Justification for belief

Originally posted by DeepThought
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 varia ...[text shortened]... the Christian faith bridges that evidence gap, but this doesn't prove anything to the faithless.

My faith does not rely on others believing it. I've noticed a few new threads here about "convincing others of your faith" or similar nonsense. My faith IS "well-grounded" simply through the proof of what it has brought to me in my life, not that "I am saved from 'eternal damnation' ". Jesus said, "I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly." My point, in answering the OP of this thread, is not that I have life, which I do, but this is not evidentiary proof of my faith. It is that I have life more abundantly, and that this is evidence for me, and those who know me, that my faith is more than mere superstition.

If this thread was meant as something other than a discussion of how our faith is justified, or only as some sort of adjunct to another thread, then I apologize for not respecting the prior thread. But I was reacting only to the OP of this thread. LJ and I do not see eye to eye (I know, shocking), and so I wasn't expecting to have to wade through an entire thread that I have no interest in just to participate in this thread's discussion.

Furthermore, I do not see how that thread even relates to the question brought up here, which is "Justification of belief". Now if this thread had been created by one of the many "non-believers" in this forum, then I would expect a discussion of "proof" as regards belief. Pardon me for assuming that this thread is about "justification of belief" from the believer's viewpoint, where I assume no "proof" is required.

And if you want to talk about 'morality', perhaps that belongs more in the other thread, as I see nothing in this OP regarding thoughts about 'morality'.

Originally posted by twhitehead
No, add up at all. If someone keeps contradicting themselves, then you know they don't really believe what they are saying. Also if they use obviously bad logic or flawed arguments to support what they are saying then it is highly suspect.

What if they actually believed a lie? Some lies can be quite convincing and logically constructed.

Originally posted by Suzianne
My faith does not rely on others believing it. I've noticed a few new threads here about "convincing others of your faith" or similar nonsense. My faith IS "well-grounded" simply through the proof of what it has brought to me in my life, not that "I am saved from 'eternal damnation' ". Jesus said, "I am come that they might have life, and that they might ...[text shortened]... longs more in the other thread, as I see nothing in this OP regarding thoughts about 'morality'.

Well said. And the peace of God, which surpasses all understanding, which guards our hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus.

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
What if they actually believed a lie? Some lies can be quite convincing and logically constructed.

I am sure that many many people believe lies. I also see quite a lot of cognitive dissonance where people believe two contradictory things and have great difficulty dealing with the consequences.
Nevertheless, my point still stands: many people lie about what they believe or why they believe it, and it is often quite obvious when they are lying. This sort of behaviour makes it very difficult to discuss matters of belief so when to people believe different things, a discussion about it often does not resolve the problem. This seems to be worst with religious beliefs although it can apply to other things as well. Generally people seem to think they have more licence to believe any old nonsense when it comes to religion, but are much more reluctant to be found wanting when it comes to more real world stuff. Although politics seems to be very much like religion for some people.

Originally posted by Suzianne
My faith does not rely on others believing it.

I rather doubt that anyone here has suggested that it does. The issue that LJ was referring to was when someone does try to convince others of their beliefs (not necessarily to shore up their own beliefs), they need a better argument than the one mentioned.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I rather doubt that anyone here has suggested that it does. The issue that LJ was referring to was when someone does try to convince others of their beliefs (not necessarily to shore up their own beliefs), they need a better argument than the one mentioned.

Who has ability to decide whether an argument is 'big enough' (whatever that is supposed to mean)? Upon what objective criteria is this decided?

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
Who has ability to decide whether an argument is 'big enough' (whatever that is supposed to mean)?

How am I supposed to know what it means when you made it up?

Upon what objective criteria is this decided?
Who said there must be objective criteria?

If you want objective criteria then the solution is to resolve it scientifically in which case the criteria must be that the evidence / argument presented must lead to the conclusion that there is a reasonable chance that God exists (or whatever other claim being made is true).

Originally posted by twhitehead
How am I supposed to know what it means when you made it up?

[b]Upon what objective criteria is this decided?
Who said there must be objective criteria?

If you want objective criteria then the solution is to resolve it scientifically in which case the criteria must be that the evidence / argument presented must lead to the conclusion that there is a reasonable chance that God exists (or whatever other claim being made is true).[/b]

Seems you edited your post the second before I replied and replaced bigger with better. Now you pretend that I made it? How cheap of you. 😵

So then who decides whether the argument is better?

