Why should I have to justify?

[Meow Mix]

I think the vast majority of humanity does approach reality to the best of their ability.
It's just that we all have a different perspective on reality and a unique way of inventing a story that allows us attempt to grapple with it.

However the reality is, though, that not all methods of discerning reality are efficacious.

Flipping coins doesn't justify. Tossing darts doesn't justify. Fallacies don't justify. Belief without justification definitely doesn't justify. There are many ways in which to fall from a legitimate path to knowledge because they don't impart justification. That's my point. It's not "everything goes, we pick how we want to find knowledge." There are in reality only a few ways to knowledge and discerning reality.

 

[sandandfoam]

There are in reality only a few ways to knowledge and discerning reality.

One would have to know reality to know whether this was true.
So we're back to square one

 

[sandandfoam]

Meow Mix

I was also just thinking that there is an argument that in the assumption of subject/object dualism on which a natural science type approach is based, 'objective thought' leads us away from reality from the word go.

 

[Wotan]

It's obvious that I don't.

Then you have no RATIONAL justification for what you believe.

Which by itself is fine. Most of us believe irrational things from time to time. As any sports fan can attest.

The problem comes when you assert your belief in something IS rational when it isn't.

 

[Midnight Pete]

Then you have no RATIONAL justification for what you believe.

Which by itself is fine. Most of us believe irrational things from time to time. As any sports fan can attest.

The problem comes when you assert your belief in something IS rational when it isn't.

Your thinking is incredibly confined for a freethinker. I am in awe of that.

 

[Willamena]

You (deliberately?) misstate the position.

There is A reality that exists outside of us. THAT reality (of which we are NOT a part) is independent of us and exists independent of our understanding of it.

If that's your understanding of it.

This is not a new idea nor is it the 1st time you have heard it.

That's true. I've moved on.

This chair does NOT hold me up because I believe it will. And when the next person sits in it it will or will not support them no matter what they believe about it. Nor will my existence have any impact whatever on what the chair will do. THAT reality has no interest in nor awareness of ME.

That "the chair doesn't hold you up just because you believe it will" is your belief. And it's real, a real belief, held by a real "me".

 

[strikeviperMKII]

Are both people equally justified?

They don't need to be. The end result is the same. They both believe the sun will rise.

 

[Willamena]

Then you have no RATIONAL justification for what you believe.

Not having an argument that will convince HER (or anyone) isn't the same as not having rational justification.

 

[Thief]

Not having an argument that will convince HER (or anyone) isn't the same as not having rational justification.

I'd have given you frubals for that one, the the machine won't let me.
Maybe later.

And we have here yet another...'show me God' thread.

God in a petri dish?....a photo?....a fingerprint?

Spiritual life in the flesh?

And yet.....'show me God'....

 

[Wotan]

Not having an argument that will convince HER (or anyone) isn't the same as not having rational justification.

It most certainly IS!

If you cannot muster a rational argument that will convince another rational mind then you NOT met the burden of justification.

 

[Wotan]

Your thinking is incredibly confined for a freethinker. I am in awe of that.

If by "confined" you mean refuses to accept what cannot be demonstrated by observation or evidence then yes confined indeed.

Consciously and deliberately and proudly so.

 

[Wotan]

I'd have given you frubals for that one, the the machine won't let me.
Maybe later.

And we have here yet another...'show me God' thread.

God in a petri dish?....a photo?....a fingerprint?

Spiritual life in the flesh?

And yet.....'show me God'....

What is "Spiritual life in the flesh?" FTM what is "spiritual" - other than another word for I don't understand?

 

[strikeviperMKII]

Not having an argument that will convince HER (or anyone) isn't the same as not having rational justification.

Very true.

 

[Thief]

What is "Spiritual life in the flesh?" FTM what is "spiritual" - other than another word for I don't understand?

And obviously you don't understand.

 

[Meow Mix]

Obviously you are distinguishing between a circumstance when a person is aware of and can explain on what they base their faith, and a circumstance where they are not aware of and hence cannot explain on what they base their faith.

