We are justified in believing some things even though we can't prove them. Couldn't God's existence be one of these things?

Eric_PK

With respect to bisexuality, you can monitor their sexual behavior. If they have sexual experiences with both sexes, then they are bisexual. But “bisexual” is a label that people use to describe a behavior – it’s only a shorthand. Whether we describe them one way or the other doesn’t change that we are, and claiming they are bisexual is not a claim about existence.

With respect to coffee, you are only describing a name for something. You could have told her it was Java, or orange juice, or cafe, but that’s really only important if she wished to talk to others. You call a chair a chair because that’s what you were told it’s called.

But a claim that god exists is an existential claim, not merely a question of nomenclature.

There’s a invisible purple monster behind you right now. Do you believe he exists?

Why is that any different than your belief in god?

See other questions Eric_PK has answered

SmartLX

What you’re saying is that we are justified in believing things which may not be true. I don’t know about you but I’d rather not do that if I can help it. Based on various factors, I think the existence of a god is very unlikely indeed. So I do not believe it. If you think it’s likely, your reasoning is very different.

It may be that there are things I believe, along the lines of your examples, which are dead wrong. If I ever find this out, I’ll change those beliefs. If not, I will continue to be wrong. No big deal.

Never mind being justified, or even having a reason. You have a right to believe whatever you want to believe. If you want to convince others, however, you’ll need more than a complete lack of evidence.

See other questions SmartLX has answered

brian t www

“We are justified in believing some things even though we can’t prove them.”

I think the examples you gave contain the solution to this apparent dilemma: we have to make practical exceptions for people. Even with the best of intentions and full co-operation, there are limits to our perceptions and mental acuity, and to language and capacity for self-examination, which make the idea of absolute truth an impossible goal in human relations. Your examples highlight the difficulty in finding absolute truth in matters relating to people.

In your first example: as noted, there are tests one can do to determine sexual preferences; however, what does that mean? If the tests show e.g. a heterosexual preference, but the person acts in a bisexual manner, which is “right”? Does it matter? After all, why do we do experiments anyway, if not to provide us with more information about the real world? If the experimental results conflict with reality, that indicates a problem with the experiment. Or, as Forrest Gump might say: “Bisexual is as Bisexual does.”

If you’re in a relationship with someone, how practical is it to interrogate them on every topic? To keep hammering them with questions until you think you have the truth? Woody Allen knows a thing or two about that; e.g. in Annie Hall his character won’t stop questioning, pushes Annie too far, and it destroys their relationship. Literature is riddled with questions such as this: people who appear to act in opposition to the things they, the doubts that this engenders in the minds of others, and the effects of trust or love in resolving these dilemmas (or not).

It follows, then, that there are practical reasons why we have to learn to trust people if we wish to have any kind of relationship with them. The opposite extreme is the lifetime loving relationship, where you trust the other person absolutely, without the need to question everything. If that absolute trust is betrayed, well, we know what permanent damage that can cause to a person.

So, to answer your question: yes, we have to believe some things about people, and what goes on in their heads, even though we can’t prove them. It’s basically a requirement for a relationship of any kind. We expect the same thing of other people regarding ourselves: can you imagine dealing with someone who expected you to justify every single thing you said?

But, how does this reflect on the “God” question? When it comes to science, we can’t afford to trust what people say on their word alone. It’s too important, and we are often dealing with people we don’t know and have no reason to trust. Hence the development of the “scientific method”, with its expectations of repeated independent observations, peer review, and justification of claims.

If someone claims telekinetic powers – the ability to move objects in the real world outside their heads – we can (and should) test those claims. This does happen, and so far the claims have not survived fair testing. We have no objection to telling the claimaint “your claims are false” and “telekinesis does not exist”.

In a similar way, religions and their followers make claims about the universe and the physical world we see around us: they claim that gods have an objective reality outside the minds of people, and that they do things in this world. This makes the “god question” a scientific question, and subject to all the tests that any hypothesis is subject to. If believers understood that their religions are all in their minds, and refrained from trying to make claims about the real world – or from trying to change the world and other people to fit their beliefs – there would be no clash between religion and science today.

See other questions brian t has answered

Reed Braden www

Science can prove that people are bisexual by measuring their neurological and hormonal reactions to sexual images of both genders. Heterosexuals react this way to people of the opposite sex, homosexuals to people of the same sex and bisexuals to people of both genders. Heterosexuality, for individuals of the species, is not the default. There is no “default.” Sexual preference and gender identity are determined neurologically and through hormonal development.

However, God cannot have His Almighty Hormones tested to prove His existence. This is likely due to the likely possibility that He does not, in fact, exist.

Having faith is not the same as trusting someone. You earned her trust if she is a friend or you are in a trustworthy position for coffee serving (barrista, wait staff) and she trusts you for that reason. Faith is belief in spite of a lack of evidence or in spite of evidence to the contrary. If the blind woman had faith in strangers, she would drink a cup of rat urine handed to her by a homeless man if he told her it was coffee. That would be belief in spite of contrary evidence.

The woman is blind and blind people often have an acute sense of smell. Coffee is a potent beverage with a rich, delectable, wonderful aroma. She knows it’s coffee without having faith in you.

I have trouble believing that blind people are, on average, stupid enough to not be able to tell coffee from tea by taste and smell.

If you mean that they have been told that tea was coffee and coffee was tea from the time they were children, that’s entirely different and irrelevant. Those are just words. Coffee is coffee no matter what you call it, and that has nothing to do with faith.

See other questions Reed Braden has answered