection and respond, "Because we love her." Obedience under the shadow of a threat is hardly obedience at all, but compulsion. Christian obedience, devoid of threat and rooted in love, is what God truly wants.

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 love for me and the changes He has brought to my life. Belief in Him is not grounded in a hereafter, but in the miracle of a life lived more abundantly. Our faith is simply justified by His love for us.

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
From this claim I gather that LJ was claiming to know exactly what the justification for belief in God is, since he was claiming that something was not adequate reason to justify belief in God.

You 'gather' wrong. Knowing that something is inadequate does not imply knowing what would be adequate.

Originally posted by Suzianne
If LJ indeed made that claim, let me start at the beginning. A "lame appeal to consequences" is not what our justification of faith is about.

As long as we are clear you are telling that to the people LJ was referring to as they are the ones who argue that it is their justification.

Originally posted by twhitehead
As long as we are clear you are telling that to the people LJ was referring to as they are the ones who argue that it is their justification.

It seems rather moot as I do not know who LJ was talking about. I'm only speaking of my faith as I see it. This position is not at all unknown to most Christians. In fact, most would probably say this is true.

If there are Christians running around who claim their justification for their faith is merely some kind of fear of God's judgement, then that is some spectacularly weak faith.

Originally posted by Suzianne
If there are Christians running around who claim their justification for their faith is merely some kind of fear of God's judgement, then that is some spectacularly weak faith.

If that is so, then for those Christians who believe that non-believers face the prospect of being judged and then tortured for eternity after they die, what is the purpose of such judgement?

Originally posted by Suzianne
It seems rather moot as I do not know who LJ was talking about.

I just wanted it to be clear that you were not disputing anything LJ said but rather the people he was discussing.

If there are Christians running around who claim their justification for their faith is merely some kind of fear of God's judgement, then that is some spectacularly weak faith.
It would appear you have not understood what LJ said. A reasonable mistake to make given the lack of context. LJ is talking about the argument in another thread that was arguing for the existence of God based on a claim that for perfect justice to exist, God must exist.

There are actually many Christians who use very weak or very flawed arguments to justify their faith to others. It is typically not the real reason for their faith but rather post justification for something they have difficulty explaining or justifying.

Originally posted by Suzianne
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 love for me and the changes He has brought to my life. Belief in Him is not grounded in a hereafter, but in the miracle of a life lived more abundantly. Our faith is simply justified by His love for us.

You appear to be using the words 'faith' and 'belief' in a different context from that of the OP. You are not using them to refer to the question of Gods existence, but rather the question of whether he should be relied upon. Although both are perfectly valid uses of the words, you need to be careful not to cause confusion.

Originally posted by Suzianne
Justification is a funny word. I'm going to assume you do not mean the definition of justify in a theological sense, meaning "to declare innocent or guiltless; absolve or acquit", but rather the usual definition of "to show (an act, claim, statement, etc.) to be just or right" or "to defend or uphold as warranted or well-grounded".

If LJ indeed ...[text shortened]... racle of a life lived more abundantly. Our faith is simply justified by His love for us.

This is from the absurd escapism thread. LJ meant justification in the sense of support for an argument: "to defend or uphold as warranted or well-grounded" as you put it. An argument that one sometimes hears, and was forwarded in that thread, is along the lines of: "Without God there is no basis for morality.". In the escapism thread a stronger variant along the lines of "God is necessary for perfect justice." was raised. Suppose for arguments sake that both these statements are true and that God exists. The extension to either of the statements: "So therefore God exists." does not make for a good argument for God's existence. The problem with it that the bad outcome (imperfect justice or amorality) is not in itself internally contradictory or obviously false so the conclusion doesn't follow from the premises. In terms of structure it's like a modus tollens argument (if A then B, not B, therefore not A) or a reductio ad absurdum argument (if A then contradiction, therefore not A). As a modus tollens argument it won't work because while imperfect justice may be a bad outcome it we have no convincing grounds for "not imperfect justice". And as a reductio argument it won't work as you have to show that "imperfect justice" is somehow internally contradictory.

Also LJ was saying that someone using that argument was failing to provide adequate justification for their belief, I don't think he was saying there was any obligation to provide an adequate justification for holding any given belief or that that argument is the only one one ever hears from Christians. It's just that, this is an internet forum and posting here implies a willingness to defend one's ideas. A Christian might say: "Well, yes, but I have faith in my God, and perfect justice does exist through God.", which is fine, but at most what the Christian can claim is a consistent set of beliefs, they cannot expect me to be convinced of the existence of their God on the basis of their faith and I think that is what sonship is trying to do in the absurdism thread (which really is beginning to live up to its name...). For the Christian faith bridges that evidence gap, but this doesn't prove anything to the faithless.

Originally posted by twhitehead
You 'gather' wrong. Knowing that something is inadequate does not imply knowing what would be adequate.

So how do you know that 1+1=3 is an inadequate answer if you don't know that the adequate answer is 1+1=2?

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
So how do you know that 1+1=3 is an inadequate answer if you don't know that the adequate answer is 1+1=2?

It's enough to know that 1 + 2 = 3 and that 1 + 1 is not equal to 1 + 2. To construct a formal argument Robinson arithmetic defines a successor operator s(.) each number has a successor and there is an axiom that s(x) = s(y) implies that x = y - in other words each successor has a unique predecessor. I need axioms that x + 0 = x and that x + s(y) = s(x + y) to recursively define addition and I'll define s(0) = 1 and s(2) = 3. From the axioms we have that x + 1 = x + s(0) = s(x + 0) = s(x). So we have 1 + 1 = s(1), because we know that 3 is the successor to 2 and so cannot be the successor to 1 we know that 1 + 1 != 3. This does not rely on me knowing that 1 + 1 = s(1) = 2 and so proves that we don't need to know that 1 + 1 = 2 to know that 1 + 1 != 3.

That we can recognize that the justification in question is logically invalid, because there's no way of connecting the conclusion to the premises, does not entail that we are able or under any obligation to provide an argument that is.

Originally posted by DeepThought
It's enough to know that 1 + 2 = 3 and that 1 + 1 is not equal to 1 + 2. To construct a formal argument Robinson arithmetic defines a successor operator s(.) each number has a successor and there is an axiom that s(x) = s(y) implies that x = y - in other words each successor has a unique predecessor. I need axioms that x + 0 = x and that x + s(y) = s(x ...[text shortened]... emises, does not entail that we are able or under any obligation to provide an argument that is.

If you didn't know that 1+1 = 2 and and I happened to say 1+1 =2, how would you know if I was right?

So if LJ doesn't know what actually justifies a belief in God and I happened to give him an adequate reason, how would he even be able to recognize that it is correct?

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
If you didn't know that 1+1 = 2 and and I happened to say 1+1 =2, how would you know if I was right?

Well, all you've really done is name what the element of the set that is the successor to 1 is.

Originally posted by DeepThought
Well, all you've really done is name what the element of the set that is the successor to 1 is.

So if LJ doesn't know what actually justifies a belief in God and I gave him an adequate reason, how would he even be able to recognize that it is correct?

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
So if LJ doesn't know what actually justifies a belief in God and I gave him an adequate reason, how would he even be able to recognize that it is correct?

The same way we verify anything that we are given. We check the facts / arguments etc to see if they are correct or valid.
But that is a completely separate issue from knowing whether or not something is an inadequate reason. It is certainly not necessary to know exactly what makes a reason adequate in order to know that a particular reason is inadequate.