Non-Circular reasons for believing in the Bible.

[help3434]

I often see people quote Bible verses about scripture when asked why they believe in the Bible. Of course arguing that the Bible is true because the Bible says it is true is circular. Are there any non-circular reasons for believing in the Bible?

[dianaiad]

You are purposely avoiding the implications of your position. Why?

Where does one stop with a revelation? When it tells you to kill?

Its not a slippery slope fallacy, di.

The way you presented it? It certainly is. You went from my statement that the way to confirm whether or not a work claiming to be scripture is divinely inspired is to get confirmation from the Author Himself, to claiming that doing that will cause one to commit mayhem, murder and all sorts of nastiness. That's about as classic a slippery slope as I can imagine.

Its your cognitive dissonance that stops you from extending your beleif to others.

I wasn't aware that I was 'stopped from extending my belief to others." Are my beliefs some sort of state secret? I'm not telling you what they are?

(looking around) Is there some sort of filter here, that 'dianaiad,' whenever she mentions that she is a (whisper this) MORMON, somehow has her posts disappear into the aether? Are you not aware of my opinions...have I been too shy in expressing them or something?

For some reason, you think your revelations are superior because they are lukewarm milquetoast.

Well, I guess I have won this one; the only response you have is an ad hominem attack.

[Ooberman]

It's no secret we have trouble communicating, Di. I chalk it up to your inability to grapple with the crux of the issue.

Di, you are suggesting God, the Creator of the Universe, chats with some people.

Correct?

This Creator of the Universe then conveys some call to action: gives some direction.

For Moses it was to take his people out of Egypt, kill the Canaanites and Midianites, and write the Ten Commandments.

For Joseph Smith, it was a little different. An angel told him what to do, not God.

For you, it was something rather mundane: silence about marrying a guy.

For Andrea Yates, it was to kill her children.

For the 9-11 assholes, it was to kill 3,000 people.

For me, it was for you to give me all your money.

Somehow, for you, all of these are just as valid because you think it's all subjective.


What, in your mind, is an invalid revelation? And, how do you support your opinion (as required by this site)?

[dianaiad]

It's no secret we have trouble communicating, Di. I chalk it up to your inability to grapple with the crux of the issue.

Figures that you'd think it was my fault....

Di, you are suggesting God, the Creator of the Universe, chats with some people.

Correct?

"communicates,' yep. I do. In fact, I think He'll talk to just about any and everybody.

This Creator of the Universe then conveys some call to action: gives some direction.

Actually, I have only been talking about 'confirmation of truth.'

You know, rather like this:

Joe (the pray-er) reads the bible (or some other work claiming to be from God)
Thinks about it, reads in it that if he asks God that God will let Joe know that it's really scripture.

Joe prays and asks 'Hey, God...if you are there and you were responsible for this, how about letting me know?"

God...in some manner Joe recognizes, confirms it. Or Joe gets nothin' and goes to something else.

This is NOT the same sort of thing that prophets get. They get the 'calls to action,' or the 'Ten Commandments,' or the call to arms.....and when they do, they declare it to all and sundry, and then guess what those who listen get to do about it?

Why...they get to seek confirmation from God. "Is this guy on the level?"

..............and according to everything I have read, the communications from God to prophets tend to be a bit more, er, obvious than what I've been talking about here. Burning bushes, angelic visits, face to face confrontations, stuff like that.

For Moses it was to take his people out of Egypt, kill the Canaanites and Midianites, and write the Ten Commandments.

For Joseph Smith, it was a little different. An angel told him what to do, not God.

God also appeared to Joseph Smith. Just correcting the story for you.

For you, it was something rather mundane: silence about marrying a guy.

As you can see, that was not quite the same thing. In THAT case, it was the young man playing Moses, and me not getting told that he was 'all that.'

For Andrea Yates, it was to kill her children.

She was insane. I hope she still is. I wouldn't want to have done something like that and wake up sane one day, realizing what I had done. Perhaps if she had asked others to get confirmation of what she had been told to do, the resounding NO!!! might have stopped her.

For the 9-11 assholes, it was to kill 3,000 people.

Odd. I wasn't aware that any of those men claimed to have been personally visited by Allah. Just as a point of debate.

For me, it was for you to give me all your money.

