Circularity of belief systems

[bunny]

Arising from another thread, though it has come up from time to time.

I claim that any basis of a belief system must be circular. Most atheists have adopted as an axiom something like:

The best way to form true beliefs is to only adopt those which can be rationally defended with reference to all the available evidence.

You will not be able to demonstrate that this axiom is true, since to do so would involve relying on rational argument and would be question-begging. However, I think the atheist can just shrug and say this axiom is self-evidently true (like all good axioms /images/graemlins/tongue.gif). Theists can likewise not defend an axiom like "The bible is the word of God" and it becomes a contest between axioms - which should be accepted by the skeptic?

I think atheists often try and claim they have no assumptions and that this is what distinguishes the two positions. I think it is more helpful to ask "Which axiom is better?" and I dont think any atheist is going to feel particularly threatened by this.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
Arising from another thread, though it has come up from time to time.

I claim that any basis of a belief system must be circular. Most atheists have adopted as an axiom something like:

The best way to form true beliefs is to only adopt those which can be rationally defended with reference to all the available evidence.

You will not be able to demonstrate that this axiom is true, since to do so would involve relying on rational argument and would be question-begging. However, I think the atheist can just shrug and say this axiom is self-evidently true (like all good axioms /images/graemlins/tongue.gif). Theists can likewise not defend an axiom like "The bible is the word of God" and it becomes a contest between axioms - which should be accepted by the skeptic?

I think atheists often try and claim they have no assumptions and that this is what distinguishes the two positions. I think it is more helpful to ask "Which axiom is better?" and I dont think any atheist is going to feel particularly threatened by this.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. It is impossible to rationally defend this axiom....but there is no alternative. Every action you take in life is depending on you accepting the aforementioned axiom. There is just no other way. This is basically the only axiom that I have and it makes me EXTREMELY uncomfortable. But I just can't see any other way.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Arising from another thread, though it has come up from time to time.

I claim that any basis of a belief system must be circular. Most atheists have adopted as an axiom something like:

The best way to form true beliefs is to only adopt those which can be rationally defended with reference to all the available evidence.

You will not be able to demonstrate that this axiom is true, since to do so would involve relying on rational argument and would be question-begging. However, I think the atheist can just shrug and say this axiom is self-evidently true (like all good axioms /images/graemlins/tongue.gif). Theists can likewise not defend an axiom like "The bible is the word of God" and it becomes a contest between axioms - which should be accepted by the skeptic?

I think atheists often try and claim they have no assumptions and that this is what distinguishes the two positions. I think it is more helpful to ask "Which axiom is better?" and I dont think any atheist is going to feel particularly threatened by this.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. It is impossible to rationally defend this axiom....but there is no alternative. Every action you take in life is depending on you accepting the aforementioned axiom. There is just no other way. This is basically the only axiom that I have and it makes me EXTREMELY uncomfortable. But I just can't see any other way.

[/ QUOTE ]
There are alternatives though - it seems to me that this is the source of disagreement between most theists and most atheists. I think atheists who say christians are silly for believing in god because it says so in the bible on the grounds that that is circular are hurting their own cause. The theist can say "your beliefs are circular too" and that's that. I think a better strategy for the atheist is to say "My axiom is more self-evidently true than yours, so we should adopt mine". I think this is a better argument (not that it will make much difference in the theist v atheist debate) when presented to a skeptic.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
There are alternatives though - it seems to me that this is the source of disagreement between most theists and most atheists. I think atheists who say christians are silly for believing in god because it says so in the bible on the grounds that that is circular are hurting their own cause. The theist can say "your beliefs are circular too" and that's that. I think a better strategy for the atheist is to say "My axiom is more self-evidently true than yours, so we should adopt mine". I think this is a better argument (not that it will make much difference in the theist v atheist debate) when presented to a skeptic.

[/ QUOTE ]

'Circular' doesn't quite capture it, although it can be framed that way.
It's more a matter of premises. What is the minimum amount of premises a person can work from?
1) there is a 'me'.
2) there is an external reality.
3) there is cause and effect.
4) I have free will.

Those probably capture the bulk of what most would require as a minimum to work from. I doubt any of those can be proven but it doesn't matter that much if they are true or not because it seems to work out even accepting them on an 'as if' basis.

It's bad enough we have to have that many premises and the disagreement between theists and atheists is over the addition of extra premises for no reason ( reason is essentially built in #3). In various ways atheists are saying "you just can't pull premises out of your azz just because it makes you feel good and claim they are 'true'" or that leaves us with #2 being meaningless and reality is what we want it to be.

Personally, I'm not tied to any of the 4 and make no thrVth claims about them, and I know people that discard a couple of them. I don't take them as self-evident just functionally minimal assumptions. I kept with short descriptions so don't be too literal with them.

luckyme

[DougShrapnel]

Bunny why don't you believe that theists don't also except "The best way to form true beliefs is to only adopt those which can be rationally defended with reference to all the available evidence." or some form of it that includes a strong wieght on personally available "evideince".

I don't think you have discovered 2 positions that are the difference between atheists and theists. But 1 position that most atheists and theists agree on. And 1 position that they differ on based on the 1st position.

[bunny]

This interpretation works too. My point is that atheists often try to make an argument that theists assume things and atheists dont (and it's often labelled circular). The circularity isnt the issue it's the obviousness of the axiom (or, in your terminology, the superfluous axioms a theist tacks on to the minimum required).

In passing, it seems you have also assumed that minimal sets of axioms is a good thing, that doesnt follow from any of the 4 you listed (although I dont dispute that it is a good thing).

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
Bunny why don't you believe that theists don't also except "The best way to form true beliefs is to only adopt those which can be rationally defended with reference to all the available evidence." or some form of it that includes a strong wieght on personally available "evideince".

[/ QUOTE ]
I do think some theists (though not all) adopt the stated axiom. The point of this post is to answer the atheist claim that theism is circular and therefore bad. My claim is that any basis for belief is circular - if theism is bad, it's not because of circularity.

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think you have discovered 2 positions that are the difference between atheists and theists. But 1 position that most atheists and theists agree on. And 1 position that they differ on based on the 1st position.

