A few side notes: This passage goes deeper than the doctrinal belief ("'There is no God'" )--it's talking about someone's presuppositions--what someone holds to be true in his heart--the core of his being. ("Heart," in Hebrew literature, was more than just an emotional center, as it represents in many modern cultures.) According to the passage, one who holds the presupposition that there is no God is a fool.
As a side note to the first premise, the Bible not only indicates that there is judgment for those who do not believe what is revealed in Scripture, but also that there is sufficient evidence in creation that is available for all to observe so that one can be aware that there is a God. Theologians call this "general revelation." Romans 1:20-22 says, "{20} For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. {21} For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. {22} Professing to be wise, they became fools." In other words, the general revelation of God, even though it is not sufficient to teach a person everything needed to have a relationship with God, provides enough awareness of God and His characteristics, that those who "suppress" this awareness can be held accountable--not to mention everyone's accountability for sin in general.
Originally posted by HolyTThe "fool" thing xians pull makes me laugh because, as you point out, it rests on the initial premise that their God exists. The xian might as well as say that his dad can beat up my dad for all the effect it has.
Calling someone a fool may sound like an attack, and it may be ad hominem (against the person), but by itself it is not the logical fallacy of argumentum ad hominem. The statement in question is:
The fool has said in his heart, "There is no God" (first line of Psalm 14:1, New American Standard Bible).
One may disagree with the statement, but it does not ...[text shortened]... s no God is a fool.
One may disagree with the premises, but it is a valid argument.
When some one uses to fool bit offline (i.e. in physical conversation with me), I usually retort that if even the fool can realize that there is no God, then what does that make them? Not exactly a reasoned argument I know, but I figure they deserve a bit of their own obnoxious medicine once in a while.
Originally posted by HolyTIt seems you're right back where epi was in another thread last week.
A few side notes: This passage goes deeper than the doctrinal belief ("'There is no God'" )--it's talking about someone's presuppositions--what someone holds to be true in his heart--the core of his being. ("Heart," in Hebrew literature, was more than just an emotional center, as it represents in many modern cultures.) According to the passage, one who holds be held accountable--not to mention everyone's accountability for sin in general.
"There is sufficient evidence to believe.
Why?
Because the Bible says so.
Why should we believe the Bible relates any truth in this matter?
Because there is sufficient evidence to believe.
Where?
All around you.
I don't see it.
The Bible says it is there.
I don't see any reason to believe the Bible at the moment.
There is sufficient evidence to believe.
Where?
Read the Bible. It says so."
And on and on and on . . .
You're getting to some important issues. Evidence is everywhere; different people interpret the evidence based on their presuppositions. For example, the materialist will interpret all evidence in a way that will fit with no possibility of anything non-material, because his presupposition is that there is nothing other than the material. Furthermore, presuppositions come in many forms:
(1) One's epistemology tells someone how we can know things. An empiricist says that we can only know that which can be determined or proved empirically, such as by testing in a lab, or mathematical proofs. Some say that we can only know that which can be sensed. Some say that God does not or would not reveal things to people through a written word. But these positions themselves are not themselves proved; they are held for other reasons (experience, hunches, association with others of like opinion, apparent consistency, or no real reason at all).
(2) One's metaphysic informs someone about the limits of reality. One might say that there is nothing real but what can be observed. Some exclude or include from the start the possibility of "supernatural" things, or things beyond the "natural" (which raises the question of what the limits are of the "natural" for someone). Some say nothing is real at all!
(3) One's ethic describes how a person understands and determines moral issues. A Christian appeals to the revelation of God in His word and (subject to being understood by God's word) our internal awareness of right and wrong, which a Christian would say has been given to us by God. Some say that civil law essentially determines right and wrong. Some say that it is personal preference, some use pragmatic results as a standard ("Does it work?" ), and some say it is based on majority opinion. Again, all of these presuppositions form one's worldview through which one examines evidence and makes further conclusions from it. No one really starts from a "neutral" (no presuppositions) starting point.
Originally posted by HolyTFunny - I think the problem is that the Bible gives too much detail about God. The Bible actively makes a case against the existence of its God - by trying to make him be all things for all types of people: A loving, just, forgiving God, and yet someone so intolerant of any sin that he slays people by the thousands because one or two of their number did something to piss him off.
A few side notes: This passage goes deeper than the doctrinal belief ("'There is no God'" )--it's talking about someone's presuppositions--what someone holds to be true in his heart--the core of his being. ("Heart," in Hebrew literature, was more than just an emotional center, as it represents in many modern cultures.) According to the passage, one who holds be held accountable--not to mention everyone's accountability for sin in general.
Not sure what part of the cited post you're referring to. It didn't mention anything about the amount of detail provided in the Bible about God; it discussed what is revealed about God in "general revelation" apart from the Bible.
