Is belief in God justified?
-
I prefer the philosophical way to engage people who challenge the Judeo-Christian faith.
I hope we can learn something from philosophy when doing our own apologetics. -
Reformed Epistemology
One of the central tasks of the philosophy of religion is to provide an answer to the question Is belief in God justified? In recent decades, there has been a radical change in the way that many Christian philosophers approach this question.
Most discussion of this question presupposes an evidentialism, according to which belief in God is justified only if the balance of evidence suggests that such belief is true. The task of philosophers of religion is then seen as weighing the arguments for GodÂ’s existence against the arguments against GodÂ’s existence and determining which are the stronger.
Reformed epistemologists reject this evidentialist assumption, affirming that belief in God can be rational even in the absence of evidence for GodÂ’s existence. Reformed epistemology is thus a reaction against both evidentialism and classical foundationalism.
Foundationalism is a theory about how our beliefs are justified (epistemic justification). Foundationalists hold that there are two types of epistemic justification: inferential and non-inferential.
A belief is inferentially justified if it is inferred from other justified beliefs. If I believe with justification that my watch is accurate, and that my watch reads noon, then I can believe with justification that it is noon. I can infer that it is noon from other justified beliefs that I possess.
It canÂ’t be that all beliefs are justified inferentially. My belief that it is noon may be justified because it can be inferred from other justified beliefs, but what is it that makes those other beliefs justified? If it is that they can be inferred from still further justified beliefs, then the question returns again: what makes those beliefs justified?
The only way of halting this regress is to admit that there are some beliefs that are non-inferentially justified, i.e. that are epistemically justified but not because they can be inferred from other justified beliefs. Such beliefs are called properly basic or foundational beliefs, because, if the foundationalist is correct, all of our justification is ultimately derived from such beliefs; such beliefs are the foundation of all of our belief systems.
According to classical foundationalism, in order to be properly basic a belief must be either incorrigible or self-evident. A belief is incorrigible if it cannot possibly be found to be in error; belief in oneÂ’s own existence is thus an incorrigible belief. Self-evident beliefs include simple truths of mathematics and logic, such as 1+1=2 and the principle of non-contradiction.
Reformed epistemologists have criticised classical foundationalism as holding too narrow a view concerning which beliefs can be properly basic. Beliefs can be cited, such as belief in the existence of the past, or of the external world, that are clearly justified but cannot be either inferentially or non-inferentially justified on classical foundationalism. The existence of the past and the external world, are neither incorrigible nor self-evident, and cannot be inferred from beliefs that are incorrigible or self-evident. On classical foundationalism, then, belief in them cannot be justified.
Reformed epistemologists call for a more liberal view of proper basicality, and assert that belief in God can be properly basic. They therefore insist that it is improper to assume that belief in God is irrational unless evidence for GodÂ’s existence can be presented.
http://www.philosophyofreligion.info/reformedepistemology.html -
Originally posted by Icemoon:
I agree. Belief in God is absolutely rational. There are plenty of rational evidences to believe in God. Even science can "prove" God indirectly. Even without so called rational evidences, one can still come to a knowledge of God based on belief.
[b]Reformed Epistemology
One of the central tasks of the philosophy of religion is to provide an answer to the question Is belief in God justified? In recent decades, there has been a radical change in the way that many Christian philosophers approach this question.
Most discussion of this question presupposes an evidentialism, according to which belief in God is justified only if the balance of evidence suggests that such belief is true. The task of philosophers of religion is then seen as weighing the arguments for GodÂ’s existence against the arguments against GodÂ’s existence and determining which are the stronger.
Reformed epistemologists reject this evidentialist assumption, affirming that belief in God can be rational even in the absence of evidence for GodÂ’s existence. Reformed epistemology is thus a reaction against both evidentialism and classical foundationalism.
Foundationalism is a theory about how our beliefs are justified (epistemic justification). Foundationalists hold that there are two types of epistemic justification: inferential and non-inferential.