[/ QUOTE ]
I was not trying to point out differences between the two positions. I was suggesting that atheists should not claim the two are different in nature, merely in what should be accepted as axiomatic.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
In passing, it seems you have also assumed that minimal sets of axioms is a good thing, that doesnt follow from any of the 4 you listed (although I dont dispute that it is a good thing).

[/ QUOTE ]

They make reliable predictions. Whether that is good or not is probably part of the debate at some level, and in some overall sense such a situation could be bad and it wouldn't change anything.

luckyme

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Bunny why don't you believe that theists don't also except "The best way to form true beliefs is to only adopt those which can be rationally defended with reference to all the available evidence." or some form of it that includes a strong wieght on personally available "evideince".

[/ QUOTE ]
I do think some theists (though not all) adopt the stated axiom. The point of this post is to answer the atheist claim that theism is circular and therefore bad. My claim is that any basis for belief is circular - if theism is bad, it's not because of circularity.

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think you have discovered 2 positions that are the difference between atheists and theists. But 1 position that most atheists and theists agree on. And 1 position that they differ on based on the 1st position.

[/ QUOTE ]
I was not trying to point out differences between the two positions. I was suggesting that atheists should not claim the two are different in nature, merely in what should be accepted as axiomatic.

[/ QUOTE ] Can you give me any reason why I should accept that I was just lucky enough to be born into a family that believed in the xtain god, for me to accept The Bible is the word of God BECAUSE the bible says it is the word of God. You aren't seriously trying to defend "The bible is the word of god because the bible says the bible is the word of God?"
No one is saying the 1st statement is true becuase it makes it self true. People assume it to be true. If you instead say the bible is the word of god because I assume it to be then we can discuss if that assumtion is justified. But I don't think you can sidestep the circularity regarding the bible just because some assumptions that one uses to exist in the world can be used to justify itself, when really it's the results, and predictions that are usefull, when one assumes the first position. Position 1 is an ansumption. Position 2 is circular.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
My claim is that any basis for belief is circular -

[/ QUOTE ]

You'll note that since we work from a minimal list of premises there is no need or way to claim trVth ( how could one?) or no place for belief ( in an absolute sense). Any further premises added could ever be 'believed' since the base premises can only on an 'as if' assignment as it is.

luckyme

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There are alternatives though - it seems to me that this is the source of disagreement between most theists and most atheists. I think atheists who say christians are silly for believing in god because it says so in the bible on the grounds that that is circular are hurting their own cause. The theist can say "your beliefs are circular too" and that's that. I think a better strategy for the atheist is to say "My axiom is more self-evidently true than yours, so we should adopt mine". I think this is a better argument (not that it will make much difference in the theist v atheist debate) when presented to a skeptic.

[/ QUOTE ]

'Circular' doesn't quite capture it, although it can be framed that way.
It's more a matter of premises. What is the minimum amount of premises a person can work from?
1) there is a 'me'.
2) there is an external reality.
3) there is cause and effect.
4) I have free will.

Those probably capture the bulk of what most would require as a minimum to work from. I doubt any of those can be proven but it doesn't matter that much if they are true or not because it seems to work out even accepting them on an 'as if' basis.

It's bad enough we have to have that many premises and the disagreement between theists and atheists is over the addition of extra premises for no reason ( reason is essentially built in #3). In various ways atheists are saying "you just can't pull premises out of your azz just because it makes you feel good and claim they are 'true'" or that leaves us with #2 being meaningless and reality is what we want it to be.

Personally, I'm not tied to any of the 4 and make no thrVth claims about them, and I know people that discard a couple of them. I don't take them as self-evident just functionally minimal assumptions. I kept with short descriptions so don't be too literal with them.

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly. Those are the bare minimum that are required in order to function or interact with the world in any way. I don't LIKE them, and I am more than willing to consider alternatives to some, but those are my basic axioms. And they are entirely sufficient. That isn't to say you can't add in whatever extra axioms you want, but if you are going to add in things which are unprovable, why add in any more than necessary? I wish there were 0, but I see no way to eliminate more than 1 or 2 of these. If we add 1 more, why not add a thousand more?

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
This interpretation works too. My point is that atheists often try to make an argument that theists assume things and atheists dont (and it's often labelled circular). The circularity isnt the issue it's the obviousness of the axiom (or, in your terminology, the superfluous axioms a theist tacks on to the minimum required).

In passing, it seems you have also assumed that minimal sets of axioms is a good thing, that doesnt follow from any of the 4 you listed (although I dont dispute that it is a good thing).

[/ QUOTE ]

Minimal is preferable only because the alternative is infinite. If 6 are good, and 7 is just fine, why not a million? It is simply practically preferable to have as few as we can get by with.

[Taraz]

I think this is a great thread.

Bunny, you make a good point that it is not self-evident that the minimum amount of axioms is a good thing. I just can't see any argument why more axioms is a good thing. Of course, I guess I'm assuming reason is a good thing . . .

[John21]

[ QUOTE ]
I think atheists often try and claim they have no assumptions and that this is what distinguishes the two positions. I think it is more helpful to ask "Which axiom is better?"

[/ QUOTE ]

Well I certainly get caught up in this all the time, just in my own mind, let alone talking with others. Doesn't it seem like if we ask, "is there a God?" or "is there a Flying Spaghetti Monster?" we're presupposing the possible existence of either and essentially begging the question?

I haven't found a way to avoid this problem, but what I do, is ask myself why I'm even asking the question in the first place. Is it hearsay, as in the case with the God question, or direct sensory perception like, "did an apple fall from the tree?" If it's a hearsay question I figure I need to come up with enough positive evidence to go beyond merely the possibility of something existing - because that possibility was created by asking the question in the first place. With the sensory question I can use either positive or negative evidence to reach a conclusion.

So I'd say the axiom based on sensory perception is the "better" overall choice, and the ensuing statement even though circular, if it was based on sensory perception would also be "better".

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

So I'd say the axiom based on sensory perception is the "better" overall choice, and the ensuing statement even though circular, if it was based on sensory perception would also be "better".


