Is Christianity justified? The relation between religion and epistemology

[blacksmith]

LunarIf nothing can be justified, why Christianity? Isn’t the answer loaded with rationality and empiricism, or is it arbitrary choice?
You still need to presuppose the very epistemological categories which make them coherent with respect to one another. (This is the most important problem for your argument, I think.

Even coherentism needs to presuppose its qualifiers for being coherent in the first place, which is actually a nontrivial problem.
This is true if I am looking for ultimate truth or certainty, but realizing that ultimate truth is infinately indeterminable, I am unable to justify beyond my limited context, which is served well by evidence. Isn't it foolish to use the unattainability of ultimate truth as justification for nonjustification.
How are you defining what is the "relevant means of discernment?" Rationality? Intuition? Convenience? None of these things are intrinsically justified.
Is there no reason to choose the option before you that ensures reliable outcomes? Is there no place for evidence? If I open the jar in which I placed coffee, what will I find? And yet you argue that I am just as justified believing that I won’t. Justification has devoured itself; it was removed from its proper place where it validates knowledge, and unleashed on that which can’t be vanquished-ultimate truth. As a result justification becomes meaningless and unusable, and is consequently misused as the justification for unjustifiable positions.
How are you defining what qualifies as a proof? You can't do that in the absence of all other beliefs.Believing something as the result of an experiment wouldn't be a dogma, no (well, it might be, but that would be an extremely odd way of going about things, definitely not the way most people go about it). That would be contingent upon another belief, and rational with respect to it.
By proof I meant a limited demonstration, not being supported by ultimate truth, but by a network of cross referenced demonstrations, it is dependant on multiple reference points, but none of them need be foundational. For example- I have many senses, I can verify the existence of a tree with approximately three of my senses, the tree exists therefore in relation to those senses, whether it truly exists is unattainable and irrelevant, I need not justify reliance on my senses any further than to say that they exist in relation to the tree (and many other things). Consequently I can piece by piece build a view of the world that is unjustified in relation to ultimate truth, but usable in my limited context. I am stunned that you would suggest that most people don’t form beliefs based on experimentation, I’m sure it’s the way we all do it, in fact irrational acceptance of arbitrary dogma is an experiment from which you are now gathering results, the question is- will you learn.
Belief in empiricism itself, however, is a dogma. David Hume gave a rather convincing argument for this - the only way you could justify empiricism is with empiricism.
Agreed, but irrelevant unless seeking to justify belief in ultimate truth.
Of course they don't act completely without impetus, but the claim that human psychology is completely rational is patently false and flies in the face of the last 80 or so years of psychology.
You can’t be serious? I would love to hear these arguments.
That being said, even if human psychology were intrinsically rational - a belief which I don't think is defensible, but I've neither the expertise nor the inclination to segue from philosophy into psychology - that wouldn't make it epistemologically justified.
Agreed, in regard to ultimate truth, but absolutely justified by the available network of demonstrated phenomenon.
Like I said before - to justify rationality via rationality is a circular argument. There's no way to escape that problem. Rationality must be an epistemological axiom and nothing more.
Of course rationality is an epistemological axiom, aside from the fact that it is justified through abstract theoretical calculation, it is justified by the demonstration of reliable outcomes, unlike irrationality, which can only be defended on the basis that rationality my not be universally useful. To choose to be irrational is to refuse to be present in the moment, and all because the moment might not be ultimately real. Surely a better method would be to use the information available to project hypotheses about ultimate truth, and then test them by experiment, rather than jumping to pre prepared conclusions.

 

[Letsgofishing]

A) There is a bird nearby. How do I know that there is a bird nearby? Because

I hear a bird chirping. How do I know that I hear a bird chirping? BecauseC) I have heard birds chirping in the past and that is what they sound like. How do I know that I have heard birds chirping in the past and that that is what they sound like? BecauseD) I have thoughts held vividly before my mind in memory describing the sound of a bird chirping, and they correspond closely to the sounds that am I hearing. How do I know that...I'll tell you how Christianity is justified.It won't even include any words longer that eleven letters.Who made the very first bird at the beggining of time. Christianity is justifiedHow did the bird get the ability to chirpChristianity is justified Who developed the ear so you could hear the bird chirpingchristianity is justifiedand who developed the brain so that you know that theres a bird nearbychristianity is justifiedyou could even belief evolution on this. But who allowed evolution to happen. How did the first matter come aboutchristianity is justifiedyour brother in christ Ryan Fitz

