Posts: 12232
Threads: 324
Joined: April 14, 2011
Reputation:
140
RE: AW yes.... Gods love
May 31, 2011 at 9:37 am
(May 31, 2011 at 8:43 am)Timothy Wrote: There are a number of complexities involved because it is a big "worldview" question, and so there are fundamentals within the question itself ("Why should we believe that the Bible is true?") having to do with truth, knowledge and rational obligations (responsible belief) which the Bible itself actually addresses. This means there are issues for both parties (those who trust the Bible and those who don't) with respect to how these things are defined and ontologically grounded which, without reflection, can lead to circular reasoning.
So you do understand how many if not all christian arguments use circular reasoning? What is it exactly we should be reflecting on to see that it is not circular reasoning?
I'm not trying to be smart I genuinely would like to hear what you have to say on this.
Posts: 37
Threads: 1
Joined: May 22, 2011
Reputation:
3
RE: AW yes.... Gods love
May 31, 2011 at 1:03 pm
(This post was last modified: May 31, 2011 at 1:04 pm by Timothy.)
(May 31, 2011 at 9:37 am)Napoleon666 Wrote: So you do understand how many if not all christian arguments use circular reasoning? What is it exactly we should be reflecting on to see that it is not circular reasoning?
I'm not trying to be smart I genuinely would like to hear what you have to say on this. I've already said that those who say "I believe the Bible because the Bible says I should believe the Bible" (whoever they are - I've not been unfortunate enough to have met any Christians who have not realised the circularity of this) are using circular reasoning. What I was saying in the previous post is that people on both sides of the debate often use circular reasoning, but not of the type Zen Badger referred to. In particular, people apply particular epistemological standards which may or may not be consistent with what the Bible itself says about epistemology. Take for example someone who is a local skeptic with respect to metaphysics (the view that it is not possible to have knowledge about metaphysics). Metaphysical skepticism is inconsistent with the Bible (which, for example, teaches that God reveals knowledge about Himself (e.g. Psalm 19), and so to apply metaphysical skepticism in order to argue that the Bible should not be trusted is applying circular reasoning.
Posts: 13051
Threads: 66
Joined: February 7, 2011
Reputation:
92
RE: AW yes.... Gods love
May 31, 2011 at 3:35 pm
(May 31, 2011 at 1:03 pm)Timothy Wrote: Metaphysical skepticism is inconsistent with the Bible (which, for example, teaches that God reveals knowledge about Himself (e.g. Psalm 19), and so to apply metaphysical skepticism in order to argue that the Bible should not be trusted is applying circular reasoning. So what you are saying is that a certain type of reasoning cannot be used to interpret the bible, because it is inconsistent with the bible? Please explain to me how this is not circular.
Even if the open windows of science at first make us shiver after the cozy indoor warmth of traditional humanizing myths, in the end the fresh air brings vigor, and the great spaces have a splendor of their own - Bertrand Russell
Posts: 37
Threads: 1
Joined: May 22, 2011
Reputation:
3
RE: AW yes.... Gods love
May 31, 2011 at 6:44 pm
(May 31, 2011 at 3:35 pm)FaithNoMore Wrote: So what you are saying is that a certain type of reasoning cannot be used to interpret the bible, because it is inconsistent with the bible? Please explain to me how this is not circular. No, I am saying that certain epistemological claims are inconsistent with the Bible. I am not using "skepticism" in the loose sense of "having a questioning attitude" but as the claim that "no knowledge (in a certain field) is possible". E.g. see here. Metaphysical skepticism is just one example of the kind of claims that one can't assume a priori when discussing the trustworthiness of the Bible.
Posts: 13051
Threads: 66
Joined: February 7, 2011
Reputation:
92
RE: AW yes.... Gods love
May 31, 2011 at 6:50 pm
(May 31, 2011 at 6:44 pm)Timothy Wrote: (May 31, 2011 at 3:35 pm)FaithNoMore Wrote: So what you are saying is that a certain type of reasoning cannot be used to interpret the bible, because it is inconsistent with the bible? Please explain to me how this is not circular. No, I am saying that certain epistemological claims are inconsistent with the Bible. I am not using "skepticism" in the loose sense of "having a questioning attitude" but as the claim that "no knowledge (in a certain field) is possible". E.g. see here. Metaphysical skepticism is just one example of the kind of claims that one can't assume a priori when discussing the trustworthiness of the Bible. Regardless of how you're defining skepticism, your argument is that it is not a worthy way to interpret the bible because the bible says otherwise. That is circular.