[/ QUOTE ]

You appear to be arguing for an empirical epistemology. In order to do so you have to assume your senses are reliable. This assumption lands you in circularity. Not to mention the problem of "knowledge" that isn't sense based, such as math, logic and anything dealing with norms (ethics, for instance).

As to "better", that opens a whole new can of worms.

[arahant]

[ QUOTE ]
This interpretation works too. My point is that atheists often try to make an argument that theists assume things and atheists dont (and it's often labelled circular). The circularity isnt the issue it's the obviousness of the axiom (or, in your terminology, the superfluous axioms a theist tacks on to the minimum required).

In passing, it seems you have also assumed that minimal sets of axioms is a good thing, that doesnt follow from any of the 4 you listed (although I dont dispute that it is a good thing).

[/ QUOTE ]

The real problem here is that theists ABSOLUTELY accept this axiom in every other area of their lives. Every one. No theist will seriously argue that the best way to come up with a belief about the force of gravity is to ignore the experimental evidence. Theists only ignore this axiom when it comes to god. They reject circular reasoning for other gods, too. If I create a book that says I am god, and try and argue that the existence of the book is proof enough, you would just laugh.

The question is, what is special about the bible that makes it ok to add in an additional axiom of 'the bible is true'.

[madnak]

There's a difference between acknowledging your axioms and being circular.

A Christian who say he believes that the Bible is the word of God (as an axiom) is much different from a Christian who believe in the Bible because God says so, and believes in God because the Bible says so.

Proposition B can rest on a fundamental proposition A. But proposition B can't rest on proposition A if proposition A is itself contingent on proposition B!

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
Minimal is preferable only because the alternative is infinite. If 6 are good, and 7 is just fine, why not a million? It is simply practically preferable to have as few as we can get by with.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, it's simple and efficient, which can arguably be established given only the "basic four." But all things being equal, it's also more accurate.

Assume there are n axioms, and all else is equal (including the probability that a given axiom is true - let's call it 80%). Now, a belief system based on n=3 has a 51.2% chance of being true, but a belief system based on n=10 has a ~10.73% chance of being true.

Of course, it gets more complex than that. Typically we'll have a strong core of basic beliefs, dependent on a minimal number of axioms, or arguably even multiple independent "cores" based on axiom "clusters," and then we'll use inductive leaps or new premises to add "wings" or modules to the core axiomatic structures and eventually have a dynamic system that includes thousands of axioms in some form. It's hardly ever black and white. And since we're just big wet brain-bags anyhow, who knows how reliable the structure is and whether we can verify that reliability in any consistent way?

[Skidoo]

[ QUOTE ]
You'll note that since we work from a minimal list of premises there is no need or way to claim trVth ( how could one?) or no place for belief ( in an absolute sense). Any further premises added could ever be 'believed' since the base premises can only on an 'as if' assignment as it is.

[/ QUOTE ]

You don't know if your list of premises is minimal, because you have no way of counting them all.

[madnak]

Warning: This is long and obscure.

I'd like to expand. Saying that we're biological machines is the result of a number of inductive chains that appear likely to be valid according to most educated people (but then, even that likelihood and the existence of "educated people" depend heavily on axioms). It's impossible to consider the validity of my reasoning process without accepting the axioms that allow me to consider validity in the first place - and those axioms depend on my reasoning process. At heart, there could always be an "error in the system" that is throwing everything off. That's part of what it is to be human. We're balanced very delicately on top of nothing at all.

But if I indulge myself and accept that there are other people communicating with me, and that I accurately experience their communications as English words on a Two Plus Two Forum (whether the English language or the 2p2 forum actually exist isn't necessarily relevant), if I indulge myself in that and assume some level of communication, then it becomes acceptable to conclude that I share certain assumptions with other posters.

I may not be able to determine exactly which axioms I share with these other entities. To some degree it's almost arbitrary in a universal sense, but based on my own framework I can have certain expectations. I can expect, first and foremost, that these other entities experience a world similar to mine, so similar that our worlds appear to be continuous. In fact, we're both aware of certain features of our respective worlds, all of which are consistent, and it might almost be inferred that we live in the same world.

Certainly I can expect, based on experience as well as various other rational supports, that if I were to go to a place I identify as Washington, DC I might discover a series of impressions that I can interpret based on my conception of physical reality, and that series of impressions might include certain individual impressions that would represent, within that conception, a human being. I might further extend my classification within my personal empirical framework and observe that the situational and behavioral attributes of this "human being" qualify it as a male medical student who claims to be the entity "vhawk" from this site. Assuming a meeting was planned, and vhawk and I had both created communicative structures sufficient to instill in me an expectation that we would be "meeting" in the "real, physical world" (don't ask, that stuff relies on way too many inherent assumptions), and if this appearance-of-a-medical-student is consistent with the information I have from the vhawk entity, then I might make the bold inductive assertion that the appearance of the medical student is actually a representation of the very vhawk entity represented alternatively on the forums!

All that is clearly based on many assumptions and even more propositions derived from those assumptions. Thankfully, vhawk agrees with the whole damn thing so all we need to do on meeting is say "hi."

I can expect to share 99% of my assumptions with the others on this forum, to such a degree that I don't need to walk through the maze, I can represent my forum experience as "other people from different places have created usernames to talk over the Internet, and we're doing that in a science, math, and philosophy forum." The level of kinship is so great I might even be able to compress it down to the terse "We argue on a message board."

Many other propositions also go without saying, like "Boston's on the East Coast of the USA," or "the Wii is a recently-released console" or "most people aren't mass murderers" or "gasoline is flammable." It goes on and on. And while we're here, to avoid rhetoric like the stuff in the earlier paragraphs, we try to work within shared contexts of understanding, complete with shared assumptions.

If two people have different basic axioms, and that is the source of their disagreement, then there is no way for either of them to accomplish anything in a logical debate. Thus both parties must enter the discussion under the umbrella of shared axioms. Some degree of "axiom probing" may be necessarily as a preliminary exercise, but a debate is essentially a question of "do the axioms a, b, and c imply the conclusion d?" And this is where we have a problem.

There are a few claims made by the theists here.

