Belief in God without evidence is justified

I was re-reading a chapter in my copy of Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview, and I was also watching a few videos by Veritas48 on the subject of reformed epistemology (who is BTW my absolute favorite youtuber, I cannot recommend him enough), and I figured I would bring a few points of his and Plantinga to the Atheism union board. Now to clarify, I think that there is a rather wide preponderance of evidence for the existence of God, but regardless even if such a preponderance did not exist, the Theist could still be warranted in believing in God

The majority of discussions between Atheists and Christians probably go something like this: The Atheist takes an evidentialist epistemology and says that one cannot be justified in believing in God unless there is some evidence. The Theist fails to provide any sort of positive evidence, and the Atheist walks away from the conversation feeling that he is the victor. the Atheist may even contend that one is not justified in believing in God even if God exists because there is no evidence (there is a difference between knowledge and true belief). Now the Evidentalist will say that one is only justified in believing in any sort of truth if such a belief is properly basic (aka foundational to knowledge) or is based upon evidence which is ultimately properly basic. A belief, according to the evidentialist, is only properly basic if that belief is incorrigable or is self-evident. For instance, one can know that 2+2=4 because it is self-evident (However quite a few philosophers deny that there are such things as "self-evident" truths). Further, one can know that one feels pain because it is incorrigably true. For instance, a hypochondriac can know that he or she feels pain even though the source of pain is illsory. One cannot be mistaken about their own mental states.

Now Alvin Plantinga asks why must properly basic beliefs be true or incorrigable. Plantinga gives 2 examples of beliefs which are taken to be rational and even properly basic even though they are not self-evident, or incorrigable. The first example he gives is belief that the world was not created last thursday (google "Last thursdayism" and "Bertrand Russel"). Such a belief is not self-evident, and it is certainly not incorrigable. Further, one cannot prove with evidence that the world was created 5 minutes ago. But obviously we all take such a belief to be true and rationally justified. The second example which alvin Plantinga gives is the criterion for deciding a belief to be properly basic. The notion that properly basic beliefs can only be incorrigable or self-evident is itself niether self-evident nor incorrigable

Alvin Plantinga asks why one cannot take God to be foundational to knowledge? It is for this reason (the untenability of proper basicality) that I believe that a theist can be justified in believing in God without evidence.

Danwallacefan, I personally believe that there is nothing wrong with belief without evidence. We have that sort of belief about numerous things in our lives. "I believe that I will get the job", "I believe that I will finish university" etc. It's a common "feeling" if you can call it like that. The same goes with religious belief. I have nothing against people who say that they believe in god, and when I may ask them why, then they say "just because I want to believe". Nothing at all.

But in this site, the debating theists take on extreme stances such as: "it's is proven that god exists", "my truth is the only which is 100% true" often accompanied with the claim that all the previous can be proven.

So when I encounter an Evangelist who throws logic out of the window, and not only that, but he claims that he/she is the one that is right and the others have their own "petty" reasons to defy his views, then I cannot do other than play devil's advocate and ask for proof that supports his/her claims.

Further, one can know that one feels pain because it is incorrigably true. For instance, a hypochondriac can know that he or she feels pain even though the source of pain is illsory. One cannot be mistaken about their own mental states.

danwallacefan

[QUOTE="danwallacefan"]

Further, one can know that one feels pain because it is incorrigably true. For instance, a hypochondriac can know that he or she feels pain even though the source of pain is illsory. One cannot be mistaken about their own mental states.

Teenaged

[QUOTE="Teenaged"][QUOTE="danwallacefan"]

Further, one can know that one feels pain because it is incorrigably true. For instance, a hypochondriac can know that he or she feels pain even though the source of pain is illsory. One cannot be mistaken about their own mental states.

danwallacefan

Now Alvin Plantinga asks why must properly basic beliefs be true or incorrigable. Plantinga gives 2 examples of beliefs which are taken to be rational and even properly basic even though they are not self-evident, or incorrigable. The first example he gives is belief that the world was not created last thursday (google "Last thursdayism" and "Bertrand Russel"). Such a belief is not self-evident, and it is certainly not incorrigable. Further, one cannot prove with evidence that the world was created 5 minutes ago. But obviously we all take such a belief to be true and rationally justified.danwallacefan

This "world" we are talking about is as real as reality can get. There are a lot of things we don't know about the world we live in, but it not that we don't know anything. We do. We know the the world intimately enough to understand that it cannot be proven it was created 5 minutes ago. This much we can assert without proof.  

