Is this a blatant example of circular logic?

[Justin108]

[Replying to post 17 by Justin108]

Truth doesn't contradict truth; scientific truth is simply the correct understanding of the physical world. The bible is a book of truth and so by definition it won't contradict what is true. If therefore the bible touches on science (which it does rarely, but it does on occassion) but one interpretation contradicts what we know to be true about the physical world and the other doesn't, its not rocket science to know which interpretation is correct.

Logic,

JW

- Everything in the Bible is true
- If you find something in the Bible that is not true, it must mean that you interpreted it wrong
- How do we know you interpreted it wrong and that the Bible is not simply mistaken? Because everything in the Bible is true

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 6 by DanieltheDragon]

Joshua and the sun standing still is a good example of what I'm talking about.

Joshua wrote an account of what happened, ie what he saw. The reader is faced with the choice as to whether he thinks that the earth actually stopped spinning or if what he saw had some other cause (ie interpret events in some other way).

There is little doubt the account is presented as a miracle, thus there is not constraint that it be subject to the laws of science, that said there is if there is an explanation which takes into account the fact that the sun didn't have to stop moving to appear to stop moving (rather than kill everybody, which is effectively what would happen if the earth suddenly stopped spinning on its axis and then by miraculous means rectify that), it seems reasonable to lean to the former rather than the latter.

What Joshua himself believed is evident, he believed God had held the sun still, what he knew about the cosmos is irrelevant. How we interpret events depends on whether we chose to take a short logical route or the long unreasonable one.


Did the earth stop spinning?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 182#855182

Nice way to sidestep my post and segue the conversation away from more salient issues. However, I do take issue with the magic get out of jail free card. If according to your first response we are to choose between literal or parable, the sun sitting still in the sky shouldn't be taken as literal. For two reasons, one the first reason you listed in the above quote and two there are not really any rational explanations why one would think the sun stood still aside from Joshua being incredibly high on some drug in which case we should disregard his account altogether anyway. Calling it miraculous and therefore re allowing the literal interpretation invalidates your original logical conclusion. Thus we have a debate paradox. Where

1. Interpret the bible between parable and literal using what we know about reality
2. If the bible is not congruent with what we know about reality Miracles suspend rule 1.

[William]

[Replying to post 6 by DanieltheDragon]

Joshua and the sun standing still is a good example of what I'm talking about.

Joshua wrote an account of what happened, ie what he saw. The reader is faced with the choice as to whether he thinks that the earth actually stopped spinning or if what he saw had some other cause (ie interpret events in some other way).

There is little doubt the account is presented as a miracle, thus there is not constraint that it be subject to the laws of science, that said there is if there is an explanation which takes into account the fact that the sun didn't have to stop moving to appear to stop moving (rather than kill everybody, which is effectively what would happen if the earth suddenly stopped spinning on its axis and then by miraculous means rectify that), it seems reasonable to lean to the former rather than the latter.

What Joshua himself believed is evident, he believed God had held the sun still, what he knew about the cosmos is irrelevant. How we interpret events depends on whether we chose to take a short logical route or the long unreasonable one.


Did the earth stop spinning?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 182#855182

Nice way to sidestep my post and segue the conversation away from more salient issues. However, I do take issue with the magic get out of jail free card. If according to your first response we are to choose between literal or parable, the sun sitting still in the sky shouldn't be taken as literal. For two reasons, one the first reason you listed in the above quote and two there are not really any rational explanations why one would think the sun stood still aside from Joshua being incredibly high on some drug in which case we should disregard his account altogether anyway. Calling it miraculous and therefore re allowing the literal interpretation invalidates your original logical conclusion. Thus we have a debate paradox. Where

1. Interpret the bible between parable and literal using what we know about reality
2. If the bible is not congruent with what we know about reality Miracles suspend rule 1.

This seems reasonable. The only thing I would add is not to underestimate the power of those type of drugs. Keep it in perspective, scientifically speaking.

Exploration of the minds abilities through chemical substances has been noted to help. not just hinder, the understanding of the human experience.

Lets assume for the moment that drugs were involved and that Joshua did experience a kind of timeless episode, perhaps even unwittingly, and ascribed it to his idea of GOD - what in that episode was relevant to him which he thought to share with the rest of the tribe?

Simply saying that because science deals with the observable reality and what happened to him was only experienced by him and thus science is unable to confirm the internal but only the external, does not mean that things of the mind are of no matter.

Experience is still experience and this is where philosophy comes into it. Dealing with tangible 'what if's' for example.

If such are to be declared the field of theism and that theism should recognize that and not conflate the two, that is commendable. To believe that the sun literally stop in its tracks flies in the face of known physics and the alternative explanations must be examined as way of explanation...but lets not make that mean that what people experience with drugs in relation to this reality are not of themselves helpful to the real world, or for that matter - are not messages from a vaster consciousness which they may well be tapping into.

