Sentences with phrase «justify belief in»

We can not justify our belief in these laws in ways that don't beg further questions.

There is too much that is only roughly known, too much that is not known, to justify a belief in such refined or seemingly precise conclusions.

If correlation is an indicator of potential causation, then one would need to look at an entirely different reason other than CO2 emissions for any attempt to justify a belief in the runaway global warming scenario.

It's quite common to hear people justify their belief in global warming as «Well, a whole bunch of people say it's true».

Christians will latch onto anything to justify their belief in their sky god.

You simply can not justify belief in god by trying to define the name of those that don't believe.

@Anglican You use the Bible to justify your belief in God, which stems from the Bible.

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.

He sharply distinguished the moral sphere from the cosmological one and justified belief in God based on his analysis of this dimension of experience.

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.

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.

I assume that is fair indication of the sort of logic you use to justify your beliefs in catastrophic climate change.

Every rape case that blames the victim further justifies belief in rape myths.

Not exact matches

Tech companies with no profits (or even much of a business plan) soared to extreme valuations that were justified, in part, by the belief that future profits would be made faster and that equities were less risky than in the past.

When someone believes in us, we naturally want to justify that belief.

It is my personal belief that we should invest more than we do in emerging markets as well — though that is harder to justify.

Moreover, the common belief that corporate - profit growth justifies high corporate - debt levels neglects the role debt - funded buybacks have played in creating the illusion of corporate health (WILTW February 22, 2018).

What they are threatened by are the actions and atatudes [deliberate typo due to ridiculous moderation AI] of those who do profess belief in those deities, and feel justified by their beliefs and holy books to discriminate against those of differing beliefs.

Your need for «meaning» does not justify irrational «beliefs» in anything.

In this case, if you consider the Talmud / OT an accurate authority you may quote from them to justify your stance, also stating your belief in their doctrineIn this case, if you consider the Talmud / OT an accurate authority you may quote from them to justify your stance, also stating your belief in their doctrinein their doctrines.

And in the nicest possible way, this is what you are doing ALREADY... you are trying to «spin» this story and to «justify» it to fit with your current belief schema instead of just recognizing the overly obvious that it isn't real.

Spin it how you will, religion constantly gets a free pass in this country and when its ever called out for its discriminatory practices and beliefs it claims religion has the right to discriminate based on those beliefs... but everybody else doesn't have the right to even make the accusation that religion is getting all kinds of special rights allowing them to justify their own discrimination.

Instead in order to get noticed we Americans as you call us who are fat and dumb only value what we believe as truth even if we contradict it and say someone's beliefs are justified as long as they practice toleration of others.

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.

If you require evidence as strong as the extraordinary claims merit, then you will be in the best position to arrive at a justified belief about God.

Chad «no... A posteriori justification makes reference to experience; but the issue concerns how one knows the proposition or claim in question — what justifies or grounds one's belief in it That that the universe had a beginning is the most common cosmological belief held today, I am clearly on solid ground making that claim.

It's ok to not buy into the Christian ideas of god and what not, but to spread lies in order to further justify your lack of belief / hatred is just wrong.

Secondly, as a priest ordained in Rome where he knows that the Basilica would be totally against his assertion, he uses euphemisms to cloud the mind of a reader thinking quoting wrong scriptures with the intent to seduce would suffice — his own roots denounce his deeds and / or beliefs but he axiomatically wants to hold both the roots and wings to no avail, read the book and the truth shall set you free... This is exactly what happens when a gay priest turned professor what to justify his perverted lifestyle... I rest my case

I have no respect for any human who would do that regardless of their belief, sadly he uses his in justifying what he did.

«We form our beliefs for a variety of subjective, personal, emotional, and psychological reasons in the context of environments created by family, friends, colleagues, culture, and society at large; after forming our beliefs we then defend, justify, and rationalize them with a host of intellectual reasons, cogent arguments, and rational explanations.

It's silly) And since the belief and the book can be used to justify evil actions, then it's really about how YOU interpret the belief, because others can interpret it in a completely different way and act «immoral» by their exegesis.

In all fairness believers do have an agenda, which is to justify their devotion to a belief system that has no basis in anything that is objectively verifiablIn all fairness believers do have an agenda, which is to justify their devotion to a belief system that has no basis in anything that is objectively verifiablin anything that is objectively verifiable.

In order to justify your beliefs it has to get complicated because you are contradicting yourself.

I've been mulling this over for a while, and while I may have missed something in my research, I can not find any reason to justify the Christian belief in heresy.

In short, a belief that we're better people because we're (Christian, American, Educated, Atheist,...) leads us to avoid preventative measures against abuse, and justify abusive behaviours when they do occur.

I would say that one is justified in believing the veriticality of one's personal experience, unless he is given some defeater for the truth of that belief.

He points out that «we don't have faith in reason; we use reason... and if you're not using it, whether you're justifying religious or scientific beliefs, you deserve no one's attention» (p.210 - 11).

I don't care if someone believes in a deity, that in itself is not a moral or immoral act, but if someone uses their belief in a deity to justify actions that negatively impact someone else's life, then that is immoral.

He believed that the Jews had corrupted christianity, so distanced himself from the overall religion, while all the while claiming belief in the Christian god, the god of abraham, his «god Almighty», and justified his actions through belief in YOUR god.

It is a game that people use to derail the real meat of a conversation, in this case are her beliefs justified enough to force them onto other people or are they just mindless ramblings passed from one «zombie» to the next?

Faith is belief in spite of, even perhaps because of, the lack of evidence... Faith is not allowed to justify itself by argument.

Nevertheless it is justified and contains the hope that the very danger inherent in this belief will not become overwhelming.

Being «safe rather than sorry» is a completely selfish motivation then, and I'd rather live my life unselfishly and risk the remote chance of hell than choose to accept beliefs that I can't justify in our modern society, some of which actually hurt others, just to save my butt.

At the heart of Klan beliefs is the notion that violence is justified in order to protect white America (Chalmers, 1987).

The danger lies less in such beliefs themselves... than in the behavior they might stimulate or justify.

This belief in that which there is no evidence for has been used to justify some of the worst atrocities ever commited.

I find that Whitehead's exposition is question - begging and seriously misleading.4 The exposition is misleading insofar as it suggests that belief in either a specific or generic causal nexus is adequately justified by a subject's experience of CE alone and not ultimately by systematic considerations, particularly those related to prehension.5 If Whitehead's theory of perception was intended to stand alone without support from the rest of his system, as Ford suggests (EWM 181 - 182), then I claim that it is insufficiently justified insofar as a part of it, the theory of CE, is inadequately justified.

If the article above was written by a grown adult about the existence of Santa Claus, and if that argument was essentially based on asserting Santa Claus» existence based on faith and the popularity of the Santa Claus myth, then anyone would be justified in scorning those beliefs, especially when that argument extends to declaring that recent findings confirm the existence of Santa (after all, children are still receiving Christmas gifts).

And he argued that capital punishment could be justified only where there was a socially shared religious belief that the final verdict on any person's life was not given in this world.

And for them experiences such as «cat - on - mat sighting» have a double aspect, able at once to engender and (in view of imprinted practical policies) to justify suitable beliefs.