A belief is inferentially justified if it is inferred from other justified beliefs. If I believe with justification that my watch is accurate, and that my watch reads noon, then I can believe with justification that it is noon. I can infer that it is noon from other justified beliefs that I possess.
It canÂ’t be that all beliefs are justified inferentially. My belief that it is noon may be justified because it can be inferred from other justified beliefs, but what is it that makes those other beliefs justified? If it is that they can be inferred from still further justified beliefs, then the question returns again: what makes those beliefs justified?
The only way of halting this regress is to admit that there are some beliefs that are non-inferentially justified, i.e. that are epistemically justified but not because they can be inferred from other justified beliefs. Such beliefs are called properly basic or foundational beliefs, because, if the foundationalist is correct, all of our justification is ultimately derived from such beliefs; such beliefs are the foundation of all of our belief systems.
According to classical foundationalism, in order to be properly basic a belief must be either incorrigible or self-evident. A belief is incorrigible if it cannot possibly be found to be in error; belief in oneÂ’s own existence is thus an incorrigible belief. Self-evident beliefs include simple truths of mathematics and logic, such as 1+1=2 and the principle of non-contradiction.
Reformed epistemologists have criticised classical foundationalism as holding too narrow a view concerning which beliefs can be properly basic. Beliefs can be cited, such as belief in the existence of the past, or of the external world, that are clearly justified but cannot be either inferentially or non-inferentially justified on classical foundationalism. The existence of the past and the external world, are neither incorrigible nor self-evident, and cannot be inferred from beliefs that are incorrigible or self-evident. On classical foundationalism, then, belief in them cannot be justified.
Reformed epistemologists call for a more liberal view of proper basicality, and assert that belief in God can be properly basic. They therefore insist that it is improper to assume that belief in God is irrational unless evidence for GodÂ’s existence can be presented.
http://www.philosophyofreligion.info/reformedepistemology.html[/b] -
Yes , absolutely its believable.
How else can everything be explained , we evolved from monkeys ?
A big bang with a 1 in a few million chance of happening ?
Scientists have recently found out that just a few strands of Dna contains as much data as millions of terabytes of data.
Look at the beauty present in this world , the self sustaining ecosystem, the water cycle, the trees , the flowers , how plants and animals sustain each other ?
How can it be possible that all this happened by chance
-
Yes, i agree. The theory of evolution cannot hold water. How can something come out of nothing unless it was created? What was in the beginning then? Also the second law of thermodynamics cannot support evolution bcos all things tend to chaos. So how can something more ordered & complex evolved from something less ordered & simple? According to the first law of thermodynamics, the total amt of energy is constant in a given universe. So energy needs to be imparted in this case to allow evolution to take place. But where the energy come from since this universe is constant according to evolutionists?Originally posted by zanza:Yes , absolutely its believable.
How else can everything be explained , we evolved from monkeys ?
A big bang with a 1 in a few million chance of happening ?
Scientists have recently found out that just a few strands of Dna contains as much data as millions of terabytes of data.
Look at the beauty present in this world , the self sustaining ecosystem, the water cycle, the trees , the flowers , how plants and animals sustain each other ?
How can it be possible that all this happened by chance
Scientists have never been able to prove evolution in the lab. Or even "create" a few complex proteins in a test tube using a primordial soup setup.
Strong evidence points to a worldwide flood when mass extinction occured in the layers of the earth underground. Even the ark is being unearthed somewhere on Ararat.
I urge everyone to pick up a book on creation science to read abt arguments for the creation of earth & God. -
Originally posted by zanza:
science says that the world evolved to the present stage.
Look at the beauty present in this world , the self sustaining ecosystem, the water cycle, the trees , the flowers , how plants and animals sustain each other ?
How can it be possible that all this happened by chance [/b] -
sibei sian .. I discuss philosophy you all digress to science.
but a pat on the back for increasing the rating .. thanks.
