Ted Hoffman

Seakasayer
I would like to pick up from here. Its easy to argue on abstractions and continue forever talking and talking. I am convinced that the christian worlview is not internally consistent, and many christians have admitted this to me. But they still believe nevertheless. AFAIK, having faith solves the problem of internal inconsistency, and that is what makes it possible for many xstians to comfortably overlook all the internal inconsistencies. Christianity is full of absurdities, errors, logical inconsistency and fallacies. If you hold that it is internally consistent, then I would be glad to demonstrate to you specifically what about christianity is inconsistent. I would describe internal consistency on two levels: inconsistent with scientific, observable, brute facts and inconsistent in the sense that on one hand it says "Never kill", on the other hand it says "Now you can kill" etc. These self-contradictions are among what I would label "internal inconsistency".
I like focusing on specifics and would be glad to demonstrate that your Christian worldview is inconsistent, but first I would like you to specify which brand of christianity you profess (the emergence of various denominations itself is a sign of inconsistency).

Then I would like you to specify how you would rate something to qualify as internally consistent. IOW, what would it take for an aspect of christianity, to qualify as internally consistent? Ie what standards would we use?

Then I would also like to ask you if we can focus on establishing the internal inconsistency on this thread or whether u would like me to start a new thread.

Does this mean you would claim - "a bat is a bird!", "the rabbit chews cud!". And singledad would assert "Science has discovered that rabbits do not chew cud", then you'd say, "the bible says rabbits chew cud and I believe that in my world, and it is logically consistent with reality as far as I am concerned!"?
I mean, irrespective of what "system" we use, we live in the same world. There are things that are simply unarguable, and there are those that are not. There are FACTS. Its not like we are debating in a vaccum.
Would it still be valid and normal to you to claim "the hare chews cud because the bible says so!", while simple observation states otherwise?

Would you say "snakes do speak because the bible says so, donkeys too!", even when simple humdrum reality says otherwise?

If so, what is the role of perception in your life?
I would like to discuss specifics and if you feel that has no place in this thread, please feel free to let me know.

And oh, btw, nice to meet you seakasayer.

Ted Hoffman

Seakasayer
What would be the point of this? How do you expect to convince a metaphysical naturalist,
using christian principles and beliefs, that Xstianity is internally consistent?

Its like saying, "the principle of prayer works, you see, when I really need something and I pray for it, I get it". And the M. Naturalist goes "Oh really?" and you say "Oh yeah, in fact last night when I had a headache I prayed and when I woke up today, the headache was gone. So you see, prayer works". And the MN goes, why dont you pray that my ulcers get healed?", and U go "Oh, you see, you must believe first then you will be healed ", and he goes "Why not pray then that that door closes?" and U go "No, no U see, thou shalt not test the Lord your God" and the MN goes, "oh really, why not?". And U quote some bible verses etc etc (and he doesnt subscribe to the bible being quoted as an authorithy). The bottom line will remain that even if U were sincere enough to pray, it would not work. Yet U would expect the MN to go believing that UR worldview is internally consistent? Consistent with what?. Reality? The rest of the principles that worldview operates with?

What kind of internal inconsistency matters?

U must have agreed standards. Then U can set out to demonstrate, using those standards, that Ur worldview is internally consistent.
So what I am saying is it would be an excercise in futility. It would be impossible for a demon to demonstrate to a saint that his worldview is internally consistent. Because they disagree on very fundamental principles.

Its like a chinese not expecting to convince me (thats reasonable) but expecting to demonstrate to me, Using chinese language(which I do not understand), that chinese is good, at least For him (its like from the onset, you know U cannot make the MR see your point). It would be absurd.

U could say its a false analogy, but thats the case we are looking at. Its like U dont care whether the other person agrees or not, so long as U do it - demonstrate that ur worldview is internally consistent (to yourself of course, in which case whats the point?).

Another point, Do all metaphysical naturalists follow the same principles?
Can we really compare MR with Xstianity?
Why dont we start by listing how they are similar first, what are the standards of comparison?

Do MRs have a leader or founder(like Xstians have Jesus)- Is MRn faith based or perception based?
What are the goals of MR? Eternal Life in Paradise like Xstianity? Which Brand of Xstianity? Does MR have Brands? What I am saying is Is it fruitful to compare a system of thought with a religion?

