I’ve been asked, when discussing with theists, to read their various holy books (usually the Bible) with an open mind. The implication is that, if I gave their book an honest and open minded look, I’d become convinced and start believing, as they do. Further it’s implied that I’m not as open minded as I claim to be but rather closed to religion for not carefully examining their various books with the agnostic (i.e. undecided) attitude.
Please don’t ask me to read your holy book with an open mind. I can describe my mind as open, but not so open that my common sense falls out. Don’t you see? There’s a fundamental flaw with this request, and it’s staring you right in the eyes. There’s a huge elephant in the room, and yet you close your eyes to it! This is the assumption that a holy book can somehow validate itself.
Let me reiterate what I consider myself to be. I am a skeptic. A naturalist (i.e,. I look for natural, as opposed to supernatural causes). I’m not a scientist in the sense that I work with science, but I’m a fan of the scientific method. What does this tell you about me? It should tell you that I will not take any book’s word for its own validity. By reading your Holy Booktm, I will only learn a bit about your brand of mythology. I won’t come to believe it.
Why is that? It should be obvious, but apparently it’s not. I don’t believe it. I will admit that I haven’t read the whole Bible. Does this mean I can’t criticize Christianity? Does the fact that I haven’t read the Koran mean I can’t criticize Islam? Absolutely not! I don’t believe them. The basic premise of these books is that they are of divine nature. They’re built on the assumption that they are inspired by or directly delivered from God, creator and all. Naturally I can’t find out if the premise is true by assuming the premise. That would be circular reasoning. It would be akin to me writing a book in which I describe myself as Messiah and I then assume that the book (coming from Messiah) is of divine nature and use that assumption to prove that I am, in fact, Messiah. Assuming the conclusion is not a way to prove anything. Actually, it’s valid. If we assume that a preposition is true, it follows that the preposition is true, but in no way have we justified the assumption.
What does this tell you? It tells you that I’m not close minded for not reading assuming your conclusion in order to assess your conclusion. If you want to prove that the Bible or the Koran, or any other Holy Booktm is really of divine nature, you must rely on other sources. This is where the conversation usually halts. “But Messiah said it requires faith to believe!” Obviously. This is the same mindset.
Here’s an example of this mindset. In order to prove to me that Jesus was in fact Son of God, a Christian presented some Bible quote (I can’t remember where from and I can’t be bothered to look it up) that said something to the effect of, “if I [Jesus] don’t do miracles, don’t believe in me.” Miracles should be a sign that Jesus is Son of God. Then this person went on to quote other places in the Bible where Jesus does miracles. Taa-da! Instant Jesus-son-of-God! Of course, this is not how it works. This was all based on the assumption that the Bible was true to begin with.
This is some elimentary advice to theists who wish to justify their faiths to nonbelievers or believers of other faiths: never rely on your conclusion to prove your conclusion. No matter how much you obfuscate and complicate matters, if your logic can be traced back from your conclusion to your conclusion, you have built a circle, and circular reasoning is never justification for the assumption it seeks to prove. The moment someone discovers this in your reasoning, they will recognize that you have nothing to come with. So, please, rely on outside resources, if you’d be so kind. It will save you lots of embarassment.
Filed under: atheism, religion, theism | 8 Comments
-
Recent Comments
angie on Empire State Building, Evoluti… Ereredync on Empire State Building, Evoluti… phil on Empire State Building, Evoluti… Avil on The Blog Is Dead Kevin Trudeu on Starting Your Own Religion: a …
Spot on.
You say you’re a fan of the scientific method… How is evolution using the scientific method?
We havn’t seen it, and we can’t re-produce it in a lab… so… how’s that the scientific method…
You also bugged Theists for using circular reasoning. Granted, I use it from time to time, but that’s because I believe the Bible to be the ultimate truth. But, the Bible is upheld by many evidences.
Have you read my article “Is the Bible Reliable?” It analyzes the Bible’s reliability examining the many different evidences that uphold the Bible.
And as for circular reasoning… We all use it.
I ask you, “How do you know what you’re saying is true?” And, one way or another, what you say comes down to reason. “How do you know your reason to be true?” Reason.
You use circular reasoning – we all do to a certain degree.
*shrugs*
This is not about evolution. If you want to learn about evolution, I encourage you to go to talk.origins and have a look yourself.
That’s not an excuse.
I see lots of handwaving, and no sources.
If you won’t grant logic, you’d be literally talking nonsense. Which is fine, but then you would be an idiot. Plain and simple.
A good post. In response, I would present the challenge somewhat differently.
First, it’s poor theology to suppose that anyone who reads the Bible with an open mind will believe what it says. Your challengers — those who are Christians — ought to know that they’re leaving out an essential element: the work of the Spirit. An archetypal case is found in Acts 16, the conversion of Lydia: “The Lord opened her heart to pay attention to what was said by Paul.”
Elsewhere (1 Cor. 2), Paul says that the Gospel consists of spiritual words that must be spiritually discerned. It’s the same idea. Just reading with an open mind will not bring understanding, never mind conversion. There must also be the intervention of God’s spirit to “quicken” the human spirit.
This raises theological problems, of course: whether God is ultimately responsible when people fail to believe. In any event, it corresponds to hard experience. Some people hear the Gospel and don’t believe, even if they are sincerely giving it a chance. So the challenge, as it has been presented to you, hasn’t been thought through very well.
Second thought: I like an alternative suggested by Becky Pippert in a book, some decades ago. She described a young woman who was challenged to read the New Testament and run the experiment of putting it into practice.
She found some principle in one of the Gospels and said, “This makes no sense to me, but I’ll set my scepticism aside, try to live like this today, and see what happens.” She kept this up for a week or two — whatever the length of the experiment was. Read a text, commit the core idea to memory, look for an opportunity to put it into practice.
That approach escapes your objection: it gets us beyond circular reasoning. The Bible is validated (or not) by your personal experience of putting its principles into practice. Good book, bad book, indifferent book …? The proof of the pudding is in the eating.
Living out the principles will only test them for practicality. It won’t convince anyone of the truth value of the rest of the Bible.
Great post, Simen.
It seems that circular reasoning is the only kind the believers have, though this kind of thinking has only a fleeting, if any, relationship with actual reason.
Words are just a map, not the territory. Anyone who thinks that a book can convince you of anything is delusional. You have to experience for yourself, and then the book has a context that makes sense.
Just as if I gave you a tourbook of France, having myself never been to France (though I’ve seen some lovely pictures), and assured you that by looking at the book you would know all there was to know of France, I would be properly regarded as insane.
Still, it might be a good tourbook.