And truth in your opinion can only be proven scientifically?

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
Seems you edited your post the second before I replied and replaced bigger with better. Now you pretend that I made it? How cheap of you. 😵

It is possible I made a spelling mistake and corrected it, I did not recall doing so though, so no 'cheap' behaviour on my part. I certainly never said 'big enough' as you suggested I did.

So then who decides whether the argument is better?
Now you are implying I said something I didn't say.
I said a better argument would be needed. I don't see why anyone needs to decide whether one argument is better than another. I think it would be obvious to everyone.

And truth in your opinion can only be proven scientifically?
No. Truth in my opinion is best arrived at via scientific or rational methods. Science rarely proves things, and I don't think proof is necessary for arriving at the truth.
But remember that it was you that demanded that a system of objective criteria be provided, so I suggested the best one available. It is a suggestion only, not a claim about truth. Why do you so quickly loose track of a conversation?

Originally posted by DeepThought
Well, first of all you've taken his statement out of context. His full post and the one it was in reply to were as follows:[quote][b]FetchMyJunk:
Aha got you. I don't think people believe in God because they believe in perfect justice. They believe in perfect justice because they believe in God.

LemonJello:
Fine. If that is the case, the ...[text shortened]... ually said in the other thread kind of answers your question without the need to start this one.[/b]

Well said. Could not have said it better myself.

Fetchmyjunk: I would recommend reading and re-reading this several times until it can penetrate that thick skull of yours.

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
[b]Fine. If that is the case, then 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).

Such as?

In other words, if people have reasons to believe in God other than a desire for or belief ...[text shortened]... now what the other reasons are, how would he recognise them to be correct if I gave them to him?

Such as?

Such as those reasons you were alluding to when you implied (in the other thread) that the typical theist might well have a whole bunch of them at his or her disposal. Again, here is what you stated:

I don’t think people believe in God because of a single reason. “Perfect justice” may be one of a ‘million’ reasons that add up

So, feel free to provide some of those reasons (up to 999,999 of them). It’s not my job to do the work of providing justification for the theist’s position; it is the theist’s job.

But if he doesn’t know what the other reasons are, how would he recognize them to be correct if I gave them to him?

In the same sorts of ways we recognize reasons that evidentially justify all kinds of other theoretical beliefs. You know, through considering them and their relation to the proposition in question. It should be very obvious from the context of the other discussion (you know, the relevant context that you completely and utterly failed to provide in starting this thread) that what is at issue here is epistemic justification and so we are talking about epistemic reasons. So we are talking about evidential reasons: here specifically, reasons that count in favor of the truth of the proposition that God exists. After all, the entire point I was making in the other thread (you know, the point you completely contextually ignored in starting this thread) is that an argument based on the fallacy appeal consequences does not count toward epistemic justification because the premises do not have the right relation to the conclusion: they do not actually bear on the propositional truth of the conclusion.

Originally posted by twhitehead
It is possible I made a spelling mistake and corrected it, I did not recall doing so though, so no 'cheap' behaviour on my part. I certainly never said 'big enough' as you suggested I did.

[b]So then who decides whether the argument is better?
Now you are implying I said something I didn't say.
I said a better argument would be needed. I don't s ...[text shortened]... a suggestion only, not a claim about truth. Why do you so quickly loose track of a conversation?[/b]

But the point is it is not obvious to everyone because an argument can convince some people and not others.

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
But the point is it is not obvious to everyone because an argument can convince some people and not others.

Some people are easily convinced by nonsense arguments. I accept that. If they are willing to discuss the issue honestly and openly then it is usually possible for a group of people to agree on which arguments have merit and which do not. If they are not so willing (as is typically the case for theists in this forum) then no resolution can be found.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Some people are easily convinced by nonsense arguments. I accept that. If they are willing to discuss the issue honestly and openly then it is usually possible for a group of people to agree on which arguments have merit and which do not. If they are not so willing (as is typically the case for theists in this forum) then no resolution can be found.

So the group that agrees which arguments have merit do so with no bias on their part?

Originally posted by twhitehead
I rather doubt that anyone here has suggested that it does. The issue that LJ was referring to was when someone does try to convince others of their beliefs (not necessarily to shore up their own beliefs), they need a better argument than the one mentioned.

I can agree with that.