Perhaps any interpretation of the bible, it's cultural, spiritual and epistemic significance, is subjective, and therefore possibly open to error? And that such an error (if it were to exist) may not be immediately apparent to others or amenable to personal revelation?

If not then such interpretation must be objective, in which case perhaps there is some explanation as to the prevalence of dissenting views? How does one person have access to an objective view and another not, and how does one know ones access is authentic, rather than just believing it so?

If we can accept the possibility of error then a discussion as to where we differ can be an enlightening experience, else we just be throwing stones . . .

Science is not a hierarchy of knowledge; it is a hierarchy of belief. Knowledge is a belief which is justified; science does not offer any justification, nor can it. What justification, for example, do you claim that reality actually is the way science assumes? What justification do you claim for an empirical worldview, and for using empirical observation? It is not as if these things justify themselves or are necessary in some way. It is not self-refuting to point out that empiricism is subjective and inductive, nor to point out that an external reality need not exist at all. However, we are using the principle of uniformity as the nexus of our discussion, so I will again reiterate my point by challenging you, or anyone, to justify this principle.

I have already refuted this view of faith as regards Christianity. Certainly some professing Christians may exhibit this kind of faith, and other religions may consider this a valid definition—but biblical faith is quite the opposite of what you have described here. I have made this quite clear already.

This statement makes no sense. You seem to be implying that objective knowledge must be self-evident to begin with; but why? There is nothing intrinsic to objective facts, in general, that makes them necessarily available to everyone. Furthermore, upon what basis of knowledge-acquisition do you even make such an assertion? That is to say, what metaphysic do you presuppose which explains the process of knowledge-acquisition sufficiently to make your implication coherent to begin with?

Rejecting the premise is incoherent. How would you propose that a subjective person could come to objective knowledge (that is, a belief which he is justified in considering to be representative of the actual state of reality)? By merit of being particular, and not universal, it cannot be the case that his own subjective perception is a valid means of knowledge-acquisition, since perception may be in error to an unknowable degree. Apart from coming to beliefs through perception, the only other method available is to have information imparted to him (revealed) by someone who is in possession of objective knowledge.

Interpretation is subjective inasmuch as it is colored by personal prejudices or ignorance. However, although words have nuances of meaning, they nonetheless do have meaning, and thus can reliably and accurately represent the propositional content of even divine revelation. There are times when the meaning of a scriptural passage may be unclear in isolation; but the overall meaning of Scripture is quite perspicuous. Where variant interpretations exist, it is possible to subject them to scrutiny in light of both logic and other scriptural passages, to determine which is correct. The adoption of false interpretations is a result of a failure to be rational. This is certainly to be expected, since sin is, in essence, a failure to be rational, and all people are sinful. However, since logic is self-attesting, it is possible to determine when we are being rational and when we are not. Scripture is objective and truthful; however, our understanding of it may be faulty inasmuch as we adhere to subjective and false beliefs. Unfortunately, being sinful, that is something we do a lot. No doubt I do it as well. However, again, where my interpretation is false, it can be shown to be false—and if I am being rational, then I will agree that it is false.

You're somewhat correct in that a circular argument is logically valid. Meaning, the truth of the premise ensures the truth of the conclusion. However, the problem is that a circular argument is not convincing. If one does not accept the conclusion, neither will they accept the premises (which, is just the conclusion repeated)

The problem with this discussion though, IMO, is that you will not allow any common assumptions, or even acknowledge that you are making assumptions. If I tried to offer a circular argument, naturally you would not accept it, but allow a conspicuous exception for yourself, on the same type of reasoning.

Well, I see this more as a problem of under-determination. From my perspective, there are many religious texts, all of why make similar claims to authenticity and exclusive truth.

For all I know, the Bible was written by Satan

I don't have a problem with circular reasoning, if I just admit I have made starting assumptions.

An axiom is of course, just an assumption. You are making a very complex assumption.

Personally, I take it as a reasonable assumption.

Given that you see allow circular justification as valid proof, I can simply state that the principle is self-justifying. It's no more circular than your circular justification

But honestly, I conceptualize knowledge diferently than you are doing. I don't see the need for endless justification, as by definition, you've set up the game with rules that guarantee failure.

IMO, knowledge ultimately boils down to data compression. Rather than remembering ten thousand details, I will try to look for patterns that sumarize that overall set of experiences. these simpler patterns, you might call knowledge, but I see as neither true or false, but merely useful.

