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 ask God. He's the One Who would know, after all.

Too bad God says different things to different people.

Maybe He's just messing with all of us? Or maybe no one hears from God and it's all just made up? Or maybe some people do hear from God, and it's just the others who are making it up? Or maybe God tells some people the truth, some people lies, and the others nothing at all.

Or He tells everybody truth...but people are so busy confusing the truth they get with all the idiocy surrounding it that they get all mixed up. That's the one I go for.

[antonenus]

You ask God. He's the One Who would know, after all.

Too bad God says different things to different people.

Maybe He's just messing with all of us? Or maybe no one hears from God and it's all just made up? Or maybe some people do hear from God, and it's just the others who are making it up? Or maybe God tells some people the truth, some people lies, and the others nothing at all.

Or He tells everybody truth...but people are so busy confusing the truth they get with all the idiocy surrounding it that they get all mixed up. That's the one I go for.

Maybe I'm confused, maybe you're confused, maybe we're both confused. How do we know?

[Peter]

You ask God. He's the One Who would know, after all.

Too bad God says different things to different people.

Maybe He's just messing with all of us? Or maybe no one hears from God and it's all just made up? Or maybe some people do hear from God, and it's just the others who are making it up? Or maybe God tells some people the truth, some people lies, and the others nothing at all.

Or He tells everybody truth...but people are so busy confusing the truth they get with all the idiocy surrounding it that they get all mixed up. That's the one I go for.

Maybe I'm confused, maybe you're confused, maybe we're both confused. How do we know?

Obviously, you go with the "truth" you like or wish for and that is exactly what we see in the world.

[Ooberman]

Thank you for the critique. I will try* to be clearer:

The point is that if there really were a god, a perfect being who created the universe, then he would be unchanging since to change would imply he was not perfect prior to the change. If there really were such a god, he would be able to communicate clearly to humans and not have to constantly send rewrites.

However, if humans wrote the Bible et al. then it makes perfect sense that it would be fallible and need correcting on a regular basis.


It is absurd to claim that THIS BOOK, the Bible [with or without its latter day 'revelations'] is infallible. To make the claim that the Bible is the word of god and also that it has errors seems to me a contradiction in concepts.

Actually, the claim is more like 'it contains the word of God." Perhaps that helps?

I am always bothered by these responses that, in essence, say: "oh, you can't blame the humans for getting god's story right, but we know the (insert your religious text here) is God's Word!"

How? If it's people telling you it's God's Word but theists are always loathe to tell us which person is to be trusted, then how do they know.

It's like saying of a calculator: "I know you can't trust the output because of people making mistakes inputting the numbers, but the calculator absolutely works perfectly!"

Really? How would one know? Because they can't imagine living in a world in which that calculator doesn't work properly? Because a man with slick hair told them? Because a guy died for his belief in it? Because a Perfect Calculator is better than an imperfect one? Because how else could we add 2+2?

Why should we trust a calculator that people keep getting the wrong numbers with?

Because sometimes it gets it right? Does it? Or do some people make a mistake, and the calculator makes a mistake, but it turns out right?

[help3434]

I would like those that believe in the Bible to explain why God was such a tribal God. Why did the creator of the whole world content Himself with being the God of Israel until He finally gave that revelation to Peter in Acts.

[Filthy Tugboat]

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.

Am I really driving a car though? Is the world around me really behaving the way my senses make me believe it is happening? There is no justification for believing that it is, we just assume that it is because there isn't really a clear alternative that I'm aware of. If it's not, and we believe it's not then where does that leave us?

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.

Some things are axiomatic. The topic does not need to be discussed at length, simple answers suffice. This is my point.

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?

Presumably a similar way to you confirming your own beliefs/concerns about the world around you. Axiomatic.

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.

It's not circular, I personally don't find it reasonable but I have not personally received a revelation from any deity. I'm not going to accuse someone else of insanity or dishonesty or irrationality if they are suggesting they're life and experience on the issue is different to mine. For an argument or a train of thought to be circular it must assume it's conclusion. I do not believe that Diana is suggesting that she has done that.

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.

But what you're suggesting is circular is extremely similar to all forms of fact checking. Consistency is the basis of what we associate with truth. If mormonism is true and you have received what you believe to be a revelation suggesting that mormonism is true then you would consider that as evidence in promotion of... mormonism... no? You're also removing her personal experience from the picture, I can't imagine what you've written above encompasses absolutely all aspects of her faith and belief system.

[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.

Am I really driving a car though? Is the world around me really behaving the way my senses make me believe it is happening? There is no justification for believing that it is, we just assume that it is because there isn't really a clear alternative that I'm aware of. If it's not, and we believe it's not then where does that leave us?

It means we know less than we thought and gives no one a leg up on any other view.

So, if you wish to argue that level of ignorance about our world, I will let you.

Certainly, the Christian is the first loser since it would mean Jesus wasn't really flesh and blood as the Bible says. The entire Bible would be a lie.

[help3434]

[Replying to post 246 by Ooberman]

Filthy Tugboat is saying that it is an unprovable axiom, not the believers in the Bible doubt it. Can you prove we don't live in the Matrix?

[Ooberman]

[Replying to post 246 by Ooberman]

Filthy Tugboat is saying that it is an unprovable axiom, not the believers in the Bible doubt it. Can you prove we don't live in the Matrix?

Ah, understood.

I think it's axiomatic because it's completely unverifiable to use one persons subjective, religious experience to validate your own.

It simply begs the question.

Why assume your RE is from the same source as another persons? Because it feels that way? But there is no way we can verify how Smith felt about his experience. we can't even know if he made up the story.

We can, at least, seem to verify our experience of other minds and the physical universe.

After all, how is it that Muslims verify their RE with their religious text, then Mormons do the same thing, then Christians, then Buddhists, etc?

It appears to be axiomatic that one can't use their religious text to validate the truth of their RE, which in turn verifies the truth of their text - not when others are doing the exact same thing, but with completely different conclusions.

What value is having a RE? Does it prove anything?

I submit it simply can't, since it's viciously circular; because it's axiomatic that it can't.


Note in this exploration of religious experiences, there are any number of threats of circular reasoning, and no real solution:
http://www.calpoly.edu/~jlynch/experience.htm

[Filthy Tugboat]

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.

Am I really driving a car though? Is the world around me really behaving the way my senses make me believe it is happening? There is no justification for believing that it is, we just assume that it is because there isn't really a clear alternative that I'm aware of. If it's not, and we believe it's not then where does that leave us?

It means we know less than we thought and gives no one a leg up on any other view.

So, if you wish to argue that level of ignorance about our world, I will let you.

Certainly, the Christian is the first loser since it would mean Jesus wasn't really flesh and blood as the Bible says. The entire Bible would be a lie.

It's not about arguing ignorance, quite the opposite. It's about arguing certainty and the value of perceptual experience. In the end, we all base our lives and our worldview on certain assumptions that differ from person to person. Your objection to Diana's comments so far are simply saying that her axioms are not as reasonable as your axioms. Which, given an axiom is an unsupportable assumption, doesn't really make much sense.