Circular reasoning?

[maxine]

Can't every (so-called) Christian, who tries to argue the truth of the Bible from historical facts or by endlessly quoting scriptures, be accused of 'Circular Reasoning'?

If god doesn't ' .... confirm with signs following ...', (Mark 16:20) then obviously they DON'T speak on his behalf, but merely (ab)use a mythical text to claim and ursurp authority over another person(s).

Any well programmed robot can search out and quote scriptural references, doesn't proof anything.

If it's not coupled with visible miraculous evidence from their god, it's not worth anyone's time ....

... I have found no evidence of documentable divine intervention in any of their posts on this forum (or anywhere else), doesn't that speak louder than their arguments? Aren't we wasting our time ...... giving them room, time and venue to vent and practice their debating skills?

No?

[exudus21]

On another site I accused a group of theists of circular reasoning when they used scripture to support scripture. There answer was..."because the bible is made up of thousands of texts from hundreds of writers it is not circular reasoning".

I thought this may be true if we were debating the internal consistency of the bible, but not so if we were debating the historical truth of the bible, in the second case you would think unrelated documents would be required.

I am not certain which  is right, but since the bible is supposed to be the revelation of, or the written word of god, would the multiple author thing not be mute? Or at least contradict some serious theological viepoints

[bosey926]

Can't every (so-called) Christian, who tries to argue the truth of the Bible from historical facts or by endlessly quoting scriptures, be accused of 'Circular Reasoning'?

If god doesn't ' .... confirm with signs following ...', (Mark 16:20) then obviously they DON'T speak on his behalf, but merely (ab)use a mythical text to claim and ursurp authority over another person(s).

Any well programmed robot can search out and quote scriptural references, doesn't proof anything.

If it's not coupled with visible miraculous evidence from their god, it's not worth anyone's time ....

... I have found no evidence of documented divine intervention in any of their posts on this forum (or anywhere else), doesn't that speak louder than their arguments? Aren't we wasting our time ...... giving them room, time and venue to vent and practice their debating skills?

No?

     Maxine I have said this same phrase many times in the forum, but to only realize...with the assistance of some of the senior members here...that "wasting our time" is one of the initial purposes (along with the obvious one...providing a place for atheists) of the forum.  If we can sit here and redundantly prove to theists that there are no omni-'fill-it-in' beings that are the origin of life or waiting for them after it...then we have been successful.  Even if it is on a small level, that is one less theistic, ignorant person out there.   
     On the other hand, if they choose to still conform for social or economic reasons, then it is no longer upon us to be stressed about it, on a personal level at least, because we have done all that we can do on this site.  They are no longer ignorant about religion, but willfully stupid. 

[ParkingPlaces]

I have a hard time calling that circular reasoning. Circular, yes. Reasoning? No.

Off the subject a bit, but I figure the only reason Guiness doesn't have a record for cherry picking is that every christian out there does it so well it's a tie.

[Ivellios]

I have a hard time calling that circular reasoning. Circular, yes. Reasoning? No.

Off the subject a bit, but I figure the only reason Guiness doesn't have a record for cherry picking is that every christian out there does it so well it's a tie.

I got a chuckle from this so I just had to give you a +1. 

[globalvalue]

Can't every (so-called) Christian, who tries to argue the truth of the Bible from historical facts or by endlessly quoting scriptures, be accused of 'Circular Reasoning'?

If god doesn't ' .... confirm with signs following ...', (Mark 16:20) then obviously they DON'T speak on his behalf, but merely (ab)use a mythical text to claim and ursurp authority over another person(s).

Any well programmed robot can search out and quote scriptural references, doesn't proof anything.

If it's not coupled with visible miraculous evidence from their god, it's not worth anyone's time ....

... I have found no evidence of documentable divine intervention in any of their posts on this forum (or anywhere else), doesn't that speak louder than their arguments? Aren't we wasting our time ...... giving them room, time and venue to vent and practice their debating skills?

No?

Jesus' Resume...WHAT DID HE DO?
What did Jesus ever do, that we can see, to improve the lives of mankind?

As a Prophet, what prophecies did Jesus ever make that have been fulfilled?