Good for you. God forgot to tell me. Perhaps you should revisit your own revelation?

Here's the point YOU keep missing: You claim to have received revelation. The only non-circular way for me to confirm that is to ask God to see if He actually gave it to you. I get a 'no'. This is entirely consistent with my point...and not with yours. Who is not 'getting' the 'crux of the matter," here? I submit that the problem doesn't lie with my own lack of understanding.

Somehow, for you, all of these are just as valid because you think it's all subjective.

huh? Trying to figure out your logic path here, and it escapes me.

True, I have always claimed that evidence for God's existence IS subjective...as in 'personal' and 'not transferable.' That is, I can't use your reasons for belief or lack of belief, and you can't use mine, but that 'all these things are just as valid?" Since when is 'subjective' a synonym for 'valid or invalid?"

What, in your mind, is an invalid revelation? And, how do you support your opinion (as required by this site)?

An 'invalid' revelation is one that isn't, after all, a revelation. My argument here isn't about when a revelation is valid or invalid. It's about how to figure out when someone else's is. You know...like when a book (like the bible) claims to be divinely inspired (ask the One Who is supposed to have inspired it...seem's like clearly logical step to take, to me), or a young man claims to have been told I should marry him (seems to me that God would have let me know something so life changing...perhaps he meant that he should ask me, and that my answer would be educational?) or some guy on the internet who is an avowed atheist and opponent of all things theist tells me that God told him to tell me to give him all my money (and frankly, Ooberman, by the time I got through buying the stamp, I wouldn't have any money to put in the envelope...don't you think that God would have told you to demand money from someone who actually, y'know, HAD some? ). Anyway, the idea is, you tell me you have a revelation, I tell you (and have been telling you) that the only non-circular way to confirm whether or not you have done so is to ask God myself. I tell you that no, I ain't gonna give you my money...or change my faith, and your response is to tell me that I don't get the crux of the point, or whatever.

Because you are somehow claiming that I am arguing that we should accept all revelation simply because someone says so, and you are arguing that doing so leads to all sorts of bad things.

Well, hello, Ooberman...strawman. I am arguing that we not only should not do this, but that we have the right and ability to confirm revelation by studying, thinking, and asking God if any revelation is 'true,' or 'valid' or not.

NOT what you are arguing here, is it?

[Ooberman]

In order to believe Joseph Smith, Moses, or others had a significant enough revelation from God to justify their actions, you are claiming the same experience, although the intensity of the command might be different, not only has confirmed a reality that God exists, but that in some way, can justify the actions of people.

The whole concept of a revelation in order to write a religious text - and for people to believe it - is circular itself!

Why do you claim Mormonism is true? (true in the supernatural sense, which is the only sense that matters. Not liturgical claims. What about the supernatural, or God, gives you confidence to act in any way at all? For example, do you find any minor justification for acting against gay marriage? If you, or others, even let religious, faith-based claims weight slightly in their decision, you are impacting a millions of lives! As a citizen of the world, it seems a Good to care about your role in how you impact lives. For example, the millions who voted for Bush because they felt the Iraq war was right, even if they never had the information other than what was portrayed on the news. It MAY have been the right thing, or, it might have resulted in millions more killed than some other alternative.)

I am bothered by the fact you can claim some revelation is true, and then use that text to confirm some bias against something. Or anyone's. Atheists or theists.


I don't care if revelations from God are only Good ones! It's the entire process that is at question, yet you claim it reaches from the profoundly truthful (Joseph Smith's revelations in order to conjure up the religion you believe is true) to the utter mundane.

Your beliefs do not only impact you. Yet, when asked about a reason to oppose gay marriage (for example, but it would even include good causes), you find ultimate justification in some one elses revelation.

Even if you take the most Liberal view towards gay marriage, it's circular to say "Jesus taught us that we should love everyone".

Why?

"Because God....(fill in reason here)"


This is the part I disagree with when anyone cites "scripture".

So, why do you believe in teh particular God you believe in? Because you were conditioned to experience that particular God. I believe it's because of a "chip" in your brain. That chip being a slighting different neuron set than others.

Our processing units are obviously different, and so the entire line of questioning about revelations, which you seem to agree in some way: that it is of supernatural origin.

