Is this a blatant example of circular logic?

Argue for and against Christianity

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
Justin108
Banned
Banned
Posts: 4471
Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2012 5:28 am

Is this a blatant example of circular logic?

Post #1

Post by Justin108 »

JehovahsWitness wrote: [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

User avatar
DrNoGods
Prodigy
Posts: 2716
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 2:18 pm
Location: Nevada
Has thanked: 593 times
Been thanked: 1642 times

Re: Is this a blatant example of circular logic?

Post #2

Post by DrNoGods »

[Replying to post 1 by Justin108]
Everything in the Bible is true.


Isn't this a required belief of all religions ... that their holy book is divinely inspired or overseen and therefore infallible in every respect? Any discrepancies or contradictions must be explained in a way that maintains that stance, by definition. Certainly circular logic, but I think a default requirement of the religious when it comes to their holy books.

My late (deeply religious) mother would always find a bible verse or passage to justify her position on whatever the issue at hand was, and once found that was the end of the discission. She had consulted the (in her view) unquestionable authoritative source (bible) and there was no room for further debate. Any questioning of the validity of her holy book was not allowed.
In human affairs the sources of success are ever to be found in the fountains of quick resolve and swift stroke; and it seems to be a law, inflexible and inexorable, that he who will not risk cannot win.
John Paul Jones, 1779

The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read.
Mark Twain

Kenisaw
Guru
Posts: 2117
Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2015 2:41 pm
Location: St Louis, MO, USA
Has thanked: 18 times
Been thanked: 61 times

Re: Is this a blatant example of circular logic?

Post #3

Post by Kenisaw »

Justin108 wrote:
JehovahsWitness wrote: [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
The Bible is not a book of truth, in the scientific sense. There is more than ample threads at this website which clearly illustrate that.

bjs
Prodigy
Posts: 3222
Joined: Mon Apr 05, 2010 4:29 pm

Re: Is this a blatant example of circular logic?

Post #4

Post by bjs »

[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.

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. Perhaps she runs at speeds around 0.05 miles per hours. Or perhaps the writer feels that she could and should be moving at a faster speed, even though she is actually moving faster than a turtle.

Obviously the latter is more likely the case and we would assume that to be true without giving it a second thought.

This is how we read virtually everything that we come across. To fail to read the Bible in the manner, or to say that it is circular reasoning, seems disingenuous.
Last edited by bjs on Mon Aug 14, 2017 5:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Understand that you might believe. Believe that you might understand. –Augustine of Hippo

User avatar
JehovahsWitness
Savant
Posts: 21073
Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2010 6:03 am
Has thanked: 790 times
Been thanked: 1114 times
Contact:

Re: Is this a blatant example of circular logic?

Post #5

Post by JehovahsWitness »

[Replying to post 4 by bjs]

Well explained bjs; the question I was answering is what methodology would be used to choose, given a choice, as to which interpretation is true. (not how do we prove the bible is true).

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. It might not be paramount, that would depend on the context, but all things being equal, it seems logical and reasonable to favor the one that harmonizes with what we know about the natural world.
An example comes to mind of Jesus' parable of the Rich man and Lazarus. On fire in "hell" the rich man request a single drop of water to relieve his agony.
A drop of water would evaporate long before it could provide any relief if an individual was literally on fire and that water would do nothing to relieve the sufferer. Those are scientific facts. So faced with a choice between this being a literal narrative of a historical even or a parable (a story), the reasonable conclusion is that it is a parable.


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.

A woman may say of her the father of her children "He's my rock" few people would wonder how a man can also be a slab of granite and conclude she must be mad or bad. They just have to know enough about biology that rocks cannot inpregnate women. 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.

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, any more than one has to accept the bible as God's word before one can make reasonable biblical interpretation, one doesn't even have to believe in God, only accept that the writers did. The correct interpretation would be the interpretation intended by the author and a knowledge of the natural world is no hinderence in that.



JW
Last edited by JehovahsWitness on Mon Aug 14, 2017 5:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.
INDEX: More bible based ANSWERS
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 81#p826681


"For if we live, we live to Jehovah, and if we die, we die to Jehovah. So both if we live and if we die, we belong to Jehovah" -
Romans 14:8

DanieltheDragon
Savant
Posts: 6224
Joined: Mon Jun 17, 2013 1:37 pm
Location: Charlotte
Been thanked: 1 time

Re: Is this a blatant example of circular logic?

Post #6

Post by DanieltheDragon »

JehovahsWitness wrote: [Replying to post 4 by bjs]

Well explained bjs; the question I was answering is what methodology would be used to choose, given a choice, as to which interpretation is true. (not how do we prove the bible is true).

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. It might not be paramount, that would depend on the context, but all things being equal, it seems logical and reasonable to favor the one that harmonizes with what we know about the natural world.
An example comes to mind of Jesus' parable of the Rich man and Lazarus. On fire in "hell" the rich man request a single drop of water to relieve his agony.
A drop of water would evaporate long before it could provide any relief if an individual was literally on fire and that water would do nothing to relieve the sufferer. Those are scientific facts. So faced with a choice between this being a literal narrative of a historical even or a parable (a story), the reasonable conclusion is that it is a parable.


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.

