What about 'recovered religious'?

[Alex-db]

There seems to be a common theme that atheists haven't 'tried believing'.

So people who have been religious, but are now atheists, would be people who 'had a relationship with God/Jesus', genuinely believed they believed, and all other criteria that should suggest their continued believe would be self-evident.

What can we conclude from the fact that they questioned their belief system and then abandoned it, despite having had that clarifying deeper dialogue with God which I apparantly should expect if only I were to choose to believe?

What would be interesting questions to ask those converted to atheism, that would allow us to look into this further?

(An example; UK entertainer Derren Brown, who described himself as a happy-clappy evangelical Christian during university. He says examining the circular nature of his beliefs and reading the Bible as a historical document converted him to atheism. He provided one of the quotes in the cover of "The God Delusion", and I'd recommend downloading the show produced in America called "Messiah", for a look at circular belief systems.)

[Sephus]

satan has completely taken over your mind. that, or you never really believed. or, you actually still believe but you believe that you don't believe.

i tried to start this exact conversation with txag, but i lost the stomach for it soon after he pulled out the "i doubt that you ever truly believed" line.

[kurto]

[ QUOTE ]
There seems to be a common theme that atheists haven't 'tried believing'.


[/ QUOTE ]

We don't seem to have a lot of believers trying out "not beleiving." Or choosing to believe another religion. I guess they're not really checking out the alternatives.

[DrewDevil]

I was a very religious and devoted Christian until I was about 30 and my first marriage (to another very religious, devoted Christian) dissolved into a bitter trainwreck of a divorce. I had spent so much time and energy praying about "the one God would being me" that I was pretty disillusioned that He had sent me such a b!tch.

So I'm pretty much a skeptic/agnostic these days, though I probably still believe in God. I don't know. I just don't think He's really exerting much influence over what happens here.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

What can we conclude from the fact that they questioned their belief system and then abandoned it, despite having had that clarifying deeper dialogue with God which I apparantly should expect if only I were to choose to believe?


[/ QUOTE ]

Apostasy is hardly new. Israel throughout the OT was leaving God and pursuing idolatry. Even while Moses was on the mountain receiveing the 10 commandments the people were making the golden calf and worshipping it. Solomon, the wisest man during his time, fell into idolatry during the latter part of his life. In the NT many warnings are given about falling away. Paul says he examines himself daily and even hints about the possibility he might be found wanting. Peter assured Jesus he would never leave him and shortly thereafter denied Him three times. I think the reasons for unbelief are the same whether someone has never believed or has at some time professed belief.

[ QUOTE ]

He says examining the circular nature of his beliefs and reading the Bible as a historical document converted him to atheism


[/ QUOTE ]

I wonder if he has examined the circular nature of his current beliefs.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

What can we conclude from the fact that they questioned their belief system and then abandoned it, despite having had that clarifying deeper dialogue with God which I apparantly should expect if only I were to choose to believe?


[/ QUOTE ]

Apostasy is hardly new. Israel throughout the OT was leaving God and pursuing idolatry. Even while Moses was on the mountain receiveing the 10 commandments the people were making the golden calf and worshipping it. Solomon, the wisest man during his time, fell into idolatry during the latter part of his life. In the NT many warnings are given about falling away. Paul says he examines himself daily and even hints about the possibility he might be found wanting. Peter assured Jesus he would never leave him and shortly thereafter denied Him three times. I think the reasons for unbelief are the same whether someone has never believed or has at some time professed belief.

[ QUOTE ]

He says examining the circular nature of his beliefs and reading the Bible as a historical document converted him to atheism


[/ QUOTE ]

I wonder if he has examined the circular nature of his current beliefs.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not that it really matters to your point, and I think I agree with what you are really saying, but I think you are misusing 'circular' here. Or at least, your general position, in this and other threads, is misusing the idea of circularity. My core beliefs aren't circular. I don't use reason to figure out that I have reason. I don't use my free will to figure out I have free will. Its not circular, unless its ME who doesn't know what circular means.

[Prodigy54321]

[ QUOTE ]
I wonder if he has examined the circular nature of his current beliefs.


[/ QUOTE ]

what "current beliefs" do you know he holds?

of course what I am getting at is...atheism is not a belief, it is a lack thereof. (note that I know nothing about this guy's beliefs so he could be a "strong atheist" for all I know.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

I think you are misusing 'circular' here


[/ QUOTE ]

And

[ QUOTE ]

My core beliefs aren't circular.