No, I'm distinguishing between two wholly separate contexts of the word "faith." Just because the English language recycles words doesn't mean that we can equivocate them.

"Faith" that the sun will appear to rise tomorrow is a combination of induction and deduction. It's justified.

"Faith" that a being called God exists is not inductive. If it's deductive, then it isn't believed through any context of "faith." The only reason the sun example is a context of "faith" is because of the inductive element, which the god example doesn't have.

Faith that an inducted trend will continue, such as the sun appearing to rise or that a friend will return $5 if you loan it to them is one context.

Faith that something exists without prior trends is ENTIRELY different. Just because the same word is used for both doesn't make them the same. That's equivocating them.

 

[blackout]

"faith" comes in many different contexts,
as it is understood and utilized differently
by many different theists and "theisms".

(ie. there is not "one kind" of theistic "faith")

 

[Willamena]

"Faith" that a being called God exists is not inductive.

Careful. That's a positive statement.

The only reason the sun example is a context of "faith" is because of the inductive element, which the god example doesn't have.

Actually, it's just because it's an event that hasn't yet transpired (i.e. not actual).

Faith that an inducted trend will continue, such as the sun appearing to rise or that a friend will return $5 if you loan it to them is one context.

Faith that something exists without prior trends is ENTIRELY different. Just because the same word is used for both doesn't make them the same. That's equivocating them.

As I said, if you want to distinguish them that way, okay.

(It's not very helpful towards understanding these darned theists, though.)

 

[Wotan]

Faith that an inducted trend will continue, such as the sun appearing to rise or that a friend will return $5 if you loan it to them is one context.

Faith that something exists without prior trends is ENTIRELY different. Just because the same word is used for both doesn't make them the same. That's equivocating them.

As I said, if you want to distinguish them that way, okay.

(It's not very helpful towards understanding these darned theists, though.)[/quote]

Yes, and your point is . . . ?

I refuse to accept the burden of "understanding" superstitious nonsense. Either theists have good evidence and/or convincing argument or they don't.

So far, like for about 6K yrs, they have neither.

Now if by "understanding" you mean understanding an odd feature of human behavior - the willful suspension of disbelief - that inquiry might be useful.

But if you mean "understanding" the substance of the mythology - not interested.:no:

 

[Midnight Pete]

Faith that an inducted trend will continue, such as the sun appearing to rise or that a friend will return $5 if you loan it to them is one context.

Faith that something exists without prior trends is ENTIRELY different. Just because the same word is used for both doesn't make them the same. That's equivocating them.

As I said, if you want to distinguish them that way, okay.

(It's not very helpful towards understanding these darned theists, though.)[/quote]

Yes, and your point is . . . ?

I refuse to accept the burden of "understanding" superstitious nonsense. Either theists have good evidence and/or convincing argument or they don't.

So far, like for about 6K yrs, they have neither.

Now if by "understanding" you mean understanding an odd feature of human behavior - the willful suspension of disbelief - that inquiry might be useful.

But if you mean "understanding" the substance of the mythology - not interested.:no:

I refuse to accept the burden of "understanding" superstitious nonsense

Leave it alone, then. Forget about it.

 

[demonIntegral]

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

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

There it is: Bible - unicorn. Evolution in action. I love evolution.
Justify?
"Vengeance is mine, sayeth the lord." Go to court, ain't no justice, there is vengeance; and if people dont believe in the system, (hopefully) the system gets changed. My system is real simple - I avoid vagaries like "I believe."
I believe in mathematics.
I believe in evolution.
I believe in the Holy Spirit... wait a minute, is somebody going to get all gospel-ly? Not at all. If I forward my agenda in the terms of "I believe;" there is a very good, very real, (and often quite logical) reason for the words that follow.
Want me to tell you about mathematics? Evolution? The Holy Spirit? If you do, I will. If not, then not. That is what I belive.