Alvin Plantinga asks why one cannot take God to be foundational to knowledge? It is for this reason (the untenability of proper basicality) that I believe that a theist can be justified in believing in God without evidence.

danwallacefan

You are comparing "god" with the "world". They are not the same thing.

As I've said before, we know our world well enough to know it exists. But if I say anything about god, it will be pretty much impossible to verify it. There is not a single thing about god we can prove with certainty. Even if I say say god is made up there is not a single evidence to prove me wrong point-blank. On the other hand I know for a fact the world existed 5 minutes ago, since I've been there. no need for belief to justify that.

Now what Alvin Plantinga says is valid. Obviously science is not capable of disproving god if the guy really doesn't exist.  But to say believing in this world is somewhat similar to believing in god is a huge stretch of the idea, not to mention the the idea of god is largely unsupported.

_____________

Now, based on this point of view belief in god can be fortified well enough, but I'm not too sure about it being properly justified(sorry:(). Also it's not totally unjustified. In layman's term I think it would be called "benefit of doubt" kind of situation... The idea of justifying god through pure faith actually earns this much, I think.

So is it just the Abrahamic God which is justified or is a belief in the Greek Pantheon and the flying spaghetti monster also a properly basic belief?
domatron23

Don't forget Scientology and Xenu, the head of the most awesomest Galactic Confederacy ever. :P

I would not consider a belief in God to be unjustified.

I do not believe it is justified to tell people how they should conduct their lives based on objective truths whilst having little evidence of their actual existence.

I was re-reading a chapter in my copy of Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview, and I was also watching a few videos by Veritas48 on the subject of reformed epistemology (who is BTW my absolute favorite youtuber, I cannot recommend him enough), and I figured I would bring a few points of his and Plantinga to the Atheism union board. Now to clarify, I think that there is a rather wide preponderance of evidence for the existence of God, but regardless even if such a preponderance did not exist, the Theist could still be warranted in believing in God

The majority of discussions between Atheists and Christians probably go something like this: The Atheist takes an evidentialist epistemology and says that one cannot be justified in believing in God unless there is some evidence. The Theist fails to provide any sort of positive evidence, and the Atheist walks away from the conversation feeling that he is the victor. the Atheist may even contend that one is not justified in believing in God even if God exists because there is no evidence (there is a difference between knowledge and true belief). Now the Evidentalist will say that one is only justified in believing in any sort of truth if such a belief is properly basic (aka foundational to knowledge) or is based upon evidence which is ultimately properly basic. A belief, according to the evidentialist, is only properly basic if that belief is incorrigable or is self-evident. For instance, one can know that 2+2=4 because it is self-evident (However quite a few philosophers deny that there are such things as "self-evident" truths). Further, one can know that one feels pain because it is incorrigably true. For instance, a hypochondriac can know that he or she feels pain even though the source of pain is illsory. One cannot be mistaken about their own mental states.

Now Alvin Plantinga asks why must properly basic beliefs be true or incorrigable. Plantinga gives 2 examples of beliefs which are taken to be rational and even properly basic even though they are not self-evident, or incorrigable. The first example he gives is beliefthat the world was not created last thursday (google "Last thursdayism" and "Bertrand Russel"). Such a belief is not self-evident, and it is certainly not incorrigable. Further, one cannot prove with evidence that the world was created 5 minutes ago. But obviously we all take such a belief to be true and rationally justified. The second example which alvin Plantinga gives is the criterion for deciding a belief to be properly basic. The notion that properly basic beliefs can only be incorrigable or self-evident is itself niether self-evident nor incorrigable

Alvin Plantinga asks why one cannot take God to be foundational to knowledge? It is for this reason (the untenability of proper basicality) that I believe that a theist can be justified in believing in God without evidence.

danwallacefan

umm no we dont?

