Homosexuality Is An Indicator Of Lack Of Divine Participation In The Creation Of Scripture

My presumption about the bible is that if it is to be called divinely inspired, then there must be some quality of divinity about it. I presume that if there were a holy spirit, and it can inhabit and influence all people who believe, then that spirit would be able to provide Quality Assurance to the writings that make up the Bible. This Quality Assurance about the internal consistency of the content of the Bible would be an indicator of aspects of its divinity.

And now, at the risk of "Political Incorrectness" I present my presumptions about homosexuality. I presume that it is like my heterosexuality. I presume that they didn't have any more choice about their sexual preference than I did. I presume that since most people are heterosexual, homosexuality is a deviation from the norm.

With these presumptions I intend to show that the treatment of Homosexuality in the bible most likely does not have any divine aspects about it. The following are some important passages regarding homosexuality in the Bible.

* Leviticus 18:22 (New American Standard Bible)
22 You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination.

* Leviticus 20:13 (New American Standard Bible)
13 If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltiness is upon them.

* 1 Corinthians 6:9 (New American Standard Bible)
9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals,

In summary, it is an abomination, it is detestable and they shall be put to death, and they will not inherit the kingdom of God.

But research into human sexuality casts doubt on the 'Righteousness' of biblical principles regarding homosexuality. In the recent edition of Scientific American (June 2007) there is an article called "Going Beyond X and Y" by Sally Lehrman. Dr. Eric Vilain researches the phenomena of babies born with mixed sex organs. He has discovered new information that modifies traditional thinking about how developing babies sex is determined. He has discovered that it has genetic factors that are more complicated than previously thought. I am paraphrasing but he is researching the likelihood of competing genes that affect the organs, genitalia and brain development. He says that the gender effects in the brain happen before the organ effects. 1 in 4500 babies wind up with mixed sex organs. When this happens, the doctor makes a best guess on what the sex of the infant should be and performs surgery to facilitate it. Dr. Vilain has proposed that it be classified as DSD (Disorder of Sexual Development). In America, out of 300 million people, that comes out to be 66,666 people. It is a predictable rate. God is very consistent or he has nothing to do with it. Because of rushed gender assignment surgery to the infant, you will have cases where a woman is "trapped" in a mans body or vice versa.

Homosexuals shouldn't be considered an abomination, detestable or punishable by death and assignment to hell. Furthermore, we should be able to assume that some of that complex process will get mixed up to a lesser degree and result in a mans sexuality in a womans body and vice versa to include bi-sexuality.

Dr. Vilain recommends waiting on the sex assignment surgery, carrying out psychological counseling and classifying this as a clinical disorder. That seems pretty compassionate of him. He could just kill the baby in accordance with Leviticus if it weren't illegal by secular law, thank god [ ;-) ]

Does God do it on purpose or does it happen naturally? If he does it on purpose, then to what purpose? What value does it add? As a christian my justification that Homosexuality was an abomination was because logically, it would mean the end of the human race. But it doesn't happen enough to make this facet significant. As it stands, according to The Bible, it happens either naturally or divinely and then the subject should be killed or at least detested. If it happens naturally and God doesn't have anything to do with it, what is the principle by which Homosexuals are condemned? What is the principle in either case? Am I missing something? Where is the sense?

But homosexual behavior is exhibited in nature in other species. This means that it is not a specifically human trait. It spans species. This is the type of thing that is predicted by evolution. There is a museum exhibit in Norway that details the 1500 species that homosexual behavior has been observed in. I observed two camels doing something homosexual the last time I went to the zoo. One camel evidently was a cunning linguist. [ ;-) ]

I assert that the fact that there are biological determinants to human sexuality discredit the christian presumption that Homosexuality is a sin. It may be a disorder, but evil?
Is color blindness evil? Is dwarfism evil? Is a curved spine evil? Are they an abomination, detestable, punishable by death and assignment to hell?
No to all of the above. And neither is Homosexuality.

The attitude in the bible is simply an example of Bias against those that don't fit the standards for the group. It is human fear. Human Homophobia. Otherizing. It is obviously not very divine.

Note: Otherizing is
"(s)tereotyping…is part of the maintenance of social and symbolic order. It sets up a symbolic frontier between the ‘normal’ and the ‘deviant’, the ‘normal’ and the ‘pathological’, the ‘acceptable’ and the ‘unacceptable’, what ‘belongs’ and what does not or is “Other”, between ‘insiders’ and ‘outsiders’, Us and Them. It facilitates the ‘binding’ or bonding together of all of Us who are ‘normal’ into one ‘imagined community’; and it sends into symbolic exile all of Them —“the Others’—who are in some way different--- ‘beyond the pale” (Hall, 1997, 258).