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know the details of Brown's thinking. My only point is that all human reasoning involves circularity because of the finite nature of man. We have to have a fundamental presupposition regarding our worldview and epistemology. All our thinking is then based on this presupposition(s) and is itself circular because of that. If you reject theism only because it's circular you are saying there is no valid worldview possible, which is self-refuting. Humans are stuck with circularity about ultimate questions.

I'm not suprised to find this kind of philosophical ignorance associated with Dawkins. Par for the course.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I think you are misusing 'circular' here


[/ QUOTE ]

And

[ QUOTE ]

My core beliefs aren't circular.


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know the details of Brown's thinking. My only point is that all human reasoning involves circularity because of the finite nature of man. We have to have a fundamental presupposition regarding our worldview and epistemology. All our thinking is then based on this presupposition(s) and is itself circular because of that. If you reject theism only because it's circular you are saying there is no valid worldview possible, which is self-refuting. Humans are stuck with circularity about ultimate questions.

I'm not suprised to find this kind of philosophical ignorance associated with Dawkins. Par for the course.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are simply doing it again. We have to come down to some base, fundamental presupposition, that is NOT circular. Its only circular if we use that presupposition to support the VALIDITY of that presupposition. But we don't.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

what "current beliefs" do you know he holds?


[/ QUOTE ]

He must be a member of Pope Dawkins' church of the selfish gene.

[ QUOTE ]

atheism is not a belief, it is a lack thereof.


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think it's possible for a human not to have a fundamental worldview. I don't think it's an option. We are made that way, we can't stop thinking, we can't stop believing in something.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

We have to come down to some base, fundamental presupposition, that is NOT circular.


[/ QUOTE ]

Did you read this part?

If you reject theism only because it's circular you are saying there is no valid worldview possible


I'm not saying the presupposition is circular. I'm saying that rejecting the Bible because it's circular is a false reason.

An argument is circular if the conclusion is basically the same as the premise. "The Bible is the word of God because it's the word of God" is the most narrow circularity. "The Bible says it's the word of God and God doesn't lie" is a little broader, still circular. "The Bible is the word of God because it has no errors and since God is perfect it's reasonable to believe His word would have no errors" is even broader, but still circular. You do the same thing if you accept some other fundamental presupposition and then try to justify it - you can only do so through circular argument.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

We have to come down to some base, fundamental presupposition, that is NOT circular.


[/ QUOTE ]

Did you read this part?

If you reject theism only because it's circular you are saying there is no valid worldview possible


I'm not saying the presupposition is circular. I'm saying that rejecting the Bible because it's circular is a false reason.

An argument is circular if the conclusion is basically the same as the premise. "The Bible is the word of God because it's the word of God" is the most narrow circularity. "The Bible says it's the word of God and God doesn't lie" is a little broader, still circular. "The Bible is the word of God because it has no errors and since God is perfect it's reasonable to believe His word would have no errors" is even broader, but still circular. You do the same thing if you accept some other fundamental presupposition and then try to justify it - you can only do so through circular argument.

[/ QUOTE ]
You seem to be saying two completely different things and then arguing that they are the same. If we reject people's belief in the Bible because it is circular, that is no good reason, because you have all these other beliefs WHICH ARE NOT CIRCULAR. I think its pretty important to your point to establish that my worldview is circular before you can make the further point that I am being a hypocrite.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

You seem to be saying two completely different things


[/ QUOTE ]

I think we're talking about two different things - the fundamental presupposition we hold and the justification of that presupposition. And I'm not alleging that you're a hypocrite. I'm saying that whatever your fundamental worldview, which you hold for whatever reason, you can't prove or justify it without circular reasoning.

[Prodigy54321]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

what "current beliefs" do you know he holds?


[/ QUOTE ]

He must be a member of Pope Dawkins' church of the selfish gene.

[ QUOTE ]

atheism is not a belief, it is a lack thereof.


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think it's possible for a human not to have a fundamental worldview. I don't think it's an option. We are made that way, we can't stop thinking, we can't stop believing in something.

[/ QUOTE ]

we're not talkind about a fundamental worldview..we're talking about the specific case for a belief that something exists...