-
Sorry for digressing but science can be supported by philosophy as they are related. All scientific concepts started with a philosophical thot & then they started analysing the proof for this concept.Originally posted by Icemoon:sibei sian .. I discuss philosophy you all digress to science.
but a pat on the back for increasing the rating .. thanks.
For eg, they couldnt see atoms but very early in history of science, they imagine atoms or coined the term atoms as the smallest indivisible particle of matter. Now we have lots of proof thru particle physics etc. We can even see atoms! So most scientific ideas started with a philosophical idea.
Just my 2 cents.
Glad the rating is increased. -
HmmÂ… can anybody do even an inch of science without first holding any philosophy?
And this philosophy has to be separate and above the conduct of this science, as it is the judge of how to treat this science. For example, a point of view that looks only at physical evidence and obvious proofs (aka. Casino King's style) constitutes a philosophy of treating the result of science itself. Many people claim that they are unbiased neutrals that follows what science saysÂ… but they say this on what grounds indeed? What do they mean by unbiased? And from where do they draw this inference of being 'unbiased'?
Very likely it comes straight from their very own philosophy, which has taught them to hold a certain notion of unbiased-ness. No matter what you can't approach science without a philosophy towards it, and you realize that the philosophy will determine what you get out of science. If you have no philosophy then science would be useless and you would get and do nothing with it.
A materialist or naturalistic philosophy will make you want to determine that humans are nothing more then randomly evolved animals that just happen to be here, and there's nothing more then that. And so on and so forth.
The battle then you realize, is often in the proof that a certain philosophy is better then another. And this battle can be supported by, but not won by science. This would then be a matter of logic and reason, which are things one cannot really put down to quarks and atoms (unless you are a materialist who believes that reason is nothing more then the motions of atoms in a brain, but then you destroy your own argument as this reason can't really be counted on to tell us anything, as it is in itself equally random and bankrupt of meaning beyond sheer matter. You would then be very nihilistic)
And are there compelling reasons to believe in God, logically and rationally thinking?
Certainly, the real question for me is not really if there is some God, but what kind of God is he. -
The big bang theory in itself is not incompatible with Creation. In fact, the theory itself was first proposed by a Catholic priest Fr. Georges Lemaitre, who was also a mathematician.Originally posted by zanza:Yes , absolutely its believable.
How else can everything be explained , we evolved from monkeys ?
A big bang with a 1 in a few million chance of happening ?
Scientists have recently found out that just a few strands of Dna contains as much data as millions of terabytes of data.
Look at the beauty present in this world , the self sustaining ecosystem, the water cycle, the trees , the flowers , how plants and animals sustain each other ?
How can it be possible that all this happened by chance
cheers,
siginah -
Originally posted by Icemoon:
The question of itself is problematic, as it appears to suggest a sort of subjectivism. In some ways, it is as silly as asking 'Is belief in atoms justified?"
[b]Reformed Epistemology
One of the central tasks of the philosophy of religion is to provide an answer to the question Is belief in God justified? In recent decades, there has been a radical change in the way that many Christian philosophers approach this question.
Most discussion of this question presupposes an evidentialism, according to which belief in God is justified only if the balance of evidence suggests that such belief is true. The task of philosophers of religion is then seen as weighing the arguments for GodÂ’s existence against the arguments against GodÂ’s existence and determining which are the stronger.
Reformed epistemologists reject this evidentialist assumption, affirming that belief in God can be rational even in the absence of evidence for GodÂ’s existence. Reformed epistemology is thus a reaction against both evidentialism and classical foundationalism.
In the old days, people do not ask this question but the other 'stronger' version: Does God exist?
This was the approach used by the Greeks as well as Christian philosophers like Aquinas. What's more, these guys have shown that it is possible to argue for the existence of God from natural reason. But of course, natural reason will not allow us to know that God is the 'God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob'. That can only be done through Revelation.
regards,
siginah