Some people think it's aliens. Others think that "little voice" is the FBI, or that it might be a simple natural phenomena.

Now, how absurd is it to think: "I should listen to him because I am evolutionarily wired to accept his claims."

If we truly cannot create Oughts from Is, then religion is a woefully ridiculous method of decision making. It's not nothing taht when we trace back religious reasoning it all ends in Faith.

There are people on this very forum who take your example as a reason to believe and then try to tell us Faith is reliable, testable, or even lesser claims: as if Faith is actually reliable.

Truly, how does one accept revelations are remotely effective in communicating some divine truth when there are just as many examples of it failing massively?

I hate to bring it up, but there aren't many people who think Mormonism is any more than a con. Sure, it's a religion that makes some of the best neighbors in the world, but it's the same exact mentality as the 9-11 assholes.

The basic assumptions regarding the supernatural lead one to accept a number of culturally superstitions that lead one to follow a religion as if it has an honest-to-god relationship with Divine Truth.


The method you offer to support ANY claim in the Bible is entirely undermined by Andrea Yates. The fact, as we agree, that what she did would be a living Hell for anyone, yet I don't think even Hitler suffered as she has (I hear she was medicated and realized her sin. She has claimed to have become Christian, which, I hope brings her comfort if she truly had no control over her actions.)

If we, just as easily, could have been that woman, what possible defense can you have for any revelation? Even, as I point out, the anything in the Bible is true - true in any important sense you wish to offer.


Even if it says "Love thy Neighbor", which is wonderful, it doesn't justify a connection to Truth.

I don't think you believe most revelations are true. I think you are probably incredibly liberal, progressive, kind, gentle, warm, affectionate, and all great things.

It doesn't mean God exists in such a way as to make a religion. Or have representatives. Or raise a man from the dead 2000 years ago. Or even, as Sprong offers: that God allows us to experience the meaning of the metaphor.

God doesn't do jack, and if he does, we wouldn't be able to trust it. Not when there are too many examples of it turning out horribly for others.


Now, if I found out that every story of children dying, for example, was false. That, in fact, no one ever died young, or in pain. No people we kidnapped, forced in slavery, etc., all because of a "revelation", even a secular one, I have trouble with it.

That is, even an atheist who claims "I just know it's right" is suspect. Or a person who says it was "meant to be". Or any person who has voted because they believe they are right about the issue, "just because". Faith in ones own ability to ascertain truth is questionable! For all of us!

We could all be Andrea Yates in some small or even greater way.

For example, take the gay issue for either of us: what if we hold the positions we hold simply because we were evolutionarily wired to accept what our parents believed. Imagine it has nothing to do with whether we find homosexuality disgusting, only that we are prone to accept our peer groups opinion? Doesn't that undermine any REASON for or against?

(For example, we might all find a way to accept gay marriage as the Right thing to do, but it might actually be wrong for an unknown reason. Maybe the only reason to oppose gay marriage is that a violent race of aliens will interpret it as their sign to attack? It may be that God and the universe doesn't care whether gays get married or not, except for that quirk. These are the profound problems with epistemology that claiming a religion doesn't solve.


The question is how do we know? How do we know the Bible has a transcendent Truth in it?

Sure, it has some great stuff, but that's not enough to assume it's of a Divine Origin.

So, why do you believe the Bible? Why do Christians believe it (but not the BoM)?

What is a non-circular way for believing in the Bible?

What if you are right about God, but wrong about revelation, the Book of Mormon, the Bible, etc. What if we are both wrong, how do we test? How do we know?

Other than Faith, what testable claim do you have for believing the Bible? Do you see how useless Faith is even in our personal lives, at least as an explanation for why we did something, or believe something? It works for both atheists and theists, BTW.

[Filthy Tugboat]

What is a non-circular way for believing in the Bible?

What if you are right about God, but wrong about revelation, the Book of Mormon, the Bible, etc. What if we are both wrong, how do we test? How do we know?

Other than Faith, what testable claim do you have for believing the Bible? Do you see how useless Faith is even in our personal lives, at least as an explanation for why we did something, or believe something? It works for both atheists and theists, BTW.

