Bertrand Russell, one of the most influential philosophers of the modern age, argued extensively in his book "The Problems of Philosophy" that belief in inductive reasoning is rational only on the basis of its intrinsic evidence; it cannot be justified by appeal to experience alone (Russell 1998). Inductive reasoning refers to a form of reasoning that constructs or evaluates propositions that are generalizations of observations (Russell 1998). Inductive reasoning is therefore, in simple terms, probabilistic. The premises of an inductive logical argument provide some degree of support for the conclusion, but that support is in no way definitive or conclusive (Browne, 2004). However, even if one agrees with Russell and concludes that there is no rational justification for the principle of induction in and of itself, one can still argue that there is a pragmatic justification for maintaining a belief in that principle. Simply put, there are still perfectly good reasons to behave as if the principle of induction were true, regardless of whether the principle itself is rationally justifiable or not (Browne, 2004). This type of justification can be used in many of the belief systems that we humans hold, even extending to the playing field of religion. In this article I will illustrate not only why it is pragmatically justifiable to believe in the principle of induction, but also why it is just as equally justifiable to believe in an infinite God, whether or not deductive reasoning provides us with definitive support for that principle. conclusions. Let us begin by examining the question of universal order and the problem of induction. The problem with inductive reasoning is that it is based on the assumption that... middle of paper... Yet, for our happiness and peace of mind, we must believe that past events, such as the sun rising yesterday and the thousands of days precedents provide us with perfectly good evidence to believe that the sun will rise again tomorrow. Likewise, we can rationally support belief in God, even if we cannot provide conclusive evidence of His existence (or non-existence). I believe that these types of pragmatic justifications are essential to the happiness and well-being of human beings. Whether the arguments for merit and the existence of both God and the principle of induction hold water or not, optimistic approaches to problems are in no way harmful. They allow us to live our lives in relative happiness, regardless of the fact that we can ultimately be certain of so little about the universe we live in.