One is that they have a fundamental axiomatic belief in God, and they therefore can't discuss the subject of their own personal beliefs in logical terms. They can still "play" by assuming for the sake of argument or asking what the implications might be given a certain basic assumption, but they don't claim to be able to justify their belief in any way according to axiomatic principles accepted by the atheists. That seems to be your position, bunny.

Then some theists claim that atheism is not a valid conclusion based on the axioms of the atheists themselves. In this case they try to establish, using the axioms that the atheists accept, that atheism isn't justified. And there are those who claim that based on their own more basic axioms, the existence and validity and authority of the Christian God can be inferred. The authentic debaters represent these groups or variations on these themes - none of these groups are mutually exclusive, by the way, specific partisanism may or may not be involved here. I can argue that, given Atheist Bill's assumptions, atheism is unjustified. I can argue that, given Theist Jim's assumptions, Christianity is justified. But I'm considered an atheist because, according to my own assumptions, I think atheism is justified and Christianity is not. So personal belief gets involved in strange ways. But there's a lot of room for discussion with these types of approaches.

Finally there are those theists who claim that the atheists must accept the theist axioms, and attempt to use logic to support the idea that their axioms should be accepted. Simultaneously, they emphasize the fact tha these axioms are fundamental.

It's these theists who (in my opinion) make up the majority, and who are very circular. You can't "justify" a basic axiom, certainly not through another axiom (such as the validity of logic). And even when such theists try to suggest that their pet God axiom is secondary to (but necessarily implied by) the axiom of cause and effect or basic logic, they tend to get themselves into highly circular systems (in which logic is conveniently dissociated from their justifications, despite being the ostensible basis for them). This kind of thing can be justifiably called circular, and it's all hogwash that wastes the time and energy of those who'd like to have meaningful discussions rather than bang their heads against brick walls.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You'll note that since we work from a minimal list of premises there is no need or way to claim trVth ( how could one?) or no place for belief ( in an absolute sense). Any further premises added could ever be 'believed' since the base premises can only on an 'as if' assignment as it is.

[/ QUOTE ]

You don't know if your list of premises is minimal, because you have no way of counting them all.

[/ QUOTE ]

The point is that, in order to indicate that a belief in God is an efficient premise, you should be able to establish that a belief in God can reduce the necessary number of basic premises. By default, adding a premise is inefficient, therefore each new premise should have some justification.

[John21]

[ QUOTE ]
A Christian who say he believes that the Bible is the word of God (as an axiom) is much different from a Christian who believe in the Bible because God says so, and believes in God because the Bible says so.

[/ QUOTE ]

That brings up a very interesting point. The whole foundation of the faith in God thing, is that it's possible to have "direct," albeit subjective, knowledge of God's existence.

So if I said I believe the Bible is true and because of that used it to justify my belief in God, my knowledge of God would then be indirect or secondary, going against the basic tenet of faith.

Then on the flip-side, if I said I believe in God and because of that I believe the Bible is true, then my knowledge of the Bible as the word of God would be secondary.

I'm trying to think of a way to make the acceptance of the second statement exclude the acceptance of the first to build the foundation of an argument against the literalists. I say this because if you accepted the second statement, it would be a strong case for concluding that "knowing" the Bible is the "truth" as a Christian theologian uses the terms, would be an impossibility. But it could still leave the door open for someone to say they believe the Bible is the word of God - unless accepting the second statement would rule that option out. Could you make the case?

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
Warning: This is long and obscure.

I'd like to expand. Saying that we're biological machines is the result of a number of inductive chains that appear likely to be valid according to most educated people (but then, even that likelihood and the existence of "educated people" depend heavily on axioms). It's impossible to consider the validity of my reasoning process without accepting the axioms that allow me to consider validity in the first place - and those axioms depend on my reasoning process. At heart, there could always be an "error in the system" that is throwing everything off. That's part of what it is to be human. We're balanced very delicately on top of nothing at all.

But if I indulge myself and accept that there are other people communicating with me, and that I accurately experience their communications as English words on a Two Plus Two Forum (whether the English language or the 2p2 forum actually exist isn't necessarily relevant), if I indulge myself in that and assume some level of communication, then it becomes acceptable to conclude that I share certain assumptions with other posters.

I may not be able to determine exactly which axioms I share with these other entities. To some degree it's almost arbitrary in a universal sense, but based on my own framework I can have certain expectations. I can expect, first and foremost, that these other entities experience a world similar to mine, so similar that our worlds appear to be continuous. In fact, we're both aware of certain features of our respective worlds, all of which are consistent, and it might almost be inferred that we live in the same world.

Certainly I can expect, based on experience as well as various other rational supports, that if I were to go to a place I identify as Washington, DC I might discover a series of impressions that I can interpret based on my conception of physical reality, and that series of impressions might include certain individual impressions that would represent, within that conception, a human being. I might further extend my classification within my personal empirical framework and observe that the situational and behavioral attributes of this "human being" qualify it as a male medical student who claims to be the entity "vhawk" from this site. Assuming a meeting was planned, and vhawk and I had both created communicative structures sufficient to instill in me an expectation that we would be "meeting" in the "real, physical world" (don't ask, that stuff relies on way too many inherent assumptions), and if this appearance-of-a-medical-student is consistent with the information I have from the vhawk entity, then I might make the bold inductive assertion that the appearance of the medical student is actually a representation of the very vhawk entity represented alternatively on the forums!

All that is clearly based on many assumptions and even more propositions derived from those assumptions. Thankfully, vhawk agrees with the whole damn thing so all we need to do on meeting is say "hi."

I can expect to share 99% of my assumptions with the others on this forum, to such a degree that I don't need to walk through the maze, I can represent my forum experience as "other people from different places have created usernames to talk over the Internet, and we're doing that in a science, math, and philosophy forum." The level of kinship is so great I might even be able to compress it down to the terse "We argue on a message board."

Many other propositions also go without saying, like "Boston's on the East Coast of the USA," or "the Wii is a recently-released console" or "most people aren't mass murderers" or "gasoline is flammable." It goes on and on. And while we're here, to avoid rhetoric like the stuff in the earlier paragraphs, we try to work within shared contexts of understanding, complete with shared assumptions.

