Christian apologetics insurance plan...

[Seraph]

Faith and learning from the Word of God are extremely important, but I feel that they should also be reconciled with logic and reason because it gives reassurance to both me and non-Christians that I'm not being suckered into a belief system that goes against a good deal of observable evidence.

Whose logic and reason? Man's? Good luck with that.

So you want a faith that the world won't make fun of you for having? That's not biblical.
Just what observable evidence conflicts with faith? All evidence is nuetral. Evidence doens't speak for itself. It has to be interpreted. So, what lens are you going to view this evidence through? Based on your post, it sounds like the worlds. Sounds like when the rubber hits the road, you are going to place your faith in the world. That my friend is not wise. I wouldn't worry so much of your future faith position. I'd worry about your current faith position. Because it doesn't sound like a biblical one, based on your own words.

There is no logic or reason apart from the Word of God. None.

I don't think I would be able to go against reason.

This statement is self-defeating. There is no reason apart from the truth of God.

I think God wants to trust Him, but also to be intellectually honest with ourselves. That's why He gave us a mind that thrives on knowledge.

And what is knowledge? Proverbs 1:7
What is its source? Col 2:3
You do need to start being intellectually honest with yourself. He gave you a mind all right. What a terrible thing to even hint at using reason and logic to deny the one who created the very thing.

It is for the very reason that I am intellectually honest with myself that I can see that your method is a very flawed way of determining truth. Sorry but this entire way of thinking is rooted in circular logic. In your mind, you don't need to do any reasoning because you already presuppose that it's true. But that doesn't make it true.

And no, I don't just want a faith that the world makes fun for me having, I'm not that spineless. I want my Christian faith to be strengthened by sources other than the original source (as well as the original source), not so that I can conform with the world, but so that I myself can believe it with less skepticism. Where do you get the idea that reason is worthless? Sure, people may not have infinite knowledge, but we are able to percieve to some degree the truth around us. If someone tells me that God says that 2+2=5, I'm probably going to put two and two together. Through reason and observation, I can put up two fingers on each hand, then count them to see that it's four. Likewise, if the Bible said 2+2=5 (which it doesn't, but if it did) I would probably have to question it a little bit rather than say that it's true simply becuase all knowledge comes from God, and I know based on nothing that this came from God. In that case, something that supposedly came from God would be in direct opposition to something I know for a fact. I believe that this is a biblically sound position to have (1 Thessalonians 5:21), and you telling me it's not doesn't make it not.

Evidence is not all neutral. Some ambigous evidence is, but not all. You use evidence to determine small truths in your everyday life all the time. A person who didn't would probably a somewhat bewildered person.

[jlay]

It is for the very reason that I am intellectually honest with myself that I can see that your method is a very flawed way of determining truth. Sorry but this entire way of thinking is rooted in circular logic. In your mind, you don't need to do any reasoning because you already presuppose that it's true. But that doesn't make it true.

Where did I say you don't need any reasoning. Please either show where I said this? You can't, because I didn't. 2ndly, we don't determine truth. We discover truth.

Of course I presuppose the bible is true. I am a Christian. You are right, presupposing doesn't make it true. It is true whether you or I presuppose it to be true or false. We don't DETERMINE the truth. The atheist presupposes it is false. And thus rejects it. Which BTW, is circular. So, why in the world would a believer abandon belief in the bible, or deny its authority in an attempt to then prove it is true?? If you want to convince me that this is a 'reasonable' approach have at it. That sounds like the opposite of reason too me. Because isn't that essentially what you are saying? That the bible is not reliable as an authoritative standard for the believer to view the world from? But, if that is the case, then your faith in it isn't reliable or reasonable either. You are saying, your MIND is the authority. And that the best way for your mind to work, is to discard a biblical standard. If you do not presuppose the bible is true, what is the alternative exactly? No wonder so many atheists chuckle at so many apologists.

I mean it is really a silly argument. How can one rightly be a 'beleiver' and then state that the best way to contend for the faith is to set aside the very thing we claim to 'believe' in?

