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?

[Danmark]

....
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?
...."

Interesting. While on one level this approach seems much more sophisticated and reasonable than the typical attitude of the religious adherent who believes in the infallibility of scripture, where does this leave the believer in terms of her reliance on scripture as authority?

Certainly the Bible and the Quran and Book of Mormon were written by men. Since they were not written by god they will contain errors. Doesn't that evaluation result in a diminished authority of scripture? If a scripture is man made, doesn't it lose ALL its power, ALL its claim on man as the 'word of god' and thus it has no more claim on us than any work of man? I appreciate the works of Hemingway as art, as literature; but not as having any authority beyond what an artist may command.

Religious scripture makes a claim that goes far beyond any nonfiction or creative piece of literature. It claims infallibility. It claims to be the work of a god, of a being who is without error, a perfect source of absolute truth and reliability. If it is not perfect, how does it differ from any other work of man in terms of its claims on our thoughts, our beliefs, our actions?

[Tiberius47]

Because the more I read and study it, and the more I compare it to what everyone else was thinking at the time, and even when I compare it to today... it seems to me to have no equal.

I thus conclude that it is too brilliant a text to have just been the work of the minds of many authors, over the course of centuries, assembling and editing what would become the final anthology we have today.

Unless you want to argue that some great minds sat down and gave us the greatest repository ever amassed in human history, in one ongoing collection of books... Which I have no problem with accepting that it is the mind of many super brilliant authors, but it's just too well written, with too many concepts that do not comport normative thinking, certainly compared to human thinking in 3,000 B.C.E., to have just been the works of men.

I'm sorry, but I find it hard to believe that you're talking about the same book.

The Bible is too brilliant to have been made up by humans?

Like the part where Lot offers his daughters to the crowd eager for someone to rape? The part where a guy pretends his wife is his sister so the king of the land they're about to enter doesn't kill him, but is then found out, banished and then tries the exact same trick again with the exact same results? Or the fact that so much of the Bible's stories about Jesus are based on mythical god figures that were around long before jesus?

[Tiberius47]

It's radical concepts, for example, are quite extraordinary for human reasoning, 3000 years ago.


Genesis 1:1 is an example of a revolution in human thinking. The Mayans, the Hindu's, the Egyptians, and all ancient made sense out of the Universe by framing it as cycle of death & rebirth. Reality was cyclical to the pagans, not linear, in that nature always existed, and was just continuing this eternal dance of birth and renewal, followed by death, and on and on and on. Genesis 1:1 broke with that tradition, and said that life is on the linear trajectory of history, because there is progress to be made in this existence. God created for 6 days, in a progressive manner, and then rested on the 7th, but we are to continue the act of creation going forward, also in a progressive manner.

One doesn't realize how radical an assertion Genesis 1:1 is. Prior to our body of theories on optics, and the theory of general relativity, there is no way one could have looked at the natural world in those days, and said that it all had a beginning, this all came from nothing, in-existence into existence, by a creator that is outside of the confines of nature. Normative human thinking in those days assumed a Universe that had no beginning or end, no origin, and spread from everlasting to everlasting.

Please provide a source to show that people back then thought in this way.

[Ooberman]

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.

It's not an assumption at all! It's testable every time you drive a car.

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."

Yes, Descartes has a nice quote, but its been a few years since he said that.

It's REASONABLE to generally trust our senses, in the areas they show themselves to be reliable.

This can be tested.

Today, you an test your senses. You can do it right now.

Let's test your sight. Do you see the keyboard in front of you? Now reach out and touch it. Confirmed? Now lick it. Did you taste something?

Ask whoever you live with if there is a keyboard in front of you.

These are basic confirmations that don't absolutely prove there is a keyboard, but as you said, it's reasonable.

BTW, if you are going to take a hardline against our senses, then it certainly doesn't help theism at all!

Why trust there is anything called a Bible? How do you know the words are the same as yesterday? etc.

Basic epistemology is a "problem" for everyone. Theists don't gain anything in the debate if we can't rely on our senses, but they certainly lose a lot if they say we can use reason to 'reasonably' accept our senses.

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.

How has she confirmed any revelation, even her own?

Likewise, I hope you understood my attempt to distinguish sensory data and intuition. For example, intuitively, the Earth doesn't move. Even our senses have difficulty assessing the reality that we are moving at a phenomenal speed through space.

