Geisler's proper syllogism or circular reasoning?

[Liviu]

I'm currently debating a good friend whether the following syllogism is perfectly justified (friend's position), or circular reasoning (my position). Please try to put aside prejudices and give me your objective opinions.

As many of you know, Norman Geisler is widely regarded as a leading figure in Christian apologetics. He holds a Phd in Philosophy from Loyola University and is a prolific writer. The syllogism comes on the first page of the Introduction in the book entitled: When Critics Ask, A popular Handbook On Bible Difficulties. I'll also quote the context.

Opinions from those trained in philosophy and logic is hugely appreciated. Thanks!

"Introduction:

How to Approach Bible Difficulties

The Bible: Errors, NO!

Critics claim the Bible is filled with errors. Some even speak of thousands of mistakes. The truth is there is not even one demonstrated error in the original text of the Bible. This is not to say that there are not difficulties in our Bibles. There are, and that is what this book is all about. It is only to point out that there are not actual errors in the Scriptures. Why? Because the Bible is the Word of God, and God cannot err. Come let us reason. Let’s put it in logical form and then examine the premises:

GOD CANNOT ERR.
THE BIBLE IS THE WORD OF GOD.
THEREFORE, THE BIBLE CANNOT ERR.

As any student of logic knows, this is a valid syllogism (form of reasoning). So, if the premises are true, the conclusion is also true. As we will show, the Bible clearly declares itself to be the Word of God. It also informs us that God cannot err. The conclusion, then, is inevitable. The Bible cannot err. If the Bible erred in anything it affirms, then God would be mistaken. But God cannot make mistakes.

God Cannot Err
The Scriptures declare emphatically that "it is impossible for God to lie" (Heb. 6:18). Paul speaks of the "God who cannot lie" (Titus 1:2). He is a God who, even if we are faithless, "He remains faithful; He cannot deny Himself" (2 Tim. 2:13). God is truth (John 14:6) and so is His Word. Jesus said to the Father, "Your Word is truth" (John 17:17). The psalmist excalimed, "The entirety of Your word is truth" (Ps. 119:160).

The Bible Is the Word of God
Jesus referred to the OT as the "Word of God" which "cannot be broken" (John 10:35). He said, "until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the lease stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is acomplished" (Matt. 5:18, niv). Paul added, "All Scripture is God-breathed" (2 Tim. 3:16, niv). It came "from the mouth of God" (Matt. 4:4). Although human authors recorded the messages, "propehcy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit" (2 Peter 1:20, niv).
Jesus said to the religious leaders of His day, "You nullify the Word of God by your tradition" (Mark 7:13, niv.) Jesus turned their attention to the written Word of God by affirming over and over again, "It is written... It is written... It is written..." (Matt. 4:4, 7, 10). This phrase occurs over ninety times in the NT. It is a strong indication of the divine authority of the written Word of God. Stressing the unfailing nature of God's truth, the Apostle Paul referred to the Scriptures as "the Word of God" (Rom. 9:6). The writer of Hebrews declared that "the Word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart" (Heb. 4:12, niv).

The Logical Conclusion: The Bible Cannot Err
Yes God has spoken, and He has not stuttered. The God of truth has given us the Word of Truth, and it does not contain any untruth in it. The Bible is the unerring Word of God.

 

[Pesto]

P1. GOD CANNOT ERR.
P2. THE BIBLE IS THE WORD OF GOD.

C. THEREFORE, THE BIBLE CANNOT ERR.

Premise one is true by definition (assuming God exists). Premise two is disputed, which calls the conclusion into question.

 

[The Nihilist]

This reasoning is absolutely circular, as his examination of the first premises shows. He cites the Bible as evidence, while in fact the argument is intended to show that the Bible is suitable evidence. The argument can faithfully be rewritten this way:
The Bible does not err because the Bible says its author does not err.

 

[pneo]

This reasoning is absolutely circular, as his examination of the first premises shows. He cites the Bible as evidence, while in fact the argument is intended to show that the Bible is suitable evidence. The argument can faithfully be rewritten this way:
The Bible does not err because the Bible says its author does not err.

The syllogism itself is fine; it is the arguments for the premises which introduce circular reasoning.

Naturally, the second premise is so questionable that the whole syllogism is basically worthless.