Since Alfred C. Kinsey published his seminal research, Research into Human Sexuality has suffered setbacks due to the influence of the religious right. "Kinsey's research polarized a segment of society. Many in the Christian Right found their religious and socially conservative views in conflict with Kinsey's methods and underlying principles. They saw his supporters as dissolute libertines and his work as morally corrupting. Even today, Kinsey's name can elicit partisan rancor." Many of Kinseys general conclusions have been verified by other research and are now considered valid by the scientific community. (Wikipedia, Alfred Kinsey)

Further Reading/References:

This paper discusses problems in Education regarding "Otherizing".

Hall, Stuart. ed.(1997). Representation : Cultural Representations and Signifying Practices. London: Open University.

Here is a link to a story of one families effort to force a son to be a girl after a circumcision tragedy. It didn't turn out too well. He didn't seem to be able to willfully change his sexuality.

Here is a link to more information on Homosexuality
Alfred C. Kinsey
Some other DC articles that discuss Homosexuality:
Was Jesus Left Handed?
Homosexuality Bible vs Nature
Homosexuality and the Christian

Non-Atheistic Recommended Reading

As a contributor to DC, obviously, I am agnostic and, additionally, a former Bible study teacher and Born Again Evangelical Christian. I didn't get that way by reading content on sites like this. In fact, I didn't have any interest in anything atheists had to say until I stood alone with a lack of belief in a god that I acquired after a couple years of truth seeking. Not "God Truth", but "Practical Truth". The kind of truth you need to find before you purchase health products, or make decisions at work. When I applied that to my Christian beliefs, they didn't stand up very well...

At that point I wanted to see what 'the other side' had to say so I subscribed to the Infidel Guy and spent a year downloading and listening to debates and interviews. I also listened to a years worth of Robert Price's Bible Geek show. Then I listened to a Sam Harris Lecture promoting his book "The End of Faith" and got motivated to do something to help make the world a better place. A year ago I started a blog that was a last ditch effort to get God to participate in this relationship we were supposed to have and intervene. All I got was a madman posting a bunch of crap on it. Thats when I decided to Join DC and be part of a team and leave the moderation of loons up to someone else. My point in this increasingly blathering document is that applying the type of practical reasoning that people must necessarily use in every day life will in some cases weaken the perceived validity of the content of the Bible.

Along with the Atheistic books you see posted for sale on this blog, I recommend some books on the topic of reasoning and innoculation to persuasion. I am no teacher but I am a compulsive self-learner and I have read some text books that I want my children to read and I recommend to you. They are High School Senior level and above. I am sure there are better ones out there, and I have some of them unread on my shelf, but until I get to them, this is the best I can do. Maybe some of you out there are Educators and can suggest some others. In any case, reading these books will help you in other areas of your life such as dealing with the boss, coworkers, subordinates, your teens, tweens, kids, sales people and the news.

They fall into two categories; Reasoning and Persuasion. Some associated topics are Argumentation and Rhetoric, and while I am interested in both those topics, I won't recommend any of those books here because they fall outside the scope of this article. I include persuasion because people need to be aware of how people are 'hard-wired' to trust and believe things without much thought.

On the topic of Reasoning.
* Introduction to Reasoning by Stephen Toulmin, Richard Reike, Allan Janik
* How We Know What Isn't So by Thomas Gilgovich
* How to Think About Weird Things: Critical Thinking for a New Age by Theodore Schick and Lewis Vaughn
* Logical Self-defense by Ralph H. & J. Anthony Blair Johnson
* Informal Logic by Douglas Walton.
* Practical Reasoning by Douglas Walton.
* Abductive Reasoning by Douglas Walton.

A word about Douglas Walton. He is a philosophy professor and researcher that is heavily involved in research for artificial intelligence and is helping to derive algorithms for use in computers to simulate human reasoning.

On the topic of Persuasion.
* Influence. Science and Practice by Robert Cialdini.
* Persuasion by Daniel J. O'Keefe.
* The Art of Deception by Nicholas Capaldi

[Revision 1. Placed another link to more news like this after the article]
An update on research into morality as an evolutionary adaptation. I'm just waiting for the old "God wrote it on our hearts..." rejoinder....

The problem with that claim is the following.

As a general principle, if god exists, then he wrote it on our hearts just as the bible says.
But the problems are
* there is no credible evidence that God had anything to do with the Bible
* there is no credible evidence that God exists
* it would suggest that if god did write it on our hearts, then he 'hedged' the freewill question
* and this type of morality is not sophisticated enough to be considered some type of divine manipulation.

Enjoy!

Science Daily

Humans hard-wired to be generous

WASHINGTON, May 28 (UPI) -- A study by government scientists in Washington indicates humans are hard-wired to be unselfish.

Neuroscientists Jorge Moll and Jordan Grafman of the National Institutes of Health say experiments they conducted have led them to conclude unselfishness is not a matter of morality, The Washington Post reports.

Rather, the two say altruism is something that makes people feel good, lighting up a primitive part of the human brain that usually responds to food or sex.