The point is not to show an assumption is true (compared to what???), but to pick assumptions that are useful in making predictions. The PUN may or may not be 100%, but absolute truth is not a requirement. If there are errors we notice, we can always go back to our original assumptions and refine them. I can point out numerous useful applications of science, which justify the original assumptions. Otherwise, it becomes puzzling how science could achieve correct results if the basic assumptions are way off (as we'd expect the error to propagate exponentially in each application of the assumption).

Rather, if you think the starting assumptions are wrong, you must provide a good case why this is so. Arguing that there is a problem with an assumption, but not providing concrete reasons is pointless... anything can be questioned. You are playing skeptic on assuumptions you find reasonable.

All you have to offer is sophistry and conjecture?

Never mind. I think it is painfully obvious that you are nothing but a troll. It is even likely you have no such beliefs, and are here to discredit more reasonable believers (and a fine job you are doing there).

/ignore

Firstly, why do you consider it a reasonable assumption?

Secondly, if it were self-justifying I agree it would be reasonable. But it isn't. Self-justification implies that it shows itself to be true; the principle of uniformity does not do this. The Bible does, by attesting to its nature as God-breathed.

But the idea of making predictions itself rests upon the assumption of uniformity, among other things. Belief that science achieves correct results relies on an assumption that the world exists outside of you, in a way which correlates to your perceptions. This may seem like a reasonable assumption, but why? Furthermore, how do we know that science achieves correct results, rather than wrong ones which nonetheless serve a useful purpose? Utility is no measure of truth.

However, you have admitted that absolute truth is not the issue. I agree that this is the case in the scientific worldview—however, questions regarding philosophy and ethics, rather than technology, do appear to require absolute truth. It must either be true or false that God exists, for example. It is well and good to acknowledge that science does not and cannot answer this question, and indeed cannot even shed any light on it whatsoever—but then what becomes of the question? It is not as if science can justify its assumptions about naturalism or materialism; so it cannot rule God out from the start (at least, it certainly has no rational basis for doing so). All you seem ultimately to be saying is that, coming from an empirical point of view, you are unequipped to deal with questions of theology and philosophy. The problem is that most people coming from that point of view are very quick to decry theology as irrational and foolish, when in fact what they mean is that they have precluded it from the start by adopting an extremely inhibited and handicapped worldview which is unable to even entertain such topics as meaningful. This is no reflection at all on whether these topics are meaningful, of course—unless the truth of empiricism is assumed without rational warrant, which ought to be the precise opposite of what these supposedly rational atheists would do.

I am not playing a skeptic at all—the reason I find these assumptions reasonable is that I believe the Bible, which gives solid justification for things such as the principle of uniformity. I would be at a complete loss to explain why I believe it is reasonable to believe such things if I did not have objective revelation from which to derive a metaphysic and epistemology. The point I am trying to make is not that the principle of uniformity is unreasonable, but that it is reasonable despite the fact that atheists are completely unable to justify their belief in it. Atheists rely on faith so much more than Christians that it staggers the mind to find them making snide comments about irrational beliefs and circular reasoning. If I ask an atheist how he knows anything, he is unable to tell me. He believes many things, but the amount of actual knowledge he has is minute—and the amount of knowledge he has about how he has knowledge in the first place is non-existent.

Unfortunately, very often when this is pointed out, an atheist will choose to multiply words without knowledge and resort to ad hominem, instead of attempting some kind of rational investigation into the problems with his worldview. For example—

"Faith is a cop-out. If the only way you can accept an assertion is by faith, then you are conceding that it can’t be taken on its own merits."
—Dan Barker, "Losing Faith in Faith", 1992

It summarizes my direct observations of the world better than alternative assumptions.

But the principle can be justified circularly:

1. Assumption: PUN is true
2. therefore, PUN is true (by 1).

If you add the requirement that it explicitly justifies itself consider this circular justification axion:

Define an "I am right" axiom (or IAR for short):

1. Everything I say is true. (assumption)
2. Therefore, the previous statement is true (by 1)

Then rather than proving PUN, I can use the conjunction "PUN & IAR" as a base axiom. This satisfies your requirement for self-justification. Granted it won't be convincing to you, because you reject IAR, just as I reject your circular axiom.

There are an infinite number of possible axioms that can be then proven as part of an X & IAR conjunction. Circular reasoning isn't false, but depreciated in value for this reason. Anything can be "proven" circularly.