 

[The Nihilist]

Yes, I agree. The syllogism itself is fine.

 

[Liviu]

Yes, I agree. The syllogism itself is fine.

This is exactly how I see it. The syllogism is valid, but worthless and unsound because Geisler appeals to what he's trying to prove as evidence for the premises. If that's not a classic example of circular reasoning I don't know what is.

 

[TeddyKGB]

Put me down for 'valid but unsound' as well.

 

[Martin^^]

P1. GOD CANNOT ERR.
P2. THE BIBLE IS THE WORD OF GOD.

C. THEREFORE, THE BIBLE CANNOT ERR.

Premise one is true by definition (assuming God exists). Premise two is disputed, which calls the conclusion into question.

re: P1
God cannot err?
But God is omnipotent.
Therefore he may err if he chooses.

I also dispute the logical validity of the syllogism. It is only true if 'God' and 'The word of God' are logically equivalent.
Since the Bible is simply a book, however significant, it is not the same as God.

 

[TeddyKGB]

re: P1
God cannot err?
But God is omnipotent.
Therefore he may err if he chooses.

I think we can meaningfully distinguish between at least two kinds of error. God can choose to write '2+2=5' but his goal is to write an incorrect equation; he still knows the correct answer. God could not, however, err in the sense that he brings about an outcome different than what he intended.

 

[The Nihilist]

re: P1
God cannot err?
But God is omnipotent.
Therefore he may err if he chooses.

I also dispute the logical validity of the syllogism. It is only true if 'God' and 'The word of God' are logically equivalent.
Since the Bible is simply a book, however significant, it is not the same as God.

Theologically, God cannot make a genuine error. He cannot contradict himself; logically speaking, if there is a contradiction within the universe, if, for instance, there both is a sun and isn't a sun, then the universe suddenly becomes not only incomprehensible, but utterly indescribable. If there is a contradiction in the universe, then anything follows. Anything. This is a cold hard fact of formal logic, and if you don't understand it, I can't explain it to you. I'm not being snooty, I really have a limited training in logic, but that is the way it is. You'd do better asking someone in seminary why God can't contradict himself. Probably something about perfection.
No, the Bible need not be the logical equivalent of God. All that must happen is that the two premises must be true, that God cannot err and that the Bible is written by God. If these two are true, then the Bible was written without error by God. If it's not clear to you, go learn what a syllogism is.

 

[Forest]

This reasoning is absolutely circular, as his examination of the first premises shows. He cites the Bible as evidence, while in fact the argument is intended to show that the Bible is suitable evidence. The argument can faithfully be rewritten this way:
The Bible does not err because the Bible says its author does not err.

So then by your example, all Geisler needs to do is to come up with a reason that God cannot err, other than the bible saying so, then it is no longer circular...?

 

[The Nihilist]

The syllogism by itself is not circular. It doesn't become circular until he tries to justify his premises. This is pretty much what we all agreed on at the beginning of thread.

 

[Martin^^]

.

 

[WilliamSC]

GOD CANNOT ERR (Why is erring possible/impossible? What would be an example of erring?)
THE BIBLE IS THE WORD OF GOD (What is the Word? What is an example of not being the Word?).
THEREFORE, THE BIBLE CANNOT ERR (It is not logical to formulate a conclusion based upon two unknowns.)

It is my opinion that God cannot err. To err implies the attempt to accomplish a task and not achieve the desired result. The Laws of God are verifiable in the Laws of Nature, the Laws of Creation, and the perfection in the Created gives evidence in the perfection in the Creator. If the Laws of Nature were not uniform and in harmony, then Nature would not exist. Existence itself verifies that the Creator achieved the task.

In my opinion, where the books of the Bible are referred to as “the word of God”, it does not necessarily imply that God’s sole means of communication is limited to the oral and/or written language of humans. As in John 1:1, in the beginning was the Word, and the Word existed prior to all else, which in relationship to the origins of Creation implies that the Word is the pattern, the conscious choice, the design, the blueprint, the sacred geometry that all of Creation is based upon. That which is presented in the Bible, such as the ten commandments and the numerous logics of behavior in harmony with Creation, those ideas are in harmony with the Word that existed prior to all else. To me, the Bible’s teachings of harmonious behavior with Creation is the Word of God (the acts are visibly exhibited patterns in harmony with the Word), but the paper and ink physical Bible is not the word of God as if writing a few words here and there could possibly communicate a fullness of a conscious thought. The Bible is not in error where the writings are interpreted to point to the Word itself, but of course if a person does not know of the Word then it is likely the person might misinterpret what was written. Many people do not grasp metaphors nor parables, so it is to be expected that the same people will likely not grasp what Word/word is being pointed to.