If two people have different basic axioms, and that is the source of their disagreement, then there is no way for either of them to accomplish anything in a logical debate. Thus both parties must enter the discussion under the umbrella of shared axioms. Some degree of "axiom probing" may be necessarily as a preliminary exercise, but a debate is essentially a question of "do the axioms a, b, and c imply the conclusion d?" And this is where we have a problem.

There are a few claims made by the theists here.

One is that they have a fundamental axiomatic belief in God, and they therefore can't discuss the subject of their own personal beliefs in logical terms. They can still "play" by assuming for the sake of argument or asking what the implications might be given a certain basic assumption, but they don't claim to be able to justify their belief in any way according to axiomatic principles accepted by the atheists. That seems to be your position, bunny.

Then some theists claim that atheism is not a valid conclusion based on the axioms of the atheists themselves. In this case they try to establish, using the axioms that the atheists accept, that atheism isn't justified. And there are those who claim that based on their own more basic axioms, the existence and validity and authority of the Christian God can be inferred. The authentic debaters represent these groups or variations on these themes - none of these groups are mutually exclusive, by the way, specific partisanism may or may not be involved here. I can argue that, given Atheist Bill's assumptions, atheism is unjustified. I can argue that, given Theist Jim's assumptions, Christianity is justified. But I'm considered an atheist because, according to my own assumptions, I think atheism is justified and Christianity is not. So personal belief gets involved in strange ways. But there's a lot of room for discussion with these types of approaches.

Finally there are those theists who claim that the atheists must accept the theist axioms, and attempt to use logic to support the idea that their axioms should be accepted. Simultaneously, they emphasize the fact tha these axioms are fundamental.

It's these theists who (in my opinion) make up the majority, and who are very circular. You can't "justify" a basic axiom, certainly not through another axiom (such as the validity of logic). And even when such theists try to suggest that their pet God axiom is secondary to (but necessarily implied by) the axiom of cause and effect or basic logic, they tend to get themselves into highly circular systems (in which logic is conveniently dissociated from their justifications, despite being the ostensible basis for them). This kind of thing can be justifiably called circular, and it's all hogwash that wastes the time and energy of those who'd like to have meaningful discussions rather than bang their heads against brick walls.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you just asked me if I wanted to get a beer? /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
Can you give me any reason why I should accept that I was just lucky enough to be born into a family that believed in the xtain god, for me to accept The Bible is the word of God BECAUSE the bible says it is the word of God. You aren't seriously trying to defend "The bible is the word of god because the bible says the bible is the word of God?"

[/ QUOTE ]
No, I think that's a silly argument but not because it's circular. I think it's silly because it is an axiom which is not self-evidently true - that makes it a poor axiom.

[ QUOTE ]
No one is saying the 1st statement is true becuase it makes it self true. People assume it to be true. If you instead say the bible is the word of god because I assume it to be then we can discuss if that assumtion is justified. But I don't think you can sidestep the circularity regarding the bible just because some assumptions that one uses to exist in the world can be used to justify itself, when really it's the results, and predictions that are usefull, when one assumes the first position. Position 1 is an ansumption. Position 2 is circular.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not sidestepping the issue - the theist uses circular reasoning to justify their beliefs. My point is that atheists are better off not pointing that out, since they do too. The difference between the two positions is not circularity, it's the assumptions.

I think we agree on this issue, I am just not explaining myself very well. :/

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
You'll note that since we work from a minimal list of premises there is no need or way to claim trVth ( how could one?) or no place for belief ( in an absolute sense). Any further premises added could ever be 'believed' since the base premises can only on an 'as if' assignment as it is.

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]
I dont see this - if my minimal assumptions lead me to draw conclusions which correspond with the real world then I am believing something which is true, no?

The issue of how do we know which beliefs are true and which false is different. I cant see why your take on the world precludes the idea of beliefs or claiming truth... /images/graemlins/confused.gif

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]

I think we agree on this issue, I am just not explaining myself very well. :/

[/ QUOTE ] In that case. Until next thread. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
The real problem here is that theists ABSOLUTELY accept this axiom in every other area of their lives. Every one. No theist will seriously argue that the best way to come up with a belief about the force of gravity is to ignore the experimental evidence. Theists only ignore this axiom when it comes to god. They reject circular reasoning for other gods, too. If I create a book that says I am god, and try and argue that the existence of the book is proof enough, you would just laugh.

The question is, what is special about the bible that makes it ok to add in an additional axiom of 'the bible is true'.

[/ QUOTE ]
I agree completely - my point is that phrasing the argument the way you have is much more powerful (in a "more likely to persuade undecided people" sense of powerful) than "The Christian position is circular".

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
There are a few claims made by the theists here.

One is that they have a fundamental axiomatic belief in God, and they therefore can't discuss the subject of their own personal beliefs in logical terms. They can still "play" by assuming for the sake of argument or asking what the implications might be given a certain basic assumption, but they don't claim to be able to justify their belief in any way according to axiomatic principles accepted by the atheists. That seems to be your position, bunny.

[/ QUOTE ]
It was - and I remain convinced this is a defensible position. As a matter of fact though I no longer consider myself a theist.

[kurto]

Hi, Bunny.

It is true that there have to be premises that we accept as true. Though I would argue that most premises start with things that are readily observable by all, reproducable, testable, etc. From those things that most everyone can accept as truths we build upon.

To say that the Bible is the world of God because the Bible says it is the word of God does not fit any of the above. It is rathar arbitrary and only accepted as truth because the believers WANT it to be true. There is no rational reason to accept that as a reasonable premise.

[madnak]

We're finally getting through to ya? /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
I think you just asked me if I wanted to get a beer? /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Unfortunately the DC thing was very hypothetical. Maybe we could set up a gathering at some point, though. We're both pretty close to Atlantic City, right?

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think you just asked me if I wanted to get a beer? /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Unfortunately the DC thing was very hypothetical. Maybe we could set up a gathering at some point, though. We're both pretty close to Atlantic City, right?

[/ QUOTE ]

EXCELLENT idea. My spring break is in the middle of March.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
Hi, Bunny.

It is true that there have to be premises that we accept as true. Though I would argue that most premises start with things that are readily observable by all, reproducable, testable, etc. From those things that most everyone can accept as truths we build upon.