I mean with the goals being different and the basis for each being diferent, are they really comparable? I mean, naturalism is dynamic, xstianity remains the same. One is earthly the other is "heavenly".

etc etc

[ January 18, 2002: Message edited by: jaliet ]

[ January 18, 2002: Message edited by: jaliet ]</p>

SeaKayaker

Bgponder,

I must have really missed that post. Where exactly is this post (I do not see it on page four of the discussion, and I thought that I replied to all of your earlier posts)?

I still do not see how this demonstrates why perception is the best standard.

A discussion of morality here could go on for quite some time, but you raise some interesting points. In my opinion, your system of morality must dictate what is good and what is evil, it must dictate what is right and what is wrong. Yet, it must go farther than this. It must also tell what right and wrong are and why they exist. Even if you do not agree that morality must encompass this, I think that you would agree that a worldview must do so. Therefore, if you disagree with my proposition that your system of morality must dictate these things, this still applies, you would just differ with my initial use of morality. That is enough of that digression: my question is how can perception tell you why “rightness” and “wrongness” exist and why rightness is good whereas wrongness is bad.

Yes, the rallying cry of the presuppositionalist sometimes does seem to be “why,” but I think that this is an important question (at times). I realize that you are not offering this an insurmountable logical argument, but I still must return to my initial question. How do we know that perception is accurate? After all, everything we think we perceive could not exist, could it not? Could we not just be in a big dream? Here, I must return to the infamous “why:” why should we believe that our perception has any correspondence to reality?

Thanks for your replies and if I missed an earlier post of yours, I would appreciate it if you would point it out (I will reply as I am able, I do have more time now that midterms are over, but I am still busy, per usual).

Soli Deo Gloria,
SeaKayaker

SeaKayaker

Jaliet,

Thanks for your posts and I will reply mainly to the first post here (but I will pull quotes from each one).

As my profile states, I am a Reformed Christian (PCA, to be exact). However, the interesting part of this is your comment about the emergence of different denominations proving inconsistency. In your next post, you ask, You seem to imply that they do not, but how does that differ from the different denominations in Christianity (if different branches of Christianity prove inconsistency within Christianity, why do different branches of metaphysical naturalists not prove inconsistency within metaphysical naturalism?)?

The antecedent of your final “these” is a bit unclear, but I will take it to mean the second kind of inconsistency that you mention. Feel free to bring these issues up, and I will work to respond to them as I can. However, I have seen some posts spiral out of control as people start throwing hundreds of Bible verses at each other. I do not have the time for that sort of discussion, so if you want me to respond to your posts, I would encourage you to look for quality in the alleged contradictions, not for massive quantities of them.

I am a bit unsure of what you mean in asking what standards I would use. I will consider internal consistency a valid transcendental to evaluating Christianity, but I sense that you are looking for something more than that.

Hey, I am the quest here, not you! I do not really care whether you post on this thread or start another one. I only have so much time and I do not think that I have the time to participate in two lively discussions at the same time. Yet, if you think that the thread in which you post your alleged contradictions will spiral into Bible verse wars, it would probably be better to post it elsewhere. In short, it is your choice.

A major point in my argument is that everyone must make assumptions in order to operate. SingleDad is assuming that science is accurate to make his claim. I am not disagreeing with that assumption, but I just want to point out that his worldview is built on assumptions (presuppositions, if you will) just like mine. I aim to find out if these presuppositions are contradictory, to see if he presupposes p and ~p. You are right; we are in the same world (we could debate this one, but not now). However, the question is whose system corresponds better with reality. You assume that metaphysical naturalism corresponds with reality, but do you have any reason for assuming this?

Because I believe the Bible, I find that I have a reason to trust perception (not that it is infallible, but I understand why it works and that it reflects reality). It seems to me that you are the one with the contradiction here. Why do you trust perception? In you life, you must trust it, and yet, I wonder how you can say in the atheistic worldview that you should trust it.

Soli Deo Gloria,
SeaKayaker

Ted Hoffman

Seakasayer I would say that your response to my post is not complete. I wonder why. Perhaps ur just too busy.
Particularly, I was curious as to whether you see the futility of a christian, using christian rules, beliefs and reasoning, demonstrate to a metaphysical naturalist (who doesn't agree/ subscribe to christian ideas) that the christian worldview is internally consistent.
I even doubt if they could agree on what internal consistency means.
But anyway...
I assert that perception is the best standard because 99.9 %, what you see, smell, feel and hear is what you get. 99% of the knowledge we hold has been attained through perception.

With all its flaws (I only know of optical illusions by the way), its the best that we have. For testing, gaining and sharing knowledge.