Grafman and Moll have been scanning the brains of volunteers who were asked to think about a scenario involving either donating a sum of money to charity or keeping it for themselves.

They are among scientists across the United States using imaging and psychological experiments to study whether the brain has a built-in moral compass.

The results are showing many aspects of morality appear to be hard-wired in the brain, opening up a new window on what it means to be good.

Copyright 2007 by United Press International. All Rights Reserved.

Here's another related link with more information on this type of research. On that page, on the right hand side are even more links to this type of research news.

Atheists Don't Believe in God Because They Think They Are So Smart They Don't Need Him

This is to a addresses a Frequently Asked Question/Frequently Offered Claim that Atheists don't believe in God because they think they are so smart they don't need him.

It may be true that some self-professed atheists equate intelligence with not believing in God, but I think a good argument can be made that this is a type of self delusion. The kind of un-belief that I experience is not something that I chose. It just happened. It happened as I started to question my beliefs instead of just taking them for granted. And as I gained more knowledge, especially about the Bible, my faith just went away. There was no choice about it. The thought of needing or not needing god never entered the equation. It was irrelevant.

In 1998 The Journal Nature reported that a larger portion of the National Academy of Sciences are unbelievers than believers. This correlates to what I experienced, and it infers that the more you know about the world, the less you believe in a God. But learning about the world is not the only thing that eroded my belief. Studying informal fallacies had a big part in it. It lead me into critical thinking, which led me into informal logic, which led me into the study of reasoning in general.

Learning how to determine the truth in a pragmatic way and applying that to my religious beliefs are what really eroded my belief. A love of truth. A desire to know the truth. A desire to know how to find the truth. A desire to make sense out of the world. A desire to be able to figure out when I am being lied to. A desire to protect myself from the wolves that Jesus said I had been thrown into the middle of. In order for a sheep to protect himself from a pack of wolves when everything happens in Gods time, he needs to be a little bit smarter than the wolves. And when I realized that I could increase my chances of a successful outcome by pre-planning and forethought, all that was left was just dumb luck and prayer. And we all know what they say about prayer, allow me to paraphrase "don't hold your breath".

While I can't speak for all atheists, the cause of my unbelief is not that I am so smart I don't need him, it is the fact that I did an honest search for the truth, and found it. To do that, I needed to find new information. Finding new information means getting smarter. I guess that sometimes when people get smarter, faith in a God just fades away.
My, my, hey, hey.

you will know the truth,
and the truth will make you free.

Should The Atheist Have to Prove There Is No God?

This is to addresses a Frequently Asked Question/Frequently Offered Claim that since the Atheist claims there is no God, they should prove it.

Should the Christian be required to prove there are no Hindu Gods? Should anyone have to prove that something does not exist? Proving a negative is problematic. To prove something is not there or proving a negative requires iterating through all possibilities and ensuring that if it were possible to prove it, it could be proved. For a closed system or a system where the parameters are well defined it would theoretically be possible, but not practical. For an open system or a system with parameters not defined, it should be impossible. In Informal Logic this is called an Argument from Ignorance.

Typically when someone is expected to prove something they are expected to prove a positive. Plaintiffs are expected to make a case and prove it in court. Citizens are usually considered innocent until proven guilty. Cases where citizens have been considered guilty and required to prove their innocence haven't turned out very well. The Salem Witch trials, McCarthyism and political mud-slinging are all examples of the problems with having to prove a negative.

So now how does one go about proving that God doesn't exist or that anything doesn't exist? One way to do it is to turn it around, inventory what you know and come up with some expectations and test for them. Find something that makes some positive claims and test them. In the case of God, the Bible makes many testable positive claims. Some of them have been verified and some of them have not. Some of them suggest something completely different and weaken those testable claims. Christians make a lot of claims about their experience. As these claims are iterated through, we can get a better idea of what is valid or not. As we go through this process, we gain knowledge and come to a point where we can come to a reasonably sound conclusion.

To assert that someone should prove a negative is to place an extraordinarily high burden on them and history has shown that the process does not have a high rate of success. This is one reason why it is not generally considered a reasonable demand to be placed on anyone. Since, if a thing exists, there should be evidence of its existence, it should be easier to find the evidence of its existence than the evidence of somethings lack of existence.

Since the Christian God is one of many throughout the ages, the default position should be neither for or against and the party making the positive claim should handle the burden of proof. In fact, Jesus reportedly did not tell his disciples to be convinced, he told them go convince (Matt. 28:16-20).

Does The Atheist Want God To Do Tricks?

This is Frequently Asked Question/Frequently Offered Claim. It seems to stem from the Atheist requirement for less subjective evidence of God.

Atheists have a more empirical criterion than Christians do. Generally an Atheist will not settle for any testimonial or subjective evidence while a Christian will. Since Atheists are not likely to accept anecdotal or subjective evidence for God, they prefer the kind of evidence that results from something like but not limited to a scientific style inquiry.