[/ QUOTE ]
Not the fundamental axiom I listed above - you cant even test that scientifically without already accepting it. It's just obviously true.

[ QUOTE ]
To say that the Bible is the world of God because the Bible says it is the word of God does not fit any of the above. It is rathar arbitrary and only accepted as truth because the believers WANT it to be true. There is no rational reason to accept that as a reasonable premise.

[/ QUOTE ]
I agree - the point I was making was that it is not the circularity which distinguishes the two positions. It is the nature of the axiom. One is truly self-evident (as arahant pointed out, theists accept the rationality axiom). The other is, as you say, very arbitrary. A skeptic should be persuaded by that fact - alleging circularity is not helpful to the atheist as that is not the distinguishing feature of the two positions.

[madnak]

Mine's at the end of April, but due to registration troubles I'll probably have plenty of time.

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
As a matter of fact though I no longer consider myself a theist.

[/ QUOTE ] Actually I'm slightly disappointed to hear this, and I mean that in the best possible way of course. Not disappointed in you, but I did have some high hopes for rational xtains being around. There are a couple that I can think of off the top of my head here, but it's good to have more.

Any chance to get a thread on reasons why the change in self description?

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

One is truly self-evident


[/ QUOTE ]

A Christian might state that God is more self-evident than the validity of reason.

[ QUOTE ]

The other is, as you say, very arbitrary.


[/ QUOTE ]

Can you distinguish that from "It's irrational?".

[Skidoo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You'll note that since we work from a minimal list of premises there is no need or way to claim trVth ( how could one?) or no place for belief ( in an absolute sense). Any further premises added could ever be 'believed' since the base premises can only on an 'as if' assignment as it is.

[/ QUOTE ]

You don't know if your list of premises is minimal, because you have no way of counting them all.

[/ QUOTE ]

The point is that, in order to indicate that a belief in God is an efficient premise, you should be able to establish that a belief in God can reduce the necessary number of basic premises. By default, adding a premise is inefficient, therefore each new premise should have some justification.

[/ QUOTE ]

On what justification do you add a first premise when all you have at that point are unjustified premises?

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

One is truly self-evident


[/ QUOTE ]

A Christian might state that God is more self-evident than the validity of reason.

[ QUOTE ]

The other is, as you say, very arbitrary.


[/ QUOTE ]

Can you distinguish that from "It's irrational?".

[/ QUOTE ]

They might state it, but I think the evidence is against them.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

One is truly self-evident


[/ QUOTE ]

A Christian might state that God is more self-evident than the validity of reason.

[/ QUOTE ]
I meant truly self-evident in that both camps accept it without much argument (although they may indeed quibble over which premise is "supreme").

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

The other is, as you say, very arbitrary.


[/ QUOTE ]

Can you distinguish that from "It's irrational?".

[/ QUOTE ]
I dont think irrational applies to your choice of axioms. I think rationality is adhering to what follows logically. Here, it would be begging the question (ie relying on the rationality axiom)even to say that you will only accept axioms which are logically consistent.

I think it is arbitrary in the sense that, at first glance, there are many books claiming to be the divine authority and to accept one without justification (as an axiom) is an arbitrary choice. Of course, if all but 1 are shown to be inconsistent (as you have claimed or at least suggested previously) then that 1 should be accepted, but now it is not arbitrary - it is dependant on the rationality axiom.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
Any chance to get a thread on reasons why the change in self description?

[/ QUOTE ]
It would be a very short thread - I no longer believe that the experiences I have had are contact with God. The other, mundane explanations seem better to me. That means I lose the evidence I had for theism.

It may perhaps be more accurate to say I dont believe in God at the moment, as things are a bit confused for me atm - I reserve the right to go back to bible thumping at some future date. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

I meant truly self-evident in that both camps accept it without much argument (although they may indeed quibble over which premise is "supreme").


[/ QUOTE ]

But it isn't a quibble. We accept human reason as a valid instrument but subject to Scripture as our ultimate presupposition. That relationship is self-evident to us because Scripture is self-evident and draws the relationship. An empiricist will surely accept the validity of human reason but subjugate it to his ultimate principle of empiricism. And a rationalist may accept much of Scripture as being wise but it must be subject to his reason.

[ QUOTE ]

there are many books claiming to be the divine authority and to accept one without justification (as an axiom) is an arbitrary choice


[/ QUOTE ]

But it isn't arbitrary because God reveals Himself in His word. We respond to His voice. The sheep hear Him.

[ QUOTE ]

Of course, if all but 1 are shown to be inconsistent (as you have claimed or at least suggested previously) then that 1 should be accepted, but now it is not arbitrary - it is dependant on the rationality axiom.


[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly - you pick rationalism as supreme and Scripture is only to be accepted if it meets the demands of human reason. But isn't that an arbitrary choice?

I should add that when I state that Christianity is internally consistent I don't mean it can be shown as such to fallen human reason. I mean that God is Absolute Reason and all apparent contradictions are resolved in Him - and that is one of the presuppositions contained in Scripture - very circular.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I meant truly self-evident in that both camps accept it without much argument (although they may indeed quibble over which premise is "supreme").


[/ QUOTE ]

But it isn't a quibble. We accept human reason as a valid instrument but subject to Scripture as our ultimate presupposition. That relationship is self-evident to us because Scripture is self-evident and draws the relationship. An empiricist will surely accept the validity of human reason but subjugate it to his ultimate principle of empiricism. And a rationalist may accept much of Scripture as being wise but it must be subject to his reason.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not sure that we are disagreeing here - perhaps quibble was too light? It's clearly fundamental, but what I was meaning was that the rationality axiom is not controversial. Everyone (well theologians and rational atheists anyhow) accepts it. That is all I meant by truly self-evident (of course I also take it as supreme, but that personal preference is irrelevant to the point).

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

there are many books claiming to be the divine authority and to accept one without justification (as an axiom) is an arbitrary choice


[/ QUOTE ]

But it isn't arbitrary because God reveals Himself in His word. We respond to His voice. The sheep hear Him.

