And again, the mind boggles at the self importance of someone who actually believes that he shares essential characteristics with God.

Some people really are incapable of believing that is isn't all about them.

I didn't think for one moment people who believed we were made in gods image actually believed he was of psychical form, more of his image/shadow/outline was that of the human shape.

To be honest I was under the assumption wizard was someone who was examining his religion on a more grounded level. (not just flipping back the errant book). I thought you would actually use your own mind to think about it.

I dont know how i came to that conclusion but he obv isn't.

Lawdude, if you read and understood my post you would see that it isn't all about me or 'them' or pride. It's all about Jesus.

Pooter, why did you engage in the conversation if you're going to simply dismiss me as mindless? I'm glad you did(engage me that is), because I enjoyed it and learned a lot.

If either of you want to discuss the topic let me know. If you want to make personal attacks, I'll leave you to it.

Sorry it was not meant as a personal attack, more of disappointment, I was disappointed in the fact you went back to the book rather thinking for yourself.

I do think for myself. The Bible is logical. God is logical. And we are logical because we are created in His image and likeness.

^^^^^^^I rest my case.


Pooter: Why do you think that wizard?

Wizard: oh oh oh let me study the bible for 3 hours and see if i can concoct an answer out of it!

That sir is not thinking for yourself!

I was trying to give you a well thought out answer. I used a lot of resources. You asked a question about theology. The Bible is obviously going to be an important resource. I'm confused as to what you want. I'm also confused how you assume I'm not using my brain, intellect, discernment, etc to arrive at my conclusions.

If you want to question my content go ahead. Point to some flawed logic. Maybe I have misunderstood something. Please help me find it. So far your only criticism is that I'm not thinking for myself, and you haven't made much of a case for that(but apparently you're resting it).

Hrmph. I disagree with all three of these statements.

1) In what sense is the Bible logical?

2) Do you think God created logic, and could logic exist in a non-God universe?

3) I disagree that 'we' are logical. Humans are illogical for the most part. Our thinking is riddled with ingrained and inescapable cognitive biases and errors.

You did int think about what you already allegedly believed, you just looked for a reason for it to make sense. ie confirmation bias.

But as i said I only engaged you so much becasue for some reason (i have no idea why now) i thought you were looking at your religion from an outside perspective, but after your posts i see you are closer to splendor, concerto etc..

While I agree with the general sentiment that former-atheists-turned-Christians can have a tendency to think that all, or most, atheists are like they were when they were atheists, I am not a fan of denigrating the experiences or genuineness of the atheism these Christians had before their conversion. One of the more annoying tics of some Christians is when they claim that the Christianity of former Christians was in some way not genuine or deficient in an unusual way (or they wouldn't have left the religion). Atheists should avoid doing the same.

Off-topic, but I think that the belief in science itself is justified through science for basically Quinean reasons.

The problem is, claims about Jesus are ALSO claims grounded in self-importance.

The fundamental mistake is looking at this vast universe that we are such a tiny part of, and which operates based on forces far larger than our comprehension, and where a single burst of gamma rays could wipe us all out forever, and where our sun's expanding gases will eventually swallow our planet leaving no trace of us, and where even on our planet there is a wide diversity of life and where we simply evolved from other life forms and are nothing more than successful genetic mutations, and concluding that in fact that creator of all this stuff is concerned about us. And wants to save us. And thinks the most important priority is whether WE live forever.

It's all self-importance. It's all the conflation of the believer's selfish desire to be important and to live forever with what God wants.

Of course it is.

But I also think that it's rich that RELIGIOUS people-- coming from the domain of multiple false predictions of the apocalypse, false claims about astronomy, false claims about human origins, etc.-- lob condemnations at science, a domain that actually frequently produces useful information, while, of course, claiming the benefits of that science. (The computer Concerto types his words on is a product of the scientific method; humans could have prayed for a million years and their God would have never produced a computer for them.)

The bible shows to be illogical by the time the fourth day in Genesis comes around. Light is created on the first day but the sun, moon, and stars aren't created until the fourth?

From the linked article:

"The distinctiveness of Quine's naturalism begins to emerge if we ask what justifies this naturalistic claim: what reason do we have to believe that the methods and techniques of science are the best way to find out about the world? Quine would insist that this claim too must be based on natural science. (If this is circular, he simply accepts the circularity.) This is the revolutionary step, naturalism self-applied. There is no foundation for Quine's naturalism: it not based on anything else."

If you're going to accept circular logic as justification, anything goes with little in the way of whatever belief you fancy. This hardly seems consistent with a scientific approach.

And I recall the circularity objection being (incorrectly) applied by atheists in this forum. Maybe they should read their Quine and stop doing that.

That's a nifty science-versus-religion canard. A question begging false dichotomy which, if accepted, pretty much guarantees the atheist cause a rhetorical victory. No, science is awesome. So we should strive to keep the practice of it free from Piltdown men and logical circularity. Thanks be to God for the blessing of scientific reasoning.

