Need help on Philosophy Paper

[Solaris]

Hey helplife2.net;

I have a paper due in a couple of days, 1500words. I've been working on it but I'm really stuck with what to write.

The Title is:

Can belief in God be justified without appeal to inference and rational argument?

Now we have been looking at epistemology and stuff like that, but it doesn't seem to be much help for this question. So I'm having problems researching on what to write about. Does it seem to you that the essay should basically be looking at 'faith'? And if it's a valid position to hold in belief of God?

Any links or further information helping me here would be great. Cheers.

 

[ktimekiller]

This thread is doomed to going from bad to worse with the topic of religion

 

[jondy]

Hey helplife2.net;

I have a paper due in a couple of days, 1500words. I've been working on it but I'm really stuck with what to write.

The Title is:

Can belief in God be justified without appeal to inference and rational argument?

Now we have been looking at epistemology and stuff like that, but it doesn't seem to be much help for this question. So I'm having problems researching on what to write about. Does it seem to you that the essay should basically be looking at 'faith'? And if it's a valid position to hold in belief of God?

Any links or further information helping me here would be great. Cheers.

Man I wish I'd done philosophy at University. A joint in History and Music was fun, but I would have loved stuff like this.

I don't have big philosophy chops, but surely if something as infinitely complex as deity can be justified without 'rational argument' it follows that everything else can avoid recourse to rationality, too? Which seems a little ludicrous

The idea of faith is definitely key here. There's got to be a shit-ton of writing on this question, talk to your classmates/lecturer.

In any case, define your terms before you set out

 

[Dan]

How is something justified without appeal to inference and rational argument?

 

[Eejit]

Just Flying Spaghetti Monster the whole thing.

 

[15357]

I am going to justify religious belief without rational argument:

BELIEVE REPENT YOUR SINS AND HAVE FAITH IN GOD(S) FOR PARADISE IS NEAR! LOTS OF VIRGINS AND GREAT FEASTS! THANK THE LORD CESUS JHRIST FOR HE HATH DELIEVERED YOU FROM YOUR - WHAT? INFIDEL! UNBELIEVER! HERETIC! CAST HIM INTO THE FIERY PIT!

 

[Dan]

Well, to answer truthfully, personal belief in God, or personal belief in anything is very easy to justify without any sort of logical argument whatsoever. If belief in God gives someone comfort, then that is their prerogative. If I want to believe in God, that is my business, and I don't have to justify it to anybody other than myself. I believe in God. If you don't like that, you can go **** yourself, cause nobody is asking you.

 

[Dan]

So here is my more complete answer:

Belief in God can be justified without rational argument or inference if the believer holds a pragmatic or individualistic frame of reference or outlook on the world. However, in the objective sense, the world is defined externally and justification without rational argument is an oxymoron, so no it is not possible. Pragmatic is often used interchangeably with objective incorrectly. The difference is the basis of your argument. The difference comes down to what it means to justify something.

 

[lame-o]

EDIT: Okay I guess I have no idea what you could possibly say then

 

[Dan]

In my opinion, yes it is justified. No-one knows why life exists or how, so why can't someone believe that it could be some kind of celestial being that created the universe? You'd be just as justified to say there is no such thing.

In the absence of any proven truth, anything can be true.

That is a rational argument.... read the OP

 

[ricera10]

Can belief in God be justified without appeal to inference and rational argument?

Using some definitions I pulled from the Oxford English Dictionary to get a better sense of what the prompt is arguing...

A. adj.

I. General senses.

1. Of a person, a person's soul, mind, etc.

a. Having the faculty of reasoning; endowed with reason. Esp. in rational being, rational creature, rational soul, etc.

b. That uses, or is capable of using, the faculty of reasoning; having sound judgement; (in extended use) sensible, sane, lucid. Also: characterized by reasoning, as opposed to emotion, intuition, etc.

Using this definition with ones from other dictionaries, "rational" as an adjective generally means being capable of reason / using reason. So I think rational argument here means an argument using reasons. There a lot of definitions for reason, so I'll pull some that I think are relevant:

2. a. A statement of some fact (real or alleged) used to justify or condemn an action, or to prove or disprove some assertion, idea, or belief. In later use only as passing into sense 10. Cf. a woman's (also the ladies') reason n. at Phrases 1c. Obs.