I do not hold the belief that santa clause exists...do you consider that as my fundamental worldview?

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

You seem to be saying two completely different things


[/ QUOTE ]

I think we're talking about two different things - the fundamental presupposition we hold and the justification of that presupposition. And I'm not alleging that you're a hypocrite. I'm saying that whatever your fundamental worldview, which you hold for whatever reason, you can't prove or justify it without circular reasoning.

[/ QUOTE ]

And I wouldn't try. My core axioms are unsupported. I don't discount the belief in the divinity of the Bible because it is unsupported, I dismiss it because people think they ARE supporting it, but instead are simply using circular reasoning, which is fallacious. If people would just admit that they accept, as axiomatic and unsupported, the divinity of the Bible, it would be a step forward in the discussion. I think this is exactly where you are, but is certainly not where most Christians (theists in general) are.

And I wasn't taking offense to the hypocrite part, it just seemed like an appropriate word for what you were describing.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

what "current beliefs" do you know he holds?


[/ QUOTE ]

He must be a member of Pope Dawkins' church of the selfish gene.

[ QUOTE ]

atheism is not a belief, it is a lack thereof.


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think it's possible for a human not to have a fundamental worldview. I don't think it's an option. We are made that way, we can't stop thinking, we can't stop believing in something.

[/ QUOTE ]

we're not talkind about a fundamental worldview..we're talking about the specific case for a belief that something exists...

I do not hold the belief that santa clause exists...do you consider that as my fundamental worldview?

[/ QUOTE ]

This is true in most specific cases, but it isn't necessarily true. It must be the case (at least, thats my argument) that belief in the divinity of the Bible is a core, fundamental belief or axiom. There is no other way, as far as I can tell. Just because most Christians don't think this is true doesn't mean it makes sense for them to think that.

[Prodigy54321]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

what "current beliefs" do you know he holds?


[/ QUOTE ]

He must be a member of Pope Dawkins' church of the selfish gene.

[ QUOTE ]

atheism is not a belief, it is a lack thereof.


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think it's possible for a human not to have a fundamental worldview. I don't think it's an option. We are made that way, we can't stop thinking, we can't stop believing in something.

[/ QUOTE ]

we're not talkind about a fundamental worldview..we're talking about the specific case for a belief that something exists...

I do not hold the belief that santa clause exists...do you consider that as my fundamental worldview?

[/ QUOTE ]

This is true in most specific cases, but it isn't necessarily true. It must be the case (at least, thats my argument) that belief in the divinity of the Bible is a core, fundamental belief or axiom. There is no other way, as far as I can tell. Just because most Christians don't think this is true doesn't mean it makes sense for them to think that.

[/ QUOTE ]

maybe a better question for NotReady would be...What is a "fundamental worldview?"

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

we're not talkind about a fundamental worldview


[/ QUOTE ]

I am. Brown rejects Christianity, a worldview, because it's circular. My question for him was directed toward whatever his current worldview is.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

maybe a better question for NotReady would be...What is a "fundamental worldview?


[/ QUOTE ]

I like Frame's definition:

[ QUOTE ]

Earlier we defined an ultimate presupposition as "a belief over which no other takes precedence", or, more profoundly, as a "basic commitment of the heart."


[/ QUOTE ]

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

It must be the case (at least, thats my argument) that belief in the divinity of the Bible is a core, fundamental belief or axiom... Just because most Christians don't think this is true doesn't mean it makes sense for them to think that.


[/ QUOTE ]

I think most Christians do think this. They may not always put it into philosophical or even theological terms but I think they understand that the Bible governs all their thought. The old phrase "The Bible says it, I believe it, that settles it", expresses that idea. Of course, whether the Bible actually says the subject under consideration is a separate question, but giving the Bible pre-eminence is common throughout the history of the church.

What I find is that most non-theists don't know they have fundamental presuppositions and don't know how to defend them even if identified.

[Prodigy54321]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

maybe a better question for NotReady would be...What is a "fundamental worldview?


[/ QUOTE ]

I like Frame's definition:

[ QUOTE ]

Earlier we defined an ultimate presupposition as "a belief over which no other takes precedence", or, more profoundly, as a "basic commitment of the heart."


