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.
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.
One must scrap the habit
of justifying beliefs and actions.
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.
Unfortunately, this
belief is hard to
justify when looking at the fundamentals
of the business, particularly, rising costs and lack
of profitability when compared to competition.
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).
How do you
justify that
belief with regards to what Article VI, Section 3
of the Constîtution?
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.
Most
of us are agnostic about many things, including our
beliefs about gods — classically, knowledge is
justified true
belief.
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.
Circular religious logic will still never fully
justify the fact that religion asks for special rights and protections, which it gets, and then turns those rights and protections on other groups as a defense mechanism for when they are accused
of discriminating... i.e. «We can choose who we accept and who we don't because
of our
beliefs... wait, what... how can you say you will not accept our religious organization, that's religious discrimination!»
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.
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.
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.
Proselytizing
of any form should be illegal, even
of it is someones religious
belief, it is an invasion
of privacy, it is bigotry, and it is a way to
justify someone feeling superior to someone else who they do not really know.
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.
I don't know how a
belief system that is founded on the principle
of loving others — not just saying it, but actually doing that — can
justify enslaving or supporting slavery.
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 explained my position on
belief and you using it to
justify your hate and lies is part
of why people speak out against you.
I have no respect for any human who would do that regardless
of their
belief, sadly he uses his in
justifying what he did.
At least it's a
belief that's consistent with the facts and doesn't require an elaborate web
of unsupported theories and claims to
justify it.
End
of Religion You dig way to deep to
justify your false
beliefs which sould be a clue that your agenda is lacking at some level.
«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.
They can't prove or
justify any
of their
beliefs and usually just start quoting scripture.
Some judges think that the difficulty
of drawing lines between true and false claims
of religious
belief justifies a refusal to grant any exemptions.
You see what you want to see, and you have an agenda, which is to confirm what you want to believe and
justify years
of commitment to those
beliefs.
He sharply distinguished the moral sphere from the cosmological one and
justified belief in God based on his analysis
of this dimension
of experience.
History is full
of examples
of people causing harm to other people
justified by their religious
beliefs and their «personal knowledge»
of what God wanted them to do.
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 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.
You simply can not
justify belief in god by trying to define the name
of those that don't believe.
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?
We're more concerned with the followers
of your imaginary friend and the way they use their
belief to
justify harm to others.
@Mark To be clear, I would see granting exemptions if the organization was expressly religious, like an actual church, but merely being guided by the religious principles
of the founder simply doesn't
justify preventing coverage to those within the organization with different
beliefs, atti.tudes, and morals.
Faith is
belief in spite
of, even perhaps because
of, the lack
of evidence... Faith is not allowed to
justify itself by argument.
To
justify this thought and enforce its use early mankind used a
belief of creation to excuse it.
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).
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.
My reason for holding that
belief is not yet another
belief but an experience — an experience which from one point
of view produces and at the same time considered from another point
of view validates and
justifies that
belief.
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).
Instead they
justified that
belief by taking action on it so making the
belief stronger and the injustice
of those acts greater.
(This
belief is often made to
justify the intensity
of our rhetoric about pedophilia: The stakes are supposed to be so high.)
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.
Hence he thinks Whitehead could only
justify his
belief that there are hybrid feelings
of noncontiguous entities by showing some very fundamental difference between hybrid and physical feelings.
But they can't
justify their
beliefs so they are incapable
of partaking in logical discussion.
This is not to say, however, that a vision
of reality is like a «basic
belief» as defined by Alvin Plantinga and others, meaning that it need not be
justified.
Here's your problem, you are tying all actions into your supernatural
beliefs, and so
of course you wouldn't think that people who reject your
belief would be
justified in feeling anything at all.