tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6215077578479252542.post2503084537381406398..comments2024-03-15T17:06:31.642-05:00Comments on The Piety That Lies Between: A Progressive Christian Perspective: Authority without Inerrancy? Part I: Setting the StageEric Reitanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06135739290199272992noreply@blogger.comBlogger50125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6215077578479252542.post-68296098910161033132009-05-22T20:14:13.936-05:002009-05-22T20:14:13.936-05:00Dr Reitan,
If you think Im being obstreperous an...Dr Reitan, <br /><br />If you think Im being obstreperous and you dont think my objections are valid or convincing, go ahead with your series of essays, and Ill try to restrain myself until youre through.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06269406662901556027noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6215077578479252542.post-45605500068705495852009-05-22T19:22:58.162-05:002009-05-22T19:22:58.162-05:00Cheek,
In order to clarify, Ill go back to my or...Cheek, <br /><br />In order to clarify, Ill go back to my original argument:<br /><br />You say the bible contains errors/ Does God know about the errors? If not then He is not omniscient. If He did, but lacked the ability to prevent them then He is not omnipotent. If he is able, but chooses not to correct the errors, then He is not a good god.<br /><br />In response Dr Reitan compared my argument to the argument from evil and asserted that there might be a positive reason for God to insert errors in His sacred text. But at that time he didnt supply any such reason.<br /><br />So when he argued that an inerrant text was more likely to become an object of worship, I took this to be the specific reason.<br /><br />I admit there is some reason to think that an inerrant text could become an object of idolatry, but I do not concede that it is more likely to become an object of idolatry than an errant text. <br />However, even accepting his premise, I was able to prove that without a disclaimer, God would not be accomplish the task Dr Reitan ascribed to Him without a disclaimer.<br /><br />The reason I found his argument "strange" is that I did not expect idolatry to be the positive reason. I found his argument "obtuse" because it fell apart because of logical inconsistencies. <br /><br />My objection amounts to this: inserting errors into His sacred text is tantamount to deception (we may be deceived by believing an errant passage and because the text contains affirmative claims about itself) and if God has a good reason for doing so, no matter what that reason is, in order to prevent deception He must provide an explicit disclaimer. <br /><br />This deception not only redounds to His character, it provides Satan opportunity for mischief.<br /><br />I hope this helps you understand where Im coming from. If you have any more questions or if you believe I didnt explain myself very well, feel free to express your concerns.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06269406662901556027noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6215077578479252542.post-49379108760818060082009-05-22T11:55:36.249-05:002009-05-22T11:55:36.249-05:00Craig,
Point of clarification: Are you willing to...Craig,<br /><br />Point of clarification: Are you willing to admit there is some reason to think that an inerrant text would become the object of idolatry and that that fact is a reason in favor of creating an errant text? This concession would not of course amount to admitting an errant text since there could be other, stronger reasons in favor of an inerrant text. Or do you deny that a greater chance for idolatry would be even a weak reason for God to choose the errant route?<br /><br />I ask because your claim that the argument was "strange and obtuse" made me wonder if you were ascribing a greater epistemic power to the argument than Dr. Reitan may have intended. I don't think he likely meant it as a deductive proof of errancy but rather as an example of one possible reason for creating an errant text to be weighed against the reasons for creating an inerrant one. In that sense, I can't see why it would be strange at all. In fact it seems to be perfectly reasonable even if you think it doesn't get the job done.cheeknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6215077578479252542.post-3148033971376883392009-05-22T01:33:18.486-05:002009-05-22T01:33:18.486-05:00Cheek,
To be more specific, I believe that the dis...Cheek,<br />To be more specific, I believe that the disclaimer would come in some other form (ie other than through the HS). The HS would instead prompt believers to pay attention to the disclaimer. Now, Im going to go back to bed and try and get some sleep.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06269406662901556027noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6215077578479252542.post-83311969134247421662009-05-21T21:54:21.979-05:002009-05-21T21:54:21.979-05:00Cheek,
