“If a belief can't be verified, how can it be justified?”
Anon.
This entry was posted
on Monday, December 3rd, 2012 at 1:00 and is filed under QOTD.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
Both comments and pings are currently closed.
If we are to show or prove to be right, and/or reasonable, a belief we are going to have to also be able to share the evidence with others, to substantiate the belief to others: A requirement.
Convincing ourselves isn’t going to require anything more than a desire to believe something.
It is hardly a good reason for believing another simply because someone else says so. Skepticism ought to be expected and the integrity of the verification ought to be taken into account before attempting to convince anyone of anything.
An idiosyncratic belief or impression firmly maintained despite being contradicted by what is generally accepted as reality is a delusion.
A belief, unverified and continued, is a delusion.
There are however lots of currently unverified beliefs that are justified. Doesn’t all discovery and innovation depend on it? If they are unverifiable it may just be a matter of time until a means of doing so is found. Such a belief would have to be held at least somewhat tentatively until such time as it could be verified, of course. This is the trickiest area to argue with theists it seems to me as it concedes a reasonable doubt which they pounce on.
I am in this kind of argument right now. They contend that if I love my kids how can I know what love is? No scientific proof for it, yet I know I love my kids. They say it is the same way they “know” god/jesus is real…
Another says that since scientists can’t determine if vitamins are good or bad for you – that they don’t know anything…
December 3rd, 2012 at 13:09
It can be “justified” in all sorts of ways.
“It is common sense”
“It makes me feel good to believe it”
“It comports with my wider world view”
“It’s traditional”
etc etc
What can’t be justified is an expectation that anyone else should believe it.
December 3rd, 2012 at 15:15
If we are to show or prove to be right, and/or reasonable, a belief we are going to have to also be able to share the evidence with others, to substantiate the belief to others: A requirement.
Convincing ourselves isn’t going to require anything more than a desire to believe something.
It is hardly a good reason for believing another simply because someone else says so. Skepticism ought to be expected and the integrity of the verification ought to be taken into account before attempting to convince anyone of anything.
An idiosyncratic belief or impression firmly maintained despite being contradicted by what is generally accepted as reality is a delusion.
A belief, unverified and continued, is a delusion.
December 3rd, 2012 at 17:36
By “faith”, apparently.
December 4th, 2012 at 0:07
There are however lots of currently unverified beliefs that are justified. Doesn’t all discovery and innovation depend on it? If they are unverifiable it may just be a matter of time until a means of doing so is found. Such a belief would have to be held at least somewhat tentatively until such time as it could be verified, of course. This is the trickiest area to argue with theists it seems to me as it concedes a reasonable doubt which they pounce on.
December 4th, 2012 at 16:48
I am in this kind of argument right now. They contend that if I love my kids how can I know what love is? No scientific proof for it, yet I know I love my kids. They say it is the same way they “know” god/jesus is real…
Another says that since scientists can’t determine if vitamins are good or bad for you – that they don’t know anything…