[QUOTE="danwallacefan"]

The first example he gives is beliefthat the world was not created last thursday (google "Last thursdayism" and "Bertrand Russel"). Such a belief is not self-evident, and it is certainly not incorrigable. Further, one cannot prove with evidence that the world was created 5 minutes ago. But obviously we all take such a belief to be true and rationally justified.

Thessassin

umm no we dont?

What if you were created with your memories and the world was created with evidence of being around for more than 5 minutes. It's pretty much just the Omphalos defense of young earth creationism applied to individuals and although it is absurd it isalso not impossible.

Just before you were calling it a fact that world was not created 5 mintes ago and now you're saying that such a belief is not rationally justified. Which one is it?

While what you say is true, the problem is that people who argue this often miss the second half of what philosophers take to be true: someone is justified in believing due to personal experience, but at the same time someone is justified in not believing due to a lack thereof.  Thus, this justification only works for oneself; you cannot say that your beliefs mean that others are unjustified in agreeing.  This argument is, thus, unfortunately completely ineffectual in a debate over whether or not God exists.

There are certainly atheists out there who would call religious people irrational or other related unkind words, and this is certainly a good refutation of that, but I don't know of any such atheists who attend this union.

[QUOTE="Thessassin"]

[QUOTE="danwallacefan"]

The first example he gives is beliefthat the world was not created last thursday (google "Last thursdayism" and "Bertrand Russel"). Such a belief is not self-evident, and it is certainly not incorrigable. Further, one cannot prove with evidence that the world was created 5 minutes ago. But obviously we all take such a belief to be true and rationally justified.

domatron23

umm no we dont?

What if you were created with your memories and the world was created with evidence of being around for more than 5 minutes. It's pretty much just the Omphalos defense of young earth creationism applied to individuals and although it is absurd it isalso not impossible.

Just before you were calling it a fact that world was not created 5 mintes ago and now you're saying that such a belief is not rationally justified. Which one is it?

[QUOTE="domatron23"][QUOTE="Thessassin"]

[QUOTE="danwallacefan"]

The first example he gives is beliefthat the world was not created last thursday (google "Last thursdayism" and "Bertrand Russel"). Such a belief is not self-evident, and it is certainly not incorrigable. Further, one cannot prove with evidence that the world was created 5 minutes ago. But obviously we all take such a belief to be true and rationally justified.

7guns

umm no we dont?

What if you were created with your memories and the world was created with evidence of being around for more than 5 minutes. It's pretty much just the Omphalos defense of young earth creationism applied to individuals and although it is absurd it isalso not impossible.

Just before you were calling it a fact that world was not created 5 mintes ago and now you're saying that such a belief is not rationally justified. Which one is it?

Yeah I know I'm just playing devil's advocate.

Yeah I know I'm just playing devil's advocate.

domatron23

Yea, I kind of knew about that.

I've been reading some material of similar subject matter and it seems to really have to do with your presuppositions about life.  If one is an evidentialist then not having evidence for your beliefs is wrong.  This philosophy has some truth to it but I believe many take this way too far as it is simply not practicable or possible.  There is simply no absolute proof for anything to exist aside from possibly your consciousness and many aspects about it is even questionable.  Sure, there is evidence but no proof. 

When it comes to daily life, humanity does not live as an evidentialist.  Many issues about life we simply assume to be true without question.  Our presuppositions about life give way to our assumptions.  If one is a complete naturalist, the existence of God is foolishness.  If one thinks the supernatural is possible then the existence of God is not far-fetched but likely.  The basic presuppositions one holds towards life is often evidence enough to convince any person to hold a specific stance. 

