the Website of Timothy McCabe Follower of Christ; Student of Epistemology, Apologetics, and Theology
Home Good News Proofs Questions Presentations Software More

Rational Justification

How are our beliefs justified? What counts as a rationally justified belief and what counts as an irrational claim?

In order for a belief or claim to be rationally justified, it must have justifying reason behind it. However, as many have pointed out, this seems to lead to problems with basic beliefs that we all take for granted, such as universal, invariant noncontradiction. What reason could anyone have for believing in noncontradiction? It doesn't seem possible for it to be a conclusion, because it must be presupposed in order to come to any conclusion. But how can justifying reason be behind a claim of noncontradiction if it has to be presupposed to come to any conclusions? Noncontradiction seems like an arbitrary assumption!

Many people have philosophically (though almost never practically) embraced solipsism as a result of the difficulty of first principles (or first premises, or ultimate presuppositions).


It seems to me that there are three and only three methods by which beliefs can be rationally justified.

Initially, either the justifying reason behind my belief is my own reason, or it is someone else's reason. There are no other options.

Someone Else's Reason

1. Imputation

If it is someone else's reason, then the belief or claim has been imputed into me, and its justification (or lack thereof) goes along with it.

Imputation, the first of the three methods, is seen when we recognize that the premises of a calculator are rationally justified. The calculator's reason didn't justify its premises: they were justified in the mind of its creator.

My Reason

On the other hand, if it is my reason, it is either my reason by means of my will, or it is my reason regardless of my will. Again, there are no other options.

2. Authorship

If it's my reason by means of my will, then I'm the author of the fact and also the author of the claim. All of C.S. Lewis' claims about Tumnus the Faun are rationally justified, because Lewis' will simply is the authority regarding the facts about Tumnus. Authorship is the second method.

3. Discovery

Finally, if it is my reason regardless of my will, then I have engaged in discovery. Discovery is the third and final method. Discovery always involves conclusions based on prior premises. If the premises are not justified, the conclusion likewise is not justified.

Minting the Coin or Passing the Buck

It seems to me that these are literally the only three possible methods for rational justification of a claim.

However, two of these methods (imputation and discovery) simply kick the can down the road. Imputation takes an already-justified claim and moves it from one claimant to another; while discovery takes already-justified claims and uses them to formulate a new claim.

Authorship is the only method of the 3 that actually provides ultimate rational justification for a claim: the justifying reason behind it.

Therefore, it seems to me that our first principles -- if rationally justified -- are imputed to us by their author. And, the author of our first principles is the willful author of universal invariant truths, and therefore the author of time and space.

In other words, if you are rational, then God exists.

More of My Writing on the Subject

World Religions and Cults (volume 2)

In Printed Form

Along with numerous other authors including Don Landis, Bodie Hodge and Roger Patterson, Timothy McCabe contributes analyses of various world religions and cults in this volume from Master Books.

Other Writings

"Why did your omniscient and omnipotent god think it was a good idea to use a BOOK to relay his vitally important message to mankind?"

Interestingly enough, the book of Romans informs us that all we need to know about God has been revealed to us individually as part of our created essence, or nature, or being. Romans 1:18-20 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them.
Continue reading...

"Why do seemingly logical individuals arrive at such differing conclusions regarding existence, all the while maintaining that logic allows nothing else? Is the same information being evaluated? Is the same definition of logic being considered? "

Romans 1:18-20 (NASB): For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.
Continue reading...

"Did God have to be created? Why or why not?"

God was not created. If something is created, then it is necessarily temporal -- in other words, it changes over time. Specifically, it must begin to exist, and "beginning" is itself a temporal process. However, since the only things that are infinite are things that have no end, and since past time has ended, we can say with certainty that past time is not infinite, which means that past time had a beginning.
Continue reading...

All articles