Christian Theology and Circular Reasoning

[JadedAtheist]

Whilst most people realize that Christians (and any other person basing their beliefs on a religious text) use circular reasoning to justify their beliefs (like creationism), some "intellectual" Christians try to bypass this. How? Well, your discussion with an average fundy might go like this:

Why do you believe the Bible?

Well, because God wrote it.

Okay, how do you know God wrote it?

Because the Bible says so!

Quite obvious circular reasoning, yes? Well, your "intellectual" fundy will play a bit differently:

Why do you believe the Bible?

I believe the Bible because God wrote it.

How do you know God wrote it?

Because of the external evidence supporting it. You have historical documents that support biblical accounts which leads to its credibility and thus we can know that it isn't a man made document but rather one written by God.

Now of course, we can tackle this assertion by the horns, so to speak, and dismantle the claim that there are historical documents that support the Bible (or more specifically the existence of Jesus as they would most likely try to argue). I've been thinking of taking a different approach, this approach attacks their veneer of intellectualism by showing that even this attempt of intellectualism still results in the logical fallacy of circular reasoning.

Now, in Christian theology one would explain away the problem of many various theological interpretations as a result of man's sin nature affecting his ability to view scripture objectively and he will always be skewed one way or the other (don't know how they reconcile this with the doctrine of perspicuity, but anyways..). If they concede that one can never understand the Bible completely as it's intended to be taken, then the whole Bible is to be rejected.

Why do you believe the Bible?

Because God wrote it.

If God wrote it, why is it so unclear? Why do people have so many different interpretations of what it says?

It's because of our sin nature, it affects our ability to understand it completely as we should.

Okay, if that's the case; why are you so dogmatic on Jesus being the only way of salvation?

Because it's clearly taught in the Bible. It says in..

Sorry, before you go on, you just told me that you could never completely understand the Bible as intended. If that's the case, why are you using it to back up your assertion?

*stares blankly*

The above is pretty much a transcript of a conversation I had with a street preacher a while ago. Anyways, what do you think? It seems to work for me but do you think we shouldn't even concede their claim of historical support in the first? Love to hear your thoughts..

 

[Welshidiot]

I have heard practitioners of many faiths declare that "no man can know the mind of God".

Approximately half of all the people who I've heard saying that, have then gone on to try and tell me what's in God's mind.

IMO "no man can know the mind of God" is a fairly good way of looking at things whether you're atheist or theist, it certainly removes that pesky "objective morality" thing that tends to be the biggest problem with religions.

 

[BlackLight]

Why do you believe the Bible?

Because God wrote it.

If God wrote it, why is it so unclear? Why do people have so many different interpretations of what it says?

It's because of our sin nature, it affects our ability to understand it completely as we should.

Okay, if that's the case; why are you so dogmatic on Jesus being the only way of salvation?

Because it's clearly taught in the Bible. It says in..

Sorry, before you go on, you just told me that you could never completely understand the Bible as intended. If that's the case, why are you using it to back up your assertion?

*stares blankly*

The above is pretty much a transcript of a conversation I had with a street preacher a while ago. Anyways, what do you think? It seems to work for me but do you think we shouldn't even concede their claim of historical support in the first? Love to hear your thoughts..

If I were the preacher, I would have simply replied that our inability to understand God's ways *completely* does not preclude us from understanding God's ways *partially.* And in the case of salvation through Christ, the Bible is pretty explicit on this point. Jesus is the only way to salvation.

The problem with trying to argue against the historicity of the Bible is that you've immediately imposed a stalemate for any further debate. To be sure, any Christian who has the nerve to claim there's historical documentation for the events in the Bible has a few examples at the ready. As would any intelligent atheist have examples of the Bible flagrantly contradicting established historical facts. At it's heart, religious belief lies in faith, not evidence. A convicted theist might bravely venture into the world claiming there's historical or scientific backing for the Bible's claims, but faced with enough evidence, they'll immediately retreat to the circular and unfalsifiable safeground of their personal faith - where dinosaur fossils were put there by God to test us, and where Satan uses his seductive wills to steal us from God's grace.