Whether you know it or not, circular reasoning can be valid. It can follow a deductive and valid pattern. That is a fact of logic. Everyone uses circular reasoning when it comes to their ultimate standard. Just as everyone has presuppositions. You have the presupposition that you can't stand on the bible to defend the bible. I believe you must. Just as one can stand on a hill and defend the same hill. Everyone stands on their ultimate standard. So, in this regard everyone is circular. Including folks like you who attempt to accuse fellow Christians of being at fault for trusting the ultimate standard.
You wouldn't pre-suppose that memory, thought, and logic aren't reliable to study something. If you had a memory of going to the fair, you wouldn't abandon your memory of going to the fair to convince someone you went. You presuppose your memory is reliable. And you would think it most unreasonable that you must set asside your memory to make your case. If that were the case, we wouldn't even allow eye-witness testimony in courts.

I want my Christian faith to be strengthened by sources other than the original source (as well as the original source), not so that I can conform with the world, but so that I myself can believe it with less skepticism.

Don't we all. That is not at issue here. I get excited about evidence that supports my faith. But I don't want to ring my hands and hyperventilate everytime the 'science' community makes some claim. No more than do I want to rest my faith on evidentialism. And we have seen too many examples on this board of this very thing in recent months.

Evidence is not all neutral. Some ambigous evidence is, but not all. You use evidence to determine small truths in your everyday life all the time.

You are committing the fallacy of reification. Yes, evidence is neutral. You said it yourself. We USE evidence. No one just holds up evidence and says, 'see,' if speaks for itself. Well, actually they do, but they are in error. They explain why the evidence fits. This is why two people can look at the same evidence and come to two different conclusions. This is exampled in things like the OJ Simpson case, the Rodney King video beatings.

I believe that this is a biblically sound position to have (1 Thessalonians 5:21), and you telling me it's not doesn't make it not.

Wait a minute. Aren't you presupposing that this is a sound position. That is circular.
A valid one, I might add.
But if I were to critique, you have made an error. You've taken something out of context. The context speaks to something specifically that is to be tested. Prophecies.

We are to examine everything carefully. And how would that be? What would be the careful way to do it? This very verse presupposes that there is a proper lens to examine everything through.

You use evidence to determine small truths in your everyday life all the time.

Through the lens of my worldview, and presuppositons, I examine evidence to discover truths in my everyday life. Anyone who says otherwise is not being intellectually honest.

And thus what you utimately are forced to say, is that your mind, not the scriptures is the basis of your belief. Kind of like a scale. Your belief is fine as long as the evidence (interpreted non-biblically mind you) tilts the scales and satisifies the wisdom of men. Which the bible says is foolishness by the way. 1 Cor. chapters 1 and 2.
And so we end up with post like we've seen. Essentially, "I want my beliefs to be compliant to secular world views. And if they aren't, then they must be false." which of course is circular, because it assumes the secular world view is the authority.

[Seraph]

I got the idea that you are opposed to applying reasoning to beliefs because your entire post seems to be an attack on the idea. You are lumping "question" and "examine" with "reject". When critical thinking, you can question something you believe in without rejecting it. I think most here would agree with that. I question things that I already believe all the time without rejecting them. Just because you believe something is true does not mean you shouldn't think about its validity anymore. I examine the bible with a skeptical (though not cynical) eye, even though I believe it is true. I don't think there is anything wrong with that. Thomas originally showed skepticism when told that Jesus had risen from the dead, and Jesus never rebuked him for this.

Here a good reason why you can't simply use the bible to prove that the bible is true: Because right now, the biggest thing it is under fire for from non-Christians is that it isn't actually the word of God because it contains content that is scientifically and historically inaccurate. In order to combat that idea, you need to use something else other than the bible (as well as the bible) if you want to actually have any luck persuading someone that this isn't the case.

My quote from Thessalonians to provide evidence that testing the bible is a good thing is not circular at all. My statement was that it is biblically sound to hold such a stance and as such, I provided a verse from the bible. That isn't circular, that is hard evidence. If someone asked me how I know that the bible doesn't contain any error and I pointed them to a verse that says the bible is inerrent and didn't provide any additional evidence, that would be circular because that verse could be an error itself. Also, you say that Thessalonians is talking about testing the truth of prophecies. But how do you test the validity of prophecies? Most likely not through more prophecies, but through their impact on the present reality. Also known as evidence.

As for if circular reason can be valid, just because you might reach a conclusion that is true when using circular reasoning doesn't mean that it is a valid method. If it is true, you only got lucky, it isn't true for the reasons you say it is. When a statement is true, it is probably going to have some consequence that can be used to trace back to it. Or at the very least, it isn't going to have a consequence that if observed makes it seem that the original statement isn't true at all. People can interpret evidence in several ways, but reason can show which interpretation is most likely correct. Just becuase there exist multiple interpretations of an occurance doesn't mean they are all equally valid.