When faced with a conclusion that does not seem to follow from the evidence, isn't it normal to want more evidence which better supports the conclusion? Law, Law Enforcement, Medicine and Science are only a few fields that depend on having a conclusion as qualified as possible, as certain as possible. Arresting a person, sentencing a person to prison, performing surgery and showing results from scientific grants are actions that depend on a conclusion based on sound evidence. It just won't do to settle for "maybe". Since the prospect of a God has the potential to influence every part of our existence it follows that we should as sure as possible that God exists.

So if the Atheist is not convinced by the evidence presented, it should be expected that the Atheist would want more evidence. This evidence could be as dramatic as imaginable or it could be as subtle as something personal. If God is everything he is supposed to be he knows what it would take to convince us. If God wants a relationship with us, then he should be as present as necessary to create it and sustain it. Christians claim that he does and that Atheists refuse it. But I think a strong argument can be made that an all powerful being could, with a minimal amount of effort, be undeniable if it wanted to be.

What are our expectations for relationships with our friends, family, spouses, business acquaintances or strangers? What does it take to sustain those relationships? Most of the time, its not tricks, just a little understandable feedback.

Christians Are Not Stupid or Irrational

This is to address a Frequently Asked Question/Frequenty Offered Claim that Atheists think that Christians are stupid and/or irrational. This is easily shown to be false, at least for the members of DC. There are plenty of demonstrably intelligent Christians, some of them frequent this blog. But how does this perception persist?

It seems to stem from a misunderstanding. Several factors come into play but the most significant factor is the evidence for God. Atheists have a more empirical criterion than Christians do. Generally an Atheist will not settle for any testimonial or subjective evidence while a Christian will. When every Christian argument depends on the existence of God and the premise is disputed for lack of credible evidence by the Atheist, this creates a significant impediment to the resolution of the disagreement. Rationality depends on a conclusion based on reason. A rational argument depends on taking evidence into account. If the evidence is in question, though both sides are arguing rationally, this situation can understandably be frustrating for both sides in the debate and can, in a worst case, degrade into personal attacks (aka an "Ad Hominem").

Another type of exchange occurs when the Atheist analyzes Christian arguments using principles of "critical thinking" and may be perceived to have or may actually have a condescending tone. The act of argument analysis and criticism can in itself be perceived as condescending. On the other hand, I have seen situations where a Christian will initiate the charge against an atheist. The Christian will assert "The fool says in his heart yada, yada, yada...", and then allege that “Atheists think that Christians are stupid, when in reality the Atheist is the fool” and justify the charge of foolishness using scripture.

Suspension of Disbelief

Changingminds.org is a site devoted to the study of persuasion. A post I discovered today discusses the suspension of disbelief to enjoy a movie or book and how people enjoy this behavior. I think this can be applied to religion to help explain a facet of it.

Below is an excerpt of the key point of the article.
"In his study of happiness, Csikszentmihalyi (1990) showed that being able to let go of the sense of self has a paradoxical effect of creating a state of happiness that perhaps relates to the one-ness of the neonatal phase. In suspending disbelief in their stories, authors thus help their readers feel good."

I highly recommend keeping an rss feed to this site. You can find a ton of good information about how people persuade each other and react to persuasion. It might help immunize some of you "fence sitters" from evangelicals and give you a fighting chance to resist while you are listening to LSAT Logic in Everday Life, honing your critical thinking skills.

Another excerpt from the "About" page on the site follows.
"You might also be the victim or target of persuasion, as we all are, many times each and every day. Because if you can detect a trick or technique coming your way, you can avoid it, expose it, or play with the trickster, doubling back the deception and outplaying them at their own game. For this is the great leveller: if you try to deceive someone and they discover it, then the game ends there and then, and they may never trust you again."

Additionally, here is a link from their blog on seven rules of religion.

There's also a lot of good Human Resources Department type of information at changingminds.org as well.

A Means to Manage Uncertainty

Before I get started, I want say thank you for the kind sentiment, the blessings and prayers.

Now, I want to ask you to stop ignoring the fact that we were once as devoted as you. That is called a qualifier. It is part of the truth of what we are saying to you. That we believed, searched with all our hearts, came away with nothing. This means that god doesn't want us, that we are in the queue, or that he doesn't exist.

And I want to point out another characteristic of Christianity that I noticed when I was in it.

Christians try to use god as a way to eliminate uncertainty in their lives. A blessing or a prayer is a way to implore to god to change things in favor of ones wishes.

Christians align themselves with the ideal because (most importantly) they save themselves from torture forever, and they know that a world where everyone thinks the same would logically reduce conflict. Christians just want what everyone wants, they want to live comfortably. Uncertainty is scary.
Eliminating uncertainty is in their best interest.

Christians want to evangelize and change peoples minds, hearts etc, they want to influence the world and they are using god to it.

