The phrase
"justified belief" refers to having a rational reason or evidence to believe something is true. It means that you have a good enough basis to support your belief and that it is logically reasonable.
Full definition
You simply can not
justify belief in god by trying to define the name of those that don't believe.
One sees variations of it in many fields of study (for example, in trendy new movements like postmodernism) and everywhere it produces doubts among reflective people about the possibility
of justifying belief in objective intellectual, cultural and moral standards.
Socratic questions are, in their simplest definition, questions that challenge you to
justify your beliefs about a subject, often over a series of questions, rather than responding with an answer that you've been taught is «correct.»
I'm sick of the academic dishonesty of people
justifying their beliefs with outright lies, zero proof, hearsay, and myth — be them religious people or otherwise.
Human psychology is very adept
at justifying beliefs that we already hold, especially when giving up those beliefs would require questioning our self worth and affect us adversely in material ways.
Because I believe in what I can see, touch, feel, I don't have to go around
justifying my beliefs when they are inconsistent with the evidence.
I believe that a sober and instructed criticism of the
Gospels justifies the belief that in their central and dominant tradition they represent the testimony of those who stood nearest to the facts, and whose life and outlook had been moulded by them.
But I can think of no context — and Griffin offers us no examples of contexts — in which FWTs don't apply exactly the same criteria for
determining justified belief to the positions of their opponents as they apply to their own.
In part,
Madden justified his belief by citing the fact that the majority of the experts in the burgeoning field have «never worked» in a financial company and are likely to continue to work on the bitcoin blockchain, a trend he believes is unlikely to change.
Realizing how malleable the bible is and how it can be manipulated to
justify any belief system, I no longer believe any of it.
There can be no doubt that Whitehead's understanding of Descartes involves a serious concern with the Cartesian problem
of justifying our belief in realism: Whitehead's debt to tradition is not inconsiderable.
When someone believes in us, we naturally want to
justify that belief.
What evidence do you use to
justify your belief?
How do
you justify that belief with regards to what Article VI, Section 3 of the Constîtution?
they have to resort to a 2000 fairy tale to
justify their beliefs or hate for that matter.
If you know anything about the history of the bible you know it was created by many writers, compiled and edited by Roman emperors, added to, translated, interpreted and actually pretty much ignored — except for a few sentences that sound old fashioned that people use to
justify their beliefs and actions.
It's only after this emotional experience that logic can come back into play to
justify those beliefs.
If you wish to believe regardless of if you can
justify your belief in terms of what is real, just what you wish to believe, then I of course can offer nothing.
Christians, and their dellusional brainwashed ritualistc beliefs are so easy to mock... though I admit, the softer side of me feels it is painful to watch them struggle to
justify thier beliefs in sky faeries and myths.
All they are doing is
justifying their belief.
On want grounds do
you justify your belief to, Hindu's, Buda and others... Just because a book that was written 1900 years ago with any proof what so ever in any God.