Only habit justifies it. It is a natural habit, but a habit. — David Mo

A habit, as I said, perhaps in words that were poorly chosen and thus what appears to be a misconception on your part, is simply the act of repeating a certain kind of behavior, that behavior being associated with some meaning - here faith - and thus habits go towards reinforcing that meaning - faith - but in no way do habits justify anything unless one personifies the universe and construes its laws to be habits. Interesting.

Have you considered bigamy? — David Mo

You didn't offer that option.

but in no way do habits justify anything — TheMadFool

I agree. The principle of uniformity of the past is justified because of is universal. Everybody believes it. Other practical reasons can be discussed. But the main reason is this.

Hi Gus,

Thanks for your post. I think this is a definitely a common reality within religious discussions, that I, who identify as a Christian, also find to be quite frustrating, and I recognize that I have used this circular reasoning before.

As a Christian, faith is definitely a significant aspect of my religious adherence, and in the Bible, it is often upheld as a virtue. I am not necessarily providing any sort of argument, but rather I would like to provide a better definition of faith, what it is and what it is not and hopefully this will add some value to the conversation.

Take the phrase, "a blind leap of faith". Unfortunately, I think that many Western Christians adhere to this sort of faith when the argument boils down to your mentioned point of frustration, however I do not believe this is what faith actually is, nor do I think that the Bible and Jesus depict it as such. First, I'll offer one example (there are plenty of others), in which we don't see faith as a lack of evidence.

1. Doubting Thomas (John 24:24-29)
I am not sure how familiar you are with the Christian gospels, but one relatively well known story is that of one of Jesus' disciples, Thomas, who got the unfortunate label of "doubting Thomas" because he does not believe that Jesus was raised from the dead, solely on the basis of the other disciples telling him. It is not until he sees the wounds in Jesus' hands, feet, and side that he believes (don't ask me why Jesus wasn't just raised back perfectly healed, I have never really thought this through), and Jesus responds by saying, "blessed are those who have not seen, yet believe". Although some people seem to draw the conclusion that Jesus is saying it is better not have evidence and believe (blind faith), this is not at all within the text. Additionally, it isn't at all the case that Thomas doesn't have evidence before he believes (he does: the testimony of the other disciples), however he receives additional evidence which leads to his belief.

Faith is not the belief based on no evidence, in fact there are plenty examples we come across that we would still say require faith, but there is plenty of evidence. I'll provide a personally applicable one.

I just recently got into rock climbing (quarantine things am I right?), and there is a ton of evidence that it is perfectly safe. The rope I am using is rated to 8 kilo-newtons, the bolts in the rock can hold 6000lbs of force, the carabiner can handle 22KN, and... you get the idea. All the evidence points to the fact that I am perfectly safe, however I think it's still applicable to say, "I have faith that I will be safe" or "I have faith in the equipment".

Hopefully this understanding of faith helps. Additionally, I would just input that I think that there is good evidence for theism and the Christian tradition that I have chosen to be a part of. (To name a few in regards to theism in general: the Fine tuning argument, the necessity of God in our principle of causation, the phenomena of morality. In regard to Christianity, the nature of the message, its survival as unappealing as it would be for the earliest Christians). I also won't deny that there is evidence against Christianity and theism as whole (biggest one for me is the problem of evil), but all in all the evidence seems to lean towards the reality of the Christian God, and that is what I put my faith in. Hope this helps!