But I don't see how one can pick up a Bible and read it, if they are consistently skeptical about the existence of an outside world. A Bible is an object in that world. From my perspective, it seems you are making every assumption a scientist is making ... and more.

Take it one step further. Assuming here that the religionist (Christian in this discussion) is correct, then God would also exist in that world. As such, God would merely be perception and not Truth.

But why do you believe that your direct observations of the world are reliable to begin with? In fact, what makes you think that there is 'a world' in the sense that that phrase implies?

I won't accept it for the same reasons I have given before: you are not an objective party, and thus do not qualify to know (have justified belief about) what is true and what is not. That is the difference between the Bible and you; the Bible takes the same approach by stating that it is the word of God, and God is always right—but the reason God is always right is that he is a transcendent and objective knowledge-giver. There is no similar reason to assume that you are always right, and so the assertion fails.

One wouldn't. In fact, skepticism of that nature would presumably only exist in the minds of the deranged. The point is that one does believe in the existence of an outside world, but finds oneself unable to justify that belief. Therefore, one has to search for a solid epistemic basis; which, if one puts a little thought to it, one discovers can only be an objective revelation of some kind, and not any subjective perception or belief.

You might need to elaborate on what you mean. In the Christian worldview, God is ultimate; everything is contingent upon him in some way (including things like logic and knowledge). In what way would you argue that God is perception, and in what way does this imply that he is not Truth?

First is Believe, by association Faith is given, then from this association and hearing, Knowledge arises.
You find it in politics, terrorism as well as religion.
Believe is created by interaction of the senses and the sense objects.
Have faith in it

So faith justifies faith? I think we have gone over this...

It's just a working assumption ...

You are entirely free to assume there is no external world, but I don't see what conclusion you can draw from this.

You seem to be giong down the road of Descartian skepticism ...

It is true that we can set the bar of sketicism so high as to preclude the possibility of any knowledge. This would rule out any knowledge of the extrenal world ... which unfortunately, would rule out the veracity of a 2000 year old religious document, as well.

For one, now you are running into the problem of extrenal minds. You really are not in an epistemic position to comment on what goes on in my head, or even if I'm a carbon lifeform How do you know I'm working with the same data as you? For all you know, I might be Jesus. These are all assumptions you are making.

If I wanted to play your card, I can always claim direct communication with God.

Or, I can state that my objectivity follows directly from the IAR axiom. My judgement about this is also verified by IAR.

The point is though, circular reasonning is not convincing. You are rejecting the reasoning (just as I said you would) but oddly don't see a problem with your own circular reasoning. Are some circles more circle-ly than others?

If you don't allow others to make circular arguments, you should not make them yourself.

When Jesus said to "do unto others as you would have them do unto you," I think this could be interpreted to imply that the same standards of proof we hold others to, we should also apply to ourselves...

We agree! Which, IMO, it's a shared assumption we are making.

Not necessarily. You are taking a foundationalist approach to knowledge (a la Descartes) ... which ultimately is self-refuting.

yes, because it should have evidence to justify the merits. If there's no evidence, faith is dead. The evidence should range from things known only to the one that claims the faith to things known by those that know the one that claims the faith. If it doesn't do both, the faith is religion, not God.

People that try to prove God exists without evidence, don't know what faith is.
"Heb 11:3 Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear."

Firstly, how do you know it is working?

Secondly, you cannot base knowledge-claims on an unjustified assumption. If everything you claim to know ultimately reduces down to a "working assumption" then it does not constitute knowledge at all.

No it isn't; that is my point. It is true that, if we set the epistemic bar at the level of rational justification, we, subjective human beings, are precluded from attaining knowledge by our own power. But it is most certainly not true that knowledge is precluded altogether. This is the essence of my argument: it is self-evidently absurd to claim that subjective beliefs are justified and true. It is not absurd at all, however, to claim that objective revelation is justified and true.

The question then becomes which of the alleged objective revelations which exist is the correct one. The Bible can be demonstrated to be the only revelation which satisfies the various preconditions for knowledge, by building a working metaphysic and epistemology. Other purported revelations are either corruptions of biblical revelation, or simply invented by man, and thus fail as completely as any atheistic claim as a first principle for a knowledge-affirming worldview. One way or another, they do not satisfy certain preconditions required for knowledge—such as establishing a metaphysic capable of explaining knowledge-transactions.

