Biblical circularity.

[Napoléon]

Lol I'm trying to think of what kind of evidence we could actually get to suggest god doesn't exist.... hmmm... maybe we'll find it etched out in a tree somewhere, the words "god doesn't exist!"...

I also notice you said 'our God'. What do you mean by that? That there are many gods? Why else would you try to differentiate by using the pronoun 'our'?

He mean's he part of the special fan club and we (everyone else) are all not special or worthy enough to dare challenge what he says, because ofcourse he's part of the special fan club.

[Epimethean]

Always love it when they out the fact that polytheism is alive and well. Didn't Yahweh have to kick all the other gods' asses to earn the right to throw down the Ten Commandments at Mosey and as a result lord it over a migrant people, explaining how it was their right to kill off other races and gods?

[Minimalist]

He mean's he part of the special fan club

I bet it comes with a secret handshake, a funny hat, a membership card and a decoder ring.

[BloodyHeretic]

[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.

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.

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

[Anomalocaris]

The meaning of "transcendent" as used in the context of divinity is simply this: "I am full of shit and I would use meaningless jargon to play interference for me when thoughtful people might be so audacious as to call me out for being full of shit"

[Napoléon]

He mean's he part of the special fan club

I bet it comes with a secret handshake, a funny hat, a membership card and a decoder ring.

You have to pay to get in I know that much

[downbeatplumb]

Hello, you told me to respond to this in this thread, so here I am.

Well scripture actually pre-supposes that it is the word of God. This may seem a bit odd at first but when you think about it, it makes good sense. Let’s just assume for the sake of the discussion that the Bible is what it claims to be, the inerrant word of God. Is there any other method that can be used to validate or invalidate this claim? All other methods, such as historical examination and scientific inquiry are not inerrant. So it would be inappropriate to use them to prove or disprove the Bible’s claim about inerrancy. I pre-suppose the Bible is the word of God, I believe non-believers pre-suppose it is not the word of God; there is no middle ground on this subject. So both sides are biased on this matter. Everyone makes pre-suppositions; I just think that presupposing scripture is the word of God offers a far better foundation for my other pre-suppositions. Can I prove it is or is not the word of God? Nope, but I also can’t prove that my senses are reliable, but I still believe they are. Does that make any sense at all my friend?

It makes sense in the 'I understand the words' kind of way, but in the rational world that sort of thing does not stand.

The bible makes extradinary claims but offers no evidence to support itself, A brief history of time makes extradinary claims but can back up the claims with facts.

If you pre-suppose Harry Potter is real you could waste hours running at walls in train stations.

[chatpilot]

Arguing that the bible is the word of God from the bible itself is like a salesman trying to sell you a hoover vacuum cleaner and giving you all the pros and no cons in order to earn his commission. I am sorry Statler but self promotion does not count as evidence of anything. The bible in my opinion does not stand up to thorough scrutiny at all, it is flawed in geology, astronomy, history, and a slew of other disciplines. A lot of the so called historical accounts of the bible, especially the OT are either seriously flawed or non existent outside of the scriptures. One example is that there is no evidence whatsoever that there was such a massive exodus from Egypt by the Hebrews as described in the bible.

[Ryft]

Are you not just shifting the focus of the question, though?

No, I left the focus of the question exactly as it was, then answered it directly. Review your question and then my answer, taking notice that the focus did not change.

You had asked, "Apart from presupposing it, is there any other reason to suppose the Bible inerrant?" And I answered yes, there is. Since inerrancy is a conclusion, not an axiom, we presuppose it only for the sake of argument. But sometimes inerrancy is itself the very question, in which case presupposing it would be viciously circular (arguing from inerrancy to conclude inerrancy). Take for example biological evolution. We presuppose the truth of evolution when examining evidence for an ancestor of some species, that is, we reason from evolution or assume it arguendo. However, evolution is not an a priori axiom but rather an a posteriori conclusion; thus when evolution is itself the very question we do not presuppose it, for that would be viciously circular. In that case we reason to evolution, rather than from it. The same applies in the case of inerrancy. As I said, there are cases where we reason from the inerrancy of Scripture—for example, when Christians presuppose it when interacting exegetically on some biblical doctrine—but we do not presuppose it when inerrancy itself is the very question, for that would be viciously circular. "In a situation where inerrancy is itself the question," I said, "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."

Why do you make a presupposition about "the transcendental truth of God and his self-revelation"?

Let us not open that Pandora's Box in this thread. It is not necessary to explain why that is our axiomatic starting point, when it is sufficient for answering your question to simply point out that it is. In other words, it is enough to indicate the axiomatic starting point, x, from which we reason to inerrancy, z.

(1) If x then y.

(2) If y then z.

(3) Therefore, if x then z.

Apart from the Bible, how do you know anything about the nature of God? You're basing your presupposition on your conclusion.

Incorrect, since the conclusion is inerrancy. Our presupposition, that the text is God's self-revelation and incapable of error, is not based on the conclusion, that the text does not err. That is in fact a complete inversion of what is being said here. It is the other way around; the conclusion is based on the presupposition. Given the nature of God, what he reveals is incapable of error ("If x then y"), and that which is incapable of error obviously does not err ("If y then z"). As such, given the nature of God, what he reveals does not err ("Therefore, if x then z").

There is no alternative to this, though [the assumption that the world our senses perceive is real].

Yes there is. One alternative is that the world is a computer-generated Matrix ("You think that's air you're breathing now?"). If this world is a computer-generated Matrix, then both natural selection and what your senses perceive are nothing more than the epiphenomena of the programming code; it seems real but actually is not. You reject this as an improbable alternative, of course, but on what basis? If on the basis that it conflicts with what is true given your world view, then that invalidly begs the question, as I pointed out. Moreover, there is also what your Dawkins lecture indicates with honesty, that your senses are reliable with regard to what is useful for our evolution, but not reliable with regard to truth and knowledge, thus drawing you back to the very issue Statler raised (knowledge).

P.S. Along with the audience I had a good laugh when Dawkins remarked, "I was reading Playboy because I myself had an article in it." Delightful innuendo.

Not believing there is an objective reality is not remotely equivalent to not presupposing anything about a divine creator ...

True. But there is, however, the thorny problem of accounting for and explaining objective reality consistent with your atheism (the problem being, of course, that you cannot do so). Of course you presuppose objective reality, along with pretty much everyone else, as do such things as reason, knowledge, and science (i.e., their intelligibility rests upon objective reality), but your atheism cannot account for it. In other words, you believe there is an objective reality but you have no valid justification for that belief consistent with your atheism.

[Epimethean]

"But there is, however, the thorny problem of accounting for and explaining objective reality consistent with your atheism (the problem being, of course, that you cannot do so). Of course you presuppose objective reality, along with pretty much everyone else, as do such things as reason, knowledge, and science (i.e., their intelligibility rests upon objective reality), but your atheism cannot account for it. In other words, you believe there is an objective reality but you have no valid justification for that belief consistent with your atheism."

There is no "thorny problem" there whatsoever. The abandonment of superstition is its own evidence that we are evolving away from a need for supernatural aetiology.