Forum Discussion: Is Belief in God Justified?
Wednesday January 30, 2008
Just because there is no definitive evidence for the existence of god doesn't mean that belief in some god can't be justified. A belief can be justified and reasonable even in the absence of unequivocal proof, but certain standards do have to be met. Does belief in a god, especially the God of traditional Christianity, meet any of those standards?
Is any belief in God justified? Here, the answer must be an emphatic yes, at least in the United States. Evidence for God? Look in the yellow pages under churches; go to the religion forums; look at the local and national debates on religion in the schools, in our cultures. As to whether the entity God actually exists is a question for the metaphysicians and the clerics.
So the question then becomes, in what way does belief in God become justified? I would say in may ways: politically, for obvious reasons; socially, in terms of finding a mate and rearing children; emotionally, in terms of their personal satisfaction and need for community; culturally, in terms of formulating a social consensus on what is permissible and what isn't and then attributing that consensus to God-worship or consciousness; and in many other ways.
To put it another way, most people believe there is a God, because they find justification for that belief within their culture and their heritage. The cost for defiance of that justification of belief that leads to atheism is too great for most people to accept, so they continue to believe in God.
What do you think about the above argument — do the social and psychological benefits of religion and theism really "justify" belief? Surely there were social and psychological benefits to membership in the Communist and Nazi Parties as well; they might make membership and even belief understandable, but is that the same as justified? Add your thoughts to the comments here or join the ongoing discussion in the forum.
Comments
“Just because there is no definitive evidence for the existence of god doesn’t mean that belief in some god can’t be justified.”
Is “definitive evidence” different from some other level of evidence? How would you rate evidence that could point to a god but could point to something else? In our last conversation about Joan of Arc, you denied the claim that theoretical causes have other symptoms that conflict with other known facts about her life. But you seemed to imply that schizophrenia was a possible cause. This would be an example of a one of the conflicts I was talking about, as you said irritability was a symptom of schizophrenia, and my history teacher says Joan was always cheerful.
By the way, I’m still trying to post this topic on the forum, but it thinks I’m under 13 when in fact I turned 18 today. Do you know how to fix this?
That’s not a justification, that’s using an argument from numbers as a rationale.
I assume the person who wrote that would deconvert immediately if he or she ever moved to a country where atheism was the norm?
Yes. There is equivocal evidence. There is weak evidence.
Unless your history teacher was with Joan all the time, and is qualified to make such determinations, I doubt that there is much evidence which would unequivocally support such an assertion.
No. I’d recommend creating a new account because you so often post off-topic comments that really don’t belong.
“No. I’d recommend creating a new account because you so often post off-topic comments that really don’t belong.”
Very well. Thank you.
Unfortunately, it won’t let me register a new account because my old e-mail adress is already registered. I’m trapped out of the forum.
Use a new email address. Or, if you can edit the old account at all, change the email address it has.
“What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason.” (Voltaire considered himself a Deist.)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voltaire
Perhaps Voltaire found it necessary to dance on eggs, given the laws of the time. More likely he really did believe what he said. IMO he is mistaken.
In the above quotation he deals openly in equivocation by asserting that both physical facts and reason have the same evidentiary force.He glissandos over the two (at least) forms of reason, logic and inference, as if they were one and by means of this sophistry concludes that his god is “necessary”. This is not correct. Inferences are contingent, not necessary.
In a different sense of necessary -that of “useful” or “expedient” it is argued that an imaginary friend is a requirement to grease the wheels of Society. I doubt it. All the social benefits of belonging to a church are valuable it’s true. But the hidden assumption that it is necessary for a “church” to be predicated upon the existence of a “god”, real or imagined is false. I happen to belong to an atheist church (church of virus) for instance. One of the meanings of church is simply that of a congregation, a gathering together in a place. Most often it is thought of as a place for worship, usually Christian in form, but it doesn’t have to be the case at all.
No wonder there are so many shepherd metaphors in Christianity…if this is the justification, they are like sheep.
Formal religion is an allergic reaction to the God within - which may be experienced because of a thyroid disorder.
(Off topic rant)
i’d love to join the forum discussion, but the about forums really put the einous in heinous. Each post is on a separate page, it’s insane! i’m not going to click 158 times. Slashdot and fark are much better examples of how a forum should work.
That’s only if you read the forum in “simple” view mode (and that’s the only mode available to unregistered guests). If you register, you can switch to an advanced view mode that puts up to 20 posts per page.
So (if I understand correctly) people believe because it’s just too complicated not to.
Belief as habit. *sigh* We all have a lot of work to do, haven’t we.