Why dont you propose another standard so that we can compare and contrast?
Generally what is wrong/ evil is something thats harmful to our species or that poses some kind of danger or creates pain and suffering to our species. Self-preservation is a guiding principle in our survival as a species. The life of every individual counts.
We need standards for what is right or wrong because without them, we cannot have a society. The society affords the individual some security and also meets a number of other socio-economic needs that an individual would require in order to lead a comfortable life.
Thus if we have individuals who feel they must kill others, they must be taken to jail because they threaten the lives of others and hence the survival of the society.
What is right is what makes us and other members of our species live happily and comfortably. Thus it is important to be kind and helpful to those in need.
Of course there are situations where there is a conflict on what is regarded right or otherwise. But it still stands human suffering must be avoided unless it is the only way to stop further human suffering.
That, I believe sheds some light on our system of morality.
I hope this has been answered now. With lots of wrongness, we either wouldnt be here at all or we would be living miserably somewhere on this planet. So, wrongness is bad. As per rightness, well, good has triumphed over bad, thats why we are here. Or we are just plain lucky. Someone could easily shoot me in the head to get my wallet. But he knows the society has laws to deal with wrong acts like that.
1. Because Xstians use one book as a guide/ reference: The bible. M. Naturalists do not have any bibles.
2. Because Xstians claim to worship one God and most claim that there is only one living God, yet some claim there are many Gods (thus some call their God Jehovah etc). M. Naturalists, make no claim of having a common identity. They do not claim to be children of anyone.
3. M. Naturalism has no one specific "founder". Its a thought system that has evolved over time, and everyone is free to have his own brand of metaphysical naturalism. Its an open system. etc etc. We dont have the ten commandments etc.

I get it. I wont bring them up. Quality is a very relative word.
I can see you don't exactly like what you call "bible verse wars". Ok, no verses sir.
I dont know whether Singledad agrees with this. I think what important here, is what kind of assumptions? Are they testable, are they based on experience? And are they really assumptions? I think what you are driving at here is that "true knowledge" is unattainable. I mean I do not assume that I am alive: I know that I am alive because I meet all the criteria that living things need to meet in order to be considered alive.
An assumption is something taken for granted or accepted as true without proof.
I would like to see Singledads response to this. I know deep down we make assumptions, but at birth, we are not born with assumptions, we observe, we learn. Then we put what we have experienced together and use them to guide us. There are assumptions, and there are facts.
And how do you define reality without the help of perceptions?
Because its perception-based. And perception is the source of 99.9% of human knowledge. The other 0.1% what people call assumptions.

I trust perception because it works. When I have been near fire and felt the heat, next time I see fire, I will be able to predict the consequences of putting it close to me. Perception is testable and reliable as a source of knowledge.

The second part of your question about atheistic worldview (how did you know this btw?) isnt very clear.
But maybe you need to read this "I dont believe there is a God because reason does not support his existence. I cant hear him, I cant see him, I cant smell him and I cannot see the results of his presence. I have never met anyone who saw him and I have never heard of any reliable person seeing him. Therefore I do not believe he exists. And if he exists, he is not interested in me.

How do you know that you believe in the bible?

[ January 19, 2002: Message edited by: jaliet ]</p>

SeaKayaker

Jaliet,

I think that it is possible to show the metaphysical naturalist that Christianity is consistent (at least in theory). However, if that is all I do, it will mean nothing to him. I must also show him that his worldview is inconsistent (if, indeed, this is the case). Only after showing him that a worldview that believes it is possible to reason apart from God is inconsistent but that the Christian worldview is consistent have I accomplished my goal.

Well, what does internal consistency mean? You have actually brought up a good point here, so I would like to provide my definition. My goal is to find whether the metaphysical naturalist’s worldview or the Christian’s worldview is internally consistent. This means that I am seeing if there are contradictions (p and ~p) in the entire worldview. Are there any other ways to define internal consistency?

You still have not answered the question of why you believe that perception is an accurate reflection of reality. I would agree with you that perception is a valid way of acquiring knowledge, but I want to ask you why this is so. If you appeal to perception to answer me, your argument is circular (and I will label it as an assumption or a presupposition). But, if you answer me with an appeal to something other than perception, you have just discredited perception and set up a different ultimate standard that I will subject to the same question.

And how could we compare perception and another method of acquiring knowledge? If we use perception, we are begging the question. For that reason, I am not directly challenging the metaphysical naturalist’s worldview from Christianity, but I am attempting an internal critique of metaphysical naturalism.