Hi Gus, thanks for the chart you provided. I find fault with argument that its advancing. I think you are arguing something along these lines:
1. Beliefs or noetic attitudes need adequate epistemic justification.
2. If beliefs or noetic attitudes need adequate epistemic justification, then faith in the belief ‘God exists’ needs adequate epistemic justification.
3. If faith in the belief ‘God exists’ needs adequate epistemic justification, then the only means in which faith could be epistemically justified is if it appeals to the belief that God exists.
4. If the only means in which faith could be epistemically justified is if it appeals to the belief that God exists, then appeals to faith ultimately lead to circular arguments.
5. If appeals to faith ultimately lead to circular arguments, then appeals to faith should be rejected.
6. Therefore, appeals to faith should be rejected.
My contention with this argument is premise three. As a theist, I agree that faith should be buttressed by some justification and that blind faith is something to be avoided. However, why should one believe that the consequent is the case for faith? The mature theist, I would suppose, does have other means in which to justify her faith. She could appeal to the intuition that God exists, the arguments for God’s existence, testimony from other intelligent/reflective believers and the failure of naturalism to adequately explain the totality of existence as means of justification. The above items are far from simple appeals to some prior and seemingly unjustified belief as premise four suggests. However, even if one grants premise three, the argument still does not seem to succeed, for premise five is contentious as well. Perhaps appeals to faith are circular, yet this might not give one reason to reject them since could not one argue, as the coherentist would, that any justification is eventually circular? Of course, I would qualify this response by saying that a person who appeals to faith should at least lay down all their cards that give reason, aside from faith, for why he or she believes in God. Still, if justification is circular when all is said and done, then circular arguments are inevitable. So, from the coherentist perspective, appeals to faith should not really be rejected on the grounds of circularity since this is a pernicious effect that could happen in any instance where one has to give an account of justification for one’s beliefs. The above reasons motivate my doubt for the success of your argument.

Jesus responds by saying, "blessed are those who have not seen, yet believe". Although some people seem to draw the conclusion that Jesus is saying it is better not have evidence and believe (blind faith), this is not at all within the text. — Daniel Ramli

I'm sorry if I'm interfering in this discussion.

John drastically asserts that there are two things: seeing (evidence) and believing. He attributes to Jesus the saying that one is better than the other: belief. I don't see your reason for interpreting this any other way.
Before touching the wound, Thomas had no evidence. Only second hand testimonies. Obviously a second hand is not evidence. Thomas applies here the rational principle that extraordinary statements require extraordinary evidence. Therefore, he only believes in the resurrection when he has extraordinary evidence. And he is admonished for preferring rational knowledge to faith.

I do not believe that any other reading is possible. Moreover, this reading is perfectly consistent with the Pauline distinction between faith and wisdom of men (1 Corinthians 1:21).

So, from the coherentist perspective, appeals to faith should not really be rejected on the grounds of circularity since this is a pernicious effect that could happen in any instance where one has to give an account of justification for one’s beliefs. — Jjnan1

Your justification of faith is not a justification at all.

Intuition is the same as faith if it is not supported by another instance. You simply change one word for another that means the same thing.
Authority is not an argument at all. You choose men with authority and discard others on the basis of the object to be demonstrated, namely, your faith. They will always tell you what you want to hear.
Nor do you explain the whole universe by saying that God made it. You only introduce a mysterious concept (god) and claim that with that everything is understood. Understanding means explaining the unknown by the known, not the other way around. The absurd does not explain anything. And faith is absurd. Paul says so and I agree.

Therefore, your justifications are valid only in the assumption of your faith. That is, a circular argument where the conclusion is used as a premise.

You justify the circularity of your reasoning by suggesting that every rational argument is circular. I do not think so. Please show it.

Faith is not an valid argument. — Gus Lamarch

But it _is_ _their_ argument.

Most religious people have come to believe their religious doctrine before they were even old enough for their capacities for critical thinking to develop. This is the norm in religions, not just monotheistic ones. These religious people simply don't know any other way. Epistemically, they are in a situation that is impossible to deliberately replicate for an adult person. They cannot empathize with non-believers, and non-believers cannot empathize with them. This is why any attempt to discuss the justification for a person's religious belief is bound to be fruitless.

religions — baker

Religion, and all its structure - based on a empty concept - God - - seems to me to represent a human need to justify its instinctive actions and feelings. It is built by rationality to justify irrationality.