[/ QUOTE ]
Well, I would say you are justifying your belief here. I was asking you to put yourself in the shoes of a skeptic viewing the two axioms for the first time (with no prior opinions). To him it will be arbitrary - at the very least, he'll have to read it first or have it read to him before he can hear the Word.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Of course, if all but 1 are shown to be inconsistent (as you have claimed or at least suggested previously) then that 1 should be accepted, but now it is not arbitrary - it is dependant on the rationality axiom.


[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly - you pick rationalism as supreme and Scripture is only to be accepted if it meets the demands of human reason. But isn't that an arbitrary choice?

[/ QUOTE ]
The supremacy of either axiom doesnt enter into it for the rationalist atheist(if I am understanding the terms correctly) since he rejects the bible axiom anyhow. A rationalist theist is making an arbitrary choice, yes.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

of course I also take it as supreme, but that personal preference is irrelevant to the point


[/ QUOTE ]

I think it is the point. Oh well.

[ QUOTE ]

I was asking you to put yourself in the shoes of a skeptic viewing the two axioms for the first time (with no prior opinions).


[/ QUOTE ]

Such a skeptic doesn't exist. Because ..

[ QUOTE ]

To him it will be arbitrary


[/ QUOTE ]

Arbitrary on what basis?

[ QUOTE ]

The supremacy of either axiom doesnt enter into it for the rationalist atheist(if I am understanding the terms correctly) since he rejects the bible axiom anyhow.


[/ QUOTE ]

You lost me here.

[ QUOTE ]

A rationalist theist is making an arbitrary choice, yes.


[/ QUOTE ]

Back to the point of beginning.

[bunny]

We seem to have drifted into incomprehension. I am surprised you have any disagreement with my point in this thread namely:

Some atheists make the claim that theism is silly because it is circular.
It is impossible to have a basis for knowledge which is not circular.
Atheists and theists all adopt a variety of axioms. Both usually include a respect for rationality, although the importance/degree/supremacy of such differs.
Atheists should focus on what the axioms actually are in attempting to persuade someone of their position, rather than saying "theism is circular - be an atheist".

Perhaps I gave the wrong impression by labelling "the rationality axiom" as truly self-evident and "the bible axiom" as arbitrary. Allow me to backtrack and call the first uncontroversial in itself, the second disputed. Does any of this mean anything? I didnt think I was saying anything you would dispute (except by alluding to my personal positions which are secondary to the above).

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
So I'd say the axiom based on sensory perception is the "better" overall choice, and the ensuing statement even though circular, if it was based on sensory perception would also be "better".

[/ QUOTE ]

The premise that there is an external reality does not mean that our sensory perception is a relational guide to it. In fact, we know how unreliable sensory perception is when it comes to the external reality. Things that appear identical can be shown to be very different. Perception can occur without any relation to the experience.
Illusion, delusion, hallucination abound.

luckyme

[John21]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So I'd say the axiom based on sensory perception is the "better" overall choice, and the ensuing statement even though circular, if it was based on sensory perception would also be "better".

[/ QUOTE ]

The premise that there is an external reality does not mean that our sensory perception is a relational guide to it. In fact, we know how unreliable sensory perception is when it comes to the external reality. Things that appear identical can be shown to be very different. Perception can occur without any relation to the experience.
Illusion, delusion, hallucination abound.

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with you and with what NotReady said in regards to the reliability of perceptions. But I think in the context of bunny's post with the question, "Which axiom is better?" Less overall conflict would arise if the respective parties axioms are based on perception versus say belief. I just feel there would be far less disagreement if we're discussing what colors are used in a painting versus discussing what message and/or meaning the painting was trying to convey.

So better in the way communication, but not necessarily truth.

[Piers]

[ QUOTE ]
You will not be able to demonstrate that this axiom is true

[/ QUOTE ]

True is not the issue. Usefulness or practicality is what’s important.

[ QUOTE ]
The best way to form true beliefs is to only adopt those which can be rationally defended with reference to all the available evidence.

The bible is the word of God

[/ QUOTE ]

Which ‘axiom’ is more useful when determining the solution of some random practical problem? Would dropping the second one improve or reduce your chances.

True truth is beyond us, but we still have to keep on doing things.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Some atheists make the claim that theism is silly because it is circular. It is impossible to have a basis for knowledge which is not circular.


[/ QUOTE ]

I appreciate the fact that you are the only SMPer I can think of besides DS (I think) that gets this.

What I was confronting you on is what is beyond the circularity. I never thought that you were a theist as you always placed reason above Scripture. Maybe you don't see this clearly because your position is self-evident to you and committment to Scripture as absolute must seem arbitrary. But I think this is the heart of the difficulty. It isn't trivial that you choose human reason over Scripture. It's that kind of choice that produced the all the suffering in history.

[arahant]

[ QUOTE ]
It isn't trivial that you choose human reason over Scripture. It's that kind of choice that produced the all the suffering in history.

[/ QUOTE ]
Umm. Wow.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
What I was confronting you on is what is beyond the circularity. I never thought that you were a theist as you always placed reason above Scripture.

[/ QUOTE ]
I dont think this is problematic given the usual definition of theist (believing in an omnipotent, benevolent, omniscient god). Do you mean that you never thought I was a Christian? I could understand that (I was in two minds myself over whether I was a real christian anyway).

[ QUOTE ]
Maybe you don't see this clearly because your position is self-evident to you and committment to Scripture as absolute must seem arbitrary.

[/ QUOTE ]
This may indeed be the heart of it. The fact that the universe behaves logically and that logical rules "work" seems so obvious to me I have a hard time even discussing it without sinking into redundant, trivially true sentences.

Accepting scripture as true doesnt present itself to me as obvious. Furthermore, on the face of it, the Bible seems "the same" as other holy books purporting to teach something about the divine. On deeper examination, it is true I found the Bible the best, in my experience though axioms dont require this sort of examination - they present themselves as obviously true.

[ QUOTE ]
But I think this is the heart of the difficulty. It isn't trivial that you choose human reason over Scripture. It's that kind of choice that produced the all the suffering in history.

