Why should I have to justify?

[Caladan]

Let me quote a paragraph about this issue from my 'scripture':

Men, finding no answers to the sunnan [the ten thousand religious questions from the Shari-ah] now apply their own reasoning. All men seek to be enlightened. Religion is but the most ancient and honorable way in which men have striven to make sense out of God's universe. Scientists seek the lawfulness of events. It is the task of Religion to fit man into this lawfulness.

 

[Meow Mix]

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.

I'm not saying that religion has to prove itself to science since much of religion is outside the scope of science. Empirical justification isn't the only type of justification, however.

Science indeed must be justified though, and should be publicly so. The justification should be available to anyone who wants to see it.

I'm not saying that I should be able to walk up to someone and the street and say "Justify your belief in atoms or else!"

I'm saying that the justification should be out there, somewhere, available. Someone should know where they got theirs if they adopt a belief because adopting a belief without justification or knowing where to get the justification is irrational -- that goes for scientific, religious, or any other sort of belief.

 

[Caladan]

Science indeed must be justified though, and should be publicly so. The justification should be available to anyone who wants to see it.

I'm really not following you here, the only 'justification' for science is its research and results, which are open for public debate and study, both for peer review, and for the lay person.

 

[Meow Mix]

I'm really not following you here, the only 'justification' for science is its research and results, which are open for public debate and study, both for peer review, and for the lay person.

Exactly. So are the foundations of the scientific method (the scientific metaphysics). Anyone who stops and says "Gee, I want to know how science and its findings are justified" can find it. They can ask a scientist and the scientist can do it themselves or at least point them in the right direction.

When I ask theists for justification though I get nothing of the sort typically. I don't even get pointed in the right direction; there are few published works dedicated to making publicly available the justifications for theism. There are many works that rely on fallacies like faith and such, but where is a girl to go who can point out the fallacies in these "justifications" to seek further justification? Is she to just decide that all theists everywhere are irrational? That may be a possibility, but this girl's trying to give them the benefit of the doubt that someone, somewhere, knows how to justify theism... why is it such a difficult search?!

(Granted, Shyanekh made a great post that I haven't responded to yet regarding justification -- so again I'm just saying I only typically get nothing of the sort)

 

[sandandfoam]

Someone should know where they got theirs if they adopt a belief because adopting a belief without justification or knowing where to get the justification is irrational -- that goes for scientific, religious, or any other sort of belief.

Why so?
What about emotional and situational factors that effect beliefs?

 

[sandandfoam]

Exactly. So are the foundations of the scientific method (the scientific metaphysics). Anyone who stops and says "Gee, I want to know how science and its findings are justified" can find it. They can ask a scientist and the scientist can do it themselves or at least point them in the right direction.

When I ask theists for justification though I get nothing of the sort typically. I don't even get pointed in the right direction; there are few published works dedicated to making publicly available the justifications for theism. There are many works that rely on fallacies like faith and such, but where is a girl to go who can point out the fallacies in these "justifications" to seek further justification? Is she to just decide that all theists everywhere are irrational? That may be a possibility, but this girl's trying to give them the benefit of the doubt that someone, somewhere, knows how to justify theism... why is it such a difficult search?!

(Granted, Shyanekh made a great post that I haven't responded to yet regarding justification -- so again I'm just saying I only typically get nothing of the sort)

What is your view of the body of opinion that considers the scientific method inappropriate for the study of psychology?

 

[Meow Mix]

Why so?
What about emotional and situational factors that effect beliefs?

Emotions are important for deciding what to think of what exists -- what opinions to form on them.

But they are totally inappropriate for deciding what exists.

 

[Meow Mix]

What is your view of the body of opinion that considers the scientific method inappropriate for the study of psychology?

I'm not familiar with a lot of the arguments on both sides so it's difficult for me to comment on that. That's a metaphysical issue though, since it's about the foundations of science and not of science itself.

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

What is your view of the body of opinion that considers the scientific method inappropriate for the study of psychology?

Dr. Greenspan (one of the primary developers of the floor time approach to the treatment of Autism) has sighted studies that show that the gut feeling of a good special Ed teacher or therapist is a more accurate indicator in child development then any test.

 

[sandandfoam]

Emotions are important for deciding what to think of what exists -- what opinions to form on them.

But they are totally inappropriate for deciding what exists.

You said scientific religious or any other sort of belief above - I would think emotions appropriate for deciding that my love for another or my fondness for a place exist.

Culture frames what can be known and so is central in what is thought to exist - from depression to hysteria to heaven to hell. Whether we like it or not it is unavoidable.

 

[sandandfoam]

I'm not familiar with a lot of the arguments on both sides so it's difficult for me to comment on that. That's a metaphysical issue though, since it's about the foundations of science and not of science itself.

It's a practical issue in social psychology e.g. in conflict resolution.

 

[Caladan]

Exactly. So are the foundations of the scientific method (the scientific metaphysics). Anyone who stops and says "Gee, I want to know how science and its findings are justified" can find it. They can ask a scientist and the scientist can do it themselves or at least point them in the right direction.

When I ask theists for justification though I get nothing of the sort typically. I don't even get pointed in the right direction; there are few published works dedicated to making publicly available the justifications for theism. There are many works that rely on fallacies like faith and such, but where is a girl to go who can point out the fallacies in these "justifications" to seek further justification? Is she to just decide that all theists everywhere are irrational? That may be a possibility, but this girl's trying to give them the benefit of the doubt that someone, somewhere, knows how to justify theism... why is it such a difficult search?!

