Why should I have to justify?

[Meow Mix]

I see this response a lot and just wanted to make a generalized, short post about it.

What would it be like if creationists asked biologists for evidence of evolution, and the biologists suddenly started looking all offended, saying "That's preposterous, I don't have to justify it?"

When we hold beliefs or make claims about what exists, we should be able to justify those beliefs/claims to a skeptic if we want to engage in a discussion about what is/can be true and what is/can be known. Therein is the key: of course we don't have to justify if we aren't in a discussion about what exists.

I can justify anything that I believe. I don't understand why it's a big deal to do so. Something about the extreme reluctance to do so on theists' part seems very telling to me. I know I haven't been making many friends by requesting justification and asking tough questions: I've been accused on more than one occasion of being a bully, a know-it-all, etc. But I also have to ask why it is people are getting so defensive over what should be an easy question?

 

[CarlinKnew]

I think it's a defense mechanism. You're threatening a belief that brings them comfort and hope. Think of a child whose father has abandoned him and his mother. He might strongly believe that his father will one day return in spite of a lack of evidence and even evidence to the contrary. If you asked this child why he believed such a thing, he might lash out in anger or avoid the subject entirely. He knows you might be able to convince him to the contrary and he doesn't want to be convinced, because the alternative is unbearable.

 

[Falvlun]

I think it's important to acknowledge that justification is really only important if you are trying to convince someone else that your beliefs are correct. If you don't care what other people think about what you believe, or care whether they believe what you believe, then sure, justification is probably not important.

 

[jmvizanko]

In all honesty, I've spent WAAAAY too much time debating, especially religion, online, and I don't think I have ever heard anyone say that. Unless "I take it on faith" is equivalent, which is probably a justifiable equivalence to hold, at least to me.

 

[Pegg]

But I also have to ask why it is people are getting so defensive over what should be an easy question?

the reason is that its not possible for anyone to 'show' you God...yet that is what atheists are asking for and that seems to be the only evidence they will accept.

The things that believers consider to be evidence are not considered evidence by athiests...such as archeology, the eye witness accounts in the bible, prophecy, the existence of life itself.... we look at all these things as evidence of Gods existence.

 

[Wotan]

"the reason is that its not possible for anyone to 'show' you God..."

And WHY should that be so?

The poet intones:

The world is charged with the grandeur of God.
It will flame out, like shining from shook foil;
It gathers to a greatness, like the ooze of oil
Crushed. Why do men then now not reck his rod?

Yet god - the thing MOST in question - that thing is nowhere to be seen.
Why?

 

[Pegg]

"the reason is that its not possible for anyone to 'show' you God..."

And WHY should that be so?

The poet intones:

The world is charged with the grandeur of God.
It will flame out, like shining from shook foil;
It gathers to a greatness, like the ooze of oil
Crushed. Why do men then now not reck his rod?

Yet god - the thing MOST in question - that thing is nowhere to be seen.
Why?

God is a spirit, he has no body...thats why.

 

[Wotan]

God is a spirit, he has no body...thats why.

And this omniMAx being can't work around that problem?

 

[Atomist]

When we hold beliefs or make claims about what exists, we should be able to justify those beliefs/claims to a skeptic if we want to engage in a discussion about what is/can be true and what is/can be known. Therein is the key: of course we don't have to justify if we aren't in a discussion about what exists.

Thank you... thank you for understanding the precise point of my thread... (It was a huge rant... but that was the basic idea)

 

[Pegg]

And this omniMAx being can't work around that problem?

yes he can and yes he has...eyewitness testimonies about how he's done so can be found in the books of the bible.

Unfortunately, atheists wont accept their word as evidence.

 

[Falvlun]

yes he can and yes he has...eyewitness testimonies about how he's done so can be found in the books of the bible.

Unfortunately, atheists wont accept their word as evidence.

Would you accept my word that I saw a unicorn in my backyard?

Why won't you a-unicornists just accept my testimony?

 

[Pegg]

Would you accept my word that I saw a unicorn in my backyard?

Why won't you a-unicornists just accept my testimony?

depends

how many eyewitnesses to the unicorn were there and are they willing to verify this....will they even be willing do die for the testimony they give?

perhaps then i'll believe you.

 

[ninerbuff]

I see this response a lot and just wanted to make a generalized, short post about it.

What would it be like if creationists asked biologists for evidence of evolution, and the biologists suddenly started looking all offended, saying "That's preposterous, I don't have to justify it?"

When we hold beliefs or make claims about what exists, we should be able to justify those beliefs/claims to a skeptic if we want to engage in a discussion about what is/can be true and what is/can be known. Therein is the key: of course we don't have to justify if we aren't in a discussion about what exists.