[/ QUOTE ]
I didnt mean to suggest I find the issue trivial - I meant that my personal choices were irrelevant to the point I was trying to make in this thread. Certainly, it's an issue I care about and one I want to get right.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You will not be able to demonstrate that this axiom is true

[/ QUOTE ]

True is not the issue. Usefulness or practicality is what’s important.

[ QUOTE ]
The best way to form true beliefs is to only adopt those which can be rationally defended with reference to all the available evidence.

The bible is the word of God

[/ QUOTE ]

Which ‘axiom’ is more useful when determining the solution of some random practical problem? Would dropping the second one improve or reduce your chances.

True truth is beyond us, but we still have to keep on doing things.

[/ QUOTE ]
I dont accept that truth is beyond us. I have a fairly mundane take on reality - I think there is a real world and statements we make/believe/debate are true if they happen to correspond with that world and false if they dont. Of course, I am never going to be 100% sure as to which are right and which are wrong - but I try to use a rational approach and believe on that basis (the more evidence, the more certainty)

With regard to practicality vs truth - personally, I would prefer a true but less useful axiom to a false but useful one.

[kurto]

[ QUOTE ]
It isn't trivial that you choose human reason over Scripture. It's that kind of choice that produced the all the suffering in history.

[/ QUOTE ]

Still trying to figure out what he's saying here.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It isn't trivial that you choose human reason over Scripture. It's that kind of choice that produced the all the suffering in history.

[/ QUOTE ]

Still trying to figure out what he's saying here.

[/ QUOTE ]
I expect it's that trying to make our own way and relying solely on human wisdom and ingenuity (or even just giving them pre-eminence) is never going to work. We need God in order to achieve salvation, without him there is no choice but suffering.

[kurto]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It isn't trivial that you choose human reason over Scripture. It's that kind of choice that produced the all the suffering in history.

[/ QUOTE ]

Still trying to figure out what he's saying here.

[/ QUOTE ]
I expect it's that trying to make our own way and relying solely on human wisdom and ingenuity (or even just giving them pre-eminence) is never going to work. We need God in order to achieve salvation, without him there is no choice but suffering.

[/ QUOTE ]

If so... a little explanation is in order. I don't know how to say this: there is no reason that 'reason' would lead to suffering. On the other hand, he certainly must be aware that religion has certainly been a driving force in much of human suffering. So for him to just drop a whammy like that unsupported is only going to make people's jaws drop. (it lacks credibility) Its the kind of statement that only makes sense to one of Faith who just accepts that its true because of what they already believe.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

I don't know how to say this: there is no reason that 'reason' would lead to suffering.


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't say that. My point is that making human reason the ultimate judge of right and wrong, truth and falsehood, is what led to all human suffering. Eve rejected the word of God preferring to believe the serpent's statement that she wouldn't die and that she would become like God. This rebellion and choice of man's reason over God's word is the source of all evil since.

To plug my recommendation for the book club, Milton begins PL with

OF Mans First Disobedience, and the Fruit
Of that Forbidden Tree, whose mortal tast
Brought Death into the World, and all our woe,

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Do you mean that you never thought I was a Christian? I could understand that (I was in two minds myself over whether I was a real christian anyway).


[/ QUOTE ]

I never could decide whether you truly believed or not - as I've stated to DS interminably I can't decide that about anyone. But I didn't think you were a Christian theist in the traditional sense because you have a low view of Scripture and depart from what I consider settled doctrine on some issues - again, not making a judgment about your standing before God but your doctrinal stance.

[ QUOTE ]

Accepting scripture as true doesnt present itself to me as obvious.


[/ QUOTE ]

It isn't obvious to anyone generally. We are fallen and there are noetic effects of sin which clould our vision. The Bible says we "ought" to see the truth and acknowledge God, but we don't because we are blind. The sun isn't obvious to one born blind. To the Christian the Bible becomes "obviously" the word of God because his eyes have been opened.

[ QUOTE ]

Furthermore, on the face of it, the Bible seems "the same" as other holy books purporting to teach something about the divine.


[/ QUOTE ]

I think it's very easy to show vast, profound differences between the Bible and other religious writings. Just the wealth of historical detail and accuracy sets it apart.

[kbfc]

A few of my favorite things:

two (http://philosophypages.com/ph/hume.htm) plus two (http://buymybookbuymybook.ytmnd.com/)

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
I didn't think you were a Christian theist in the traditional sense because you have a low view of Scripture and depart from what I consider settled doctrine on some issues - again, not making a judgment about your standing before God but your doctrinal stance.

[/ QUOTE ]
Understood, although I would quibble with "low", I certainly gave it less weight than personal revelation and rationality.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Accepting scripture as true doesnt present itself to me as obvious.


[/ QUOTE ]

It isn't obvious to anyone generally. We are fallen and there are noetic effects of sin which clould our vision. The Bible says we "ought" to see the truth and acknowledge God, but we don't because we are blind. The sun isn't obvious to one born blind. To the Christian the Bible becomes "obviously" the word of God because his eyes have been opened.

[/ QUOTE ]
The point I am making here is that this is what led me to label the bible axiom "arbitrary". Good axioms are obviously true (although I accept that it may be necessary to add a non-obvious axiom from time to time).

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Furthermore, on the face of it, the Bible seems "the same" as other holy books purporting to teach something about the divine.


[/ QUOTE ]

I think it's very easy to show vast, profound differences between the Bible and other religious writings. Just the wealth of historical detail and accuracy sets it apart.

[/ QUOTE ]
I also find the bible best on reflection - my claim was that they make the same, or similar, statements as to divine authorship and being "the one true way". Thus, they seem the same "at first glance" (on the face of it).

[kurto]

[ QUOTE ]

I don't say that. My point is that making human reason the ultimate judge of right and wrong, truth and falsehood, is what led to all human suffering. Eve rejected the word of God preferring to believe the serpent's statement that she wouldn't die and that she would become like God. ....

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm sorry. I thought you meant literally. I didn't realize your proof was the story of Adam and Eve.

You realize that, as far as I can tell, most non fundamentalists believe that this story is a metaphorical fable and, in reality, reason has not led to most of human suffering.

I'm pretty sure if you and I took a trip through history and looked at the largest sufferings cause by man... religion is linked behind it.