Jesus was a charismatic orator....he said some great sayings.....but what did he ever do?

IMO, all we have from Jesus are unfulfilled promises. We have nothing concrete that we can see. Did Jesus die for your sins? How can you tell if he did or not? How can you tell if you still have sins or not?

Jesus' Resume...WHAT DID HE DO? .........NOTHING!

[mram]

I like the approach of telling them god is a fucking asshole and to weak to smite me right here on the spot.. Then they say,, OH NO! He'll send you to hell forever and ever and ever and ever..
They do like to sing, "let the circle..be unbroken..." Maybe some honesty there perhaps anyway. 

[Joecamoe]

Maxine I love it.  Most Christians will run and hide when you ask them about Mark.



And you're right. By definition, proving a book by the book is circular reasoning. 

[Shadow]

As a Christian I completely agree with you Maxine.  The Bible cannot be used to prove the Bible.  It is completely circular reasoning, and I often get annoyed at those Christians who attempt to do so.

However, riddle me this, is not using science to prove science, by your very argument, also circular reasoning?  We come up with every 'fact' the same way, via the scientific method, created only a matter of centuries ago by Roger Bacon and Rene Descartes.  It also irks me when someone proves to me a 'fact' by another 'fact' found the exact same way.  We as humans have declared, quite arbitrarily according to George Chaussure, that the scientific method is the only way to come up with facts. But what if Roger Bacon had died in infancy and Rene Descartes had joined the military instead of becoming a philosopher?  We might have a method of attaining 'facts' that looks very different, and an understanding of science that is very different.

Now I am not trying to disprove all of science.  I am not a creationist either.

Food for thought.

[jetson]

Shadow,

It is not using science to prove science.  It is using the scientific method to understand something.  Can you see the difference?

[Shadow]

Fair enough.  But who appointed the scientific method end-all-be-all of science?  I like science, but I find it thinks inside the box.

[pianodwarf]

Fair enough.  But who appointed the scientific method end-all-be-all of science?  I like science, but I find it thinks inside the box.

Nobody did.  It's simply that the scientific method has stood the test of time and been shown for several centuries now to be the best way of understanding the world around us.

As far as "thinking inside the box" goes, well, that does kind of go hand-in-hand with skepticism (which is one of the foundations of the scientific method).  However, on those occasions when something unusual is discovered that doesn't fit in with what science has thus far theorized, science acknowledges that and re-examines the theory that now appears to be faulty.

This was the big, big deal with the creation of the scientific method.  With science, if your data shows that your theory is wrong, you change the theory.  Prior to the creation of the scientific method, if your data showed that your theory was wrong, you fudged the data.  How it took until the Renaissance for people to realize that this was an incredibly idiotic approach is completely beyond me.

[Azdgari]

Fair enough.  But who appointed the scientific method end-all-be-all of science?  I like science, but I find it thinks inside the box.

A system whose function is to eliminate wrong answers will always seem closed-minded to people who are emotionally attached to belief in those answers.

Are you such a person?

[jetson]

Fair enough.  But who appointed the scientific method end-all-be-all of science?  I like science, but I find it thinks inside the box.

The appointment was made by everyone involved, collectively agreeing that the scientific method is our current best way of understanding something.  And by those same people using the method to falsify or support each new discovery or fact that might contribute to a better answer.

In the end, the answers and understanding improves over time.  Can you think of a better way?

[Ambassador Pony]

Fair enough.  But who appointed the scientific method end-all-be-all of science?  I like science, but I find it thinks inside the box.

A system whose function is to eliminate wrong answers will always seem closed-minded to people who are emotionally attached to belief in those answers.

^ this.

[LadyLucy]

Now I am not trying to disprove all of science.  I am not a creationist either.

Based on this statement (and in addition to the rest of the "food for thought" post you posted), I thought all my life that all kids learn how the scientific method works. You know, creating a hypothesis. Experimentation. Trial and error. Multiple people conducting the same experiment, getting the same results. Achieving the creation of a scientific theory through the repetition of steps and the review of the hypothesis and the study/experiment as a whole so that it can be official and on the record for the whole world to see.

