# Questions about the justification of beliefs



## cih1355 (May 18, 2009)

Suppose there is a belief X that is justified by belief Y and belief Y is justified by belief Z. In order to avoid an infinite regress of justifying one's beliefs, does there have to be a belief that does not require a justification or a belief that justifies itself? If so, how do you know which belief does not require a justification or which belief justifies itself?


----------



## ChristianTrader (May 18, 2009)

cih1355 said:


> Suppose there is a belief X that is justified by belief Y and belief Y is justified by belief Z. In order to avoid an infinite regress of justifying one's beliefs, does there have to be a belief that does not require a justification or a belief that justifies itself? If so, how do you know which belief does not require a justification or which belief justifies itself?



If the belief cannot be rational doubted.

CT


----------



## TheFleshProfitethNothing (May 18, 2009)

Personally, I believe; belief isn't quite the same as "faith". This could turn into a huge book, if one isn't careful.

Faith is the substance of things hoped (assured of) for, the evidence of things not yet seen. 

There are many who believe FAITH is blind...yet, it is what makes us see.

Post a question such as you have...and many will answer the same.

Faith _cometh_ by hearing (understanding), and hearing (understanding) by the word (rhema-living breathing word) of God.

Our Christian Faith is not TANGIBLE to the Natural man, for the Natural man CAN NOT receive the things of the SPIRT OF GOD, NEITHER can he KNOW them, for they are foolishness to him and are SPIRITUALLY discerned.

Beliefs are abundant, but not ALL MEN, have faith.


----------



## steven-nemes (May 18, 2009)

I suppose it is important to get a proper understanding of what "justification" for a belief is. What exactly is justification for a belief? What does it mean to say that someone is justified in believing X? Is it that he is rational in believing X? In that case, I suppose the Reidian criterion of rationality that Wolterstorff proposes in Faith and Rationality is how I would respond to the question: that a belief is justified (rational) for a person until that person has sufficient reason for rejecting it. It is "innocent till proven guilty".

As far as what constitutes knowledge as opposed to simply true beliefs (the thing that makes the difference between the two being called "warrant", I suppose), if this is what you mean by justified, then I suppose Plantinga says (I believe, correct me if I'm wrong or misrepresent him) that belief X is warranted, justified, etc., if it is produced by properly functioning cognitive faculties in the proper circumstances in a good cognitive environment, or however he would word it. 

I think the infinite regress problem you suggest is what results from the assertion that a belief is justified (rational) if it is supported by evidence: if belief X is supported by evidence E, then the belief X1 (namely, that E is sufficient evidence for X) must also be supported, and you can generate an infinite regress that way.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (May 19, 2009)

Ah, _Warranted Christian Belief_! here

An excellent read!

AMR


----------



## cih1355 (May 19, 2009)

ChristianTrader said:


> cih1355 said:
> 
> 
> > Suppose there is a belief X that is justified by belief Y and belief Y is justified by belief Z. In order to avoid an infinite regress of justifying one's beliefs, does there have to be a belief that does not require a justification or a belief that justifies itself? If so, how do you know which belief does not require a justification or which belief justifies itself?
> ...



I believe that the Bible is inspired by God and I can't rationally doubt that. How would you answer a non-Christian who says that he can rationally doubt that the Bible is inspired by God?


----------



## Grymir (May 19, 2009)

A belief is something other than what can be proven. Faith falls in the same catagory. Like an opinion. An opinion is a statement that has no basis in reality. Since if it did, it would be a fact and no longer an opinion.

I start with the Bible. It can be proven to come from outside our space-time continuum. Since God speaks, the laws of logic can be build on that, plus the basic reliability of sense perception, and that language can covey knowledge and truth. Etc. 

Build away!!

God is there and He's not silent.


----------



## steven-nemes (May 19, 2009)

Grymir said:


> A belief is something other than what can be proven.



I disagree. Any proposition any person S "knows" must be first a belief, and secondly be true, and thirdly must have something called "warrant". If a belief is something that cannot be proven--and perhaps by "proven" here you mean _shown to be true_--then no one can "know" anything. All anyone has at first is a belief, not knowledge; if no belief can be proven, or shown to be true, then no belief can become "knowledge". Or at least if the belief happens to be true, the person can't show that it is true or even come to the realization that it is true; if that person does have knowledge, he can't become aware of the fact that he has knowledge, if your definition is true.


----------

