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?

__________________
Curt Hayashida
member, Community Bible Church (Non-denominational)
Vallejo, CA

If the belief cannot be rational doubted.

CT

__________________
Hermonta Godwin
Christ The King PCA
Raleigh, NC

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.

__________________
Duane
Lighthouse Bible Church (Independent Reformed)
Delavan, WI

Election is the Good News (Gospel)

What good work must we do to inherit the Kingdom of God?
THIS is the WORK OF GOD, that ye believe on Him in Whom He hath sent.

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.

__________________
Steven Nemes
Phoenix, AZ

Good philosophy must exist, if for no other reason, because bad philosophy must be answered - C.S. Lewis

Ah, Warranted Christian Belief! here

An excellent read!

AMR

__________________
Patrick
Member, PCA
Chandler, AZ
ReformedTheologyInstitute.com

I fear explanations explanatory of things explained.

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?

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.

__________________
Timothy Johnson
First United Presbyterian of Moline
PCUSA (Yea, I know)
Theology/Philosophy Sunday School Teacher
Davenport, IA

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.