Why should I have to justify?

[Midnight Pete]

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)

There are many works that rely on fallacies like faith and such

This is what I'm talking about. You've already decided faith is a fallacy. So why should anyone even bother trying to justify theiem to you? Are you even paying attention to me?!

 

[Meow Mix]

This is what I'm talking about. You've already decided faith is a fallacy. So why should anyone even bother trying to justify theiem to you? Are you even paying attention to me?!

I'm paying attention. Can you explain how faith is useful for determining reality?

 

[Midnight Pete]

I'm paying attention. Can you explain how faith is useful for determining reality?

No, not to you.

I'm contemplating just adding you to my ignore list to spare myself the psychic damage.

 

[waitasec]

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.

but right there lies the problem
there are NO eyewitness accounts
the gospels were written 40-90 yrs after the supposed christ died...
josephus heard of him, but wrote about him after the gospels were written
the gospels were not eye witness accounts...

 

[Meow Mix]

No, not to you.

I'm contemplating just adding you to my ignore list to spare myself the psychic damage.

I didn't realize I was being rude or injurious in any way. If asking questions and thinking about things is a psychic attack then I guess I'm an epic aggressor.

That actually floors me that someone can consider thinking about things frightful enough to be considered an attack.

 

[Willamena]

...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?!

It's probably not. There's lots of good books out there on the topic. Have you tried the library?

Edit: I'm not sure you realize what a huge task you're asking. It's not something that will be satisifed in a post on the Internet. For some people, theism is a life-long study.

 

[Willamena]

I'm paying attention. Can you explain how faith is useful for determining reality?

The sun will rise tomorrow.

 

[strikeviperMKII]

I'm paying attention. Can you explain how faith is useful for determining reality?

Define useful and reality.

Religion is not about the world around you, but the world that you make the world around you to be. It tells you your perception of the world because it tells you nothing. That's the beauty of it.

 

[Midnight Pete]

The sun will rise tomorrow.

And the bus-driver will stop when I pull the cord.

 

[Meow Mix]

It's probably not. There's lots of good books out there on the topic. Have you tried the library?

Edit: I'm not sure you realize what a huge task you're asking. It's not something that will be satisifed in a post on the Internet. For some people, theism is a life-long study.

Of course, and I've engaged a few theistic philosophers directly (mostly Alvin Plantinga) regarding justifications for theism. I know you didn't intend insult, but do you really think I'd be earnestly searching for truth and fail to check basic resources?

 

[Meow Mix]

The sun will rise tomorrow.

But that's a different context of "faith" as I've said a few times before, I'm pretty sure at least once to you. Induction isn't the same context of "faith" as the one some religious folks talk about.

Believing the sun will rise tomorrow is justifiable because we can induce it, we can understand basic facts of physics and understand that it would take quite a lot for the sun NOT to appear to rise tomorrow.

It's obviously a different context to say you have faith that something exists. This is one reason I hate the English language -- because of all the recycled words and equivocation that happens as a result.

 

[Meow Mix]

Define useful and reality.

Religion is not about the world around you, but the world that you make the world around you to be. It tells you your perception of the world because it tells you nothing. That's the beauty of it.

Reality is that which exists external to us regardless of what we believe about it. In this context useful is that which has utility at discovering or coming as close to possible to discovering about reality.

If religion isn't about the world around us, then why does it make ontological claims such as the existence of things like gods and souls?

 

[strikeviperMKII]

Of course, and I've engaged a few theistic philosophers directly (mostly Alvin Plantinga) regarding justifications for theism. I know you didn't intend insult, but do you really think I'd be earnestly searching for truth and fail to check basic resources?

The self is the best resource for faith. Instead of asking for justification, ask yourself what that justification does for you. Why do you think you need it to understand faith?

 

[Willamena]

Of course, and I've engaged a few theistic philosophers directly (mostly Alvin Plantinga) regarding justifications for theism. I know you didn't intend insult, but do you really think I'd be earnestly searching for truth and fail to check basic resources?

Is Alvin Plantinga a basic resource? I didn't know, sorry.

I meant no offense.

But that's a different context of "faith" as I've said a few times before, I'm pretty sure at least once to you. Induction isn't the same context of "faith" as the one some religious folks talk about.

Believing the sun will rise tomorrow is justifiable because we can induce it, we can understand basic facts of physics and understand that it would take quite a lot for the sun NOT to appear to rise tomorrow.

It's obviously a different context to say you have faith that something exists. This is one reason I hate the English language -- because of all the recycled words and equivocation that happens as a result.

I don't see it as a different context when it's used to determine reality, but okay. When I induce "the sun will rise tomorrow" it is existence --the existence of something --that I'm referencing, of that event that I am declaring.

 

[Meow Mix]

Is Alvin Plantinga a basic resource? I didn't know, sorry.

I meant no offense.

lol. I'm not offended, you know I <3 you Willamena

I don't see it as a different context when it's used to determine reality, but okay. When I induce "the sun will rise tomorrow" it is existence that I'm referencing, of that event that I am declaring.

You have prior evidence and further justification for the motion of the earth relative to the sun, it's not really comparable to believing in gods.

 

[Willamena]

You have prior evidence and further justification for the motion of the earth relative to the sun, it's not really comparable to believing in gods.

But when I induce "the sun will rise tomorrow" I am putting the same faith in something not yet actualized that I do in "God," which is inherent of the not yet actualized aspect of reality.

Edit: I'm just saying, if you feel the need to distinguish some context there, fine, but I don't make that distinction.

 

[Meow Mix]

But when I induce "the sun will rise tomorrow" I am putting the same faith in something not yet actualized that I do in "God," which is inherent of the not yet actualized aspect of reality.

Edit: I'm just saying, if you feel the need to distinguish some context there, fine, but I don't make that distinction.

I don't understand why not though. The two are different... one is inducing from past example that a routine thing will continue to happen (and furthermore is justified by deducing from physical properties that it SHOULD continue to happen unless something very extraordinary happens) and the other is just sort of declaring that something exists without evidence... those are VERY different scenarios. Why don't you make a distinction between them?

 

[Willamena]

one is inducing from past example that a routine thing will continue to happen

Reality continues to happen...

 

[Herr Heinrich]

for material things there is material evidence, but not all things are material and for that reason i cannot hold it up and show it to you.

Im sure you'd agree that an emotion is not a tangible thing just as a memory is not tangible.

Hmmm... So what you are telling me is that you had a spiritual experience that tells you that there is a god of some kind?

 

[Meow Mix]

Reality continues to happen...

Yes but that's different from "faith" in the sense of an unjustified belief...

Let's try something. Do you think there's a qualitative difference between the word "faith" in these two examples?

1) I've seen the sun appear to rise for 26 years; I've also learned basic facts about the way orbiting bodies are perpetually falling around other objects and that bodies the size of planets and stars require quite extraordinary circumstances to change their habits. Due to these reasons, I believe it's so probable that the sun will appear to rise tomorrow (in the next 24 hour period) that it's beyond a rational doubt.

2) I believe the sun will rise tomorrow. Don't ask me why, I've been in a coma up until this day and have never seen such a thing happen before and I don't understand much about physics -- in fact I haven't even seen the sun "rise" today. But gosh, somethinga bout it just makes me think it will rise tomorrow. That resonates with me, I feel that it's right.

Are both people equally justified?