3. a. A statement, narrative, or speech; a remark or observation; an account or explanation of, or answer to, something. Also as a mass noun: speech, discourse. Cf. part of reason n. at PART n.1 1b. Obs.

5. a. The power of the mind to think and form valid judgments by a process of logic; the mental faculty which is used in adapting thought or action to some end; the guiding principle of the mind in the process of thinking. Freq. contrasted with will, imagination, passion, etc. Often personified.

10. A fact or circumstance forming, or alleged as forming, a motive sufficient to lead a person to adopt or reject some course of action or belief, esp. one stated as such. Also as a mass noun: grounds, motivation, or justification. With why, that, {dag}wherefore; for, {dag}of, or infinitive.

The last one says it the best; so rewritten to show my new interpretation of the prompt:

Can belief in God be justified without (real or alleged) facts and logical justification?

The definition of inference can help you understand what I'm trying to say:

1. a. The action or process of inferring; the drawing of a conclusion from known or assumed facts or statements; esp. in Logic, the forming of a conclusion from data or premisses, either by inductive or deductive methods; reasoning from something known or assumed to something else which follows from it; = ILLATION. Also (with pl.), a particular act of inferring; the logical form in which this is expressed.

Since there are millions of Christians throughout the world, the religion has been popular for centuries, and the consensus on halflife2.net is that there is no logic behind believing in Christianity; the answer to this is probably obvious; it's that trying to find examples of this is the hard(er) part. You would have to find ways that people have been following religions without them using the generally accepted definition of logic.

 

[Mogi67]

Check out Aquinas' views on Faith & Reason.

 

[The Monkey]

Well, first off you have to define "rational". That in itself could be (and probably has been) the subject of a doctorate dissertation.

 

[Neutrino]

Hey helplife2.net;

I have a paper due in a couple of days, 1500words. I've been working on it but I'm really stuck with what to write.

The Title is:

Can belief in God be justified without appeal to inference and rational argument?

Now we have been looking at epistemology and stuff like that, but it doesn't seem to be much help for this question. So I'm having problems researching on what to write about. Does it seem to you that the essay should basically be looking at 'faith'? And if it's a valid position to hold in belief of God?

Any links or further information helping me here would be great. Cheers.

Just remember to break the problem down into parts and simplify it. It's a huge subject but you can just examine one or two facets of the discussion in a paper that size. You need to find opinions on each side of the discussion, decide which one you are going to support, argue both as best you can and come to a conclusion that matches your initial statement. Personally, I would decide on what scale you want to examine the question. Individual, tribal, global? In general religious terms and ideas or using specific beliefs and groups? You need to define your initial assumptions and parameters for your paper so you don't get overwhelmed with information while researching.

 

[DEATHMASTER]

God...and I was thinking about taking an upper level philosophy course.

 

[PvtRyan]

Justified? I would look first at what that means, "justified", justify to who, why and why would being justified or not have any inherent value?

 

[Ezra]

Pick a bunch of theories you've looked at in lectures and argue them, then conclude your essay with one that seems logical, it works for my psychology course.

http://scholar.google.co.uk/

Google scholar is useful in finding papers on whatever you're doing, it's pretty hit and miss for being useful though, and you need to be pretty specific on what you want.

 

[ShadowArmy]

What the heck kind of question is that??:rolling::rolling:

I'm glad I never took a philosophy class.

 

[Mogi67]

What the heck kind of question is that??:rolling::rolling:

I'm glad I never took a philosophy class.

Yeah, I wonder what would happen if you actually had to think

 

[Stigmata]

Nothing?

(ohhhh snap)

 

[BirdKiller]

In philosophy, the word "justification" has several meanings, interpretations, and definitions depending in the school of philosophy you're studying. Some have a very strict definition, some can't answer it at all. You're going to have to tell us what it means for something to be "justified" in the context of the course you're in.

I took a course in epistemology, did well, but hated it (which I think was what made me do well: make a fool out of it), and hate philosophy in general.

My advice for you is, figure out what "justified" exactly means in the context of the course you're in. If the meaning is very strict, well you're in luck, since that means you can easily agree by saying that the belief of God without rational argument fits the ENTIRE definition of justification, and therefore the belief is justified, or that such statement violates ANY PART of the definition and therefore, is not justified.

