Sentences with phrase «of justifying our belief»

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.

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.

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.