Yes I am. I have the Bible as the foundation of my worldview, and I know from it that other people exist and that communication with them is possible. Since my worldview presupposes that the Bible is the word of God, I have no epistemic problem at all. It is you who is unable to justify your belief in external minds, and are not in an epistemic position to comment on what goes on inside anyone's head, etc. You are trying to import your epistemic problems into my worldview, when the point of everything I have said so far is to demonstrate that you have no rational justification for anything you believe—whereas I do.

A worldview, by definition, must be circular in some way. A first principle cannot be justified by other principles, since then it would not be the first principle—therefore, it must justify itself. It is not unconvincing at all to believe that objective revelation is the foundation for knowledge. It is unconvincing, on the other hand, to think that your personal perceptions can offer such a foundation—particularly if you cannot offer any kind of metaphysic by which we can understand knowledge transactions to begin with.

Bnonn: you have lost the debate.

It's pretty clear now what your "debate" style is... it's a two part technique:

For one, you ask 'why' repeatedly. If a justification is given, you then ask 'why' of that. (Note: asking repeated questions is not really an honest technique, since questions do not bear a truth value ... you've effectively tried to isolate your claims from possible refutation, by rendering them as questions. Questions, except for clarification, should generally be rephrased as *assertions*)

Secondly, if one challenges your claims, you then shift into a circular reasoning pattern.

What I've shown is that I can justify my beliefs using the same technique as you. I can simply repeat the IAR axiom indefintely. I can also ask 'why' repeatedly of your claims. But I don't feel the need to spell the pattern out for you.

This refutes your claim that atheists cannot justify their beliefs, or more specifically, cannot justify their beliefs on the same intellectual level as you have. Your reasoning is not impressive, since I've shown anything can be "justified" along the same lines.

Moreover, atheism only requires a *subset* of starting assumptions that you are making (but won't admit to making). One must first assume an external world exists before one can pick up a Bible and read it. However, you've repeatedly failed to address this point. The truth of the Bible is a fairly hefty assumption you make as well.

Your failure to see the problem with circular reasoning really warrants no response. You are only convincing yourself here...

I'm just paraphrasing a definition i heard of faith a while ago here. It's simply accepting something without any evidence to accept it or, if you want to be more emotive, it's a process of non-thinking.

I think there's faith that you could argue about being okay, where you believe something even though there's not enough evidence (detective: i think he killed the guy, i can tell) to believing in something even though there's more evidence to support the opposite viewpoint (detective: i saw him kill the guy, his fingerprints are on the weapon, it's on video and there's blood and GSR on his clothes - but i don't believe he did it i've got a hunch) is misplaced faith, in my opinion.

Faith can be useful - having faith in other drivers to not to crash into you while driving, having faith in your friends or whatever - it's useful to live a human life, but it can cause trouble when people refuse to accept reality because they have faith in an alternate, happier version of it.

If adequate justification is given there is no need to ask 'why'. However, you have not given adequate justification. I've explained quite clearly and reasonably why this is so. Asserting that I have lost the debate, without engaging with my arguments, is hardly very sensible.

But I have already shown that everyone's basic reasoning is circular, and that this is no indication of error. However, certain conditions must be fulfilled if the axioms one assumes are to be considered valid and sensible. The Bible fulfills these preconditions, whereas secular worldviews do not. If you have not understood why IAR is not a valid method then you must not have read my posts very well, since I think I explained it quite simply.

But no justification has been given. The justification of the revelation of an objective knowledge-giver, from which we can build a metaphysic and epistemology, is quite different from the justification of a personal assertion. Again, you don't like that I am assuming (without proving) that the Bible is the word of God; but I have already pointed out that, if we do not, knowledge is impossible since no belief can be justified. You have yet to even engage with this basic fact, let alone refute it.

I've already covered this. An epistemology does not come chronologically prior to certain beliefs one holds, because it must justify those beliefs to begin with. It is chronologically subsequent, but logically prior to one's existing beliefs. You seem to have again misunderstood me; I am not saying that Christians do not believe in an external world, and neither am I denying that this belief is unjustified before they are converted. I am saying that we believe in an external world, and this belief is also justified by taking Scripture as our first principle. You seem to think that one must assume an empirical epistemology in order to have any epistemology at all, which is obviously a bit ridiculous, especially since an empirical epistemology is utterly incapable of justifying any belief whatsoever, since it relies on subjectivism and induction.

You've hit upon an interesting point. My experience with religion is that all too often, faith denies reality. That's stupid and dangerous. As long as faith is consistent with known reality, then there's not a problem with it. The problem is when you hold to your beliefs in spite of overwhelming contradictory evidence.