Some people like to discuss words without first understanding what the words mean, while other people prefer to first live-out and understand what the words are inferring to before the people discuss what the words imply. Similarly, how the syllogism is interpreted and discussed will be colored by the individuals’ degree of understanding of what the words imply.

In my opinion, the Bible cannot err, but then too neither can a novel or a textbook. Books themselves are inanimate objects, they have no choice but to be the creation of the creator(s). It is the creator that can act correctly or incorrectly. In my opinion, the Bible’s message as written in the original languages is valid, but of course where words and concepts are altered to fit different languages, it is an impossibility to retain the original mental patterning. To gain the understanding of a written document created in a different language, it is necessary to live-out the concepts. No quantity of word memorizing will suffice to instill an understanding of any topic, and especially not anything religious in nature.

In all, my opinion is that:

The syllogism is based upon a truth that God cannot err, but the truth was likely arrived at without a good understanding of the why God cannot err. It is acceptable to not understand the why, but without the understanding of the why there should not be an attempt to draw logical conclusions from information where too little or no information exists.

The Bible is the Word of God, perhaps not as some people might think of how “Word of God” should be interpreted, but the Word/design/Laws are there regardless.

The syllogism is circular in the fashion that if a person who does not yet have information of why God cannot err and why the Bible contains the Word of God, the person will not have sufficient information to rationalize outside the statements. Similar to dictionaries that state ethics are morals and that morals are ethics, unless a person first understands what an ethic or moral is, the person can gain no useful information from the circular definitions. Likewise is the circularity of the syllogism.

With sufficient information to base logics upon, the statement loses its circularity (God indeed cannot err, the Bible is indeed the Word of God, inanimate objects indeed cannot err), but the syllogism becomes a logics-statement absurdity since the finalizing statement assumes that the Bible is the full Word of God and that nothing else can exist within the Bible except the Word of God. First clarify each statement to the fullest, and then, and only then is it useful to draw conclusions from the information.

If an individual chose a different means of expressing the idea, perhaps the desired connection between the three topics would form a more logical concept such as:

God cannot err.
The Bible’s concepts express the creative Word of God.
Individuals who live-out the concepts of the Word of God understand that the Bible’s concepts are not in error.

 

[TeddyKGB]

If an individual chose a different means of expressing the idea, perhaps the desired connection between the three topics would form a more logical concept such as:

God cannot err.
The Bible’s concepts express the creative Word of God.
Individuals who live-out the concepts of the Word of God understand that the Bible’s concepts are not in error.

Those don't look like exceedingly useful topics. The Bible's concepts are only discoverable using an interpretive framework, and it is unclear how to determine which framework succeeds at elucidating the "Word of God" (which, incidentially, I understood to be Jesus anyway).

Thus, your third topic has circularity problems of its own.

 

[WilliamSC]

Those don't look like exceedingly useful topics. The Bible's concepts are only discoverable using an interpretive framework, and it is unclear how to determine which framework succeeds at elucidating the "Word of God" (which, incidentially, I understood to be Jesus anyway). Thus, your third topic has circularity problems of its own.

Interesting. Syllogism and circular definitions are the topic, and another circular syllogism is provided as an answer?

“Those don't look like exceedingly useful topics” – The statement is based upon a belief-based conclusion without supporting evidence. Why do the topics not look to be exceedingly useful? Until an individual understands the topic at hand, it is irrational to form a belief about the topic.

“The Bible's concepts are only discoverable using an interpretive framework, and it is unclear how to determine which framework succeeds at elucidating the "Word of God" “– Wow, nothing personal, but I find it sufficient cause to raise an eyebrow when an atheist claims to know how to interpret religious writings. I do not know by what means you have arrived at the claim, so I will not speculate further on it. In my personal experience, I have never (yet) met any individual well experienced in theology who would make such a claim about interpretive frameworks, so please forgive me of my questioning.