[quote]Generally what is wrong/ evil is something thats harmful to our species or that poses some kind of danger or creates pain and suffering to our species. Self-preservation is a guiding principle in our survival as a species. The life of every individual counts.[quote]

And do you expect me to just accept what you say on authority (to have faith in it?)?

This is very true, yet it does not prove that your morality is consistent with your worldview.

And why is it good for people to live comfortable lives? Mind you, I agree that it is good, but I want to hear why, within your worldview, you can say that this is good. If I decide that I do not want to live a comfortable life, why should I not destroy society?

Is there murder in itself wrong, is it evil, or is it only their disruption of the state. If it is just that murder is wrong because it disrupts the state, how can you condemn the person who says that it is good to disrupt the state?

And do you expect me to believe this on blind faith? I prefer to be rational, for which reason I am a Christian. Therefore, if you want me to believe that this is the logical outworking of metaphysical naturalism, please demonstrate to me that it is.

That this is true, I will not disagree. However, you have not shown that the metaphysical naturalist can consistently claim this.

Human suffering is bad for what reason (in your worldview)? So far, I have asked you why morality can exist for the metaphysical naturalist. However, I would like to clarify one point. I realize that atheists can be “good” people (by the worldly definition of the term). I am not saying that, just because you are an atheist, you cannot be moral. Many atheists are “good” people. I do not challenge that. However, I want to know why the atheist can believe that he should be good.

It sure does. A little too much light, too.

I am sorry if I confused you, but you did not answer my question. You have shown me how you can look at the world and tell me that good and bad things exist. However, my question is how you can philosophically justify the idea of “good” and “bad.” Why do you think that suffering is bad?

The metaphysical naturalist assumes that the Bible is not authoritative, but that his mind is authoritative. Thus, the metaphysical naturalist has an absolute authority just as does the Christian. I do not understand how your second point applies to this discussion. As for your third point, can p and ~p be true for the same situation? If not, does not that show that at least most metaphysical naturalists are wrong (since they all believe different things)?

Please feel free to bring up places where you see a contradiction in the Bible, but on other threads I have seen lists of hundreds of verses most of which were only apparent or verbal contradictions, and weak ones at that. If you would like to bring up issues of Biblical contradictions, I would prefer a single instance, well supported and explained. I think that the discussion following such a post would be much more beneficial for all of us.

He does not.

That is a good point. An assumption or presupposition is something that we cannot test. For instance, I cannot see individual atoms, but there are ways that I can indirectly prove that (assuming the accuracy of reason, perception, and science) they exist. However, I cannot test to see whether perception is the best way to acquire knowledge. If I try to test this using perception, my argument becomes circular, but if I test it using some other method, I disprove my initial statement. Therefore, this is an assumption (presupposition). If I wish to evaluate this statement, the best I can do is see if it comports with my other presuppositions (evaluate my worldview for internal consistency).


Not quite, more like it is impossible to seek knowledge without first making assumptions about the ways in which one should seek knowledge.

I generally will use perception to define reality, but that is not the question at hand. The question is why we are justified in using perception to define reality.

Why do you believe that your perceptions correspond with reality?

Okay, I can grant you that one. I agree with you that perception works. However, I want to know why perception should work. Why, to the metaphysical naturalist, should perception work? I agree that it works, but I want to know why it works.

How do you test the accuracy of your perceptions? Do you use other perceptions (which would be circular), or something else (which seems contrary to your initial statement).

Why do you believe reason to be the ultimate determiner of truth (bear in mind that you seemed to consider perception the ultimate standard of truth earlier)? The same problem faces you, answer me with a circular argument or with an argument that disproves your initial statement.

Soli Deo Gloria,
SeaKayaker

SeaKayaker

Jaliet,

Internal consistency should mean the same thing to me that it means to the metaphysical naturalist (an internally consistent system cannot hold both p and ~p).

What a wonderful example of post hoc ergo propter hoc! This is exactly the kind of argument that I do not advocate. I would label this an evidential approach, trying to prove through evidence that God exists. However, I am using the presuppositional approach, saying that the atheist’s entire system of reasoning is flawed.

If he is evaluating the internal consistency of Christianity, he must accept (for the sake of argument) the authority of Scripture. Conversely, if I am internally evaluating metaphysical naturalism, I must not accept the authority of Scripture. Therefore, if he objects to my defending the internal consistency of Christianity through the Bible, he is not doing an internal critique of Christianity.

