(June 18, 2011 at 5:40 pm)Ryft Wrote:(June 17, 2011 at 9:21 am)BloodyHeretic Wrote: [Here is what] I'm asking: apart from presupposing it, is there any other reason to suppose the Bible inerrant?
I cannot speak for Statler, of course, but I suspect that we are on the same page here so I want to offer a clarifying remark on this issue. First, the inerrancy of the scriptural autographs is not itself a presupposed axiom; it is a conclusion drawn from that which is a presupposed axiom, the transcendental truth of God and his self-revelation. The reasoning goes like this: given the nature of God, what he reveals is incapable of error (infallible), and that which is incapable of error obviously does not err (inerrant). Second, if we reason to some X then it is a conclusion, whereas if we reason from some X then it is a presupposition. Thus while there are cases where we reason from the inerrancy of Scripture (as such it is presupposed), we do not do so when that inerrancy is itself the question (which would argue in a circle). In a situation where inerrancy is itself the question, we admit that it is a conclusion and show how it follows; we reason to it, not from it, since it is a conclusion, not an axiom.
BloodyHeretic Wrote:Natural selection is a sufficient reason to suppose our senses are reliable.
Natural selection is a mechanism of biological evolution, which assumes that the world our senses perceive is real. Therefore invoking natural selection is question-begging.
Thank you for the input. Are you not just shifting the focus of the question though? Why do you make a presupposition about "the transcendental truth of God and his self-revelation"? Apart from the bible, how do you know anything about the nature of god? You're basing your presupposition on your conclusion.
Quote:Natural selection is a mechanism of biological evolution, which assumes that the world our senses perceive is real.Yes it does, there is no alternative to this though. The question asked for an atheistic explanation about why we presuppose our senses are reasonably reliable. I think that's answered. Not believing there is an objective reality is not remotely equivalent to not presupposing anything about a divine creator/being/teapot/whatever you like.
However, this might suggest that our senses aren't reliable at all, they just project a useful model to enable us to survive:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1APOxsp1VFw
![[Image: bloodyheretic.png]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=img849.imageshack.us%2Fimg849%2F8673%2Fbloodyheretic.png)
"Great spirits have often encountered violent opposition from weak minds."
Einstein
When I was 5 years old, my mother always told me that happiness was the key to life. When I went to school, they asked me what I wanted to be when I grew up. I wrote down happy. They told me I didn't understand the assignment. I told them they didn't understand life.
- John Lennon