A woman may say of her the father of her children "He's my rock" few people would wonder how a man can also be a slab of granite and conclude she must be mad or bad. They just have to know enough about biology that rocks cannot inpregnate women. 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.

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, any more than one has to accept the bible as God's word before one can make reasonable biblical interpretation, one doesn't even have to believe in God, only accept that the writers did. The correct interpretation would be the interpretation intended by the author and a knowledge of the natural world is no hinderence in that.



JW
Ok so given this there is no

Talking donkies
Talking snakes
Dragons
Unicorns
Jesus did not come back from the dead
The earth wasn't created in 7 days
There was no global flood
There was no exodus
Etc..

These are merely parables designed to teach us lessons. Well gee when you put it that way the bible makes a lot more sense. Jesus wasn't literally the son of God or God embodied that is just a metaphor for someone who exemplifies the principles of the religious teaching of his particular sect of Judaism. The phrase God sacrificed his only son really means, that the people had their leader executed by the Romans to appease their tyrannical rulers from abusing them.

Thanks JW for rationalizing the bible in such a way that it can have a completely non supernatural interpretation!
Post 1: Wed Apr 01, 2015 10:48 am Otseng has been banned
Otseng has been banned for having multiple accounts and impersonating a moderator.

liamconnor
Prodigy
Posts: 3170
Joined: Sun May 31, 2015 1:18 pm

Re: Is this a blatant example of circular logic?

Post #7

Post by liamconnor »

Justin108 wrote:
JehovahsWitness wrote: [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

Your summary is most certainly circular, and is often used by Christians.

I do not know the context of JW's comment. I do not, however, regard it as a sleight of hand to adjust one's interpretation in light of scientific discoveries, so long as the new interpretation is also supportable.

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.

However, the bible also (as any weatherman will) describes the sun as though it moved. Of course, all he had to go with was what he saw with his naked eye. I think fundamentalists go to far when they assert that the biblical authors knew that the sun didn't move, but wrote from a phenomenological point of view. How in the world can we support this?

User avatar
JehovahsWitness
Savant
Posts: 21073
Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2010 6:03 am
Has thanked: 790 times
Been thanked: 1114 times
Contact:

Re: Is this a blatant example of circular logic?

Post #8

Post by JehovahsWitness »

[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. If the reader wants to know if the earth stopped spinning or if what he saw had some other cause (ie interpret events) then there is no reason to disount science.

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 no reason to conclude th
INDEX: More bible based ANSWERS
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 81#p826681


"For if we live, we live to Jehovah, and if we die, we die to Jehovah. So both if we live and if we die, we belong to Jehovah" -
Romans 14:8

User avatar
JehovahsWitness
Savant
Posts: 21073
Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2010 6:03 am
Has thanked: 790 times
Been thanked: 1114 times
Contact:

Re: Is this a blatant example of circular logic?

Post #9

Post by JehovahsWitness »

[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
Last edited by JehovahsWitness on Mon Aug 14, 2017 5:54 pm, edited 2 times in total.
INDEX: More bible based ANSWERS
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 81#p826681


"For if we live, we live to Jehovah, and if we die, we die to Jehovah. So both if we live and if we die, we belong to Jehovah" -
Romans 14:8

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 14003
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 906 times
Been thanked: 1629 times
Contact:

Re: Is this a blatant example of circular logic?

Post #10

Post by William »

Justin108 wrote:
JehovahsWitness wrote: [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
Everything true is provably true. Therefore if everything in the bible is true, it will have been proven to be true.
If this is not the case, then the statement 'Everything in the bible is true' remains a false statement.
- If you find something in the Bible that is not true, it must mean that you interpreted it wrong
It may mean that. Certainly it is false to state that it MUST mean that. The only way to know for sure is to test it and see if it is true. This would be somewhat complicated as interpretations are not necessarily based upon truth in the first place, and are more often than not based upon individual bias, regardless of whether the bias is secular or based in theology.

In the case of theological concepts, and say - the subject of hell - Jesus is recorded as speaking about hell, and it can be interpreted (assuming Jesus is quoted accurately in the first instance) that he seems to be speaking of an actual place, were actual people go and actually grind their actual teeth.

However, if we are to focus on the Jewish understanding of Sheol, (which Jesus would have most likely referred to it) and if we also take into account the complaint from Jews that Christendom (Romans, Anglo Saxons, Europeans et al) had taken the Jewish ideas and bastardized said ideas to conform to their own cultural belief systems - there is plenty of evidence for that having been the case too - then those things can be considered to be 'wrong interpretations' at the go-get and placed to one side, if not reinterpreted correctly.
- How do we know you interpreted it wrong and that the Bible is not simply mistaken? Because everything in the Bible is true.
Either the one arguing for the truth of this obviously faulty logic was born into their particular religion and knows only that and cares not to even contemplate they have been mislead, or is purposefully being dishonest for the sake of supporting his/her particular club/religious belief system, regardless of logic and truth.

I tend to think the main reason people do this kind of thing is because they have been lead to believe that to question their faith is to jeopardize loosing out on the promises that particular religion has sold to its adherents.

It is a common human dilemma which is not confined to only the theocratic sector of human society.

Selective InterpretationImage

Post Reply