Posted: Jul 29, 2011 1:06 am
The OP is a version of the "problem of induction", most famously presented by David Hume in An Enquiry concerning Human Understanding in 1748. Various responses to the problem are described in the Wikipedia article linked there.
Presuppositional apologists like Matt Slick use the problem of induction to argue that the belief that reason leads to truth can only be justified by a presupposition of the literal truth of the bible, thence rendering all the arguments against Christianity invalid.
My personal approach is that, rather than worry about whether I believe it or not, I simply choose to adopt as an axiom (or presupposition, as Slick would describe it) the assertion that the laws of logic are valid. This makes it a matter of taste or preference rather than faith. I choose to adopt the axiom because I enjoy the consequences of the actions I take when guided by the thought-system that arises from an acceptance of its validity.*
Edited Addition: *Oh, and for aesthetic reasons as well. An elegant and watertight logical argument is a beautiful thing to behold.
Presuppositional apologists like Matt Slick use the problem of induction to argue that the belief that reason leads to truth can only be justified by a presupposition of the literal truth of the bible, thence rendering all the arguments against Christianity invalid.
My personal approach is that, rather than worry about whether I believe it or not, I simply choose to adopt as an axiom (or presupposition, as Slick would describe it) the assertion that the laws of logic are valid. This makes it a matter of taste or preference rather than faith. I choose to adopt the axiom because I enjoy the consequences of the actions I take when guided by the thought-system that arises from an acceptance of its validity.*
Edited Addition: *Oh, and for aesthetic reasons as well. An elegant and watertight logical argument is a beautiful thing to behold.