I do not believe that everything I pray for will happen (nor do I believe that the Bible teaches this), so I would not find a contradiction in the fact that it would not occur. However, I would not expect the metaphysical naturalist to be convinced even if the door did open. After all, many people saw the miracles that Jesus did, but the Jews still had him killed. In short, even a miracle would not convince those who do not want to be convinced. I, instead, am using a presuppositional approach (which you seem to understand but deny in this post). Finally, if something is internally consistent, it is consistent with itself.

What do you think internal consistency is? I am asking this seriously, for this seems to be a point of confusion.

Well, you are right in saying that I will label this a false analogy. Your analogy only applies if you know Chinese (to avoid any confusion, I am defending the internal consistency of my method). In this scenario, you know Chinese and another language and I am using Chinese to convince you that Chinese is the better of the two. After all, I am not asking you to believe my Christian propositions, but merely to assume them for the sake of argument. In fact, because you live (according to my worldview) in God’s world, you are not ignorant of Christianity or the truth. In fact, you know it. Therefore, this analogy does not apply in the present situation.

There are variations within metaphysical naturalism, but one trait they all share in common (as far as I can tell) is that they believe that it is possible to reason apart from God (after all, if no god exists, as they say, this is obvious). It is that reasoning apart from God against which I am arguing.

It is faith-based since you first must have faith in your perceptions before you can believe them.

I am using the term metaphysical naturalism because it denotes a worldview (whereas some argue that “atheism” does not). Christianity is also a worldview. Therefore, not only is it possible to compare them, but we ought to compare them (after all, scientists are supposed to seek the truth, right?).

Soli Deo Gloria,
SeaKayaker

Jack the Bodiless

It is good by definition. It is good because we have chosen to use the word "good" to describe actions which allow people to live comfortable lives. Ultimately, what is "good" and "bad" is decided by general agreement among the members of a society as part of the conventions which define that society: therefore it cannot be "good" to destroy society, because society has decreed that this is not good.
Not ALL metaphysical naturalists believe that it is important to be kind and helpful to those in need, just as we have no fixed opinion on (for example) public nudity, or a host of other issues. However, I don't agree that a worldview must provide a definitive lists of "rights" and "wrongs". The worldview of metaphysical naturalism simply does not address these issues, it's like asking a Christian whether he should prefer Cher rather than Britney Spears. It certainly includes factors that may help individuals to decide that altruism is in the interests of the species and therefore themselves (any of us might be "in need" one day), but it does not dictate this choice.

Thus, these inconsistencies between the personal opinions of individual metaphysical naturalists do not indicate that metaphysical naturalism itself is internally inconsistent.

Jack the Bodiless

The biggest problem I have with the Christian worldview is that it is false: it does not describe the world in which we actually live. "Internal" inconsistencies between different Bible verses are a part of the problem, but even if the apologist can find a way around all of them, that doesn't change the empirically-verifiable fact that (for instance) there was no Great Flood. A "worlview" must be compatible with perceived reality: the Christian worldview is not.

Here's what you said in two earlier posts:
Perception is (generally) accurate because of evolution. I am descended from millions of generations of organisms whose survival has been dependent upon the accuracy of their perceptions. Those with inaccurate perceptions didn't make it.

I view perception as the primary means of evaluating the accuracy of a worldview. Any worldview which does not pass this test is a fictional one, no matter how "internally consistent" or emotionally satisfying it might be. Tp paraphrase your own remark: "I do not think that anyone can live without presupposing that perception is reliable, but if someone does, he bars himself from rational discussion, so I would not be discussing much with him".

[ January 21, 2002: Message edited by: Jack the Bodiless ]</p>

Ted Hoffman

I could actually pay Jack the Bodiless For saying this:
This is simply beautiful. I could not have put it any better.

The society decides what is Good. When something is good for an individual but is bad for the society, the society decides that it is bad.
We are Intelligent beings We have the capacity to decide what is good for us; what we need to do in order to make our survival on this planet possible and good. We do not need a book to teach us what is Good - or what good means.

Your insistence for me to determine/ describe what is Good (and the warnings that I should avoid circular definitions) seem to be leaning on an expectation that I should infer to an authority other than myself or human beings. Well, what we describe as good, is only good because we deem it fit to regard it as good. We judge what is good. Just like we judge what is red. We rely on our perceptions to do this.
Whe we are born, we learn, through perception that when we fall from a great height, we get hurt and we feel pain. The beauty with perception is, as soon as you doubt it, you can always test it and the results are always consistent (at least 99% of the times). So, form birth, we learn our names and we realize, using perception, that when someone says "jaliet" he means me. Perception is part of us. In summary, we trust it for three or four reasons:

1. Because it is reliable and it "works". It works because it meets our needs (social needs, and all other human needs). It reflects reality because we can test it for accuracy and we have found it to be consistent.