 

[Tyrel]

Dear Lunar,I've been eying this thread for a while now, and it seems to have been intellectually stagnant since that first post. I think, however, that I'd like to give my input in light of, and only in light of, the first post.I think it's impending on us to presuppose objective truths in principle. I don't think that this makes us blind of course, but I agree wholly that the axioms, as you suggest, must be conventionally decided on, and cannot therefore be justified. I would certainly argue that certain things show themselves true by the Natural light of reason. For example, I cannot prove that the 'God hypothesis' is irrefutably logically imperative. I can, however, show it to be the most viable of hypotheses. C.S. Lewis once said “I believe in Christianity as I believe the Sun has risen. Not only because I can see it, but because by it, I can see everything else.”If one can show that it is the most agreeably reasonable proposition, then they have achieved the most they can. For all “knowledge” is, in a sense, consensus, at least in so far as we are concerned. This is what I have done. I did start with God as a basic axiom, thus admit that I perhaps had a bias, but I questioned it thoroughly as I grew. Having been an apologist for Christianity for some time, and having gotten better and better at it, I eventually found that what you propose does indeed show itself to be a problem. The internal coherency of any paradigm does not, then, prove it to be objectively true, for if many of these paradigms can be found internally coherent, however “conventionally” unreasonable {meaning based upon perhaps obscure axioms, and rejecting more accepted ones}, then we are left with a paradox, for they cannot all be objectively correct. We need, then, to strive for the most reasonable of propositions. I would say that the greatest contender with the Basically Normative Christian world view, is perhaps the world view of the materialistic atheist, followed perhaps by the mysticism of such groups as Kabbahlistic Jews {though they have a few extra axioms}. However, I have kept to the basic frame and structure of the Normative Christian world view. My reason for this, perhaps, comes down first and foremost to my understanding of everything in light of the Christian world. The proposition seems to me to more than sufficiently explain a great deal of things. This is my primary reason, and my second is perhaps one flaw I found with the Materialistic paradigm. That problem, probably best put forward by Bahnsen with his Transcendental argument. I can find no explanation, given the presuppositions of the atheistic and materialistic paradigms, for logic being itself transcendental and immaterial. I also have trouble accepting any argument that Logic is not transcendental and not immaterial.In short, I don't think I incorporated God as an axiom initially, so much as find the theistic proposition to account for more than the atheistic proposition. I've also been at this for years, and thus to abandon Christianity would be to abandon all the intellectual inquiry I'm in the middle of about so many things. Pieces, of course, for the greater image. However, if we fall in love with a paradigm and hold to it solely for the comfort it brings, we do a great injustice to ourselves. We effectively abandon Truth itself, unless our Paradigm just happens to be right. I am as objective as I know how to be, and despite how it may sound, I am indeed quite objectively critical of Christianity. However, for the time being, it seems to remain the most reasonable proposition, accounting for more than any other.The problem with the Christian paradigm is that it is a great deal more complex than the Materialistic Atheistic paradigm, in that there is much more to reconcile due not only to the basic theistic assumptions and the sate of reality, but also the particular and definitively Christian assumptions which it entails.In short, that's where I stand now, and those are the reasons why.I admit freely however that there are more problems with the Christian Proposition. However, it also explains more, and explains a greater number of things more adequately.In Hope,~Tyrel

 

[Tyrel]

erk.. that post wasn't nearly as articulate and grammatical as I had intended. In any case, I hope it is understandable.

 

[Lunar]