God is the 'good luck' charm, or the talisman, the magic wand, the appeal to consequences, the appeal to force. They do what they think he wants, as per their interpretation and their individual experience with their personal god. They pray for things to change. They say 'that was a blessing' when they could have just as well said 'that was lucky'.

Christians say "I'll pray for you instead of saying 'good luck' ". They pray for themselves hoping they'll get their wish ("Oh, no, not me, its other Christians that do that!" point, point), knowing in reality that it is up to gods will, and gods will is more or less unpredictable, just like chance. If Christians set up the conditions right, they can get a prayer answered, and if they don't they will likely get squat. Just like chance.

Christians pray for the world to come in line with what they want the world to be rather than accept is as it is and work with it. Rather than figuring things out and determining how to come up with the most likely successful outcome, they waste their time praying about it, waiting for some answer to pop into their head, then they think it came from god. In a worst case they "JUST GIVE IT TO GOD!" and don't seriously think about it anymore. In reality, if something pops into their head, it is an option that they more than likely would have found sooner had they expended some resources to do some investigation and careful consideration. If not, they get whatever happens by chance and lament about how "its gods will and everything happens for a reason".

Ignoring qualifiers is what happens in a biased thinker. Biased in that the Christian wants the world to be a certain way, and thinks that they can make it that way using god. It is self-centered and controlling and to make it work, it requires ignoring facts about the world that negatively impact the scenario (challenge the "reality" of god).

Think about it the next time you do something like go watch fireworks on the fourth of July and hand out free cold water with your church banner hanging on your car. Get those people in your church, change those hearts and don't forget to remind them about the ten percent Jesus commanded when the plate comes around.

I used to be a young earth creationist, because in my mind, to make any sense, the bible had to be literally true if A GOD had something to do with it. How could it not be? Then when I started doing an HONEST search and stopped ignoring qualifiers and started trying to figure those variables in, it started falling apart.

I got this way from an honest search for god.

Believe it or not.

A truth can survive scrutiny if it is a truth. If god is everything he is said to be, he can too. Give it an honest try. Christians shouldn't have anything to worry about if they have the strength of their convictions.

Why I am an Agnostic: The Bible as a Domain of Knowledge

"In my walk with God, I thought I found him but I was wrong. If he were there I would have found him, unless he were hiding."

I present this diagram and explanation because I have seen several times Believers lamenting that they just want to see how an atheist thinks. While I don't consider myself an Atheist, I definitely have properties of one, so the label fits well enough for practical purposes. I can't speak for everyone but this is how I think. Johns Book review and follow on Article gave me the impetus I needed to come to grips with an idea that had been bubbling on my back burner for a while. I had alluded to it several times in articles and comments but had never made it coherent. It was an internal thought process that I had never tried to put into words or explain before. Hopefully this will show, contrary to claims from believers, that I do not want god to be a trick pony, and that there is evidence that would convince me of his existence and why it is not reasonable for me to commit to the Idea of a god.
If we say that the Bible represents a domain of Knowledge (A) and it contains knowledge that we can perceive (B) as well as knowledge that we can't perceive, then there is a portion of the knowledge of A and B that we can validate. If we set about a process of validation then the parts that we cannot validate or are shown to be false will fall outside our sphere of commitment (C). As we validate, invalidate or find inconclusive, our sphere of commitment will move either inside or outside the Domain of A. There will come a time when the sphere or commitment falls far enough outside the Domain of A that the person cannot reasonably commit to the domain of A. This depends on the acceptance of the types of evidence that the person is willing to commit to. In my case, the kind of evidence that I require prevents my sphere from moving towards A. I think my requirement for evidence is pretty simple. I want a god to be non-ambiguous and/or irrefutable. Not that I want it to make me a robot, but I do want it to present its case or evidence so that it would be unreasonable for me not to accept it. I have to say that my walk with god was a lot like a walk with chance. That idea occurred to me while I was praying one day.

Now this raises the question, if I am wrong, is god justified in sending me to hell. He has the burden of proof. Compared to a god I am stupid, worthless and weak. I should be easy to convince.

Here is how to say it in a more nerdy way. It is a reprint from a comment I made in Johns follow on article.

In an inquiry, when an argument from ignorance has investigated a domain looking for a true proposition and does not find one, then the argument from ignorance turns into an argument from knowledge.
The more you search through a knowledge base, the more you know about it until you know enough about it to say whether a given proposition is true or not.

- If I had an older brother I would know about it. Robert C. Moore calls this type of reasoning Autoepistemic Reasoning.
- I did not find my dog in my house, if he were in my house, I would have found him.

Another way to say it is as follows.
D is a domain of knowledge, K is a knowledge base in D.
It has not been established that all true propositions in D are contained in K.
A is a special type of proposition such that if A were true, A would normally or usually be expected to be in K.
A is in D.
A is not in K.
For all A in D, A is either true or false.
Therefore it is plausible to presume that A is false (subject to further investigations in D).
Walton, Douglas N. 1996. Arguments from Ignorance. Pennsylvania State University Press. P.149.