Perhaps you're just throwing that out there without specific reference to the cited post. In that event, again this goes to one's presuppositions. Your argument would go something like this:
PREMISES:
1. God must be a certain way, or not be a certain way (based on what you believe for whatever reasons).
2. The Bible describes God in ways that are not consistent with #1.
CONCLUSION:
3. Therefore, the Bible cannot/should not be trusted (it is inconsistent), or at least should not be thought of as holding any authority for what is true about God.
But #1 is already based on a presupposition: that God has or lacks certain characteristics based on your worldview. This worldview already holds that the Bible is not authoritative about such things. So, the conclusion does not follow from the premises; it is merely a restatement of one of the premises, or a presupposition that supports it.
Originally posted by HolyTThere seems to be a premise here that you did not state: That the Bible is true. Absent taking the Bible (or other religious texts) as demonstrable evidence, the counter-argument is equally valid:
You're getting to some important issues. Evidence is everywhere; different people interpret the evidence based on their presuppositions. For example, the materialist will interpret all evidence in a way that will fit with no possibility of anything non-material, because his presupposition is that there is nothing other than the material. Furthermore, presup ...[text shortened]... it. No one really starts from a "neutral" (no presuppositions) starting point.
(1) There is no demonstrable evidence for the existence of God.
(2) It is foolish to believe in entities for which there is no demonstrable evidence.
(3) Therefore, it is foolish to believe in God.
Absence of evidence can sometimes be validly taken as evidence of absence.
__________________________________________
What one accepts as demonstrable evidence may depend on one’s epistemological foundations, but it seems to me that (unless one wants to get into the kind of circular argument that Telerion outlined) all that the Bible shows is what some people have believed. Evidence of what people believe is not the same thing as evidence for the veracity of such beliefs.
Further, the fact that there may be aspects of the universe, and our existence in it, that transcend our cognitive capabilities (the “grammar” of our consciousness) neither necessitates, nor of itself justifies, the leap to a supernatural (extra-natural) category of any kind. The question becomes: what epistemological warrant is there for such metaphysical speculation?
And, if such a supernatural domain is able to act in contravention of the natural order, what does that do to epistemic foundations generally? Once one admits such things as a virgin birth, or other supernatural events, what is not up for grabs, epistemologically speaking? What justification do we have for disbelieving anything? What are the “rules of evidence”? What is foolish to believe or to disbelieve?
Do mere presuppositions, or pre-dispositions, provide any real epistemic warrant for believing in chartreuse unicorns? Is my passionate desire for such a magical world any kind of justification? Do (even disturbingly powerful) psychological experiences (visions, feelings of presence, etc.) provide any epistemic warrant for believing that they, in fact, represent some external-to-the-mind reality?
Epistemology asks what can we know, and how can we know that we can know it? If one wants to move beyond the bounds of empiricism and reason, it seems fair to ask: What are the epistemic grounds for such a move? (If one can talk about epistemology at all outside of reason.)
If one starts with certain theological premises, I have no doubt that one can build an internally consistent theological system (and a great deal of debate on here goes to the question of whether or not one has actually done so). But internal consistency, while being necessary, is not a sufficient condition for accepting a system of thought (else we might all be Tolkienists).
I don’t know how one reasonably invests in belief without some articulable epistemic reasons, that at least seem sound (and allowing such seeming soundness to be tested). I do think there can be aesthetic grounds for living one’s life within the framework of a religious system—and I do not discount aesthetics, which I think are existentially important. Whether or not there is a link between aesthetics and epistemology—or the extent of such a link—I am not sure. We do tend to look for coherent patterns (harmony, if you will) in our varied interpretations of reality.
Originally posted by vistesdYes, it is true that the Christian has a presupposition that the Bible is God's word. That really wasn't missing anywhere; I wasn't making an exhaustive list of everyone's premises and presuppositions.
There seems to be a premise here that you did not state: That the Bible is true. Absent taking the Bible (or other religious texts) as demonstrable evidence, the counter-argument is equally valid:
(1) There is no demonstrable evidence for the existence of God.
...
Good discussion, but way too many things to address without writing a book! So I'll just have to discuss a few points, almost at random.
There are several unstated and unargued presuppositions in your discussion, even in the first premise. You alluded to some of them.
Again, everyone holds and operates with many presuppositions (whether consciously held and categorized as such or not), and these presuppositions comprise a worldview (not always consistent) that he uses to view available evidence and make further conclusions.
Gonna have to pick this up tomorrow.
Originally posted by HolyTYou are contradicting yourself. First you say that to not believe in God is the definition of a fool. Then you say that the definition of a fool is to not believe the truth but you call it a premise, then you make your original definition the conclusion of a logical argument.
True knowledge is associated with wisdom; to despise truth is to be or act as a fool. This is essentially a Biblical definition of what a fool is.
