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."