The Bible as Truth?

If a truth is real, shouldn't it be able to be verified? Once a truth is verified shouldn't it become a fact? Once a fact is verified as the truth, shouldn't it stand up to scrutiny and always be found to be true?
If we can't verify a fact, should it be a truth? If we can't verify a truth can it really be considered a truth?
(I am updating this article with new links and references as they come to mind.)

In my post on the bible as a faulty premise I showed that the bible does not appear to be the product of one mind, a Gods mind, and there is no corroboration for it, therefore its claim to be 'god breathed' is likely to not be valid. Its validity is based on circular reasoning. What is circular reasoning and why is it important with reference to the Bible? In laymans terms circular reasoning is when you state your claim and then, usually after rewording it, you state it again as your reason for your claim.
Here is a link to Wikipedia that explains it and I have also provided some analogies to help explain it which follow.
- Tom says he doesn't lie, therefore he doesn't.
- The company that makes motor oil says theirs is better than all the rest.
- A childs parents tell them not to do something because they said so.
- God exists because the Bible says he does and the Bible is the word of God.
- The Quran is a revelation from God because it says it is.
- Formula one auto racing is the best kind of racing because they go faster and use complicated tracks, and any race that goes faster and is more complicated must be the best.
- A Pharmaceutical company says their drug will help this or that and is safe.

Hopefully these analogies will show why it is important not to overlook the fact that a thing should not be considered valid until there is some other way to measure it or validate it.

Circular reasoning is not an acceptable kind of reasoning in our day to day life. When we submit a resume, the employer always asks for more than one reference. In courts, people are not convicted on the testimony of one individual. We tell our kids not to talk to strangers, or get in the car with strangers. Should we tell them that the exception to the 'stranger' rule is when they find one that says they are honest?

If we accept the concept of circular reasoning as valid reasoning, we open ourselves up to all kinds of fraud. In fact billions of dollars are spent every year in law, medicine and insurance because circular reasoning is not a practical type of reasoning for ensuring fair and equitable circumstances for a population.

So if we shouldn’t accept the Bibles claims simply because it claims them, maybe we should find out where it came from. If it is the truth it should be verifiable and stand up to scrutiny.

What else could corroborate the bible?
Archeology, Anthropology, Textual Criticism, Biblical Criticism.

I recommend some impartial university courses on Comparative Religions and Ancient Civilizations concentrating on Near Easter Civilizations and I urge people to give a serious look at their mythology.

There is good reason to believe that the Tanakh (The Old Testament) has roots in Near Eastern Mythology. Here is a website from a scholarly author that talks about his research and his books. He is one of many since the 15th century that have observed this phenomena.

Here are some links to information (from Wikipedia) about that time period. They are not intended to prove anything but are intended to be a quick reference for a better understanding of the Bible.
Phonecia
Ugarit
Fertile Crescent
Canaan
Palestine
Israel
Judea
Assyria
Persia
Babylonia
Egypt
Flood Myths, Epic of Gilgamesh
The Bible
Validity of David and Solomon, interview with archaeologist/author Neil Asher Silberman
Excerpt from Biblical Archeology Review with Israel Finkelstein from MSN Groups

Alan Dundes, a famous Folklorist, says that academics are at risk for questioning the traditional understanding of the bible. "It turns out that studying the content of the Bible could prove to be a risky proposition, definitely dangerous to ones health or professional standing"(Dundes, 20). He goes on to cite some cases. His Book "Holy Writ as Oral Lit: The Bible as Folklore" was published at the end of his career and a few years before his death. There is significant pressure in academia not to criticize the Bible. This is not the case in other fields of study. In other fields of study, criticism is expected and necessary to weed out the ideas that don't work from the ideas that do.

In a addition to the general information links listed above, below are some references material that are useful for a study of the Bibles validity.

REFERENCES

Callahan, Tim. 2002. Secret Origins of The Bible. California. Millennium Press.

Davis, Kenneth C. 2006. Don't Know Much About Mythology: Everything You Need to Know About the Greatest Stories in Human History but Never Learned. New York. Harper.

Dundes, Alan. Holy Writ as Oral Lit: The Bible as Folklore. Lanham, Maryland. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.

Finkelstein, Israel and Silberman, Neil Asher. 2002. The Bible Unearthed. New York. Simon and Schuster Free Press

Frazer, James George. 1975. Folklore in the Old Testament. New York. Hart Publishing

Friedman, Richard Elliot. 2003. The Bible With Sources Revealed. 2003. New York. HarperCollins.

Helms, Randel. 1988. Gospel Fictions. Amherst, New York. Prometheus Books.

Matthews, Victor H. and Benjamin, Don C. 1997. Old Testament Parallels: Laws and Stories from that Ancient Near East. New Jersey. Paulist Press.