In my experience, it's much easier to write a thesis that disagrees with something than to agree as to agree means "the whole statement is correct, and I shall show the ENTIRE statement is correct", while to disagree means "something, not necessarily everything, in that statement is incorrect, and I'll prove that AT LEAST one thing is incorrect". The consequence of disagreeing however is that, while more interesting to argue and easier to understand, you don't have much to write to fully explain as compared to agreeing.

If I had to agree, I would say that belief in God is justified without rational arguments as much as our trust in induction is justified* without rational arguments as pointed out by Hume. Hume says that our induction & Cause and Effect is based on our instincts, not by any rational thought. Same could be said with God, people somehow have faith in it, people somehow believe in it by not even thinking about it.

*justified as in we can use it...because we use it regardless of what we think of it. It is independent of our rational thoughts.

If I had to disagree, to say that the belief is not justified if there's no rational argument, well, I would somehow point that the lack of rational justification would somehow mean such statement does not fit the definition or condition of a belief to be justified (easiest and strongest one). If the definition of justification is open-ended or not strict, I would abstract the idea of God to any ideas that do not exist in this world like say unicorns. Most, enough people at least, believe unicorns do not exist as it's never discovered that they exist, so why should we believe in God if it's never discovered that they exist? (weakest; for some reason professors and philosophers do not like arguments that are simple) Or I would point that if we believe in God, then we believe we have a justification to believe in God (else the contrary would be silly), but we confuse our belief that a justification exists to that of whether justification actually exists at all (similar to the first argument).

Hope this helps. Since philosophy papers are almost no different than any other humanities or social science papers, just pick a side, and argue well. It doesn't matter if your side is right or wrong (there is no right or wrong), just write and argue a lot and you're gold. The worst papers are those that pick both sides or no sides at all. Also mention the readings and philosophies you've studied...even if they have almost no relevance to the statement itself

 

[Solaris]

Lol I handed this in weeks ago. Thanks though.

 

[jondy]

Dude any chance I could see what you wrote, or just a summary of what you handed in? I'm interested!

 

[Solaris]

I hope the plagiarism software doesn't pick this up and flag me.


Can belief in God be justified without appeal to inference and rational argument?


By Daniel Gillen 40004629

The existence of God is one of the most debated concepts in Western philosophy. Despite the polarity of beliefs held by philosophers, theologians and laymen alike; many people proclaim to be very sure in what they hold to be true.

However, when examining this belief and the rationality (or in the case for this essay, lack of) behind these beliefs we must first define the concept of 'God' itself.

This essay will address three different beliefs sets regarding the existence of God, Deism, Theism and Pantheism. In the interests of simplicity, Deism will be help as the belief that a God exists and Theism as the belief in God, with knowledge of his will through scripture as an extension of this.

There exist many attempts at rational reasoning, inference, deduction and 'scientific' enquiry to prove the existence of God, both deistic and theistic. However this essay is going to look past these attempts and look at the fundamental pillar of religious belief - faith.

Faith itself is the open belief in something without any recourse to rational arguments. To the believer, faith is often the rock they base their entire belief structure upon, to the skeptic, it is hard to understand and may appear nonsensical – worthy of no more philosophical merit than that of a childs wishful thinking.

Richard Dawkins takes this criticism of faith further: “Faith is an evil precisely because it requires no justification and brooks no argument....Faith can be very very dangerous and deliberately to implant it into the vulnerable mind of an innocent child is a grievous wrong.”1

When attacking faith, Dawkins uses examples of suicide bombers as a primary example of the destructive power of faith. He points out that the core motivation of those who would fly planes into buildings or blow themselves up in hospitals is their conviction of the certainty of their theological beliefs. He concludes that suicide attacks are sometimes a natural consequence of teaching people to accept their scripture blindly as the word of God, without recourse to reason or rational argument. 2

Clearly as Dawkins demonstrates, faith can be a dangerous idea to subscribe to and it's traditional status as a 'virtue' is perhaps unwarranted.

However, it would be wrong to accuse all the faithful of being violent, or even that it is a consequence of all faith based religious texts. There are many denominations and sects of the worlds religions which are intricately anti-violent. Jainism is a good example of this, a religion for which devotion to peace is perhaps an article of faith itself. Clearly we could imagine a religion which endorses nothing but peace and helping others. For the unbelievers and the faithful alike the consequences of this religion could be wholly good, and result in nothing but improvements for the human condition.