2. Its the best that we have got on this planet as a means for acquiring knowledge.

3. It defines our reality. An individual without perception has nothing they can call "reality"

Now back to your post:
The other test for I. C. is to test it (the worldview) against reality (reality is what our perception gives us). I repeat, no perception, no reality.

You have not answered my question about whether there are any means of acquiring knowledge other than perception. Divine inspiration is what I thought you had in mind but you have avoided it.

To answer your question, we could compare it with reality and see which one is consistent.
Because it IS THE ONLY WAY that I know of, and It has never failed Me. It is the source of reality. I include mental objects as results of perception.
People who cannot perceive things "normally" are deemed to be insane.
Thinking that perception is a valid way of acquiring knowledge, cannot be labeled an assumption or a presupposition because what M. Naturalists believe as knowledge is not based on faith. It has been tested and questioned (and even our questioning is perception based). Those that have failed the test have been abandoned along the way. So they are not assumptions.
Just lay it out plain and simple how you intend to carry out this critique. What tools will you be using?
How do you test what is real with what you dont have? All we have is reality. If we could get martians to test our reality then you would have a quest. But using the same means that have been used to gain reality to test the reality simply isnt gonna work.
I think its time you mentioned what you have in mind other than perception.
U cant use a vaccum to test a vaccum (another false analogy? Hope not)

I mean, perception is all we've got. How do u use copper to test the strength of copper?

There must be something else.
So, we need another standart of acquiring knowledge to test perception.
First of all, if there are those who know you want to destroy society, and they care for you, then they will ask you not to attempt. Because the society can destroy you. Next, you should not do so because you NEED the society (isolation experiments have proved this). To destroy the society would be to destroy yourself. Good is good for everyone and most often, what the society deems as bad, is bad for everyone, irrespective of individual opinions. Survival for the fittest puts the needs of the group above the needs of a single member of the group.

I believe this is answered above. Someone who wants to destroy himself needs help. Besides, I am part of the "state". He who wants to destroy it wants to destroy me too. Self preservation will put us on a serious collision course and most likely, I will blow his head off.
The society will once more have lost another memeber. A society with fewer members is weaker than that with more members in terms of manpower (workforce) etc. Which is not good for the survival of the smaller society. Mankind has been known to be greedy and people need to be ready to deal with invasions (survival for the fittest).
I believe JAck the bodiless has dealt with this.
Our primal instincts are geared (by evolution) at meeting our needs (hunger, sex, shelter safety and security needs etc). When these needs are not met then the human being is less equipped to deal with the demands of survival for the fittest - due to limited resources, there is competition. Such humans (eg. starving, sick and homeless) usually end up dead. Either through disease, sheer starvation or exhaustion). Human suffering leads to human death. Via evolution we have in us a mechanism to help us survive as a group. Some call it empathy. I do not like human suffering because it makes me uncomfortable. Thus I try to avoid it.
For those two reasons, I consider human suffering bad. (I have explained why human deaths are bad).

Ask me again if I have left anything out.
You must agree though that they are very different. You cannot say that your eyes are dictating to you what you can see. They are part of you. You have no choice whether to believe them or not. But you have a choice on what to see. In the same way, we use our minds as tools. They help us. They dont use us. And we use them to decide what is authoritative and what isnt.
There is a mind with or without the bible. People are not born with bibles.
You simply cannot compare an aspect of a human being with a heap of bound printed papers.
I respectfully disagree. The thing accepted is either testable or untestable. What makes the "thing" an assumption is accepting it as true/ correct without good reason/ proof/ evidence.
Wrong example, Atoms DO EXIST.[quote]..
However, I cannot test to see whether perception is the best way to acquire knowledge. If I try to test this using perception, my argument becomes circular, but if I test it using some other method, I disprove my initial statement. Therefore, this is an assumption (presupposition).[quote]
The best method known to man is perception. THERE is NO OTHER METHOD.
This sounds like a parallogism or simply a case of wishful thinking.
U go in circles when U say there is another method without mentioning it.

In summary, WE DO NOT ASSUME THAT PERCEPTION IS ACCURATE. We have experience FROM BIRTH, that perception WORKS. At least in this planet.