I think it's absurd to think our intuition that the Earth is steady/static trumps other data.

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.

It's the argument. It IS weird! It's viciously circular.

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.

Why Mormon? Because she believes her revelation is from the same source as the revelation Joseph Smith had or the Bible writers had.

Change "revelation" to "aura" or "psychic knowledge" or "chakras" some other woo-woo energy source.

So, say you have a feeling that you are a lost descendant of Atlantis. You were rasied to believe this, and in order to confirm it, you look at the text and say "well, it was written by people who believed they, too, were descendants from Atlantis.

Why do you believe they were? Because your feeling that you are a descendent confirms their feeling they were descendents!

Why do people believe the gospel writers had revelations to convey God's message?
Because they have a revelation from the same source (allegedly) as the Gospel writers!

This is obviously circular, yet, this seems to be the argument.


Let's take RE as the religious experience. In this case, Di's RE = Mormon God (MG).

Di's RE is confirmed because somewhere in the Book of Mormon is a RE from the MG (either in Joseph Smith's revelation or the Bible writers).

So, why is the Bible reliable? Because the RE from the MG is confirmed by Di's RE of MG.

Why is Di's RE of MG reliable? Because it's confirmed by the RE of the MG in the Bible!

After all, Di's trust in the Bible is completely undermined by people who have revelations from other Gods.

So, it's clearly viciously circular to appeal to an RE to validate a book written by (even in part) a RE.

[Dantalion]

t's REASONABLE to generally trust our senses, in the areas they show themselves to be reliable.

This can be tested.

Today, you an test your senses. You can do it right now.

Let's test your sight. Do you see the keyboard in front of you? Now reach out and touch it. Confirmed? Now lick it. Did you taste something?

Ask whoever you live with if there is a keyboard in front of you.

These are basic confirmations that don't absolutely prove there is a keyboard, but as you said, it's reasonable.

BTW, if you are going to take a hardline against our senses, then it certainly doesn't help theism at all!

Why trust there is anything called a Bible? How do you know the words are the same as yesterday? etc.

Basic epistemology is a "problem" for everyone. Theists don't gain anything in the debate if we can't rely on our senses, but they certainly lose a lot if they say we can use reason to 'reasonably' accept our senses

this deserves it's own topic.

[help3434]

[Replying to post 220 by Danmark

Where does the Bible or any other book Dianaiad believes to be scripture claim to be infallible?

[Danmark]

[Replying to post 220 by Danmark

Where does the Bible or any other book Dianaiad believes to be scripture claim to be infallible?

Any claim that a 'scripture' is 'the word of god' is necessarily a claim of infallibility.
If 'God' says something and it is not infallible than why pay it any more attention than the word of a novelist, a cartoonist, a liar?

I certainly agree that no written word is infallible. Nothing that has pretensions of being 'scripture' deserves such status. But throughout the Tanakh and the New Testament there are claims that what is written is the word of God. Paul sometimes distinguishes what he says from what 'God' says. When he is claiming to speak for god, it is a claim of authority and infallibility.

Do you suppose that Joseph Smith went to the trouble of preparing the idea that he discovered gold plates written by an 'angel of the Lord' so he could claim the BoM was just another compilation of words, without divine authority?

If words have 'divine authority,' are claimed to have been written by god or with god's endorsement, must there not be a claim of infallibility? Is god just another guy with an opinion?

[dianaiad]

[Replying to post 220 by Danmark

Where does the Bible or any other book Dianaiad believes to be scripture claim to be infallible?

Any claim that a 'scripture' is 'the word of god' is necessarily a claim of infallibility.
If 'God' says something and it is not infallible than why pay it any more attention than the word of a novelist, a cartoonist, a liar?

I certainly agree that no written word is infallible. Nothing that has pretensions of being 'scripture' deserves such status. But throughout the Tanakh and the New Testament there are claims that what is written is the word of God. Paul sometimes distinguishes what he says from what 'God' says. When he is claiming to speak for god, it is a claim of authority and infallibility.

Do you suppose that Joseph Smith went to the trouble of preparing the idea that he discovered gold plates written by an 'angel of the Lord' so he could claim the BoM was just another compilation of words, without divine authority?