I can justify anything that I believe. I don't understand why it's a big deal to do so. Something about the extreme reluctance to do so on theists' part seems very telling to me. I know I haven't been making many friends by requesting justification and asking tough questions: I've been accused on more than one occasion of being a bully, a know-it-all, etc. But I also have to ask why it is people are getting so defensive over what should be an easy question?

It's like when people buy something that they made the decision on and will always defend why they bought it even though it may not really do what they need it to do: It's a decision they never really ever thought through thoroughly, it was just a decision. I never really thought why I had to go to mass as a kid. It was just something that was done with no thought. No one likes to get duped or mislead, so instead they may justify why they do what they did or do. Suck it up I say. If you can be really honest with yourself you'll be better off.

 

[ninerbuff]

the reason is that its not possible for anyone to 'show' you God...yet that is what atheists are asking for and that seems to be the only evidence they will accept.

The things that believers consider to be evidence are not considered evidence by athiests...such as archeology, the eye witness accounts in the bible, prophecy, the existence of life itself.... we look at all these things as evidence of Gods existence.

Well the Loch Ness monster is described as a dinosaur, and people have claimed to see it. Do you doubt it exists?

 

[Pegg]

Well the Loch Ness monster is described as a dinosaur, and people have claimed to see it. Do you doubt it exists?

no i dont

there are many creatures in the oceans still being found...so it, or something similar, very well could exist.

 

[darkendless]

the reason is that its not possible for anyone to 'show' you God...yet that is what atheists are asking for and that seems to be the only evidence they will accept.

The things that believers consider to be evidence are not considered evidence by athiests...such as archeology, the eye witness accounts in the bible, prophecy, the existence of life itself.... we look at all these things as evidence of Gods existence.

It appears that what you consider evidence and what others consider evidence are two very different things.

 

[Herr Heinrich]

I see this response a lot and just wanted to make a generalized, short post about it.

What would it be like if creationists asked biologists for evidence of evolution, and the biologists suddenly started looking all offended, saying "That's preposterous, I don't have to justify it?"

When we hold beliefs or make claims about what exists, we should be able to justify those beliefs/claims to a skeptic if we want to engage in a discussion about what is/can be true and what is/can be known. Therein is the key: of course we don't have to justify if we aren't in a discussion about what exists.

I can justify anything that I believe. I don't understand why it's a big deal to do so. Something about the extreme reluctance to do so on theists' part seems very telling to me. I know I haven't been making many friends by requesting justification and asking tough questions: I've been accused on more than one occasion of being a bully, a know-it-all, etc. But I also have to ask why it is people are getting so defensive over what should be an easy question?

Oh Meow Mix, Meow meow meow mix. You can be so silly sometimes. They are obviously just upset that you have evidence to back your beliefs whilst they have none. It is that simple. Cut them some slack. It is hard to justify belief in an invisible-giant-man-in-the-sky. It is the same reason scientists get so upset when you ask them to justify their belief in gravity. They are both imaginary.

 

[Falvlun]

depends

how many eyewitnesses to the unicorn were there and are they willing to verify this....will they even be willing do die for the testimony they give?

perhaps then i'll believe you.

I can do you one better. I have a[youtube]4PL1ns00h-4[/youtube]
video!

There are also many accounts in ancient history, including the Bible. Wiki link

Lastly, the willingness to die for one's beliefs doesn't indicate that the belief itself is true. It only indicates that the believer strongly believes that it is.

 

[Herr Heinrich]

I can do you one better. I have a[youtube]4PL1ns00h-4[/youtube]
video!

There are also many accounts in ancient history, including the Bible. Wiki link

Lastly, the willingness to die for one's beliefs doesn't indicate that the belief itself is true. It only indicates that the believer strongly believes that it is.

Oh those Germans and their Einhorn sitings.

 

[Wessexman]

"When we hold beliefs or make claims about what exists, we should be able to justify those beliefs/claims to a skeptic if we want to engage in a discussion about what is/can be true and what is/can be known."

Yes, sort of. I think the metaphysician Frithjof Schuon put it well:

"It has been said that the proof of an affirmation is incumbent upon him who enunciates the thesis, not upon him who rejects it; but this is a perfectly arbitrary opinion, for if someone owes us a proof for a positive affirmation, he equally owes us one for a negative affirmation; it is not the positive character of the affirmation, it is the absoluteness of its character that obliges us to prove it, whether its content is positive or negative. There is no need to prove an inexistence that one supposes, but one is obliged to prove an inexistence that one affirms. It is true that those who deny the supernatural do not lack arguments which in their eyes are proofs of their opinion, but nonetheless they imagine that their opinion is a natural axiom that needs no demonstration; this is rationalist juridicism, not pure logic. Theists, on the contrary, feel that it is normal to support by proofs the reality of the Invisible, except when they speak pro domo, basing themselves upon the evidence of faith or gnosis."