Why should I have to justify?

[Meow Mix]

I found the OP of that other thread to be offensive and just plain wrong.

I think I posted this thread with poor timing, I wasn't intending to have it linked to Atomist's thread: it was actually something of a frustrated response I was having with a few individuals in my "Would you buy it?" thread that I was generalizing.

Just saying so in case you thought I was indeed counting you among the examples of those with "extreme hesitation" to answer direct questions -- I certainly wasn't

I don't see that at all. I think you are respected as an Intelligent poster. I know I love to read your comments.

I appreciate the compliment, and the reverse is true as well! Where's the high five smiley?

 

[Madhuri]

Do you remember off the top of your head a good thread in which epistemic justifications for theistic ontologies were presented?

Not off the top of my head. I could do a search for one, but then so could you

When I debated largely with atheists I am constantly explaining my beliefs and trying to link them to science and such. I've created threads in the Islamic DIR a few times asking Muslims to justify certain beliefs, even in the Christianity DIR. There are some good ones somewhere in the Dharmic areas too. When there is a good question asked and the promise of an interesting discussion/debate then there tends to be a lot of replies. My experience has been quite the opposite of yours, tbh. The only time I find responses disappointing is when the respondents don't understand much about their religion, tend to be blind followers, and stick with simple 'God did it' answers. But I've noticed that we have quite a few knowledgeable members on this site.

 

[dawny0826]

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?

I agree with you - I don't understand why a theist can't justify their beliefs but I suppose it rests on what you consider valid justification. Many of the reasons behind my faith are going to seem like mere warm and fuzzies to other people - there won't be value to it.

I'll just say that it's sometimes challenging to explain and justify your beliefs when they aren't based on science and things that are incredibly tangible.

And non-theists often fish for answers to gawk and mock.

 

[Meow Mix]

Not off the top of my head. I could do a search for one, but then so could you

When I debated largely with atheists I am constantly explaining my beliefs and trying to link them to science and such. I've created threads in the Islamic DIR a few times asking Muslims to justify certain beliefs, even in the Christianity DIR. There are some good ones somewhere in the Dharmic areas too. When there is a good question asked and the promise of an interesting discussion/debate then there tends to be a lot of replies. My experience has been quite the opposite of yours, tbh. The only time I find responses disappointing is when the respondents don't understand much about their religion, tend to be blind followers, and stick with simple 'God did it' answers. But I've noticed that we have quite a few knowledgeable members on this site.

Maybe I've been in the wrong places; I stick to the debate forums... I didn't know it's allowed to request justification in the DIR forums.

 

[Meow Mix]

I'll just say that it's sometimes challenging to explain and justify your beliefs when they aren't based on science and things that are incredibly tangible.

That I can appreciate, definitely. Few are even willing to attempt to get into it, though: some might start, but when I point out how what they said isn't alone sufficient they sort of give up. I can understand that when the subject is complicated (being lazy myself), for instance I rarely get in evolution debates anymore because I'm soooo tired of explaining it to some people; but on the other hand I can justify evolution to someone if they asked hard and earnestly enough. Asking hard and earnestly for justification for theism usually just gets me crickets...

And non-theists often fish for answers to gawk and mock.

That I can also appreciate. I guess I just have to hope theists who've seen me around know that I'm not here to mock.

 

[Willamena]

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?"

Um... they don't (have to justify it).

 

[Meow Mix]

Um... they don't (have to justify it).

Surely you're either joking or misunderstanding what I mean by "justify."

Are you saying it isn't part of scientists' job to justify their findings; particularly considering the fact that science is itself a justifier -- the entire basis of their career, in other words, is justification?

 

[Willamena]

Surely you're either joking or misunderstanding what I mean by "justify."

Are you saying it isn't part of scientists' job to justify their findings; particularly considering the fact that science is itself a justifier -- the entire basis of their career, in other words, is justification?

As science itself is a justifier, then yes, they do not have to justify their findings, and their findings will be assumed into further science.

 

[Meow Mix]

As science itself is a justifier, then yes, they do not have to justify their findings, and their findings will be assumed into further science.

Then why did you say they don't have to justify it? I'm just confused by what you meant.

 

[Erebus]

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?