Science has kindly set mankind forward. There is no claim for things to be absolute-truth accurate.[1] It's science. It's always being altered. It would be dishonest to say everything can be found due to science. But, there are always great strides.

I would suggest to you that you go back to 5^th grade science teachings; going back to the simple roots for you to better understand, in all due honesty. Unless, you really are close-minded to the point where only your faith matters to the point that if there is nothing that correlates with your Christian faith specifically (if that's the religion you are), then you throw a hissy fit.

Not that you would if you really are not a Creationist. I recently read on a guy who said the same thing, but he exposed his true colors real nicely.

1.	Note this though: The reason why we stand firmly on our own two feet is due to gravity. There's no debating this.

[Shadow]

I apologize if I have offended you with my food for thought comment.  I am quite aware of what the scientific method is and its values.  What I was trying to say was that science could have evolved without the scientific method, and thus look very differently.  I hope we can at least agree on that?

[Azdgari]

Your suggestion is incoherent.

[Avatar Of Belial]

What I was trying to say was that science could have evolved without the scientific method, and thus look very differently.  I hope we can at least agree on that?

Not really. If it were something that worked we would end up with the same resulting information, and the evolution of the method itself would end up aligning with our current version eventually. At best, some fields would be a little further ahead or behind, but overall we'd still be right where we are now.

That's one of the advantages science has over religion. Science CONverges, where religion DIverges.

[velkyn]

I apologize if I have offended you with my food for thought comment.  I am quite aware of what the scientific method is and its values.  What I was trying to say was that science could have evolved without the scientific method, and thus look very differently.  I hope we can at least agree on that?

No.  What the heck do you think "science" is?

[Ivellios]

No.  What the heck do you think "science" is?

Well, according to the context he probably thinks 'this' is science.

I am the Shaman of my village. I have a very important task in my village. One day people asked me, "Why is the Sky blue?" "How does water/hail/snow stay up in the sky before it falls?" I was at a loss, I had no idea, but if I told people that... I would no longer be shaman, so I made up an answer. In order to buy time I stated I must consult the spirits. I then do all kinds of "experiments." I look at chicken bones, I look at stones, I look at the way leaves fall. I have no idea what I'm doing, but to my flock I'm doing my job and that job is to make up bull****. When the people start to get a little impatient, I finalize my 'story' as best I can then reveal what 'the Spirits/Gods' have revealed to me.

Above this Earth, is the realm where the 2 lights dwell, the sun and moon, above them is a dome, a firmament, above that dome is lots of water. There are holes that appear from time to time and the water leaks. That would just form 1 stream of water would it not? (the people nod) It's because of this solid canvas we call the 'sky.' The stream of water hits this and spreads out. Just like if you were to take a fabric and streach it out underwater then try to lift it up, the water pools on top of it, and starts to drip out. This is what the Spirits/Gods have revealed to me. Everyone is wowed, well almost everyone. As long as I fooled the chief and almost all the people, the one or two don't matter. I am a respected leader of the village and whenever I have the chief's ear, what I say goes. I have his ears now, so I say that anyone that doesn't believe is part of a revolt to remove Chief from his position and must die. Some people are shocked at this pronouncement. Ah, I don't want to slaughter everyone, what am I to do with new people challenging my authority? I stand before everyone and tell them,"If I was wrong and they were righteous, the Spirits/Gods would have protected them. The Spirits/Gods will not allow the unjust to triumph over the just." No more killing was necessary. There was only reluctant resignation. Thanks to the executions everyone forgot about the hail and snow.

It just takes a little bit of 'Faith'. Anything that says otherwise just has to be wrong. Surely the sun cannot be ~93 million miles away! God would have told us if it was! Water vapor? You've gotta be kidding me! Water is liquid and it's heavier than air since air is weightless! Scientific Method? A joke! The 'Faith Based Method[1]" has worked for thousands of years, no reason to do it any different!

He should visit "The Flat Earth Society." They believe Scientists are "Priests of the Devil" intentionally spreading stuff to intentionally conflict with the Bible so that everyone will go to hell. The FBM goes right inline with thier creedo.