The issue here is that you are discussing an axiomatic issue, one that has no verification, that falls into the same category as, "Can I trust the information i receive through my senses". Apply the same questions to that thought. How do we test? How do we know? Using our senses to confirm that we can trust the information we receive through our senses is circular. So we assume that the information is reliable as it's just the easier way to operate.

Diana has made herself abundantly clear, she trusts her senses and her thoughts, her feelings too. All of these tell her that God is real, God is loving and God has interacted with her on some level. She trusts that like you trust your eyes. That is not circular, she accepts that it is faith and has told you over and over again that she believes through faith. So, I can't see this debate progressing any further than it already has.

[dianaiad]

In order to believe Joseph Smith, Moses, or others had a significant enough revelation from God to justify their actions, you are claiming the same experience, although the intensity of the command might be different, not only has confirmed a reality that God exists, but that in some way, can justify the actions of people.

The whole concept of a revelation in order to write a religious text - and for people to believe it - is circular itself!

How else are you going to confirm whether a writing is divine/supernatural/whatever or not?

To refuse to do this; to discount the idea, is as silly as refusing to actually test an experiment that you read about in a science book for fear that it might actually work.

I'm sorry, Ooberman, but I really don't understand your POV here. It's as if you were afraid that it might actually work, y'know? I understand that you can't abide that idea, but.....

really?

[Ooberman]

What is a non-circular way for believing in the Bible?

What if you are right about God, but wrong about revelation, the Book of Mormon, the Bible, etc. What if we are both wrong, how do we test? How do we know?

Other than Faith, what testable claim do you have for believing the Bible? Do you see how useless Faith is even in our personal lives, at least as an explanation for why we did something, or believe something? It works for both atheists and theists, BTW.

The issue here is that you are discussing an axiomatic issue, one that has no verification, that falls into the same category as, "Can I trust the information i receive through my senses". Apply the same questions to that thought. How do we test? How do we know? Using our senses to confirm that we can trust the information we receive through our senses is circular. So we assume that the information is reliable as it's just the easier way to operate.

Diana has made herself abundantly clear, she trusts her senses and her thoughts, her feelings too. All of these tell her that God is real, God is loving and God has interacted with her on some level. She trusts that like you trust your eyes. That is not circular, she accepts that it is faith and has told you over and over again that she believes through faith. So, I can't see this debate progressing any further than it already has.

There are better reasons to trust some senses for certain stimuli over others. WE can check our hearing to our touch, or sight against our taste.

If it looks like chocolate but tastes like poop, we don't assume our sight is off. Especially when our nose smells poop, too.

There are ways to verify, and if we then see a video of a person putting poop on the plate we are eating from, we have other confirmation.

I'd like Di to offer why one revelation is more reliable than another, in the same way some people's senses seem to be more accurate, or less.

I completely reject the idea that revelation, or intuition, or "feelings" are on a par with our other senses, particularly reason.


Yes, at some point there is a brute fact both theists and atheists operate under: that, ultimately, we can't really know.

But taking revelation - the most obviously unreliable method of knowing - on a par with other forms of knowledge has a far higher burden. Particularly when those beliefs are reliant on the nature and kind of revelations that just so happen to be found in one's Holy text.

It's almost viciously circular.

1. My feeling about how God reveals himself is confirmed in the Bible.
2. The Bible confirms my feeling of how God reveals himself.
3. Therefore, the Bible, and my feelings are reliable.

It is viciously circular, actually.

[Ooberman]

In order to believe Joseph Smith, Moses, or others had a significant enough revelation from God to justify their actions, you are claiming the same experience, although the intensity of the command might be different, not only has confirmed a reality that God exists, but that in some way, can justify the actions of people.

The whole concept of a revelation in order to write a religious text - and for people to believe it - is circular itself!

How else are you going to confirm whether a writing is divine/supernatural/whatever or not?

EXACTLY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! What is a non-circular way of doing it? That's the question!

I'll offer some, but you won't like them:

1. Confirm all factual claims with the best science available. If the book fails, it lacks divine guidance.

2. A divine text would clearly distinguish itself by it's adherents being more "blessed" in obvious ways: less bad things happening to them, more to other religions.

etc...


In other words, in any objective measure, religions fail to distinguish themselves. There is, therefore, no a priori reason to even consider religious claims.

And since there is no a priori reason, and the evidence is all subjective claims, there is no reason to believe religious claims.

