AiG: Going in circles?

[Mallon]

This is a question I posed last week in the OT forum, but got nothing in the way of answers. That said, I'm very curious as to how YECs square Answers in Genesis' seeming circular logic in their minds.
Here's what I mean:

AiG states on their website (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/about.asp) that the Bible is supported by scientific evidence:

The Bible—the “history book of the universe”—provides a reliable, eye-witness account of the beginning of all things, and can be trusted to tell the truth in all areas it touches on. Therefore, we are able to use it to help us make sense of this present world. When properly understood, the “evidence” confirms the biblical account.

But they also state (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/about/faith.asp) that the only evidence they find acceptable is that which does not contradict the Bible:

No apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record.

My question is how do YECs square this apparent circular logic in their minds? Do you agree with AiG's fundamental stance? I ask because I know AiG is quite popular among YECs, and I assume they have their reasons for supporting them. It's a genuine question that I hope will provoke some answers.

And please, no posts from TEs!

 

[BoaBreedingChristian]

We live in a cursed and fallen world. One may attempt to piece together information from this fallen world and apply it to scripture if they like, but it will end in the end prove false.

I wonder, out of all the information in the cosmos, what percentage we, as humans, posses? Far less than 1 percent im sure. Theories are constantly changing as we get more and more information... trying to piece together "best guesses".

Will there be many (supposed) "best" guesses that contradict the Bible? Sure. But they will prove false or remain unproven.

The key part of that first statement: "When properly understood, the “evidence” confirms the biblical account."

The motivation of evolutionists to discredit the Bible and relegion blinds them towards properly understanding and applying science - in reality the supposed best guesses are unsubstantiated - and are pushed foward by secular society.

 

[laptoppop]

In some ways it can be seen as circular reasoning -- but what it really represents is the preference for direct revelation as opposed to indirect deduction. We can learn from the Lord's creation -- but we need to trust what He says more than what we deduce from it.

 

[BoaBreedingChristian]

In some ways it can be seen as circular reasoning -- but what it really represents is the preference for direct revelation as opposed to indirect deduction. We can learn from the Lord's creation -- but we need to trust what He says more than what we deduce from it.

Yeah, what he said. Very well put!

 

[busterdog]

Yeah, what he said. Very well put!

RIght. And a better choice of circles than the circular reasoning of having merely human knowledge validate itself.

 

[Mallon]

So, I get the distinct impression from everyone's replies here that you all acknowledge this is circular reasoning, but it's a non-issue. Correct?

 

[busterdog]

So, I get the distinct impression from everyone's replies here that you all acknowledge this is circular reasoning, but it's a non-issue. Correct?

I think that is a fair statement.

One view of it is that YEC abides conflicting evidence, since it believes that it will one day square with scripture. That is a bit different from merely cherry picking the data, but not much different. I think conflicting evidence in any of these areas is a fact of life, whether you are YEC or TE. The effect on YECs is to cherry pick supporting scientific evidence and assume that one is accepting all the "evidence' in literal scripture.

Seems to me this form of reason is endemic to humans. You have to choose one self-validating system or another. There are no externally validated systems, unless you believe that Scripture is revelation -- which of course begs your question.

In the evolutionary world, this practice is seen to the extent that unresolved issues are presumed to be solvable by science at some point. It would seem that literal scripture is read to be consistent with such evidence, not "rejected," but I still think the essential model of thinking is the same. The YEC view is that evolutionism is chucking good data, ie, literal scripture as well as some science.

 

[Mallon]

Thanks for your answers, folks. That's all I needed to know!

 

[laptoppop]

So, I get the distinct impression from everyone's replies here that you all acknowledge this is circular reasoning, but it's a non-issue. Correct?

No, I would not agree with that characterization. Circular reasoning is self-supporting. The difference here is that there is an external element inserted into the "circle". This element is faith and trust in the explicit revelation of an active, existent, loving God. This is not a circle, it is a matter of the superiority of explicit revelation over our own perceptions, logic and thinking. God knows more than we do - so if we disagree with Him, *we* are wrong, not Him.

We trust more in the explicit revelation from God than in what we might deduce from our observations of His creation.

 

[Mallon]

Sorry, laptoppop. I'm having a hard time understanding how faith somehow straightens the circular logic. Can you please elaborate further?

 

[laptoppop]

Basically - we trust God more than ourselves. If we see a conflict, it is because we or our logic are wrong, not Him.

He has given us an explicit revelation in Jesus, and has also explicitly revealed Himself in the scriptures which teach of Him. If our understanding contradicts what He has said, then our understanding is wrong.

The sticky part, of course, as usual, comes in how we understand the Scriptures. RM expressed it well in a recent thread -- its kind of like a loop -- if we see a conflict, we should check both our understanding of reality AND our interpretation of Scripture.

Ultimately, however, God is true, and His direct revelation is true. It is the primacy of that revelation that supercedes all our own understanding. If we rely on our own understanding, we will fall into error.

 

[vossler]

Basically - we trust God more than ourselves. If we see a conflict, it is because we or our logic are wrong, not Him.