[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

can you give a couple examples of such fundamenta worldviews?

by this definition, I can't see Christianity or the belief in a god as a fundamental wordlview...

for the individual, the only fundamental wordlview seems to be.."My senses reflect (at least to some degree) reality."...

this is of course circular, but there is no way around it.

even for a Christian, this would come above any other belief, since those beliefs are based off of their senses.

a follow up question would be...If we have a circular ultimate presupposition of this nature, do subsequent beliefs hold ANY merit? Do we have the right to judge anything as more or less likely to be true?

a fundamental axiom will always be circular IMO...but where we go from there can be judged based on that axiom.

and as I already alluded to, I think we all must hold the same fundamental axiom.

[Prodigy54321]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

what "current beliefs" do you know he holds?


[/ QUOTE ]

He must be a member of Pope Dawkins' church of the selfish gene.

[ QUOTE ]

atheism is not a belief, it is a lack thereof.


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think it's possible for a human not to have a fundamental worldview. I don't think it's an option. We are made that way, we can't stop thinking, we can't stop believing in something.

[/ QUOTE ]

we're not talkind about a fundamental worldview..we're talking about the specific case for a belief that something exists...

I do not hold the belief that santa clause exists...do you consider that as my fundamental worldview?

[/ QUOTE ]

This is true in most specific cases, but it isn't necessarily true. It must be the case (at least, thats my argument) that belief in the divinity of the Bible is a core, fundamental belief or axiom. There is no other way, as far as I can tell. Just because most Christians don't think this is true doesn't mean it makes sense for them to think that.

[/ QUOTE ]

how can this belief be a fundamental belief or axiom? How do they come to that belief? I can't see how that can in any way be an independent self evident truth.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

for the individual, the only fundamental wordlview seems to be.."My senses reflect (at least to some degree) reality."...


[/ QUOTE ]

I think you are confusing temporal and logical. My most fundamental presupposition is the Bible is God's word, and of course includes all doctrines in the Bible. I judge all else by the Bible. I have to know what the Bible says through my senses, hearing or seeing, so that would have temporal priority, but it isn't the standard by which I judge truth nor is it the principle to which I am most committed.

[ QUOTE ]

If we have a circular ultimate presupposition of this nature, do subsequent beliefs hold ANY merit? Do we have the right to judge anything as more or less likely to be true?


[/ QUOTE ]

All subsequent propositions are judged by your most fundamental or ultimate presupposition. If reason is ultimate then all propositions must conform to reason, etc.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

what "current beliefs" do you know he holds?


[/ QUOTE ]

He must be a member of Pope Dawkins' church of the selfish gene.

[ QUOTE ]

atheism is not a belief, it is a lack thereof.


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think it's possible for a human not to have a fundamental worldview. I don't think it's an option. We are made that way, we can't stop thinking, we can't stop believing in something.

[/ QUOTE ]

we're not talkind about a fundamental worldview..we're talking about the specific case for a belief that something exists...

I do not hold the belief that santa clause exists...do you consider that as my fundamental worldview?

[/ QUOTE ]

This is true in most specific cases, but it isn't necessarily true. It must be the case (at least, thats my argument) that belief in the divinity of the Bible is a core, fundamental belief or axiom. There is no other way, as far as I can tell. Just because most Christians don't think this is true doesn't mean it makes sense for them to think that.

[/ QUOTE ]

how can this belief be a fundamental belief or axiom? How do they come to that belief? I can't see how that can in any way be an independent self evident truth.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the obvious next question once we get them to admit they accept the divinity of the Bible as an unsupported axiom.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think it's possible for a human not to have a fundamental worldview. I don't think it's an option. We are made that way, we can't stop thinking, we can't stop believing in something.


[/ QUOTE ]

I accept that you believe it to be so. However, my experience tells me that it is possible for a human not to have a fundamental worldview. It is an option. We can stop thinking, we can stop believing in something.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

It must be the case (at least, thats my argument) that belief in the divinity of the Bible is a core, fundamental belief or axiom... Just because most Christians don't think this is true doesn't mean it makes sense for them to think that.


[/ QUOTE ]

I think most Christians do think this. They may not always put it into philosophical or even theological terms but I think they understand that the Bible governs all their thought. The old phrase "The Bible says it, I believe it, that settles it", expresses that idea. Of course, whether the Bible actually says the subject under consideration is a separate question, but giving the Bible pre-eminence is common throughout the history of the church.