If words have 'divine authority,' are claimed to have been written by god or with god's endorsement, must there not be a claim of infallibility? Is god just another guy with an opinion?

Mormons have this thing: One of the thirteen articles of faith.
"We believe the bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly. We also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God.

The title page to the Book of Mormon states that 'if there are And now, if there are faults they are the mistakes of men; "....hardly a resounding claim of 'this is infallible and there are no possible errors.'

Your strawmen are getting a bit shopworn, sir.

WE do not believe that God wrote either the bible OR the Book of Mormon. Men did. Men are going to make mistakes, either intentionally (as in, say, the Johanine comma) or unintentionally (like a bunch of typos inserted by the printer).

That's why it's a good idea to check the authority and divinity of any work claiming to be 'scripture' with the God Who supposedly authorized it as such.

[Danmark]

[Replying to post 220 by Danmark

Where does the Bible or any other book Dianaiad believes to be scripture claim to be infallible?

Any claim that a 'scripture' is 'the word of god' is necessarily a claim of infallibility.
If 'God' says something and it is not infallible than why pay it any more attention than the word of a novelist, a cartoonist, a liar?

I certainly agree that no written word is infallible. Nothing that has pretensions of being 'scripture' deserves such status. But throughout the Tanakh and the New Testament there are claims that what is written is the word of God. Paul sometimes distinguishes what he says from what 'God' says. When he is claiming to speak for god, it is a claim of authority and infallibility.

Do you suppose that Joseph Smith went to the trouble of preparing the idea that he discovered gold plates written by an 'angel of the Lord' so he could claim the BoM was just another compilation of words, without divine authority?

If words have 'divine authority,' are claimed to have been written by god or with god's endorsement, must there not be a claim of infallibility? Is god just another guy with an opinion?

Mormons have this thing: One of the thirteen articles of faith.
"We believe the bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly. We also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God.

The title page to the Book of Mormon states that 'if there are And now, if there are faults they are the mistakes of men; "....hardly a resounding claim of 'this is infallible and there are no possible errors.'

Your strawmen are getting a bit shopworn, sir.

WE do not believe that God wrote either the bible OR the Book of Mormon. Men did. Men are going to make mistakes, either intentionally (as in, say, the Johanine comma) or unintentionally (like a bunch of typos inserted by the printer).

That's why it's a good idea to check the authority and divinity of any work claiming to be 'scripture' with the God Who supposedly authorized it as such.

I'm sorry, but this is disingenuous at best. If this is really the belief system you have, then you have NO authority whatsoever. The whole thing is a giant crock.

While I am the first to agree that none of this nonsense comes from 'god', who of course does not exist and has never been proved to exist, the entire claim of Christianity, whether the Mormon version or any other, rests on the claim that god is speaking to you.

This weak kneed cop out of 'well... uh... of course, uh... IF it was translated correctly...' says essentially:
"We don't know what the ... we are talking about. We just have a vague idea that our scripture is from god, but of course if you press us on it and find error, then ... Gosh! That isn't what we claimed. There was just a little error of translation."

No wonder critics of Mormonism liken arguing with your flexible 'faith' to 'trying to nail jell-o to the wall.'

Is there ANYTHING you believe in that you claim comes from god?
Or is the whole thing just an amorphous, 'well... we ... uh... believe in it sort of, unless you come up with a really good argument for why it is ridiculous, then we will change it any claim it has been misinterpreted or mistranslated.'

This argument is a just plain dishonest cop out used to claim that the church really wasn't racist and really did not believe in polygamy because 'uh... now we have a new revelation' that says we were completely, 180 degrees wrong' and now, yielding to political pressure, "GOD" has given us an 'new' revelation, so we can fit in with the political powers that be and mainstream American Christianity.

[Ooberman]

Mormons have this thing: One of the thirteen articles of faith.
"We believe the bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly. We also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God.

The title page to the Book of Mormon states that 'if there are And now, if there are faults they are the mistakes of men; "....hardly a resounding claim of 'this is infallible and there are no possible errors.'

This is far worse! It's saying "Our religion is true, no matter what!"


It's absurd.

It's like me saying, "Science is always right, despite scientists."


So, Di, which part of the Mormon text is wrong? 20%? 80%

And, let me guess, none of it is wrong in the "important" aspects....

It's pure religious BS.