The dogmatic view of certain religions kills the individual and transforms the herd's view in such a way that their actions, reactions, and emotions are almost made unconscious.

The dogmatic view of certain religions kills the individual and transforms the herd's view in such a way that their actions, reactions, and emotions are almost made unconscious. — Gus Lamarch

And yet they rule the world.

And yet they rule the world. — baker

Indeed, they do...

So all our philosophical resistance is futile.

Scientific faith: Belief in science increases in the face of stress and existential anxiety

"That modern secular individuals are prone to cling on to beliefs about science, in the same way that their ancestors turned to the gods, carries no judgment on the value of science as a method but simply highlights the human motivation to believe."

So all our philosophical resistance is futile. — baker

In the short term? Yes.
In the long term? Maybe.

I don't know you but I'll pick "Maybe".

"That modern secular individuals are prone to cling on to beliefs about science, in the same way that their ancestors turned to the gods, carries no judgment on the value of science as a method but simply highlights the human motivation to believe." — Pantagruel

:100:

So all our philosophical resistance is futile.
— baker

In the short term? Yes.
In the long term? Maybe. — Gus Lamarch

So you're optimistic like that? Tell me more!

On the grounds of what do you think that our philosophical resistance is not futile in the long run?

Faith is ultimately belief in belief itself - that is right to believe.
I have faith.
Why do I believe in myself? Empirically, maybe I'm not sufficient. But I don't believe that. I believe I have a purpose. I have faith in myself. That's my take.

It's not that I see myself as my own God or that I believe my chosen God will redeem me.
But both at their core stem from your own self belief. Faith.

You don't "believe" in the device you are writing on; you see, hear and feel it. — Janus


... and you believe that sense experience constitutes reality, no? Perhaps not much different than believing our ideas about a G/god are representative of any reality. — TLCD1996

I missed this earlier. Perhaps it's now redundant to respond, but I think it's an important point. The world that we experience via the senses just is reality for us; It is what the notion of reality derives from. We experience objects of the senses and we can talk about them; pointing out aspects of them that we will all (well most anyway) see, hear, smell, feel, taste and so on.

It's only a certain kind of skepticism, based on mere logical possibilities that we can imagine, that leads us to question the absolute reality of the world revealed to us by the senses. God is one of those mere logical possibilities, although it is also true that people often associate certain kinds of numinous experiences with the notion, even though the association is by no means a necessary one.

That said, I'm not condemning any individual faiths that may be based on the kinds of profound numinous experiences that certainly happen to people, if you can trust the reports. I also have personal experiences to draw upon in that regard. Such experiences cannot constitute any inter-subjectively testable evidence for anything, though.

The world that we experience via the senses just is reality for us

''Reality for us'' I would like if you elaborate on that. Do you try to say by that that we create abstracts (Aka things from our perception) to understand reality?

We experience objects of the senses and we can talk about them; pointing out aspects of them that we will all (well most anyway) see, hear, smell, feel, taste and so on.

Ok, now this is interersting, because this actually resemble abstract concepts. In this case, it would depend whetever you are a relast of these things or not and the essentiality of empericism. We can say that these notions derive from reality/aka the concrete world.

It's only a certain kind of skepticism, based on mere logical possibilities that we can imagine, that leads us to question the absolute reality of the world revealed to us by the senses

I would also like to investigate what ''absolute reality'' means. Do you think that it also relates back to epistemology, in the sense what absolute reality is even like and how we can access that? And what is the best method we can go about to access that.


Btw, sorry if I did some things wrong, I am new. (I mean as in relation to quotes, etc.)

On the grounds of what do you think that our philosophical resistance is not futile in the long run? — baker

The substance of history, that is, the cyclical conclusion of the expression of Egoism through Being, proves that those who live for the future, eternalize themselves in the existence of those who live for the present, and therefore, they become the essence of existence.

"The same ones who are stoned today, will be worshiped as saints in the future by their own murderers"