Interesting point. I should be more carefu...Cheek,<br /><br />Interesting point. I should be more careful when choosing my words. What I should have said is that the Holy Spirit could press until all idolatry was quashed (assuming the premise that an inerrant text is more like to become an object of worship). Also, I misspoke by using the word would. God is sovereign and I should not presume how hard He would press. <br />But I dont believe that the HS would likely be the sole vehicle for promulgating the disclaimer.<br />Come to think of it, and Im not an expert on the HS, I doubt that promulgating disclaimers is even in the HSs job description. <br />Thanks Cheek for calling me on it. I was lazy and careless.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06269406662901556027noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6215077578479252542.post-87522411293712145282009-05-21T20:55:19.650-05:002009-05-21T20:55:19.650-05:00"And I assume that if there was dissent on this is..."And I assume that if there was dissent on this issue, the HS would press harder until all dissent was quashed."<br /><br />This is a bit of a double standard. I can't see any reason why a god would be more likely to quash dissent over errancy than over inerrancy. If your argument is that a god would not allow people to disagree, then the logical conclusion from empirical evidence is atheism.<br /><br />(A) A god would not allow sincere believers to be deceived regarding errancy or inerrancy.<br /><br />(B) [Suppose]: A god exists.<br /><br />(C) Either all sincere believers accept errancy or all accept inerrancy.<br /><br />(D) Some sincere believers accept errancy.<br /><br />(E) Some sincere believers accept inerrancy.<br /><br />(F) Not (C).<br /><br />(G) Therefore not (B).<br /><br />I'm not putting this forward as an affirmative argument for atheism by the way. I think (A) is definitely false.cheeknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6215077578479252542.post-20330761620379702602009-05-21T19:00:33.272-05:002009-05-21T19:00:33.272-05:00Fair enough Craig, agreed.Fair enough Craig, agreed.JZnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6215077578479252542.post-51627524879094778572009-05-21T18:12:12.853-05:002009-05-21T18:12:12.853-05:00Jz,
No, You can be an errantist and still be a C...Jz, <br /><br />No, You can be an errantist and still be a Christian. But, upon thinking about it, it would be much harder to live the Christian life if, every time you open the Bible, you have to contemplate whether the passage youre reading is true.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06269406662901556027noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6215077578479252542.post-78439971710430710002009-05-21T18:02:59.925-05:002009-05-21T18:02:59.925-05:00Craig:
Thanks, that is a far more complete and cl...Craig:<br /><br />Thanks, that is a far more complete and clear response. I had misunderstood your earlier statement about being vague on the type of disclaimer.<br /><br />Your statement about the Church though makes me feel like you are saying that you cannot be part of the body of Christ unless you believe in inerrancy. Is this what you believe?JZnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6215077578479252542.post-12289083145758851102009-05-21T17:28:46.135-05:002009-05-21T17:28:46.135-05:00Jz,
As Y said earlier, I was deliberately vague ...Jz, <br /><br />As Y said earlier, I was deliberately vague as to what form the disclaimer would take. As for the church, my church (and many others) preaches inerrancy. As for the Holy Spirit, that would be sufficient, but neither I, nor anyone I know (personally), has ever had an impression from the HS that the Bible is errant. And I assume that if there was dissent on this issue, the HS would press harder until all dissent was quashed. As to reason, I think my logic on this issue has been impeccable (you are free to disagree).Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06269406662901556027noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6215077578479252542.post-20770042465388404392009-05-21T12:54:05.135-05:002009-05-21T12:54:05.135-05:00Craig:
I'm still unclear on why a written disclai...Craig:<br /><br />I'm still unclear on why a written disclaimer is needed where the Church / Holy Spirit / Reason would not suffice.JZnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6215077578479252542.post-77172567794950598312009-05-21T07:54:28.647-05:002009-05-21T07:54:28.647-05:00JZ,
