Saturday, September 04, 2010

Scriptures and Philosophy, the Words of an Old Fool

One day grandpa was using me as a sounding board  for some thoughts he had Here are the words that he spoke.

"Boy, there is much argument over the use of philosophy as a guide to come to a political solution to problems. There are even those who accuse others as rejecting science in favor of philosophy. This is self-contradictory by the fact that any ideology of politics is in itself a philosophical viewpoint regardless of whether or not it is a religiously based ideology or a secularly based ideology.

Logic promotes the idea that no argument should include premises that would require the belief of the existence of God in order to declare their argument as a valid argument. The logical reasoning behind this idea is the fact that there is no way to prove in a logical manner that God does exist.

Following up on this logic it is also declared that the use of scriptural quotes as a source of evidence to justify an argument is also illogical. And this would apply to the scriptures of any religious establishment regardless of the beliefs of the people in any collective. The reasoning behind this is that Scripture is considered the Word of God as dictated to the human writers of the Scriptures. Thus, there is a need to prove God’s existence before we accept the Scriptures as the Word of God.

From this it is declared that any logical argument should be argued by using secular premises only. By this it means that God is not presumed to exist but without the outright denial of the possibility that He does exist. The reason for this is the fact that logically there is no way to prove that God does not exist either. Since everyone must acknowledge the existence of Scriptures then there only two possibilities. They are the Word of God or they are the words of man or men.

Since there are only two possibilities of the existence of God we can divide the people up into two collectives, those that be God-fearing and atheists. We’ll leave the skeptics on the sideline for now since they still need convincing one way or the other and to remain consistent.

The only conclusion that we can come to based upon the above premises is that God should be left out of any argument presented unless the argument is an argument of theology. This may be fine when the argument is of the field of science because the very foundation of science is the recognition and study of that which can be declared as knowable and measurable only. To a God-fearing person it would be declared as the study of the creation rather than a study of the creator.

This, in itself creates a dilemma of logic. The reason being is that logically there are only two possibilities, either God does exist or God does not exist. And the strength of any argument is determined by the belief of the listener in regards to the existence of God. Logic would also declare that every valid possibility be allowed in an argument because to eliminate even a single possibility leaves the possibility that the argument will be shown as illogical and invalid, if not now then at a later time when knowledge is greater.

Either God does exist therefore the Scriptures are a valid source for argument or God does not exist and the Scriptures were written by men and why should we not be allowed use them as a source just as we use the words of any other man considered wise enough to quote for philosophical matters?

But then again, boy what do I know?  Your grandfather is nothing but a foolish old man."


BB-Idaho said...

Good questions worth a ponder. While I'm pondering religion, philosophy and science, I'd note that in our professional resumes we cover all those bases by
providing references to:
a Paster
a Professor
a fellow professional.
...usually worked for me. :)

The Griper said...

that is true, amigo. and each of these references would likely describe a difference attribute or combination of attributes within their field of expertise of a person,

the pastor, a person's morality.

a professor, how well a person deals with new challenges.

and a fellow professional, how well a person works with others.

each of these going far in the decision to be hired in any field.

Lista said...

Hi Griper,
I Wonder if I should Start Responding to you on your Blog Again. I guess I'll give it a Try.

Most Classes that are Taught in Secular Schools are Done So with the Premise that there is No God, yet this Premise can not Be Proved any more than the Premise that there is a God. The Idea that "No Argument should Include Premises that would Require the Belief of the Existence of God.", therefore, is Biased in the Favor of Atheism, which Can not be Proved. It Just so Happens that Very Few Things can be Proved with any Degree of Certainty, so if Logic is to be Based on Something that can be Proved, then there would Be Very Little Logic that is Actually Valid.

Belief in God, as well as Disbelief in God Affects all Areas of Life, not just Theology.