Even if the open windows of science at first make us shiver after the cozy indoor warmth of traditional humanizing myths, in the end the fresh air brings vigor, and the great spaces have a splendor of their own - Bertrand Russell
Posts: 37
Threads: 1
Joined: May 22, 2011
Reputation:
3
RE: AW yes.... Gods love
May 31, 2011 at 7:01 pm
(May 31, 2011 at 6:50 pm)FaithNoMore Wrote: Regardless of how you're defining skepticism, your argument is that it is not a worthy way to interpret the bible because the bible says otherwise. That is circular. The question isn't about interpreting the Bible, but examining its trustworthiness. Take for example the claims that the Bible makes about metaphysics, and someone who holds to metaphysical skepticism. It would be circular for that person to apply their belief that metaphysical skepticism is true to say "We cannot trust the claims the Bible makes about metaphysics, because metaphysical skepticism is true." That's because it assumes the falsity of the Biblical view that metaphysical knowledge is possible. It's just a simple example of the kind of circular reasoning that can occur. It also applies equally to the person wishing to defend the Bible, who might assume an Biblical epistemological principle in order to defend the Bible.
Posts: 13051
Threads: 66
Joined: February 7, 2011
Reputation:
92
RE: AW yes.... Gods love
May 31, 2011 at 8:02 pm
(May 31, 2011 at 7:01 pm)Timothy Wrote: The question isn't about interpreting the Bible, but examining its trustworthiness. Now you're splitting hairs. To examine the bible's trustworthiness is to interpret it.
Timothy Wrote:Take for example the claims that the Bible makes about metaphysics, and someone who holds to metaphysical skepticism. It would be circular for that person to apply their belief that metaphysical skepticism is true to say "We cannot trust the claims the Bible makes about metaphysics, because metaphysical skepticism is true." If one believes in metaphysical skepticism why should they set that aside to interpret the bible? Anyone who subscribes to such philosophy can interpret the validity of the bible based on their views of the metaphysical. To say otherwise is to determine only your metaphysical view is the correct way to interpret the bible. This is besides the point, however, as this was your original claim...
Quote: Metaphysical skepticism is inconsistent with the Bible (which, for example, teaches that God reveals knowledge about Himself (e.g. Psalm 19), and so to apply metaphysical skepticism in order to argue that the Bible should not be trusted is applying circular reasoning.
You are saying, possibly inadvertently, that you cannot apply metaphsycial skepticism to the bible because the bible says God reveals knowledge of himself. This is interpreting the bible by assuming what the bible says is true.
Timothy Wrote:That's because it assumes the falsity of the Biblical view that metaphysical knowledge is possible. It's just a simple example of the kind of circular reasoning that can occur. It also applies equally to the person wishing to defend the Bible, who might assume an Biblical epistemological principle in order to defend the Bible. Assumptions have to be made to interpret the bible. Just because the assumptions are inconsistent with what the bible says, is in no way circular. When interpreting the bible, it is not circular to assume metaphyscial knowledge is possible based upon your own experiences but to assume metaphysical knowledge is possible, simply because the bible says so is circular.
Even if the open windows of science at first make us shiver after the cozy indoor warmth of traditional humanizing myths, in the end the fresh air brings vigor, and the great spaces have a splendor of their own - Bertrand Russell
Posts: 72
Threads: 0
Joined: May 9, 2011
Reputation:
1
RE: AW yes.... Gods love
June 1, 2011 at 11:07 am
"The LORD gave and the LORD has taken away. Blessed be the name of the LORD!" -Job 1:21
Posts: 12232
Threads: 324
Joined: April 14, 2011
Reputation:
140
RE: AW yes.... Gods love
June 2, 2011 at 11:28 am
(June 1, 2011 at 11:07 am)Emanuel Wrote: "The LORD gave and the LORD has taken away. Blessed be the name of the LORD!" -Job 1:21
Rather than posting bable verses why don't you try to contribute properly to the discussion?
Posts: 69248
Threads: 3759
Joined: August 2, 2009
Reputation:
259
RE: AW yes.... Gods love
June 2, 2011 at 11:53 am
Quote:What I was saying in the previous post is that people on both sides of the debate often use circular reasoning,
When biblical claims about specific events and/or places are examined they are almost invariably determined to be false. There is nothing circular about that. The bible is a dead end.
For example: "joshua" is supposed to have obliterated the town of Ai during his alleged "conquest" which most nutjobs place in the Late Bronze Age. However, excavation at Ai has shown that the city was abandoned c 2100 BC and not re-settled until the Iron Age. Since the people who wrote this shit down were living well after the Iron Age began they did not know that Ai did not exist. Same goes for Jericho. As archaeologist, Bill Dever quipped "the real miracle of joshua is that he destroyed a city which wasn't even there!"
|