Do you still have questions that no one has a...JZ,<br /><br />Do you still have questions that no one has answered?Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06269406662901556027noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6215077578479252542.post-58558518271445418642009-05-20T15:10:45.107-05:002009-05-20T15:10:45.107-05:00More precisely said about Luther, and more in acco...More precisely said about Luther, and more in accord with what you said in your post, Dr Reitan, is that Luther did not necessarily agree with the Canon as we think of it today, as he may well have thought that James didn't belong. <br />Yet, <B>what he thought was Scripture</B>, he thought was inerrant. It's just strange to see you enlist him to your side, since he would have probably called you all sorts of nasty names for attempting to do so (since he was a bit of a loose cannon and profane), only some of which would be justified. ;-)<br /><br />Further, you have to remember that there was no Definitive Canon of Scripture at the time, groundless Roman Catholic claims to the contrary notwithstanding. It was generally known, but it was not 100% always agreed upon.Rhologyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6215077578479252542.post-4453357482339436232009-05-20T14:15:47.566-05:002009-05-20T14:15:47.566-05:00Dr Reitan,
I was referred to the following blog b...Dr Reitan,<br /><br />I was referred to the following blog by a friend. I thought you might be interested in reading these particular posts: http://fish.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/05/03/god-talk/<br /><br />http://fish.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/05/17/god-talk-part-2/Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06269406662901556027noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6215077578479252542.post-67506244937971142412009-05-20T13:59:30.245-05:002009-05-20T13:59:30.245-05:00Rhology,
Someone could idolize an errant text, and...Rhology,<br />Someone could idolize an errant text, and I believe that many people in fact do just that. My argument is that they would not be/are not epistemically justified in doing so when the errancy of the text is obvious. Short of suspending free will, people will choose to do and believe what they want.<br /><br />As for who decides what 'idolatry' means, I'm missing the relevance. Are you suggesting that the Bible is the source of meaning for English words and that its errancy would make the meaning of words inscrutable, or are you suggesting that the concept of idolatry comes from the Bible? The former is a rather strange claim that I really wouldn't know what to do with, so I'll assume you're claiming the latter. Even so, that's a rather unnecessary foray into philosophy of language that I'm not particularly interested in at present. Sorry.<br /><br />Craig,<br />I think my misunderstanding had less to do with any deficiencies in Eric or your arguments than with my own history of blog discussions on these issues. People who have fundamental disagreements tend to talk past each other so often, that I sometimes assume that is happening even when it isn't.cheeknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6215077578479252542.post-76343845083675706502009-05-20T13:38:43.086-05:002009-05-20T13:38:43.086-05:00Cheek,
No need to apologize. I find Dr Reitans as...Cheek,<br /><br />No need to apologize. I find Dr Reitans assertions on this point strange and obtuse. It has required me to use convoluted arguments to refute it. I completely understand why you would have a hard time following it. You have been very helpful in facilitating the debate.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06269406662901556027noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6215077578479252542.post-10130801121489403102009-05-20T13:32:19.170-05:002009-05-20T13:32:19.170-05:00So I'll revise my argument to say that if the Bibl...<I>So I'll revise my argument to say that if the Bible contains obvious errors, then these would satisfy the requirement.</I>-<br /><br />What's the argument for that? Why couldn't someone idolise an errant text? Who decides what idolatry means?Rhologyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6215077578479252542.post-75866496320118763392009-05-20T13:30:19.550-05:002009-05-20T13:30:19.550-05:00Ok, I looked back at what you wrote again, Craig, ...Ok, I looked back at what you wrote again, Craig, and I think I was misinterpreting. You're saying that the existence of errors does not by itself satisfy your disclaimer demand because (1) you have found apparent errors before that were resolved by further study, (2) you have done this many times, and (3) this experience would lead you to dismiss any real errors (should they exist) because you'd assume there was a resolution you just didn't have access to. I'm not sure whether I think the move from (1) and (2) to (3) is justified epistemically, (I'm also not sure that it isn't. I'm still considering.) but this does show me that our disagreement is not simply about whether or not the Bible contains errors. So I'll revise my argument to say that if the Bible contains obvious errors, then these would satisfy the requirement. Now, I think this is where our views become irreconcilable since I believe that the Bible does in fact contain obvious errors whereas you obviously do not. Sorry for the confusion.cheeknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6215077578479252542.post-54867106570723717942009-05-20T12:00:26.536-05:002009-05-20T12:00:26.536-05:00Rhology,