Smith, Mark S. 2002. The Early History of God: Yahweh and the Other Deities in Ancient Israel. Dearborn, Michigan. William B. Eerdmans Publishing.

Interesting link, but I'm not sure of its credibility:
Torah, Ugaritic Bible

The Believers Reasoning Scheme

A fallacy is an argument (aka pattern of reasoning, reasoning scheme, argument scheme) that appears valid but upon analysis is shown to be invalid or misapplied. The phrase "Anything is possible" is an example of one of those reasoning schemes that seems valid but is not. Anything is not possible. This article will discuss why an appeal to possibility should be considered for refutation on its face. It will then go on to discuss the effects this fallacy has in a dialogue. Finally it will discuss the process of sound reasoning, and introduce the phenomenon I call the Believers Reasoning Scheme.

Anything Is NOT Possible.
It is not possible for pigs to fly.
It is not possible for there to exist a married bachelor.
It is not possible for me to cut my left hand off with the edge of my right hand.

A person could sit for hours and think up a lot of things that are impossible if they gave it some thought. But under certain conditions is all of the above possible? At the point we introduce conditions then we are in the realm of plausible and implausible. At this point we introduce the word "Because".

"Because, Because, Because, Because, Because...."
It is not possible for pigs to fly because they don't have wings. But if we put a pig on an airplane then a pig can fly. A pig is flying because it is on an airplane.

When we examine what those conditions are we determine if the statement "pigs can fly" under Condition A is plausible. At that point we have to determine if Condition A is plausible. Is it possible that pigs can fly in an airplane? Yes. The airplane makes it plausible. Is it possible that pigs can fly in a boat ? No, it is not very plausible. There is nothing about a boat to suggest that it can fly or that it would change the state of our pig. The flight of our pig depends on the plausibility added by Condition A as a premise or proposition.

Appeal To Possibility, aka Argument From Ignorance
So how is this relevant? The following is only meant to be an example to demonstrate a point, not to resurrect the Problem of Evil.
Atheist: The God of the Bible doesn’t exist because if it did there would be no Evil.
Believer: Isn't it possible that God has reasons that we don't understand and the problem of Evil is really only a problem of perspective?

At this point, the fallacy is in the appeal to possibility and the course of the argument could take any number of turns. But lets analyze it and see what is going on in there.


Does It "Fit" With Existing Knowledge?
The proper course for this dialogue would be that the Atheist should provide a list of reasons why the idea of Evil is inconsistent with a God that is supposed to be all-good. Reasons would be given by the Atheist, and the Believer would either agree or disagree based on her own reasons. At that point the Believer would analyze the Atheist reasons and see if they 'fit' with existing knowledge and evidence that the Believer knows about and/or has committed to.  But in the case of our example there is no prompting for reasons. We can infer that the reasons are understood by the Believer because this is an old argument and the Believer has probably encountered it before. Instead the Believers' reply is a Critical Question.

Questions control a conversation (Nance).
When a question is proposed in dialogue it has the potential effect of shifting the burden of proof. Questions can be used properly in a genuine expression of doubt, but it can also be used improperly if the goal is to avoid defending or refuting a claim (Walton). If the Atheist 'takes the bait', then this question becomes a "Red Herring" whether the Believer intended it or not. A "Red Herring" is an attempt to hide the weakness of a position by drawing attention away from the real issue to a side issue (Damer, 183). At this point in the Problem of Evil dialogue we are chasing the scent of the Red Herring, barking off down the field at irresolvable "possibilities".

But the characteristics of a possibility make it inherently weak.
Under certain conditions, such as lack of evidence, if the affirmative is possible, the negative may also be possible. The question may be a valid expression of doubt or it may have an unexpressed premise. And in the case that there is an unexpressed premise behind the question, the question can be treated like a claim. The hidden premise in this case is the claim that God does have reasons we don't understand and that is why the Atheist perceives a Problem of Evil.

Shifting The Burdon Of Proof
Believer: Isn't it possible that God has reasons that we don't understand and the problem of Evil is really only a problem of perspective?
Atheist: No. Because it is just as possible that God doesn't have reasons that we don't understand. Would it be more likely that God has reasons we don't understand?

At this point the burden of proof has been properly shifted back to the Believer and now the Believer is in the uncomfortable position of producing reasons why it is possible that God has reasons we don't understand or accept your rebuttal. Of course the Believer could cry foul by asserting that you have answered a question with a question and insist that you defend it, but in that case the conversation has gotten back on course with the Atheist providing the reasons for the initial claim about the Problem of Evil. At this point in either case, the Believer must confront the Atheists premises and reason together or quit the conversation.

Reasoning Is A Process
Reasoning is a process which requires evidence and/or data that is used to gain knowledge or make decisions. A valid conclusion depends on an hierarchy of logical relationships that depend on plausibility. A conclusion is supported by premises that are supported by warrants that are backed by data (Toulmin).