I say this mainly because I accept Panpsychism as the most likely explanation for our existence in this the real world, and while I don't partake of those type drugs myself, I appreciate the data which comes back from those who do, and think it is relevant for that.

[Iseerce]

[Replying to Justin108]

The way you framed it, after the fact, yes, it's an example of circular logic.

However, based on the quote you provided, the real issue would be that the person either hasn't actually read much of their bible or they simply do not understand what it is, or both.

The bible doesn't rarely talk about "science," it never talks about it. It's not a science textbook, and it doesn't describe or employ naturalistic methodologies. "Let us reason together" does not mean that the claims of Christianity are, therefore, reasonable.

[Justin108]

[Replying to Justin108]

Eh… sort of, but not really.

JW seems to be suggesting that when there are two possible interpretations of a passage, then we should assume that the one which matches our existing understanding of reality is the correct one.

Why would JW suggest this if JW doesn't start with the assumption that the Bible cannot make any mistakes?

To take an extreme example, if we read the statement, “She is as slow as a turtle,� then we could understand that a few different ways.

This is obviously a metaphor. What JW suggests is that in literally every single instance where something the Bible says is shown to be wrong, the fault must lien in our interpretation. No exception. JW starts with the a priori assumption that no matter what the Bible says, it must be true. This is circular logic.

There's a difference between saying some of what is in the Bible is a metaphor, and saying anything that is incorrect in the Bible is automatically the fault of the interpretation of the reader.

If I said Jack is always right and Jack says something that is clearly wrong, would I be justified in saying "well you must have misunderstood what Jack said because Jack is always right"? Or would this be fallacious?

This is how we read virtually everything that we come across.

No. We don't. When we read that Scientologists, for example, believe in an intergalactic alien overlord, should we suddenly assume that this is just a metaphor based on how ridiculous it is? Or is it fair to conclude that Scientologists literally believe in an intergalactic alien overlord?

If we read things the way you suggest we do, then nothing anyone ever says is ever wrong because "you just didn't interpret what they said correctly".

[Justin108]

Given that the book can be interpreted in many ways when it touches on science and we have relevant scientific data, then what we know to be true about the physical world would obviously have a bearing on which interpretation we favor.

I didn't ask which interpretation you favor, I asked which interpretation is most likely true (i.e in accordance with the intended meaning of the author).

If Jeff didn't know a damn thing about science and Jeff sincerely believed that the earth rested on the shoulders of a giant and Jeff wrote a book about it, if someone read Jeff's book thousands of years later, they would be correct in saying that Jeff was wrong. That would be the correct interpretation. The correct interpretation is that Jeff literally believed this but Jeff's belief was simply not true.

Now if one were to start with the assumption that Jeff is always right, then one would look at the book Jeff wrote and conclude "well Jeff must have been talking in metaphors". Except Jeff wasn't. Jeff literally believed the earth rested on the shoulders of a giant.

This is why it is a fallacy to start with the assumption that the Bible is true, for the same reason that it is a fallacy to start with the assumption that everything Jeff says is true.

An example comes to mind of Jesus' parable of the Rich man and Lazarus.

Yes let's start with the most obvious example of a metaphor, and then conclude that any passage that may possibly be incorrect is also just a metaphor...

Look... I understand that the Bible, on occasions, use metaphors. But to conclude that every instance of the Bible possibly being wrong must be a metaphor because the Bible cannot be wrong is a fallacy.

We make these interpretational "choices" all the time in literature when faced with combinations of history, fact, symbolism, metaphor, and poetry... we do it in life if we have any use for language automatically.

Yes but we don't start with the premise that the book we are reading cannot be wrong.

A woman may say of her the father of her children "He's my rock"

Again... an obvious metaphor.

They just have to know enough about biology that rocks cannot inpregnate women.

No... they just need to know about metaphors to know that "he is my rock" is a metaphor for "he is my center of stability, support, etc."

What if someone said "I saw a ghost yesterday" should we automatically assume he meant a metaphorical ghost?

Again... I understand that people use metaphors. My problem with your reasoning is that you conclude that every single thing the Bible says that is incorrect must automatically be a metaphor.

If someone said "I heard a ghost talking" but it turned out they just heard the TV in the next room, then the problem does not lie in our interpretation of what they said... the problem lies in that this person was simply wrong. They did not hear a ghost. Being wrong does not suddenly mean that what you said is a metaphor.

Thus given the choice between is she speaing literally or figuratively, it seems reasonable, given our knowledge of the natural world (and language), to chose the latter.

Why would you assume that the authors of the Bible shared our understanding of the natural world?