Well I can't speak on behalf of every theist out there, but I'll give a couple of my own reasons.
Firstly, If I justify belief from a pragmatic viewpoint, I can almost guarantee the response will be "but that doesn't mean it exists!" which is accurate, but defeats the point of pragmatism.
If I say that I only believe in deities that I've seen or heard myself, the usual response is that I'm either lying or delusional. That pretty much ends the argument, since I have no way to disprove that conclusion over an internet forum.
If I say that my prayers are more often answered than not, somebody will say that this is simply confirmation bias. Again, I accept that it could be, but I have no way to prove it either way.
If I explain that for the most part I consider magic to be applied psychology the immediate reaction is that I have no reason to call it magic. I suspect the people who make this claim don't understand the point of psychodrama.
If I explain that my concept of the "ultimate god" is pantheistic, I'm again told that I have no reason to call existence god. When I explain the psychological gratification in doing this, people will call it a "crutch" or make it out to be a weakness.

Perhaps the main reason I don't look to justify my beliefs though is that I'm bored of doing so. My beliefs are unusual and require a fair bit of explanation. Keep repeating the same story for long enough and it starts to wear you down.

Don't get me wrong, Meow Mix, I like you and I appreciate that you are genuinely inquisitive, rather than simply looking to lay traps. However, when a theist says they don't have to justify themselves, more often than not, they're saying "I'm not going through all this again" rather than "I can't justify it".

 

[Willamena]

Then why did you say they don't have to justify it? I'm just confused by what you meant.

Why would they have to jusify something that's already justified itself.

 

[Meow Mix]

Why would they have to jusify something that's already justified.

Part of their job is to make available how conclusions were drawn...

 

[Willamena]

Part of their job is to make available how conclusions were drawn...

Yes. That's science.

 

[Meow Mix]

Yes. That's science.

Ok, was just confused on the statement about them not having to justify. Guess we were just misunderstanding each other?

 

[Caladan]

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?"

First of all I wanna say I love your new avatar photo
now, about your comment above, I think thats the case now on many levels, as should be, no biologist should justify evolution in the face of superstition. evolution is a revealed field of research earned though hard efforts and labor in the face of a Victorian Christian struck society. its quite absurd to ask accomplished biologist to justify their field of expertise.

 

[Meow Mix]

First of all I wanna say I love your new avatar photo
now, about your comment above, I think thats the case now on many levels, as should be, no biologist should justify evolution in the face of superstition. evolution is a revealed field of research earned though hard efforts and labor in the face of a Victorian Christian struck society. its quite absurd to ask accomplished biologist to justify their field of expertise.

Maybe I should be clear.

Someone, somewhere, has to justify it. If it's justified in the published works, then the biologist can point to the publications. The point is that they can and should in principle justify it.

If people are trying to discover how evolution is justified, they can find it.

I've been searching looooong and hard for how to justify theism and I haven't even found places where people can point me to in order to find it!

Edit: Well, that's not entirely true. There are arguments that attempt to justify theism, but I have found none that don't have catastrophic flaws. But usually when I request justification, those who I talk to don't even make the attempt to supply such arguments.

 

[Midnight Pete]

Meow Mix,

You have to justify because justifaction is what you demand from everyone else.

 

[Meow Mix]

Meow Mix,

You have to justify because justifaction is what you demand from everyone else.

I have no problem justifying. I encourage people in debates to ask me to support myself because if I unknowingly believe something that isn't justified I'd rather know about it so I can attempt to do so or drop the irrational belief.

 

[Midnight Pete]

Maybe I should be clear.

Someone, somewhere, has to justify it. If it's justified in the published works, then the biologist can point to the publications. The point is that they can and should in principle justify it.

If people are trying to discover how evolution is justified, they can find it.

I've been searching looooong and hard for how to justify theism and I haven't even found places where people can point me to in order to find it!

Edit: Well, that's not entirely true. There are arguments that attempt to justify theism, but I have found none that don't have catastrophic flaws. But usually when I request justification, those who I talk to don't even make the attempt to supply such arguments.

Theism will never be justified in your eyes because in your eyes no justification for theism is possible. You will simply reject all the ideas you come across. I can't describe to you how infuriating this is.

 

[Caladan]

Maybe I should be clear.

Someone, somewhere, has to justify it. If it's justified in the published works, then the biologist can point to the publications. The point is that they can and should in principle justify it.

If people are trying to discover how evolution is justified, they can find it.

I've been searching looooong and hard for how to justify theism and I haven't even found places where people can point me to in order to find it!

Edit: Well, that's not entirely true. There are arguments that attempt to justify theism, but I have found none that don't have catastrophic flaws. But usually when I request justification, those who I talk to don't even make the attempt to supply such arguments.

I disagree with you here, if I understand you correctly, science and religion are two completely different things, science should not justify itself to religion and religion should not justify itself to science, the two should not mix, evolution should be studied for what it is, and religion the same.
nor religion, nor science need to justify themselves, they need to 'prove' themselves through results.