(blacksmith;27386)
If nothing can be justified, why Christianity? Isn’t the answer loaded with rationality and empiricism, or is it arbitrary choice?
I believe that Christianity is "justified" at the foundational level. It is an irrational choice that one must simply be moved to adopt. Now, that's by no means a proof of Christianity - I don't believe Christianity can be logically proved. It can, however, be adopted as an epistemological axiom, and at that level it's as justified as anything else.Note that I'd like to distance myself from those making "disprove God" arguments. I find those as infuriating as you probably do; I don't believe there's a rational imperative to adopt a belief in Christianity. But I do believe that it is as epistemologically justified as any other foundational belief. It's irrational, but we can't escape some irrationality. The question is what irrational beliefs we'll accept.(blacksmith)
This is true if I am looking for ultimate truth or certainty, but realizing that ultimate truth is infinately indeterminable, I am unable to justify beyond my limited context, which is served well by evidence. Isn't it foolish to use the unattainability of ultimate truth as justification for nonjustification.
Even if you reduce the problem to a matter of probability, you still need qualifications for likely coherence. I think you're right to think that absolute, irrefutable truth is unattainable, but no matter how low you're going to set the bar, you need something.(blacksmith)
Is there no reason to choose the option before you that ensures reliable outcomes?
How do you define "reliable outcomes?" In terms of being in accordance with your sense data? That's an unjustified presupposition.(blacksmith)
Is there no place for evidence? If I open the jar in which I placed coffee, what will I find? And yet you argue that I am just as justified believing that I won’t. Justification has devoured itself; it was removed from its proper place where it validates knowledge, and unleashed on that which can’t be vanquished-ultimate truth. As a result justification becomes meaningless and unusable, and is consequently misused as the justification for unjustifiable positions.
This is what will happen, you're correct, if we have no foundational beliefs. In fact, that is what will happen to everything if we have no foundational beliefs. I actually agree quite strongly that evidence has a place. But the sentence "There is a place for evidence" relies on other, more basic beliefs just to be coherent in the first place.(blacksmith)
By proof I meant a limited demonstration, not being supported by ultimate truth, but by a network of cross referenced demonstrations, it is dependant on multiple reference points, but none of them need be foundational.
Interdependent justification without a starting point will necessarily be circular.(blacksmith)
I am stunned that you would suggest that most people don’t form beliefs based on experimentation, I’m sure it’s the way we all do it, in fact irrational acceptance of arbitrary dogma is an experiment from which you are now gathering results, the question is- will you learn.
You misunderstand me. I was claiming that it would be very strange to say that making conclusions from experimentations qualified as a dogma - not that it was strange to draw conclusions from experimentation.(blacksmith)
Of course rationality is an epistemological axiom, aside from the fact that it is justified through abstract theoretical calculation, it is justified by the demonstration of reliable outcomes, unlike irrationality, which can only be defended on the basis that rationality my not be universally useful. To choose to be irrational is to refuse to be present in the moment, and all because the moment might not be ultimately real. Surely a better method would be to use the information available to project hypotheses about ultimate truth, and then test them by experiment, rather than jumping to pre prepared conclusions.
I think you're misunderstanding me. Nowhere did I suggest that we be completely irrational and believe whatever we want merely on whims. I think experimentation is very useful and informs us about reality quite well. But for experimentation to mean anything at all, it must reference a lower-level body of knowledge. That is the sort of foundational belief that I refer to. But as for your claim equating irrationality to "not being present in the moment" - given the arguments that I have put forth, this doesn't prove anything at this point.To summarize: Please don't understate the extent to which I think empiricism is important. I think it's enormously important, and it probably informs 99% of the conclusions that we make. But it means nothing without that last 1%, the foundational beliefs.I think Tyrel is right: this conversation is getting a bit stagnant. The bulk of my posts has been my picking apart your propositions and asking how you could verify them independently, and while I think this is a correct argument, it's only interesting for so long. Perhaps we'll have to give it a rest.

 

[Tyrel]

(Lunar;27651)
I think Tyrel is right: this conversation is getting a bit stagnant. The bulk of my posts has been my picking apart your propositions and asking how you could verify them independently, and while I think this is a correct argument, it's only interesting for so long. Perhaps we'll have to give it a rest.
I suppose that leaves little to no room for peer review of my position then. Shame, I was looking forward to an interesting discussion. I must say, your brilliance and eloquence both surprise and inspire me. I can not but congratulate you.

 

[Thunder1]

Your post was quite complicated for me personally... I mean some of the stuff and long. It would be good you to talk to a Christian scientist, perhaps. I've tried to live my life in my own strenght as many people do. For me becoming a Christian was finally finding something to cling to, finding inner peace, purpose in life and knowing that there is actually life after this. This is just a journey to eternal life... if I chose to believe. Even it's a choice, for me it was more like... of course... this makes sense. I didn't even tried to work it out, it just felt so right. If you try to figure it out in flesh,you just make it so complicated.But there is nothing wrong to question things. For some people it can take a long time or they never come to believe. I'm not a judge. This is just my own experience. I've been a Christian for a long time and God has blessed my life abundantly... He has changed me so much that I'm totally different what I used to be. I could never ever imagine what kind of life was ahead of me... when I got to know Jesus as my Saviour, Comforter, Best Friend... I'm so extremely happy/content with my life... all Thanks to My God. I don't feel need to figure things out, because God has shown me His love practically in my life and other people's life that I've got to known.