This shows that faith needn't result in any actions or consequence's which would appear immoral to a non-believing observer. Faith can have a positive impact on the world, although as Professor Dawkins demonstrates, it often does not.

Clearly then we can see faith need not be an immoral concept in itself, and so requires no de facto justification with regards to morality. However, when we turn to the intellectual justifications of faith it becomes much more difficult to endorse.

If we concern ourselves with the acquisition of an external and objective truth, then it can be demonstrated that faith alone is a poor tool with which to acquire this. There exist in this world a large number of religions which are based upon faith, let us look at the three Abrahamic religions, that is Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Although historically these religions stem from roughly the same texts to varying degrees. They have long since diverged with new canon added to their theological holy books.

What's more, these religions hold themselves to be mutually exclusive. That is, the followers of one religion believe there's to be the only true religion and those outside it will suffer in Hell, or at best not enjoy God's love. Now this only implies in a general sense, there are Christians who believe one needs only to lead a moral life to enter heaven and no doubt such ideas exist in other religions too.

For a large part mutual exclusivity does apply and further to this, there are a very large number of mutually exclusive religions whose followers rely upon faith. Clearly then, at the very least, the majority of people who subscribe to mutually exclusive religions, with nothing but faith to support their beliefs, are wrong.

However, this analysis only applies to those who would use faith to support a theistic position. What about those who only subscribe to the concept of deistic God and make no claims about his will or his actions? Interestingly, such believers rarely rely upon blind faith to reach this position. The necessity for a 'prime mover' through some philosophical argument is often enough to convince people of this. A good example of this type of argument would be St Thomas Aquinas's '5 Proofs'.3

The concept of a deistic God however is often very vague and unsurprisingly means a lot of different things to different people. The most watered down version of this position can be referred to as 'pantheism' which means little more than a belief in a natural cosmic order than can be referred to as God.

The most famous proponent of this 'idea' was Benedict Spinoza, a position as Einstein phrased holds “[belief in a] God who who reveals himself in the natural harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings”.4

Certainly the notion that the universe holds to consistent laws and has a natural order does not require much rational argument to support it. To many, it seems obvious that whatever laws govern the motion of a ball down a hill would apply throughout the universe. That the universe has a set of laws that can be observed and then learnt is perhaps a fundamental pillar of Science, a leap of faith even perhaps.

However, to call these fundamental laws 'God' is to deny the possibility of any other type of God within the universe. For if such a God was to exist, and further act on the universe, suspending what natural laws may be in place, then the laws would cease to be universal and universally applicable.

Indeed then it would appear that there are only two possibilities, each requiring a small faith based leap to make.

1: Either there is a God, who can adjust the universe as he or she wills
2: Or the universe itself is unalterable and obeys a set of established rules.

However, the second outcome here appears to imply a deterministic universe, something that does not seem compatible with the existence of 'free will' nor with what many scientists hold to be the natural consequence's of Quantam Theory.5

The only way this author can reconcile these contradictions is with the realisation that 'we' as concious human beings are God, whatever that implies.

This is a concept that seems somewhat similar to certain Eastern philosophies such as Zen Buddism, philosophies which rely on little rational argument or inference but rather use meditation to use reach 'conclusions'.

Perhaps this is an alternative to faith, but then the meaning of 'God' which it reaches is so very different to the traditional Western concept that it becomes perhaps meaningless when put down in words.

It would appear then that the further we leave the strict theistic definition of 'God', the harder the argument becomes. In the opinion of this author, the theistic God is an idea that could only be seriously held by somebody if it is indeed based on faith. This is because faith is generally protected from ridicule in society in a way attempts to prove the creation myth 'scientifically' are not.

This does not mean faith is any more of a justifiable position to hold, it is perhaps through the recognition that an idea is so unworthy of rational merit that the believer rejects rationality altogether. The motivations behind this are interestingly explored in Sigmund Freuds book 'The Future of an Illusion'.

To conclude, it is clear that faith is not a tool capable of reaching any significant objective truths, however as the definition of 'God' becomes weaker and further from it's theistic origins, faith becomes a more natural position to hold but ultimately rendering it's conclusions meaningless.

Science and rational enquiry are perhaps Mankinds greatest accomplishments allowing us to save lives through medicine and learn about our vast universe. It is unappealing to ultimately put these tools to one side when addressing our greatest questions. “The sleep of reason produces monsters.”6