Circular: Don't you have to believe first?

One doesn't have to decide FIRST that the woman in my illustration isn't mad to appy logic

The key difference between how you treat the Bible and how you treat the woman is (and you specifically said this) the bible is a book of truth and so by definition it won't contradict what is true.. This means that everything the Bible says must be true and if it says something that is not true, then the fault is always in our interpretation.

Do you treat the woman this way as well? Do you assume from the start that everything she says is true and if she said something that is untrue, then it means that it must be a metaphor? If the woman said vaccines cause autism, would it mean that, because it is untrue, she must be speaking in metaphors? Or could it be that she's just wrong?

Bill: Everything Jack says is true
John: Yesterday, Jack said Hong Kong is the capital of Japan
Bill: Jack must have meant that in the metaphorical sense
John: How do you know?
Bill: Because everything Jack says is true

[Justin108]

For instance, the literal reading of Genesis 1 has been challenged on two fronts, not just science, but also anthropology. Thus it seems the whole dispute between 24/7 or day = eon is a red herring. That kind of debate would have been alien to an ancient Hebrew.

I meet theists half way and agree that Genesis may not have meant 6 literal days. My gripe with Genesis is the other details. Genesis claims that plant life existed prior to God making the sun and stars. Is this a metaphor? And if it is a metaphor, what is it a metaphor for?

[JehovahsWitness]

The bible doesn't rarely talk about "science," it never talks about it.

SCIENCE:

The study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment

Since "science" in its broadest sence is simply the study or the natural world through observation and experiment, we can definitely say that the bible, although not using the word "science" speaks about the observation of the natural world and even encourages its readers to learn lessons from it. There are numerous scriptures that speak about observing animals, trees, the cosmos as well as humans and human behaviour. Although not a science book, it also makes statements that can be read to be direct statements about how the natural works and the systems that operate within it.

Anyone that says the bible never speaks about "science" therefore we can only conclude is either unfamiliar with what the word means or simply is not familiar enough with the contents of the bible.

JW



Further reading: Does Science Agree With the Bible?
https://www.jw.org/en/bible-teachings/q ... the-bible/

To learn more please go to other posts related to...

EVOLUTION, THE BIBLE & SCIENCE and ...THE 7 CREATIVE DAYS OF GENESIS

[ttruscott]

- Everything in the Bible is true
- If you find something in the Bible that is not true, it must mean that you interpreted it wrong
- How do we know you interpreted it wrong and that the Bible is not simply mistaken? Because everything in the Bible is true

Of course this is circular thinking and that is why thinking Christians no not use it as a prop to their faith.

IF I accept everything in the Bible is true FROM GOD"S POV, and come across something in the Bible that SEEMS TO BE but is not proven to be untrue then I wait for the problem to be reconciled to the truth as I know it from GOD's Holy Spirit who teaches us all truth even what the Bible means to HIM, John 16:13 But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all the truth.

This verse shows the circular reasoning of the op logic to be a straw horse not applicable to ordinary Christian thought.

[William]

- Everything in the Bible is true
- If you find something in the Bible that is not true, it must mean that you interpreted it wrong
- How do we know you interpreted it wrong and that the Bible is not simply mistaken? Because everything in the Bible is true

Of course this is circular thinking and that is why thinking Christians no not use it as a prop to their faith.

IF I accept everything in the Bible is true FROM GOD"S POV, and come across something in the Bible that SEEMS TO BE but is not proven to be untrue then I wait for the problem to be reconciled to the truth as I know it from GOD's Holy Spirit who teaches us all truth even what the Bible means to HIM, John 16:13 But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all the truth.

This verse shows the circular reasoning of the op logic to be a straw horse not applicable to ordinary Christian thought.

Ordinary Christian thought, in the terms you place it related to your post, is thus illogical.

All truth HAS to include scientific evidence, and the TRUTH is, scientific evidence does show that there are parts of the bible which are demonstrably NOT truthful.

Therefore, everything in the Bible is NOT true.

Thus, whomever this male spirit is who will led you into ALL truth, will show you THAT truth as part of the process, and if you resist that truth, you are NOT being lead by that spirit of truth.

OR

That particular part of the bible is also not TRUE.

From my own personal experience, that which leads me into truthfulness, is MY willingness to be TRUTHFUL. Not to say that there is not a conscious entity who assists me in that process, but without my willingness to BE truthful, no entity who wants to lead me into truth, and ALL truth, is going to be able to do this. Such an entity will be unable to assist me if I am not willing to accept ALL truth.

[ttruscott]

All truth HAS to include scientific evidence...

Ummm, evidence is not proof ... and understanding truth depends upon proof, not evidence, Rom 1:20, a proof clearly seen that destroys all our excuses....