My opinion does not wish to agree with your opinion because I do not yet understand what you are implying by “interpretive”. If you are implying a mental interpretation, as in the interpretation being biased according to a person’s chosen system of beliefs or base of knowledge, then I fully disagree. If you are implying ‘interpretation by means of learning through action’, then within that framework I would agree. Since I have never met an atheist individual who self-chose to learn through empirical investigation, at present I must lean towards suspecting the first interpretation would be closer. Do please correct me if my leaning is in the wrong direction.

“which, incidentially, I understood to be Jesus anyway” – It is not logical to formulate a conclusion based upon unknowns.

Sorry Teddy, but it appears to me that your statement of response has similar circularity and invalidity as the original syllogism. If you feel something I said does not appear correct, then let’s talk about that specific thing. It is not logical to form a conclusion about what was said without first understanding what was said. I previously wrote a lengthy enough post to have established my intentions, and I see no peaceful reason why any individual would misinterpret what I feel was stated plainly enough. If however I did not well explain a topic, then do please let me know so that I can learn to phrase my words to be better understood.

 

[papakapp]

Those don't look like exceedingly useful topics. The Bible's concepts are only discoverable using an interpretive framework, and it is unclear how to determine which framework succeeds at elucidating the "Word of God" (which, incidentially, I understood to be Jesus anyway).

Thus, your third topic has circularity problems of its own.

This is not at all hard to explain, but, oddly, it is almost impossible to explain while sounding "scholarly" The reason for this will become clear in a moment...err... maybe not?

"Interpretive frameworks" are only effective when testing lesser (either less proven or less self-evident) concepts.

Basically, the framework validates, or disproves the postulate.

But, suppose there is a being that claims to have all power, and know all truth. Let's call Him God. WEll, how would we go about testing this claim? We need something that is more powerful, or more truthful. We look around... No such thing exists. Now, we can come to one of two conclusions:

1) This thing made the greatest claim imaginable and I cannot test it, therefore it must be God.

2) This thing made the greatest claim imaginable and I cannot test it, therefore it must not exist.

What error did the first conclusion make? well, I guess you could call the error "faith" that is, it arrived at a conclusion without testing it first

What error did the second conclusion make? It presupposed that it has the capacity to test all postulates. Thereby closing the door to any possibility of something greater than itself existing.

of all the concepts that are out there, one of them must be "most trustworthy" Which one? how would you even be able to test that? you may know, but you can't use science or empiricism or philosophy to figure it out. they all fail in their methodologies

 

[funyun]

GOD CANNOT ERR.
THE BIBLE IS THE WORD OF GOD.
THEREFORE, THE BIBLE CANNOT ERR.

There's nothing wrong with the syllogism given the premises. Both of the premises, however, rely on theological assumptions. They are flawed in that they are unverified, and claiming theological victory based on this syllogism is ignorant at best, flagrantly deceitful at worst. The problem of circularity comes in when you ask how the person making the argument knows 1 or 2. Inevitably they will fall back on another assumption within the argument to answer that question, and therefore the argument will become circular. A logically consistant statement is not proof of anything in reality. For example:

1) Dragons are entirely red.
2) Dragons have wings.
3) Therefore, dragons' wings are red.

Well, yes, assuming 1 and 2 are correct, that is a logical conclusion which is in no way circular. But it does not demonstrate that dragons have wings, that they are entirely red, or that they exist at all.

 

[The Nihilist]

I think the point of this thread is secretly to demonstrate who does and does not have formal training in philosophy.

 

[Forest]

There's nothing wrong with the syllogism given the premises. Both of the premises, however, rely on theological assumptions. They are flawed in that they are unverified, and claiming theological victory based on this syllogism is ignorant at best, flagrantly deceitful at worst. The problem of circularity comes in when you ask how the person making the argument knows 1 or 2. Inevitably they will fall back on another assumption within the argument to answer that question, and therefore the argument will become circular. A logically consistant statement is not proof of anything in reality. For example:

1) Dragons are entirely red.
2) Dragons have wings.
3) Therefore, dragons' wings are red.

Well, yes, assuming 1 and 2 are correct, that is a logical conclusion which is in no way circular. But it does not demonstrate that dragons have wings, that they are entirely red, or that they exist at all.

I agree completely, well except for the flagrantly deceitful part.