I believe Dr. Reitan intends to offer a d...Rhology,<br />I believe Dr. Reitan intends to offer a defense of an errant text in his upcoming series of posts. I don't need to do so because I'm not a believer. It makes no difference to me whether or not there are errors or what they mean for the God I don't believe in(though I do believe that there are errors and that they are obvious). <br /><br />That said here's a partial response to one of your questions. You contend that an errant text would demand the reader place his/her own judgement above that of the text, thereby stripping the text of its authority. I grant that statement under some meanings of the word 'authority' as I stated in my earlier comment regarding the various senses of authority. However, I also think it is impossible to read <I>any</I> text without placing one's own reason above it. Put differently, there is no such thing as a "plain reading" of the Bible or any other text. The very concept is nonsensical because all reading is necessarily interpretive.<br /><br />Craig,<br />Fair enough, we disagree about whether or not there are errors. I was just trying to make the logic explicit.cheeknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6215077578479252542.post-87661537034822959342009-05-20T11:54:31.484-05:002009-05-20T11:54:31.484-05:00Cheek,
I filly realize what you are saying. What ...Cheek,<br /><br />I filly realize what you are saying. What IM saying is that every time Ive encountered errors they have turned out to be apparent. This has happened often enough that if I were to encounter a real error, I would assume it to be apparent even if I were unable to resolve the contradiction, because every other error Ive encountered in the past has turned out to be apparent. I would instead attribute my inability to resolve the contradiction to my limited mental capacity or limited resources. Therefore, I would need a disclaimer in order to believe that there are actual errors in the text.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06269406662901556027noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6215077578479252542.post-2458085858780629702009-05-20T11:42:15.711-05:002009-05-20T11:42:15.711-05:00cheek,
So if there are errors, you need to deal w...cheek,<br /><br />So if there are errors, you need to deal with the questions I keep raising.Rhologyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6215077578479252542.post-64805532507384593112009-05-20T11:41:19.583-05:002009-05-20T11:41:19.583-05:00Jz, I think that if read (carefully) what Ive alre...Jz, I think that if read (carefully) what Ive already said, youll see Ive already answered your questions (although sometimes implicitly). Forgive me for being terse, but Im handicapped, and typing is an arduous task for me.<br /><br />If you still have questions, and no one else can (or will) answer them to your satisfaction, then Ill do my best to help you.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06269406662901556027noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6215077578479252542.post-26813753931826082682009-05-20T11:40:41.813-05:002009-05-20T11:40:41.813-05:00Craig, apparent errors are different from errors. ...Craig, apparent errors are different from errors. What I'm saying is that if there are in fact errors in the text (obviously I know you and I disagree about whether or not this conditional is met), then the existence of those errors is sufficient to meet your disclaimer requirement even if there were still inerrantists. Continuing to believe in inerrancy in the face of errors in the text would not be a matter of deception but of self-deception.cheeknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6215077578479252542.post-9220994807286979352009-05-20T11:24:10.181-05:002009-05-20T11:24:10.181-05:00Cheek:
Thank you for your comment, I think it lay...Cheek:<br /><br />Thank you for your comment, I think it lays out a possible path of our unstated assumptions well, which I was trying to flush out unsuccessfully. <br /><br />I was reluctant to put arguments in Craig's mouth, so I was trying to understand his steps D to I that were left out of his A,B,C argument from his own stated perspective.<br /><br />Craig:<br /><br />I'm still curious about your stance. Do you really believe that God would not want anyone deceived (then raising the question of why there are even "apparent" errors), or do you think that is just an faulty and implicit part of Reitan's argument? Do you agree with Cheek's presentation of your ideas? If so, how do you counter my objection to the point E) that a written disclaimer is not necessarily the means God would use to communicate with his followers.JZnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6215077578479252542.post-44738825406659354072009-05-20T11:03:26.386-05:002009-05-20T11:03:26.386-05:00Unless by interpretive work you mean to go back to...Unless by interpretive work you mean to go back to the original Greek or Hebrew. In that case I wholeheartedly agreeUnknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06269406662901556027noreply@blogger.com