So if the Believer is to claim it is possible that God has reasons we don't understand they should meet their obligation to show why it is plausible.

The Believers Reasoning Scheme.
The following is not intended to resurrect the Problem of Evil, it is only used as an example of where I perceive the process of reasoning breaks down for the Believer in most of the dialogues I have participated in. Below is a template of a common form of Christian Argument. The Reasoning Scheme of the Believer is a linked argument at the point where the conclusion of the sub-argument (in curly braces) is used to support the backing of the main argument. In fact it may be possible to plug many argument conclusions from Believers in many religions into the conclusion and they will fail.

Conclusion: There is only a perceived problem of Evil because of the following.
Premise1: We can't know the mind of God.
Warrant1: Because he is All-powerful, All-good, All-knowing, Present in all places etc. and we are not.
Backing1: The Bible tells us this.
{Sub-Argument:
Conclusion1.a (support for Backing1): The Bible is valid
Warrant1.a: because the bible is the word of god
Data1.a: The bible says it is the word of God.
}
Data1: Scripture in the Bible

The Circular Form Of The Believers Reasoning Scheme
In the case above, Backing1 (Backing1: The Bible tells us this) depends on circular reasoning of Conclusion1.a (The Bible is valid); therefore it is a faulty premise. The only way to defend this premise is with corroborating evidence on why the Bible contains valid data useful to support the conclusion that "we can't know the mind of God".

This argument depends on the Bible like the Pig depends on the Airplane. But this Pig is walking in a circle, so it won't fly. It has been my experience that the Believer will try all sorts of tactics to avoid letting you get back to this point. It has been my experience that this sub-argument is the premise for most Believers arguments so I look for it and press them on it. In fact it is the fundamental principal that supports my blog; QuIRP: Quality Information Is Religions' Problem

Sometimes The "Appeal To Possibility" Refutes Itself
Under certain circumstances the appeal to possibility refutes itself, and the premise that uses the Bible to support most reasoning that I have ever seen about God is faulty because it is built on the circular reasoning that the Bible gives us useful information (knowledge) about God. This includes some of the Classic Philosophical Arguments for God.

The Tactic Of Critical Questioning
The tactic of Critical Questioning can be used as a Red Herring to divert the dialogue away from the real issues or it can legitimately be used as an expression of doubt intended to press an issue for backing. However, in my opinion, unfortunately, proper Critical Questioning is too slow to be useful in an internet forum so sometimes you have go straight to the point.

Believers Value Faith More Than Good Reasoning Technique
But it is plausible that it won't matter to the Believer that their arguments are not based on sound reason. One example of this is in an Article in Biblical Archeology Review titled "Losing Faith: How Scholarship Affects Scholars". Two of the four scholars had come to realize that up to this point there is no corroboration for the bible and seem to have opted for a purely emotional commitment.

Why Is This Important? What's The Harm?
Opting for a purely emotional commitment moves the standard for belief from being based on a large degree of objective truth to a large degree of subjective truth. A belief based on emotion will allow you to pick what you want to believe out of the Bible and label the rest as 'metaphor'.

By Accepting The Believers Reasoning Scheme, Anyone Is Implicitly Justified in Believing Anything That Suits Them.
For example, people will believe in God but they won't believe in "winged insects that walk on all fours" (Lev. 11:20-23). Using the Believers reasoning scheme, they should believe in four legged insects. Using the Believers reasoning scheme, they should believe that there was a time when there was only one language as it says in the story of the Tower of Babel (Gen.11:6-9). Using the Believers Reasoning Scheme, they should believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible and learn the original language it was written in so they can meet their obligation to understand it.

History Has Shown What Can Happen When A World View Is Not Based On Sound Reason. 
One current example among many in the past and present is that there are millions of people that are suffering from diseases that could be helped through stem cell research and cloning. Another is the attempt to keep homosexuals from having equal rights by justifying it with the Bible, as the Believer has done in the past for women and blacks. And last but not least, young and old earth creationists and Intelligent Design proponents have tried to corrupt one of the most demonstrably useful philosophies ever devised, the scientific method.

REFERENCES
Damer, T. Edward. 2004. Attacking Faulty Reasoning. 5th ed. Belmont, California. Wadsworth Publishing

Nance, jef. 2001. Conquering Deception. Missouri. Irvin Benham Group.

Randolph, Lee. 2007. Judaism, Christianity and Islam are Built on a Faulty Premise. Debunking Christianity. http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2007/03/judaism-christianity-and-islam-are.html

Shanks, Hershel. 2006. Losing Faith: How Scholarship Affects Scholars. Biblical Archeology Review. http://www.bib-arch.org/bswb_BAR/bswbba3302f3.html

The Bible, New American Standard.

Toulmin, Stephen. 2003. The Uses of Argument. 2 Edition. New York, New York. Cambridge University Press

Walton, Douglas N. 2006. Fundamentals of Critical Argumentation. New York. Cambridge University Press.