Personally, I'm not really interested for theism or any religion to justify itself to me, that would mean placing myself in a position for potential preaching and self righteousness, further more, I'm sure that many people of various religions can make well constructive cases for their religion, but I'm more interested for people to follow their traditions than to justify them to me, someone who is not interested in their 'spiritual gifts', which I probably would only feel deep contempt for. as atheists, its better for us to study religion as observers, and to experience it in various ways, and your point is good in the case of understanding people's motivation for faith, but personally I find spirituality so obsolete, that there is no point for people to make justifications.

 

[blackout]

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".

I KNOW!
It's so pointless. lol

Really love this part...

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.

Great post all around. :bow:
You can speak on my behalf any day.

(can't frubal you again)

 

[Erebus]

Thankyou UV

 

[Meow Mix]

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".

I can understand that.. as I said in a post somewhere (I don't remember where) I totally get that because I often get too lazy to get into evolution arguments anymore because I've been through them a million times before.

You did a pretty good job at guessing what my objections would be though.

I'm not familiar with psychodrama, though. What's that?

 

[Erebus]

I can understand that.. as I said in a post somewhere (I don't remember where) I totally get that because I often get too lazy to get into evolution arguments anymore because I've been through them a million times before.

You did a pretty good job at guessing what my objections would be though.

I'm not familiar with psychodrama, though. What's that?

Psychodrama is actually a form of therapy, utilising dramatisation in order to help a patient overcome their problems.
It's also been used in the occult community to refer to dramatised rituals and practice. LaVeyan Satanism is probably the best example I can give, since they don't actually believe in Satan as a literal entity, but will still invoke him and his demons for theatrical effect. The aim is to temporarily allow yourself to believe you are genuinely invoking demons in order to change something you don't like about your life. The result of this is that you alter your own perceptions and behaviours in order to make it easier to overcome your problems.
Example: I want a girlfriend, but I'm too shy to approach somebody. I perform a ritual invoking the demons to make me irresistable to girls and as a result of this ritual I feel more confident in myself. Because I feel more confident, I'm more likely to approach a girl and more likely to get a good response from her (confidence is attractive after all).

This is psychology at work, but by referring to it as psychology rather than magic you reduce the impact of your ritual (compare "I'm going to invoke Satan to make me irresistable" to "I'm going to use the placebo effect to boost my confidence") and lose some of the fantasy element that makes it effective in the first place

 

[strikeviperMKII]

Therein is the key: of course we don't have to justify if we aren't in a discussion about what exists.

What exists, exists. What does not exist, does not exist. That will not magically change one way or another. So to argue about what is there and what is not there is fruitless. All we have to do is look for ourselves.

I can justify anything that I believe. I don't understand why it's a big deal to do so.

If you can justify what you believe, you believe nothing. There is nothing to be gained from a religion you can readily understand. it is only in confusion, disorder, disarray and illogic that you can learn. It teaches you to let go of what you think is logic, order and stability, and shows you a different kind.

Why is it a big deal to ask for justification? What justification are you asking for? If you want your own standard of justification, I don't know it, and neither does anyone else. We only know our own standard. So if you want me to justify religion for you, you're going to have to tell me what you mean by religion, and what exactly are your standards for justification. There is no universal standard, even though we've tried to make one.
It gets very involved when you ask for justification, so asking for it is not something people want to delve into, especially in terms of faith. For each person, faith is justified or unjustified, and for each person, the reasons are completely different. The standards are completely different.

 

[Meow Mix]

Psychodrama is actually a form of therapy, utilising dramatisation in order to help a patient overcome their problems.
It's also been used in the occult community to refer to dramatised rituals and practice. LaVeyan Satanism is probably the best example I can give, since they don't actually believe in Satan as a literal entity, but will still invoke him and his demons for theatrical effect. The aim is to temporarily allow yourself to believe you are genuinely invoking demons in order to change something you don't like about your life. The result of this is that you alter your own perceptions and behaviours in order to make it easier to overcome your problems.
Example: I want a girlfriend, but I'm too shy to approach somebody. I perform a ritual invoking the demons to make me irresistable to girls and as a result of this ritual I feel more confident in myself. Because I feel more confident, I'm more likely to approach a girl and more likely to get a good response from her (confidence is attractive after all).

This is psychology at work, but by referring to it as psychology rather than magic you reduce the impact of your ritual (compare "I'm going to invoke Satan to make me irresistable" to "I'm going to use the placebo effect to boost my confidence") and lose some of the fantasy element that makes it effective in the first place

I don't really have a problem with that because no de facto ontological claims are being made. That doesn't require a justification, it's just a utility rather than an existential claim.

 

[Erebus]

I don't really have a problem with that because no de facto ontological claims are being made. That doesn't require a justification, it's just a utility rather than an existential claim.

That's true, a lot of people miss that distinction though

 

[Diederick]

...will they even be willing do die for the testimony they give?

I love how in some people's minds, dying 'for' something gives it more credibility. How many martyrs have the Aztecs known, and why are we ignoring those?

It doesn't matter how much you believe in something, it matters what exactly it is that backs up that something in a reality-based setting. Claims that the theory of gravity is correct is not backed by having people get killed over it, it is supported by providing clear and real evidence.