But for some reason when it comes to beliefs, too many people are just that unreasonable. Sure you maybe believe P because Q because R because S but you believe S because you just look at the world around you and it just seems to be true, that's just how the world appears, that's just what you believe. Too many people would then say "so you have no good reason to believe it then" as though that's a reason for you not to believe it, but it's not. You're free, epistemically as in you're not committing any error of reasoning, to believe whatever you damn well please, whatever just seems true to you, until someone can show you a good reason not to believe it. — Pfhorrest
Why not?
I like vanilla. There's no reason that I like vanilla, I just do. It's unjustified. SO what? It explains my purchase, too often, of a vanilla milkshake. I don't wee anything untoward in this little story. Yet my unjustified predilection justifies my purchase. — Banno
But for some reason when it comes to beliefs, too many people are just that unreasonable. Sure you maybe believe P because Q because R because S but you believe S because you just look at the world around you and it just seems to be true, that's just how the world appears, that's just what you believe. Too many people would then say "so you have no good reason to believe it then" as though that's a reason for you not to believe it, but it's not. You're free, epistemically as in you're not committing any error of reasoning, to believe whatever you damn well please, whatever just seems true to you, until someone can show you a good reason not to believe it. — Pfhorrest
The notion of direction of fit, fits here. A belief has the direction of fit of world-to-word: that is, it says that "the world is thus:...", and hence that the world fits to these words.
And that allows for error, because sometimes the world is not thus. — Banno
To justify is to demonstrate the correctness of something. — Metaphysician Undercover
Even if one accepts this, "I like vanilla" is sufficient to justify my purchase. — Banno
And you seem to have misunderstood direction of fit. — Banno
If this were true, I could justify "2+2=5" with "I like it like that". But it's not true, because "I like vanilla" does not demonstrate that it is correct for you to purchase vanilla, and that's what's required for justification. — Metaphysician Undercover
it's not that I've misunderstood your "direction of fit", I see right through it. As I said, there is no such thing as "the world fits to these words", we make the words fit to the world. Clearly your sense of direction is askew. And you even exemplify this, attempting to make the words fit to the world, in practise, by trying to shape "justify" to the way you that perceive the world. — Metaphysician Undercover
As I said, there is no such thing as "the world fits to these words", we make the words fit to the world. — Metaphysician Undercover
"I like vanilla" does not demonstrate that it is correct for you to purchase vanilla — Metaphysician Undercover
Yet my unjustified predilection justifies my purchase — Banno
It explains your purchase, but it does not justify it. Explaining and justifying are not the same. To explain is to make something clear by providing further information. To justify is to demonstrate the correctness of something. If buying vanilla is considered to be a bad thing, unethical for some reason, then explaining that you buy it because you like it, does not justify buying it. — Metaphysician Undercover
Flavours and numbers are different. — Banno
A religious person certainly has the world fit the words of the bible. — god must be atheist
The problem with this approach is that others may take the same parts, and draw different conclusions with the same premises. — god must be atheist
To make order between perceived reality, the bible's teaching, and the inner model of the world the person has, one has to fit one or the other of these three worlds to some of the extant worlds of these three — god must be atheist
Surprisingly, the religious will not only fit the existing world to an inner model erroneously, but also in ways that are incompatible with all logic and reason. Yet they fight for the rightness of this fit. — god must be atheist
A secular atheist will look at the world, and form an inner model of it; and from then on, will work with the model, that is, fit the world to his mental model, until a discrepancy alerts him that his model is not a good fit with the world. — god must be atheist
it is true that it is not justified why Banno likes vanilla ice cream. But it is also conceivable, that not everything needs justification.
There are situations where justification is needed, but is not possible to give. (I.e. cohesion of ideals and concepts as per the Bible.)
There are situations where justification is needed, and it is given. (I.e. evolutionary theory.)
There are situations where justification is not needed. (I.e. personal preference or taste.) — god must be atheist
I think correctness is a superfluous, unnecessary and irrelevant aspect of the preference that one has for an ice cream flavour. Your demand that it have some correctness, is meaningless, or unjustified. — god must be atheist
So Banno, claims "I like vanilla" is unjustifiable. But that doesn't prevent me from asking for justification. Prove to me that you like vanilla by showing me when you have eaten it, and describing to me what it is about it which you like. It is false that the claim "I like vanilla" is unjustifiable, and false to claim that it ought not be doubted because it is unjustifiable. If Banno insists that it is unjustifiable, this is just a ploy to avoid having to justify it. — Metaphysician Undercover
But justification is justification, and "because I like it" doesn't justify anything. — Metaphysician Undercover
Three terms: god, religion, theology. Pick any or all. Start your post with "God is," or "Religion is," or "Theology is." — tim wood
But it's not true, because "I like vanilla" does not demonstrate that it is correct for you to purchase vanilla, and that's what's required for justification. — Metaphysician Undercover
One can cite "there is no accounting for taste". Maybe taste is justifiable (by saying it's unavoidable); but our knowledge of how taste develops is scanty, it is only in the early theoretical stage. We justify the differntness in preference for ice cream taste with the same blanket justification that explains all differentness: the different mutations in DNA. — god must be atheist
A justification shows why something was done. — Banno
Yes, this highlights the fact that something only requires justification, and it is only appropriate to speak about it in terms of justification, if it has the potential to be incorrect in some way. — Janus
I think there was a consensus that g/G is an idea but not any kind of separately existing being or thing. — tim wood
This is false. Justification shows the correctness of something. I've told you this already, look it up if you do not believe me. As I said, you are trying to adjust the meaning of "justify" to make it fit to your perception of the world. But your model of "the world" is an unacceptable one. — Metaphysician Undercover
I think there was a consensus that g/G is an idea but not any kind of separately existing being or thing. — tim wood
I think there was a consensus that g/G is an idea but not any kind of separately existing being or thing.
— tim wood
This would be an atheist's definition. — Metaphysician Undercover
Did I miss a post? — tim wood
But I know of no even remotely Christian-based thinker who understands his religion (i.e., Christian) who claims g/G has real independent existence. — tim wood
Try this, "God is...". Complete the sentence. — tim wood
Let's look at what is salient, and what was claimed. There are justifications that do not depend on other justifications. "I like Vanilla" is one. It is sufficient, when I am asked, "why did you choose vanilla?", to reply "I like vanilla". It would be obtuse to go on and ask:"OK, so you prefer vanilla to the other flavours on offer, but why did you choose it?" — Banno
Sorry, Wayfarer, but this is nonsense. — tim wood
Try this, "God is...". Complete the sentence. — tim wood
To those who insist their belief is knowledge of, then make it knowledge: show us! — tim wood
I think there was a consensus that g/G is an idea but not any kind of separately existing being or thing. — tim wood
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.