Turning a person from one stance to another stance is another issue.  For one to change from an atheist to a theist, the very presuppositions about life the individual holds has to change.  Often this is by means of evidence which shows the truthfulness of a theistic way of life and may or may not be an incredible amount of evidence.  The evidence is typically just enough to break the camel's back so to speak.  If a foundational belief within a worldview is not true, then something is wrong with the worldview (e.g. the resurrection of Jesus in Christianity, matter existing forever within naturalism, etc.).

My summary is simply: I agree that belief in God without proof is justified, but I believe evidence helps the individual grow in their faith.

I've been reading some material of similar subject matter and it seems to really have to do with your presuppositions about life.  If one is an evidentialist then not having evidence for your beliefs is wrong.  This philosophy has some truth to it but I believe many take this way too far as it is simply not practicable or possible.  There is simply no absolute proof for anything to exist aside from possibly your consciousness and many aspects about it is even questionable.  Sure, there is evidence but no proof. 

When it comes to daily life, humanity does not live as an evidentialist.  Many issues about life we simply assume to be true without question.  Our presuppositions about life give way to our assumptions.  If one is a complete naturalist, the existence of God is foolishness.  If one thinks the supernatural is possible then the existence of God is not far-fetched but likely.  The basic presuppositions one holds towards life is often evidence enough to convince any person to hold a specific stance. 

Turning a person from one stance to another stance is another issue.  For one to change from an atheist to a theist, the very presuppositions about life the individual holds has to change.  Often this is by means of evidence which shows the truthfulness of a theistic way of life and may or may not be an incredible amount of evidence.  The evidence is typically just enough to break the camel's back so to speak.  If a foundational belief within a worldview is not true, then something is wrong with the worldview (e.g. the resurrection of Jesus in Christianity, matter existing forever within naturalism, etc.).

My summary is simply: I agree that belief in God without proof is justified, but I believe evidence helps the individual grow in their faith.

mindstorm

Also, surely evidence is harmful to faith since faith is belief without proof or evidence?

[QUOTE="mindstorm"]

I've been reading some material of similar subject matter and it seems to really have to do with your presuppositions about life.  If one is an evidentialist then not having evidence for your beliefs is wrong.  This philosophy has some truth to it but I believe many take this way too far as it is simply not practicable or possible.  There is simply no absolute proof for anything to exist aside from possibly your consciousness and many aspects about it is even questionable.  Sure, there is evidence but no proof. 

When it comes to daily life, humanity does not live as an evidentialist.  Many issues about life we simply assume to be true without question.  Our presuppositions about life give way to our assumptions.  If one is a complete naturalist, the existence of God is foolishness.  If one thinks the supernatural is possible then the existence of God is not far-fetched but likely.  The basic presuppositions one holds towards life is often evidence enough to convince any person to hold a specific stance. 

Turning a person from one stance to another stance is another issue.  For one to change from an atheist to a theist, the very presuppositions about life the individual holds has to change.  Often this is by means of evidence which shows the truthfulness of a theistic way of life and may or may not be an incredible amount of evidence.  The evidence is typically just enough to break the camel's back so to speak.  If a foundational belief within a worldview is not true, then something is wrong with the worldview (e.g. the resurrection of Jesus in Christianity, matter existing forever within naturalism, etc.).

My summary is simply: I agree that belief in God without proof is justified, but I believe evidence helps the individual grow in their faith.

Funky_Llama

Also, surely evidence is harmful to faith since faith is belief without proof or evidence?

I am one who does not support the idea of "blind faith" as I believe that if Christianity is true then it will logically fit into reality.  Faith is a practice that goes outside one's mind and spirituality but interacts with the world as a whole.  I do not agree with the modern perception of the definition of faith.  My faith in Christ is the same faith that my parents have in one another, there is evidence to back up their faith.  Sure, they could be wrong but they have enough evidence to put their faith in one another, 40 years worth of evidence.  Faith without evidence, at least in my opinion, is a willingness to be ignorant and in denial of reality.  I do not wish to be ignorant but wish to be aware of the truth whatever that might be.

Evdentialism has some truth to it but can simply be taken too far... as with any philosophical or theological standing.