You really don't understand the concept of "circular logic" or why it is wrong. You just throw this concept out whenever someone points out that science produces good results while your religion repeatedly produces false predictions.

Let's take a step back. EMPIRICISM-- the trusting of your senses, is based on "circular logic", by your definition. How, after all, do you know that your senses are not deceiving you? You don't. You simply trust them because they are your senses, and because in the past they have not deceived you.

But nonetheless, you trust them. And you have a good reason to.

You see, the fact that in the past your senses have not deceived you constitutes inductive evidence that they are not deceiving you now either. That "logic" is NOT circular. It may not be correct-- it is possible for your senses to have been accurate in the past but not now. But it is NOT circular. It is classic inductive reasoning. The same reasoning that you might use to conclude that flush draws are in an all-in player's range because you have seen the player shove many flush draws in the past.

Support for the scientific method is grounded in this same principle of empiricism. The scientific method of observation, testing, and hypothesis has produced an extensive amount of knowledge in the past. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that it will continue to do so in the future.

I get the feeling that you know this and are just being dishonest. But if you really, truly, do not understand why basing the justification for relying on the scientific method on past experience is not "circular logic", then you are truly not that smart and certainly should not be risking any real money at a poker table.

This has remarkably little to do with my specifically stated objections to circular logical in this context. Maybe you should let some air out, descend to a reasonable altitude, and read for comprehension before assuming the lectern in so grandiose a fashion.

As I said, it's a no-brainer that the "scientific" justification for the validity of the scientific method is NOT based on circular logic, but rather based on induction.

So instead of being a douchebag as per usual, YOU should explain your argument as to PRECISELY how science is based on circular logic.

(And then, after that, sell your computer and leave the Internet, because these things were created using the process that involves circular logic that you seem to think cannot create knowledge.)

That is not my contention, as would clear if you took the time to understand before criticizing. You're welcome to disagree, just know what you're disagreeing with first.

Instead of being a total d-bag, why don't you for once try to explain how he misunderstood you and why your position actually makes sense (I am not necessarily saying that it does not).

Cheers

PS: And what is this total B.S. about "foundationalism" you harp on as if you are on to something important and meaningful? Are you living in the nineteenth century for God's sake? All the lawdude seems to be saying is that Science "works" in producing necessary and useful things for humans. You do not have to "believe" in any foundation or deep reason to see whether something actually works or not. And he is obviously not trying to explain "why" science works. He is just saying that it works. Asking "why" science works is an altogether different question, isn't it? I do not think that one needs any foundational ground to see the pragmatic value of science.

On the other hand, what exactly is the pragmatic value of religion? That it keeps the old, stupid and the poor under control? That it gives false hope and meaning to otherwise meaningless lives? I think choosing science over religion on purely pragmatic grounds is a pretty reasonable position to take.

At some point I'll do a longer post about this, but yeah, I'm not a foundationalist, and so I think that ultimately all justification is circular. Obviously I also think this is consistent with a scientific approach as a closer look at the actual history of science and the theoretical concerns with underdetermination pointed out by Quine indicate.

As for how the circularity objection is used by other atheists--I don't think there is any special connection between atheism and foundationalism/anti-foundationalism, so this isn't really very interesting except in a purely anecdotal way.

I'm ready to amplify on what I already wrote for those who show some sign of having actually read the previous posts. The boorishly simplistic and bafflingly off-point criticism favored by lawdude makes that kind of effort superfluous.

Note that this is not something I disagree with, but lawdude is committed to seeing the world through stereotypes, so no amount of repetition is likely to get the message across.

However, the scientific method is foundationalist. So including circular logic, while not necessarily problematic in an absolute sense, is inconsistent with science.

It was intended as an interesting anecdote.

Concerto, I don't think science cares about what you call "logic" (IOW, deduction). Scientific method is entirely a process of inductive reasoning from observation and testing. So "circularity" is irrelevant.

At any rate, if you really do not deny the pragmatic grounds for science as a source of truth, you should stop trashing science in these forums. It seems you recognize that science is a grave threat to Christianity (which it is), but that ideological position (and its manifestations such as denying the fact of human evolution) is inconsistent with an acceptance of the pragmatic justification for science.

Anyone with a passing familiarity with science will inform you that its heavy dependence on math makes it significantly deductive also. Or perhaps you've been reduced to argument by bluff, which I wouldn't advise on this topic.

In what specific instance of the scientific method (in formal application, since that's what we're talking about rather than the thought process of individual scientists) do you see circularity? Citation please.

Whatever you're smoking, the sad effects of long term use are beginning to show.

Depends on what you mean by Christianity. The Bible itself has been construed as a threat by certain non-Biblical denominations. As far as actual scripture and science go, there is complete harmony between them, which is why the merely rhetorical assertions of a conflict never go beyond that into specifics based on scholarly hermeneutics (as opposed to comic-book level quote mining).