Natural Selection Seems Insufficient

[Angrboda]

That doesn't make it a tautology.  It's only an invincible persuasion if God exists and provided such.  If God doesn't exist, it's just a false belief.

This is just you using words incorrectly again.

 Nope. Whether God exists is irrelevant to my point.  Unlike blind faith, a belief is justifiable/ warranted if you cannot relinquish it. 

In fact that is virtually the ONLY scenario where a belief is fully justified.

You can't relinquish that belief. That doesn't mean it is justified as there are reasons besides justification why you might be unable to relinquish it.

Your belief that being unable to relinquish it makes it justified/warranted is false.

When I was younger I believed that I was from another universe. I was unable to relinquish this belief. That did not make it justified/warranted.

Justification and inability to relinquish operate on different planes. They aren't directly reciprocal.

[Mister Agenda]

A belief is justified when it is backed by good reasons, solid evidence, or reliable mental processes that make it likely to be true, rather than relying on luck, blind guessing, or wishful thinking. In philosophy, this concept is called epistemic justification, and it serves as a core piece that turns a true opinion into actual knowledge.

[Angrboda]

ChatGPT has pointed out other counter-examples. Two homeless men who think they are Jesus can't both be justified/warranted. A Hindu and a Christian, equally unable to relinquish their beliefs cannot both be justified/warranted. This is simply bollocks. Being unable to relinquish a belief says almost nothing about justification. Who filled your head with such nonsense?

[The Grand Nudger]

I am just saying he is morally justified/warranted in sticking to his guns if he cannot do otherwise.

I am not suggesting his belief is necessarily true.

I think you’d have to add a moral component to persistence or desistance in a given belief before we could start to assess (or claim) that belief is morally justified? Maybe what you mean to say is that there’s nothing inherently wrong with persisting in a false but genuine belief in general?

[Angrboda]

I am just saying he is morally justified/warranted in sticking to his guns if he cannot do otherwise.

I am not suggesting  his belief is necessarily true.

A person can always do otherwise. That is your own doctrine of free will. Accepting the consequences of that fact and believing tentatively is required, morally.

So, I can fault you for having an inflexible belief and for not recognizing that your belief in God is epistemically on the same footing as belief in invisible forces.

You don't get any privilege for being dogmatic. The exact opposite. Intransigence is an epistemic fault.

---

But let's skip all this. Provide me with the reasons God provided you that are invincible. If you cannot provide reasons that are invincible, then your experience was not a rational one. An irrational experience never justifies belief.

So provide these invincible reasons.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

You're just being silly. The inability to relinquish a belief has no bearing on whether that belief is justifiable. It also doesn't speak to the validity of that belief.

I may believe so strongly that Lupita Nyong'o wants to take me behind the barn and bang me like a snare drum that I find it impossible to rid myself of that belief. Therefore, my belief that she is consumed by lust for me is both justifiable and warranted.

See? Silly.

Boru

Boru

Yeah I'm just a silly guy.  Silly, silly, silly. 

I am not sure why you think your reply is cogent.

You cannot rightly/ properly fault someone for invincible thinking (even if we feel the need to do so in this world of imperfect justice). Right?

To fault someone for something he cannot fix is absurd, right? What am I missing here?

If, then, he is faultess/blameless in his belief, he is justified/ warranted in his belief.

And you do understand that, if God exists, this dynamic is the only possible pragmatic way for Him to reveal Himself and govern us?  How else could we recognize His voice?

Of course I can’t fault someone for that, but would feel strongly that they seek mental health care.

Boru

[Jal]

 Nope. Whether God exists is irrelevant to my point.  Unlike blind faith, a belief is justifiable/ warranted if you cannot relinquish it. 

In fact that is virtually the ONLY scenario where a belief is fully justified.

You can't relinquish that belief.  That doesn't mean it is justified as there are reasons besides justification why you might be unable to relinquish it.

Your belief that being unable to relinquish it makes it justified/warranted is false.

When I was younger I believed that I was from another universe.  I was unable to relinquish this belief.  That did not make it justified/warranted.  

Justification and inability to relinquish operate on different planes.  They aren't directly reciprocal.

You're faulting a guy for something he cannot change. Unacceptable. 

Secondly, you underestimate the primacy of conscience. Allow me to explain.

Epistemically, the heavenly Father's role is like a human father.  You, my friend, seem to want absolute epistemic justification/warrant for a belief but that's not how it works even with a human father. Does a toddler possess laboratory proof that his father isn't an impostor? No, right? Yet the human father expects/demands his chilren obey him. Why? Because from birth, the human father has nurtured a relationship with the child that eventually instilled a kind of invincible conviction of  his father's parenthood. Therefore the child finds it difficult to disobey his father in good conscience. Knowing this, the father rightly demands obedience and punishes the child accordingly.

If you don't like this kind of dynamic, if you consider it stupid, silly, unwarranted, and unjustified, what you are really saying is that children should shrug off their parents in bad conscience. (I've already argued on this thread  that conscience is God's only law for both Himself and His children)

With the heavenly Father, the only difference is that He can INSTANTLY instill this invincible conviction in our conscience. We call it "The Inward Witness of the Holy Spirit."

[Jal]

I am just saying he is morally justified/warranted in sticking to his guns if he cannot do otherwise.

I am not suggesting  his belief is necessarily true.

A person can always do otherwise.  That is your own doctrine of free will.  Accepting the consequences of that fact and believing tentatively is required, morally.

So, I can fault you for having an inflexible belief and for not recognizing that your belief in God is epistemically on the same footing as belief in invisible forces.

You don't get any privilege for being dogmatic.  The exact opposite.  Intransigence is an epistemic fault.

---

But let's skip all this.  Provide me with the reasons God provided you that are invincible.  If you cannot provide reasons that are invincible, then your experience was not a rational one.  An irrational experience never justifies belief.

So provide these invincible reasons.

See my last post.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Question: if your thinking is invincible, why is there any possible reason to discuss your beliefs with other people?

Boru

[Jal]

I am just saying he is morally justified/warranted in sticking to his guns if he cannot do otherwise.

I am not suggesting  his belief is necessarily true.

I think you’d have to add a moral component to persistence or desistance in a given belief before we could start to assess (or claim) that belief is morally justified?  Maybe what you mean to say is that there’s nothing inherently wrong with persisting in a false but genuine belief in general?

Not sure if you are conflating two separate issues. 
(1) Is his belief telling him to do something immoral?
(2) Is his commitment to the belief immoral? Again, you can't fault someone for something outside his control.