What I find is that most non-theists don't know they have fundamental presuppositions and don't know how to defend them even if identified.

[/ QUOTE ]

But I do. At least, I know I have fundamental preconceived notions, and I know better than to try and defend them. So where does this leave me in the 'flaming Christians who defend the divinity of the Bible in a circular fashion' controversy? Am I still ok? I feel like I am.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

So where does this leave me in the 'flaming Christians who defend the divinity of the Bible in a circular fashion' controversy?


[/ QUOTE ]

I guess it would make you inconsistent if you said Christianity is false because it uses circular reasonng.

[Prodigy54321]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

So where does this leave me in the 'flaming Christians who defend the divinity of the Bible in a circular fashion' controversy?


[/ QUOTE ]

I guess it would make you inconsistent if you said Christianity is false because it uses circular reasonng.

[/ QUOTE ]

circular reasoning doesn't make anything false, it makes it illogical.

which of course is not a problem if you don't consider logic as an axiom.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

circular reasoning doesn't make anything false, it makes it illogical.


[/ QUOTE ]

Actually all it does is fail as a proof.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

So where does this leave me in the 'flaming Christians who defend the divinity of the Bible in a circular fashion' controversy?


[/ QUOTE ]

I guess it would make you inconsistent if you said Christianity is false because it uses circular reasonng.

[/ QUOTE ]

Seriously, this is like the third time you've said this, and it seems to be completely unsupported. WHY am I being inconsistent? I don't hold any circular beliefs, I don't accept some things based on circular reasoning and dismiss others, so why am I being inconsistent?

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

WHY am I being inconsistent?


[/ QUOTE ]

Did you see the "if"?

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

WHY am I being inconsistent?


[/ QUOTE ]

Did you see the "if"?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. Thats what I am asking. I'm not saying Biblical divinity or Christianity is false because it relies on circular reasoning, but lets pretend I was. Why am I being inconsistent?

I might be wrong, but I am not inconsistent.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

I'm not saying Biblical divinity or Christianity is false because it relies on circular reasoning, but lets pretend I was. Why am I being inconsistent?


[/ QUOTE ]

The point I was trying to make without making it personal to you is that most people who charge Christianity with false logic for using circular reasoning in defending their beliefs can't defend their own most ultimate beliefs without using circular reasoning. If you have a set of beliefs you can't defend then I guess you aren't being inconsistent, you just have beliefs you can't defend - which raises the question of irrationality usually reserved for Christians. And if you can't defend your own beliefs it's hard to see the basis you have for attacking Christianity. If you do attack Christianity. Which I'm not alleging. Since this all appears hypothetical anyway. And since I don't know what your beliefs are. Or whether you think they can be defended. Or how you would defend them if you could.

[revots33]

[ QUOTE ]

What can we conclude from the fact that they questioned their belief system and then abandoned it, despite having had that clarifying deeper dialogue with God which I apparantly should expect if only I were to choose to believe?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think it is just the inability to ignore the rational mind any longer.

I was raised strict Catholic, I definitely believed 100%. Prayed to god and believed he heard my prayers, thought the priest was changing wine to blood, the whole nine yards. As a teenager some nagging doubts started whispering in the back of my mind, but I ignored them. Eventually I couldn't ignore them any more.

I don't think most former believers have an epiphany so much as they can no longer ignore what their rational mind has been trying to tell them.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I'm not saying Biblical divinity or Christianity is false because it relies on circular reasoning, but lets pretend I was. Why am I being inconsistent?


[/ QUOTE ]

The point I was trying to make without making it personal to you is that most people who charge Christianity with false logic for using circular reasoning in defending their beliefs can't defend their own most ultimate beliefs without using circular reasoning. If you have a set of beliefs you can't defend then I guess you aren't being inconsistent, you just have beliefs you can't defend - which raises the question of irrationality usually reserved for Christians. And if you can't defend your own beliefs it's hard to see the basis you have for attacking Christianity. If you do attack Christianity. Which I'm not alleging. Since this all appears hypothetical anyway. And since I don't know what your beliefs are. Or whether you think they can be defended. Or how you would defend them if you could.

