Reasons For Thinking That Either Foundationalism Or Coherentism About Justification Must Be True?

Sometimes when we hear the word justification we find it accompanied by other “ation” words: sanctification, glorification, propitiation, regeneration and imputation. These words are from time to time used interchangeably. This can be confusing and needs to be clarified before continuing. Imputation is where credit has been given. It can also mean to lay responsibility on someone. With God, imputation is where He accounts righteousness to the believer. Sanctification is separate from justification. Justification is about one’s position with God; sanctification is about one’s spiritual condition. Propitiation is defined in “Reformation tradition as the satisfaction of divine wrath upon sin”. Regeneration is the creation of a new heart and new spirit. This change of heart and spirit is what allows us to live righteous lives. Glorification comes once we receive our heavenly reward. It is the completion of our salvation.

Before reading the third chapter of “The Forest and the Trees”, I remember learning in the second chapter about symbolism, ideology and the construction of life in different cultures and societies around the world. For example, something interesting I remember learning was how every social system has a culture, consisting primarily of symbols (including words), ideas and practices. I believe this also connects and refers to how we tend to build our own sense of reality through the words and ideas that we use to mean something and people may use to name interpret what they experience and how cultures consist of symbols of ideas or words being portrayed. Based on what I read in the second chapter and the title of the third chapter, “The Structures

When comparing parsimony of the theories, both theories appear equal. Both theories can be stated easily. It is only after applying the theories do the constructs become more complex and varying.

These are higher truths, archetypes of everything in the visible world, including the non-physical concepts.

Justifications focus on the act rather than the person and how that act is somewhat beneficial for the society. For example, in recently we have been exposed to many cases in were justifications have save many cops from being put in jail do to police brutality. Similar to this, in West Point on March 15, 2015 there was a murder committed by a young man named Jory Fenstermaker. Fenstermaker is been charged with murder after one of his friends took 240 dollars out of the wife victims purse. The victim, Randy Lennel Lewis, got into a verbal fight which turned physical and subsequently lead to Fenstermaker fatally shot

First, for most of the time prisons have existed, governments didn't have secure facilities where violent criminals could be housed for long periods of time. Small town or county prisons were only useful for short stays, and state prisons weren't much better. Not being able to provide for inmates, or have space to hold them for life sentences led to the death penalty because options were limited.

The Doctrine of Justification has been a vital teaching throughout the history of Christianity and it is the fulcrum upon which the Church balances; even minor tweaking could result in drastic changes to our core beliefs. This Doctrine can be summarized to say that Justification is God’s declaration, that only through faith in his son’s suffering are we saved and are righteous in God’s sight. This teaching is as old as our religion and we can see this through its expression from both old and new testaments writers. Justification is at the heart of our faith, so it is important to be able to understand and analyze this fundamental Doctrine.

The reason induction originated as a concept of reasoning did not come from its ability to result in proofs, but the usefulness in predicting future occurrences which it allows. As an example of this principle, we can bring into the light the supposed laws of nature which provide constants to our physical world. For any number of the infinite reasons at any instantaneous point of time exceptions to the laws of nature can emerge. Due to this fact, and the fact that the laws of nature are based on a finite number of circumstances of which permanence is assumed, laws of nature cannot be fully proven. However, without the human assumption of the existence of laws of nature, the progress of science would be halted. The laws of nature serve as an exceptional example of how even without a definite proof, inductive reasoning enables leaps in knowledge and

The Tree of Valid Supposition grows here with branches disentangled since time immemorial. The Tree of Understanding, dazzlingly straight and simple, sprouts by the spring called Now I Get It.

Theories provide the foundation for educational practices, and many of them exist. While I consider my personal theory or philosophy of education to be one that is something of an ever-changing conglomerate of ideas, I realize that some of my guiding principals are directly attributed to well a well established theory.

The notion of “rational justification” needs to be clarified in order to understand the theism-atheism debate and the categories of friendly and unfriendly theist, atheist and agnostic. For something to be rationally justified, as in a belief, simply means, according to Rowe, “to have good reasons supporting the belief”, and that “it is possible to rationally justify a belief that is false.” Based on this theory, even though a theist and atheist have opposite beliefs, they can agree upon the possibility of the false belief to be justified.

System justification theory (SJT) argues that individuals within a group will defend the status quo against their own inequalities. According to Jost and Burgess (2000), SJT “proposes that members of disadvantaged groups at times even perform ideological work on behalf of the system, rationalizing inequality at the expense of personal and group interests” (p. 303). Thus, SJT can be understood as a way in which members from both higher and lower groups support the current system, even in the face of inequalities. Though the research continues to demonstrate that the support of the system is implicit and outside of awareness of individuals from both groups, this premise can continue to develop and maintain social constructs; therefore emphasizing

John Calvin described justification as “the main hinge on which religion turns,” while Martin Luther described justification as “the doctrine on which the church stands or falls.”

Throughout history, philosophers have been trying to come up with a clear way to provide the justification of our beliefs and knowledge. Noah Lemos offers readers explanations of both foundationalism and coherentism for theories of justification. These two different theories offer very different ways to explain the basis of our beliefs. For a foundationalist, they believe that all of our beliefs can be broken down until we reach a basic belief. This belief would be largely independent of other beliefs and not derived from other beliefs. A coherentist feels that a belief can be reasonably justified if it is coheres with our other beliefs.

Essentialism will be a part of my classroom because I will be teaching science. Science is part of the basis of