"Logic would also declare that every valid possibility be allowed in an argument because to eliminate even a single possibility leaves the possibility that the argument will be shown as illogical and invalid, if not now, then at a later time when knowledge is greater."

I'm Going to Try and Remember that One, Cause it is a Very Good Statement and Actually, the Next Paragraph is Good as well.

Generally in Arguments, we Look for Common Ground and Try and Start with Premises that we can Agree on. If we can not Agree on the Premises that are Foundational to Our Over All Thinking, then we are not Going to Agree on much of Anything and Continuing to Argue Based on Premises that the Person we are Talking to does not Agree with is Fruitless.

The Griper said...

he smiles, you probably are more correct than even you realize, lista. very good.

Lista said...

She Smiles too. I Wish I had Known. If I Want a Complement, then I have to get back to Writing on the Blogs again. As you Know, I was away from it for Awhile and I'm still not sure what I'm Going to do about my Own Blog, if Anything. My Last Post is more than a Year Old.

I Agree with you that we should be allowed to Use Scriptures as a Source, just as we would the Words of any other Man. At the Very Least, the Bible is a Historic Book that is Trusted by a Large Number of People and that has Withstood the Test of Time.

BB's Going to be Shocked to Observe you and I Agreeing on Something. lol.

When Talking to Non-Believers, However, Several Approaches must be Used. The Quoting of Scriptures is one of the Approaches, but it can not be the Only Approach Used, for "Because the Bible Says so" Usually just doesn't Fly. That is why we have such a Thing as Apologetics. Authors, such as Josh McDowell and Lee Strobel are Very Good in this Area.

I Told BB Once that no Matter how much he has Read, if he Still Doesn't Agree with me, then he Needs to Read Some More. lol. Whether he Actually Will or not is Hard to say.

BB-Idaho said...

Most times argument relies on logic; many times the logic is that of premise and conclusion. The logical argument in that case depends on both the validity of the premise and the correct deduction therefrom. What we run into a lot, though, are
statistical premises; for
example, a premise might be [15% of scientists are Jewish]*true* and [65% of Jewish voted democrat] *true*. We could conclude
that 0.65 X 0.15 = 9.75%
of the Jewish scientists
voted democrat. On the other hand, if we premise
[81% of scientists voted
democrat]*true* and [9.75%
of those were Jewish scientists] *derived above* we might conclude that 0.81 X 0.975 = 7.89%
Jewish scientists voted democrat. So, we have
'proven' two different figures. In each case the statistical premise was true, but the methodology
flawed: we really do not know what percent Jewish
scientists voted-we assumed that they voted like their peers (Jewish)
(scientist)...but we do not know that. In physics
a method known as statistical mechanics is used in quantum calculations. It can answer some but not all
answers, hence the
Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle ..on a more pragmatic level, the problem with interpeting statistics was best stated by an old German ballistics engineer friend
who noted, "if we believe
statistics, every person in the US has one breast and one testicle" THAT is logical!

Lista said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Lista said...

Hi BB,
That's just Like the Statistic that Every Couple has 1 1/2 Children, yet I haven't Met any of the Half Children, have you?

Lista said...

Hello again BB,
I Wrote the Above Comment Rather Quickly. Actually, the Statistic that I was Trying to Describe has to do with the Average Number of Children that there are in a Typical Caucasian Household and it is 1.(Something). I do not know the Actual Number, but the Point I was Making is that Actual People are Measured in Whole Numbers, not Fractions after the Decimal Point.

I Found your Example of the Breasts and Testicles Interesting and Humorous. You Always do Make me Laugh. lol.

I Checked Out your Link Relating to the "Uncertainty Principle" too and Found that Interesting as well. Nothing is Really Certain and Certainly not Logic. I Actually Find the Idea that People Think they can Actually Prove Things a Little Humorous at Times.


Words of Wisdom of my visitors

Grab This Widget

Gas Buddy

Search for gas prices by US Zip Code


Design by Amanda @ Blogger Buster