[/ QUOTE ]

I definitely have beliefs that cannot be defended. Free-will, external reality, all that. None of these are defended circularly, they are simply axioms. My only defense of them is that I see no other possible way to function in the world (if it exists). So, if scripture is taken as divine AXIOMATICALLY, then its just the same as any of my indefensible beliefs. But I just don't think thats how most Christians approach it. They want to have their cake and eat it too, because they realize the dangerous ground they tread on when they simply decide to add 'Scriptural divinity' to their list of core axioms. They want to be able to justify, rationally or logically or empirically, their belief in the divinity of scripture, but they want to be immune from the consequences of that desire. This is why they fall into the trap of using circular reasoning, which of course does not demonstrate the falsity of their claim. It does, however, say something when this is the only type of reasoning that they use, ultimately.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

I definitely have beliefs that cannot be defended.


[/ QUOTE ]

I see no way for you to avoid scepticism. And if you can't defend your beliefs, why make any arguments at all?

[ QUOTE ]

This is why they fall into the trap of using circular reasoning, which of course does not demonstrate the falsity of their claim. It does, however, say something when this is the only type of reasoning that they use, ultimately.


[/ QUOTE ]

Why is it a trap if you don't take the position that circular reasoning makes Christianity false? And though I disagree that it's the only type of reasoning used, what does it say?

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I definitely have beliefs that cannot be defended.


[/ QUOTE ]

I see no way for you to avoid scepticism. And if you can't defend your beliefs, why make any arguments at all?

[ QUOTE ]

This is why they fall into the trap of using circular reasoning, which of course does not demonstrate the falsity of their claim. It does, however, say something when this is the only type of reasoning that they use, ultimately.


[/ QUOTE ]

Why is it a trap if you don't take the position that circular reasoning makes Christianity false? And though I disagree that it's the only type of reasoning used, what does it say?

[/ QUOTE ]

It doesnt make it false, it makes it absurd. Circular reasoning is invalid, so if the only argument you have in your favor is circular, you have nothing. Thats why its a trap. Christianity may very well still be valid, but the specific circular arguments are not, so there is no reason to think the whole is.

As to your point about my indefensible axioms, the reason I can use them to make points is that we all agree on them.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Circular reasoning is invalid, so if the only argument you have in your favor is circular, you have nothing. Thats why its a trap. Christianity may very well still be valid, but the specific circular arguments are not, so there is no reason to think the whole is.


[/ QUOTE ]

On what basis do you claim this invalidity? Logic? But you can't defend logic. So why is your attack valid?

[ QUOTE ]

the reason I can use them to make points is that we all agree on them.


[/ QUOTE ]

I have a feeling that not everyone agrees with you on all of your axioms.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Circular reasoning is invalid, so if the only argument you have in your favor is circular, you have nothing. Thats why its a trap. Christianity may very well still be valid, but the specific circular arguments are not, so there is no reason to think the whole is.


[/ QUOTE ]

On what basis do you claim this invalidity? Logic? But you can't defend logic. So why is your attack valid?

[ QUOTE ]

the reason I can use them to make points is that we all agree on them.


[/ QUOTE ]

I have a feeling that not everyone agrees with you on all of your axioms.

[/ QUOTE ]

I can't defend logic. Are you saying you disagree with the fundamental application of logic? If so, I'm curious how you get by in your day to day life. We all agree upon logic as a convention.

And I would be willing to bet that everyone does share my axioms. They are awfully bare-bones.

[Alex-db]

There must be a nice latin term for this that I have never been taught, but it seems the defence here is:

Since the most fundamental assumptions we make are circular, there is nothing wrong with applying circular logic to derivative, higher level beliefs.

One problem is that the derivative cicularity requires suspension of the core axioms like logic.

I also have an urge to apply Occam's razor, or at least to accept a probabalistic argument on axioms such that:

1. I have freewill
2. Logical conclusion are valid

is more likely to be correct, by a very wide margin, than:

1. I have freewill
2. Logical conclusion are valid
3. The Bible is correct

Especially when 2 contradicts 3 (and 1? another thread I know).

There must be a principle where if a potential axiom could be deduced from previous axioms it shouldn't be assumed as an axiom. Especially in such 2nd-order scientific questions such as how did the universe and humans come into existence?

(ah... my real opinion, is that the answers to these questions have absolutely no business being axiomatic, or I may as well just take enough ketamine that I can accept religion without question and put up with life as a zombie requiring no quest for knowledge)