ARGUMENT:
1. It is true that there is a God (premise #1).
2. To believe ("says in his heart" ) contrary to truth is to be a fool (premise #2).
3. Therefore, one who believes that there is no God is a fool.
One may disagree with the premises, but it is a valid argument.
But we all know that the sole purpose of the verse in the Bible is to make the claim that the commonly accepted definition of a fool fits a person who does not believe in God. The verse is not in any way trying to make the argument that you are claiming nor is it trying to make a definition.
To demonstrate my point, if I say "The fool uses the user name 'HolyT'" could you honestly say that I am redefining the word fool then making a valid logical argument or am I simply using the well known definition of the word in an attempt to insult and deride you?
Originally posted by HolyTAm not sure if this is where you’re coming from, but—
Yes, it is true that the Christian has a presupposition that the Bible is God's word. That really wasn't missing anywhere; I wasn't making an exhaustive list of everyone's premises and presuppositions.
Good discussion, but way too many things to address without writing a book! So I'll just have to discuss a few points, almost at random.
There are sever ...[text shortened]... ew available evidence and make further conclusions.
Gonna have to pick this up tomorrow.
If you are trying to claim that, since all beliefs are at bottom based simply on (themselves epistemically ungrounded) presuppositions about the world, they are all epistemically equal—then it seems you have swept away epistemology altogether. If all beliefs are at bottom presuppositional, the result is a kind of radical skepticism in which no beliefs have any real epistemic justification. We believe because we believe because we believe—or not, as the case may be. There is no real difference at all between the believer and the skeptic—since the believer, if she is honest with herself, must be skeptical about the veracity of her own “beliefs”.
EDIT: I realize that my inference did not address the putative truth of the first premise. Like you, I was merely pointing to deductive validity, not soundness.
EDIT 2:
It seems to me that we all start with empiricism—initially simply our sensory experiences upon being born out of and into this world. Later, we learn to actively observe and reason about our observations. Only after that do we wonder about what we cannot observe or experience.
Exception: Some of us were raised in an environment in which such wonderings and speculations had become part of the matrix in which we were raised. In which case, they were simply taken for granted as descriptions of reality given by our elders—at least until we reach the so-called “age of reason,” when we begin to question such previously unquestioned “presuppositions”. Absent that—e.g., in a cultural matrix in which questions of a supernatural category were simply not raised, in the positive or the negative—we would undoubtedly learn to simply rely upon empiricism and reason. Questions of “God” or “not-God” would simply not be posed. In such a (hypothetical) case, one could not properly say that one inherited a presuppositional framework for either atheism or theism.
However, even in such a cases, we did not have anything but basic empiricism until we were old enough that the cultural "matrices of belief" could be communicated to us in words and pictures...
Empiricism and reason (about the empirical world) seem to be existentially grounded, at least. Metaphysical speculations beyond that—whether religious or not—seem to be grounded only in the human imagination. That is, I would say that they might be aesthetically grounded, but not epistemologically grounded.
Originally posted by HolyTMy post is best referenced to the verse you cited from Romans, and the argument runs more like this:
Not sure what part of the cited post you\'re referring to. It didn\'t mention anything about the amount of detail provided in the Bible about God; it discussed what is revealed about God in \"general revelation\" apart from the Bible.
Perhaps you\'re just throwing that out there without specific reference to the cited post. In that event, again this goes ...[text shortened]... s merely a restatement of one of the premises, or a presupposition that supports it.
1. God\'s attributes and character merit man\'s praise [Rom 1:21]
2. God afflicted the family of Job, killed scores of Israelites due to the sins of their brethren, ordered genocide of certain non-Israelite races, etc. [OT stories]
3. Killing innocent people/genocide is morally heinous.
4. Beings who commit morally heinous acts do not deserve praise for their character.
But 4) contradicts 1). In order to resolve this contradiction, at least one premise must be rejected.
BTW, you can\'t assume someone is arguing from their own personal beliefs. One form of argumentation is to take a hypothetical set of beliefs and show that they entail absurd conclusion(s).
Originally posted by twhitehead"First you say that to not believe in God is the definition of a fool."
You are contradicting yourself. First you say that to not believe in God is the definition of a fool. Then you say that the definition of a fool is to not believe the truth but you call it a premise, then you make your original definition the conclusion of a logical argument.
But we all know that the sole purpose of the verse in the Bible is to make the I simply using the well known definition of the word in an attempt to insult and deride you?
No, I did not say that. The first premise was that the Biblical definition of a fool is one who believes contrary to Biblical wisdom, or fails to heed or accept Biblical wisdom.
I agree with you that the verse is not attempting to make a formal argument--but since the user I was responding to was trying to make an argument out of it and say that that argument was not valid, I was showing that, if one were to take the verse as making an argument (implicitly), the argument was logically valid--or at least the one that I inferred.
Once again, the verse is primarily making a comment about presuppositions--that not all presuppositions are equally valid, and some can be foolish--without making a long argument in one fraction of a verse.