To refuse to do this; to discount the idea, is as silly as refusing to actually test an experiment that you read about in a science book for fear that it might actually work.

huh?

I'm sorry, Ooberman, but I really don't understand your POV here.

I know, but I'll keep trying.

It's as if you were afraid that it might actually work, y'know? I understand that you can't abide that idea, but.....

really?

You think I'm afraid it might actually work? That God might tell me to do something? Have you not read any of my posts? What kind of bs are you trying here, Di?

I'm afraid you and others will continue to impact people's lives because of bad reasoning. That's what I am afraid of, and your lack of reasoning and inability to hone in on the topic increases my fear.

To think your vote is worth exactly the same as mine! When you make a decision, your religious "feelings" are worth the same as someone who has taken years to study the topic?

You don't think it's problematic that a person would vote for gay marriage because they saw a nice movie and it made them feel good about gay marriage? That their reason was based on emotion? Or revelation? Or intuition?

What possible defense could you have for a political, or even social structure, based on the equal weight of the most unreliable methods of knowing with our more proven methods of knowing?

Do you balance your checkbook with feelings? If the funds are low, do you think it's a supernatural event, rather than a realization that your feelings may have been wrong about how much you could afford that month?

[dianaiad]

I'll offer some, but you won't like them:

1. Confirm all factual claims with the best science available. If the book fails, it lacks divine guidance.

That's dumb. Science is for science books. If a book that claims to be 'divinely guided,' that is, inspired by God, has mistakes in it made by men, does that mean that God CANNOT have been involved in it in any way?

Isn't that like claiming that because my father's college geology book didn't mention plate tectonics (and it does not) that it is without worth in any other area?

True, if one is a 'the bible is infallible' or 'the Koran is perfect" sort of believer, you would be correct. However, I'm not. I'm perfectly OK with the idea that the bible was written by MEN...and men during a time when science wasn't as 'advanced' as it is now, and thus might be wrong on strictly scientific stuff, like whether bats are birds or rabbits chew their cuds, or whether certain books (like, oh, the Song of Solomon) might be less divinely inspired than others. Given this, how could finding out that rabbits chew something other than their cuds prove that the bible is not divinely inspired?

2. A divine text would clearly distinguish itself by it's adherents being more "blessed" in obvious ways: less bad things happening to them, more to other religions.

etc...

Why? If the text involved doesn't claim that for 'believers,' why should you insist upon it? The point is to test the points the text actually makes, not the ones YOU think a 'good god' (according to your definition) SHOULD be like.

In other words, in any objective measure, religions fail to distinguish themselves. There is, therefore, no a priori reason to even consider religious claims.

And since there is no a priori reason, and the evidence is all subjective claims, there is no reason to believe religious claims.

To refuse to do this; to discount the idea, is as silly as refusing to actually test an experiment that you read about in a science book for fear that it might actually work.

huh?

I'm sorry, Ooberman, but I really don't understand your POV here.

I know, but I'll keep trying.

It's as if you were afraid that it might actually work, y'know? I understand that you can't abide that idea, but.....

really?

You think I'm afraid it might actually work? That God might tell me to do something? Have you not read any of my posts? What kind of bs are you trying here, Di?

Ooberman, I"m sorry, but I really don't believe that you have ever actually tried the experiment. Your latest claim is, at least to me, abundant evidence that you have not.

I'm afraid you and others will continue to impact people's lives because of bad reasoning. That's what I am afraid of, and your lack of reasoning and inability to hone in on the topic increases my fear.

To think your vote is worth exactly the same as mine! When you make a decision, your religious "feelings" are worth the same as someone who has taken years to study the topic?

On religion...after my own years of studying the topic, you betcha. At least, for me. Please notice that I didn't address or condemn you for what YOU claim your answers were. Yet, m'goodness...your vote counts the same as mine!

You don't think it's problematic that a person would vote for gay marriage because they saw a nice movie and it made them feel good about gay marriage? That their reason was based on emotion? Or revelation? Or intuition?

Of course it is. Most people who vote for gay marriage have done so as a result of social pressure and complete LACK of thinking it through.

You have to admit that as far as gay marriage is concerned, I HAVE thought it through, and whether you approve of it or not, using my idea gets gays both the rights and married.