If one were to presuppose that memory is always reliable, they would be mistaken. People forget, exaggerate, and make stuff up all the time. However, trusting memory for the most part is not making a presupposition because there is plenty of evidence available that memory is a fairly reliable tool. When you remember that you left something somewhere, and you go to that place and find the thing you were looking for, that is evidence for future use that concept of memory can often be trusted. But if in court, the prosecution had no physical evidence on their side and had nothing but an eye-witness, the defendent probably has a pretty good chance of getting off free because the court themselves recognize that physical evidence is the best way to determine if the defendent is guilty and that listening to a single eye-witness is unreliable.

Lastly, I have a problem with the idea of intentionally seeing the world through a "lens" of our worldview. Yes we all have our lenses, but they cloud our judgement. Though it is impossible to do so completly, we should try as best as we can to see things through a lense of objectivity. This may involve reexamining some of the things we often take for granted as being true (though not necessarily rejecting. Many of the things we already believe to be true very well might be, like the bible).

[jlay]

As for if circular reason can be valid, just because you might reach a conclusion that is true when using circular reasoning doesn't mean that it is a valid method.

Circular reasoning, according to the experts in logic can be valid. That isn't merely my opinon. Let me add this edit. Please do not take my pointing out that circular reasoning can be valid, as a statement that I would use a circular argument in this manner. That simply isn't the case.

I appreciate what you are saying here. And I don't want you to misunderstand me.
Would it be a legitimate request if I asked you to not presuppose the validity of reason and logic when investigating something? I'm assuming that like most people, you would say no. That isn't fair. And I would agree. So, is anyone truly objective? No. You wouldn't abandon the methods of logic and reason to try and be objective. But where do logic and reason come from?

Regarding the Thess. verse. A proper exegisis will tell exactly what Paul was communicating. We are to test prophecies. What would be the logical way to test it?

Lastly, I have a problem with the idea of intentionally seeing the world through a "lens" of our worldview. Yes we all have our lenses, but they cloud our judgement.

The bible says, "Let this mind that is in Christ be in you." Are you saying that this would cloud your judgment?
You are assuming that you can see the world without a lens. But that just isn't true. In fact the claim itself is a presupposition. It is self defeating. The bible says you are completely incapable of finding God on your own terms.

We can't discover anything apart from the word of God. Even unbelievers use biblical truth to learn and reason. I think you are missing the fundemental issue I am raising. Answer this, what is the source of logic and reason? Why do they even exist?


You see this gets back to my opening challenge. “Whose logic and reason? Man's? Good luck with that.”
As a Christian we know that the source of reason and logic is not the mind of man, but the mind of God. And we can demonstrate that isn't the mind of man.

If we use correct reason and logic, then we are thinking the thoughts of God. Otherwise, you are presupposing that the world's reason and logic is superior to God's.
Yes, when we see things that confuse us in the scriptures, it doesn't mean we don't use logic or reason to investigate. My intitial challenge was as to who's logic will be held as the standard.

I see a great deal of inconsistency in your original post.

Faith and learning from the Word of God are extremely important, but I feel that they should also be reconciled with logic and reason because it gives reassurance to both me and non-Christians that I'm not being suckered into a belief system that goes against a good deal of observable evidence.

You see, you are insinuating that logic and reason are seperate from the Word of God. Yet without the Word of God, there is no objective logic and reason. And if logic and reason were subjective, then they wouldn't be an objective way to view evidence would they?

You are also crediting 'observable evidence' with a voice. That is why I asked you, what observable evidence contradicts the Christian worldview.

I hate to say it, but if it ever (hypothetically) got to a point where the evidence makes it look as though Christianity has no way of being true and that our percieved experiences with God were illusions (which I don't aticipate happening), I don't think I would be able to go against reason. In response to the opening question, if the unthinkable ever happened, I might have to go with "Become a Deist".

As pointed out in another thread, this is the fallacy of reification. Evidence does not MAKE anything. Evidence must be interpreted. And it is the lens through which you interpret the evidence that makes the difference. Again, what is the source of this reasoning you refer to? Let this mind that is in Christ be in you.
1 Corinthians 2:16