He has given us an explicit revelation in Jesus, and has also explicitly revealed Himself in the scriptures which teach of Him. If our understanding contradicts what He has said, then our understanding is wrong.

The sticky part, of course, as usual, comes in how we understand the Scriptures. RM expressed it well in a recent thread -- its kind of like a loop -- if we see a conflict, we should check both our understanding of reality AND our interpretation of Scripture.

Ultimately, however, God is true, and His direct revelation is true. It is the primacy of that revelation that supercedes all our own understanding. If we rely on our own understanding, we will fall into error.

I just love it when someone can compress an issue to it's core like you just did. If I could think and write as eloquently as you just did, I would have said that too.

 

[Floodnut]

So, I get the distinct impression from everyone's replies here that you all acknowledge this is circular reasoning, but it's a non-issue. Correct?

No, it is not circular reasoning. We start with the Bible. The Bible is true. It is true because it has been reliably transmitted to us and is confirmed in its content by thousand of corroborating manuscripts. It came to us from the hand of the apostles and prophets. Its content is life-changing, its fulfilled prophecies quite amazing.

We start with the Bible.
If I say that the natural world is best understood through biblical presuppositions, how is that circular? If I say that the biblical world view fits the evidence of the Creation, I am only saying what the Bible says. IF I say that the Voice of Creation says the same thing that the Bible says, it is not circular reasoning. It is only claiming as MINE both the revelation of Scripture and the revelation of the Created World. TE's don't like that. They think they have a corner on Science, over and above the simple statements of Scripture, so they revise the meaning of Scripture. THAT is circular reasoning.

 

[Mallon]

Take 'er easy, Floodnut. I'm not here to debate. I'm here because I would like to better understand your take on creation science.
You (and others) still seem to be telling me the same thing AiG states on their website:
1. The Bible is true.
2. We know it's true because because it claims to be true.
(I see this as the first circle.)
3. Because the Bible is true (in all senses of the word, including historical), science must operate within this framework.
4. Any scientific evidence that deviates from this framework must be rejected.
(The second circle.)

If this is a misrepresentation, please correct me.
For what it's worth, I too believe the Bible to be true. Not because it says so, but because I can attest to what it says about the fruits of the spirit, for example. This straightens the first circle for me, as I'm sure it does everyone else here.
Still, the second circle concerning the scientific inerrancy of the Bible confuses me. I fail to understand how we can reject evidence that contradicts a literal reading of Genesis and independently verify the scientific accuracy of the Bible. To me, it's like Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle: if you know the position of an electron, you cannot know its momentum, and vice versa. Equating a literal interpretation of Genesis with God and saying you trust that doesn't straighten the circle for me.

Maybe it's just me, though. Maybe, as pastorkevin says, I'm thinking too hard.
Regardless, this has proved interesting. Thanks for everyone's input so far. God bless each of you.

 

[laptoppop]

The change I would make would be to statement 2.
We know it is true because it is the explicit revelation from the loving, omniscient, powerful God, creator of all that exists, in Whom there is no lie.

This overshadows everything else.

 

[Mallon]

The change I would make would be to statement 2.
We know it is true because it is the explicit revelation from the loving, omniscient, powerful God, creator of all that exists, in Whom there is no lie.

This overshadows everything else.

Yes, but again, how do you know it's the "explicit revelation from the loving, omniscient, powerful God, creator of all that exists, in Whom there is no lie"?
Because the Bible says so?

 

[laptoppop]

For what it's worth, I believe the Bible to be true. Not <just> because it says so, but because I can attest to what it says about the fruits of the spirit, for example.

It is a combination of the text and the Holy Spirit convicting my heart.

There are also external validations, such as fulfilled prophecies.

 

[Floodnut]

Yes, but again, how do you know it's the "explicit revelation from the loving, omniscient, powerful God, creator of all that exists, in Whom there is no lie"?
Because the Bible says so?

I don't get it. If we say it is true. That is circular reasoning, And if we say that it is true because of external confirmation that is also circular reasoning. It is a debate and an attack in the guise of "fellowship."

 

[Mallon]

I don't get it. If we say it is true. That is circular reasoning, And if we say that it is true because of external confirmation that is also circular reasoning. It is a debate and an attack in the guise of "fellowship."

Don't be so sensitive, Floodnut. I'm not here to attack or debate your beliefs. I'm here to learn more about them. However, if you feel I am causing a raucus, then I will leave.
That said, if you take AiG's approach and reject all evidence that contradicts a literal Genesis a priori, then how do you figure the Bible is externally verified?
Just asking.

 

[Floodnut]

Don't be so sensitive, Floodnut. I'm not here to attack or debate your beliefs. I'm here to learn more about them. However, if you feel I am causing a raucus, then I will leave.
That said, if you take AiG's approach and reject all evidence that contradicts a literal Genesis a priori, then how do you figure the Bible is externally verified?
Just asking.

AiG does not reject evidence that contradicts the Bible. AiG and others will certainly reject INTERPRETATIONS of the evidence that contradict the Bible.