The Bible Makes a Poor Premise

Adam Smith has a fascinating post, in which he tries his very best to prove atheism does not exist. Poor chap doesn’t quite make it:

Notice how I titled this thing “Why Atheism Does Not Exist,” and not “Why I Believe Atheism Does Not Exist.” I did this because it is not only what I believe, it is also because it is a fact.

The Bible does not acknowledge atheism in any form. The Bible says that all men know that there is a God. Where does it say this you ask? Well, I am glad you asked.

Only we didn’t. Right off the bat Adam is going for a circular argument. For example. The following quote is from a book I just made up. The book of portents and squirrels:

Lord Fluff spake unto the people, and said “heed ye my fluffly book, for it is my word. Amen”. And all the unbelievers who questioned the book, which thou dear reader arst reading, is the fluffy word of the squirrel king lord God, are wrong. “Because I said so”, added Lord Fluff, before scampering after a holy acorn.

Ladies and Gentlemen need I remind you of lord fluff?

My book of fluff proclaims it is the word of fluff. So does that make it true? In the same vein Mike argues himself dizzy in the comments section (edited the html replacing a ol with an ul so it didn’t have nonsensical numbering):

I responded to the problems with fearing God rather than loving God here.  But the real gem is that Mike keeps hobbling back to the Bible to prove that the Bible is true.  Its right here:

John 1 says that the Word is God. We know God through His Word not experience. We experience things in light of His Word. Human reason is fallible. God’s Word is not.

See, because part of the Bible says the Bible is true, it must all be true!  Genius!

Which brings us back to Adam’s attempt to attack atheism.  Like Mike, he is making severe use of circular reasoning, and also trying to get into the head of his opponents.  He’s suggesting atheists aren’t really atheist.  Mike suggests those praying to God without using his Bible for guidance are not actually reaching God.  And of course both base these claims on, what else, their Bible.

Offensiveness aside, its just a poor way to make an argument.  Your premise can’t require the validity and soundness of the entire argument to be true without utterly destroying that very validity and soundness.  A circular argument is not even valid.  Here’s a quick philosophy primer on arguments.  An argument is valid if each premise is logically connected in a way that ensures if every premise is correct, the conclusion must be true.  An argument is sound if it is valid, and all of the premises turn out to be true.  A circular argument isn’t even logic, even if it looks like it on the surface.

Politically and socially, it presents another problem.  Those who rely on circular logic are ill suited to argue about beliefs with those of us who employ reason when making arguments.  It makes productive communication nearly impossible.  Instead you find humor and logic struggling to break through an unyielding wall of “Because the Bible says so”.