Nobody else here has proposed an idea that gets gays the rights...including the right to marry...AND protects freedom of religion for everybody else. Would you care to try?

What possible defense could you have for a political, or even social structure, based on the equal weight of the most unreliable methods of knowing with our more proven methods of knowing?

Hyperbole again. I'm talking about RELIGION. Spiritual truth. You don't analyze a poem using a ruler, and you don't find scientific truth with prayer. Even Jesus talked about giving Caesar that which is Caesar's, and unto God that which is God's. You don't pray over science, and you don't demand that science prove spiritual truth.

Do you balance your checkbook with feelings?

No, as a matter of fact, and I don't use a calculator to add up how much I love my kids, either.

If the funds are low, do you think it's a supernatural event, rather than a realization that your feelings may have been wrong about how much you could afford that month?

If your funds are low, do you think it's because the wind is blowing in the wrong direction, or your puppy no longer loves you? Your question is as silly...and as objectionable, as that. You are reaching, Ooberman. Strawman, equivocating, moving the goal posts...

Whatever you want to call what you are doing, lasoo it back in, big guy. We aren't talking about arithmetic, or geology, or politics. We are talking simply and only about going to the supposed Source of an inspired text to see if that text is, indeed, inspired.

Exactly like asking Orson Scott Card if he really did write 'Ender's Game."

[Filthy Tugboat]

What is a non-circular way for believing in the Bible?

What if you are right about God, but wrong about revelation, the Book of Mormon, the Bible, etc. What if we are both wrong, how do we test? How do we know?

Other than Faith, what testable claim do you have for believing the Bible? Do you see how useless Faith is even in our personal lives, at least as an explanation for why we did something, or believe something? It works for both atheists and theists, BTW.

The issue here is that you are discussing an axiomatic issue, one that has no verification, that falls into the same category as, "Can I trust the information i receive through my senses". Apply the same questions to that thought. How do we test? How do we know? Using our senses to confirm that we can trust the information we receive through our senses is circular. So we assume that the information is reliable as it's just the easier way to operate.

Diana has made herself abundantly clear, she trusts her senses and her thoughts, her feelings too. All of these tell her that God is real, God is loving and God has interacted with her on some level. She trusts that like you trust your eyes. That is not circular, she accepts that it is faith and has told you over and over again that she believes through faith. So, I can't see this debate progressing any further than it already has.

There are better reasons to trust some senses for certain stimuli over others. WE can check our hearing to our touch, or sight against our taste.

If it looks like chocolate but tastes like poop, we don't assume our sight is off. Especially when our nose smells poop, too.

There are ways to verify, and if we then see a video of a person putting poop on the plate we are eating from, we have other confirmation.

So you think we can use our senses as reasonable proof that our senses are accurate to use? I certainly agree that we assume this to be the case but to think it is anything more than an assumption is unjustified. Insanity is an easy example of the fault of this method or this proof. On top of that, I think we both know the Implications of Descartes' most famous quote, "cognito ergo sum."

I'd like Di to offer why one revelation is more reliable than another, in the same way some people's senses seem to be more accurate, or less.

I completely reject the idea that revelation, or intuition, or "feelings" are on a par with our other senses, particularly reason.

"feelings" and "reason" often go hand in hand. As does our intuition. From what I can see, Diana has told you the reason. The revelation she considers true is the one she has received herself. If she judges others as true, it's because God has given her revelation to do so. So she doesn't take others on their word (possibly through the method of reasoning, she just might find other view points agreeable to her own, something I think is commendable and relatable), when someone claims revelation and she hasn't received the update as well, she takes that as a good sign, that it wasn't true revelation.

It's almost viciously circular.

1. My feeling about how God reveals himself is confirmed in the Bible.
2. The Bible confirms my feeling of how God reveals himself.
3. Therefore, the Bible, and my feelings are reliable.

It is viciously circular, actually.

You've made this argument really weird. You could get rid of either premise 1 or 2. You've made two premises that are exactly the same and then decided that it's circular? No, that's dishonest. Diana believes she has received revelation from God that has encouraged her in being a mormon, this revelation and her actions resulting from it have improved her life and fit her world view perfectly, if not helped structure it. Nothing circular about that.