1.	Wishful Thinking

[LadyLucy]

I apologize if I have offended you with my food for thought comment.  I am quite aware of what the scientific method is and its values.  What I was trying to say was that science could have evolved without the scientific method, and thus look very differently.  I hope we can at least agree on that?

I was not offended, so the apology was not needed. I wanted to inform and make a helpful suggestion.

Right now, I'm surprised you're not embarrassed by your post's content and completely disacknowledge that you really don't seem to understand how science works. I would answer velkyn in regards to what you think is the meaning of science and its content.

[Add Homonym]

I apologize if I have offended you with my food for thought comment.  I am quite aware of what the scientific method is and its values.  What I was trying to say was that science could have evolved without the scientific method, and thus look very differently.  I hope we can at least agree on that?

Scientific method has been around for a long time, but people haven't realised how rigorous their attitude had to be to make any headway. Science has been working for us in the form of recipes, on how to make steel, bronze, tin, weapons, herbs to heal, cooking & nutrition, concrete, bricks, structures, crop rotation, animal husbandry. Basically, the civilization with the best recipes and technology would do better, so it would be futile to try to use recipes that didn't work, or your civilization would fail.

Evolution is also very scientific. Anything which doesn't "work" gets chucked (by definition). Science merely mirrors the attitude of evolution, only being in the mind of man, it can take further and faster strides and dump old baggage completely. Science says "we will take what works and dump that which doesn't", pseudoscience says "we will keep what doesn't work and screw anything that we don't like, out of spite".

You would have to be a true moron to seek things which didn't work, and had no functional value. Your efforts would be rewarded by extinction.

Yet, you are asking us to agree that there is a different type of science out there, which could progress without paying attention to whether anything worked.

[Bagheera]

Fair enough.  But who appointed the scientific method end-all-be-all of science?  I like science, but I find it thinks inside the box.

Dude. Of course science thinks inside the box. Reality is the box.

[Bagheera]

I apologize if I have offended you with my food for thought comment.  I am quite aware of what the scientific method is and its values.  What I was trying to say was that science could have evolved without the scientific method, and thus look very differently.  I hope we can at least agree on that?

With all due respect. . . superstition is one example of what you get when you don't have a focused pursuit of the scientific method.

"I wore my red shirt. It rained. My red shirt causes rain. Okay, my red shirt didn't cause rain today, but I will refuse to look for any other reason that there are other causes for rain, because i wore my red shirt once, and it rained then."

[Mr. Blackwell]

"I wore my red shirt. It rained. My red shirt causes rain. Okay, my red shirt didn't cause rain today, but I will refuse to look for any other reason that there are other causes for rain, because i wore my red shirt once, and it rained then."

Or, as in sports, I wore this particular pair of underwear today and we one a very important game...I must wear this underwear for every single game after this and if I wash them the spell is broken!

[Mr. Blackwell]

Fair enough.  But who appointed the scientific method end-all-be-all of science?  I like science, but I find it thinks inside the box.

That's not food for thought.

THIS is food for THOUGHT!


Wild salmon is not only an incredible food for brain health, it qualifies as incredible across virtually every other health standard as well and is clearly one of the healthiest foods that one can eat. Period. As we've discussed in our BrainReady Blog feature on salmon, wild salmon (not farm-raised) in particular is a true brain food: one of the best sources of Essential Fatty Acids (such as the all-important Omega-3), a rich source of high-quality non-land animal protein, low saturated fat, generally among the lowest amounts of contaminants (such as mercury) among seafood, and other health properties -- wild salmon can help do everything from improve your brain matter, your mood, your synaptic connections, your arteries, reduce your risk of stroke and Dementia and Alzheimer's and much more.

[jaimehlers]

The scientific method is, as the name suggests, a method for determining whether a given hypothesis is accurate.  It is not, in and of itself, science.  It's more like...hmm, a checklist, perhaps.  Like how one takes a grocery list to the store and checks off items as they're picked up.  Once all the items are checked off the list, then one can be reasonably sure that they got all the groceries.  But nobody would say that the grocery list was actually part of the groceries.  It's not a perfect analogy, but I think it will suffice.

[12 Monkeys]

Wild salmon,thats why coastal indians are so smart.