Wednesday, April 22, 2009

Dissecting and Assessing a Pair of Arguments for Biblical Inerrancy

In two comments in response to the previous post, Craig offers several arguments in support of a doctrine of biblical inerrancy. In this post, I want to try to develop and then evaluate the two arguments that Craig gestures towards in the following passage:

“…by insisting that the Bible contains errors you are anthropomorphizing God. The God I know (and love) would not willingly allow errors to enter His sacred text and is powerful enough to ensure that this does not occur by communicating with (breathing into the minds of) the authors.”

I think there are two related arguments here. The first is mostly undeveloped but implicit in the opening sentence of the quote. The second is a bit more developed, and is suggested by the remainder of the quote. The first argument, which I’ll call “A” (for Anthropomorphizing God), might be charitably developed in the following terms:

A1: The Bible is the revelation of God.
A2: So, if you adopt the view that the Bible contains errors, you are adopting the view that God’s revelation contains errors
A3: If God’s revelation contains errors, then God has human-like failings.
A4: So, if you adopt the view that the Bible contains errors, you are adopting the view that God has human-like failing
A5. To adopt the view that God has human-like failings is to anthropomorphize God.
A6. So, if you adopt the view that the Bible contains errors, you anthropomorphize God.
A7. It is a mistake to anthropomorphize God.
A8. So, it is a mistake to adopt the view that the Bible contains errors.

Note that this argument starts with the premise that the Bible is the revelation of God. Take that away, and I don’t see how we will get to the conclusion. But my discussion in the previous post is precisely about whether God would choose to reveal Himself primarily in a text (the Bible or some other text, such as the Koran or the Book of Mormon or the Vedas or any of the other texts that some have claimed to be the revelation of God). As such, this argument begs the question at hand—it assumes what needs to be proved.

The second argument, which I’ll call “S” (for “Sacred Text”) basically has a form similar to what we find in the argument from evil. It might be formulated as follows:

S1. The Bible is the “sacred text” of a God who is perfectly good and almighty.
S2. God, being perfectly good, would want His sacred text to be free from errors, and so would guarantee this result if He had the power to do so.
S3. God, being almighty, has the power to do so—specifically, He can inspire the authors of the Bible in such a way as to guarantee that they write without error.
S4. So, the Bible must be free from error.

Now, if we define “God’s sacred text” to mean “the text through which God has revealed Himself to the world,” we see that this argument once again begs the question at hand, assuming what needs to be proved. But perhaps Craig means something else by “God’s sacred text.” Perhaps we should take “God’s sacred text” to mean something more vague--perhaps something like “A text in which God has a special interest and which He makes use of in a unique way to guide humanity towards a state in which we all love God with our whole heart and mind and love our neighbors as ourselves.”

If we assume some sense of "sacred text" other than "a text that is the perfect and inerrant revelation of God," then premise S1 need no longer beg the question. But is the argument sound? Here, of course, much hinges on precisely what "God's sacred text" is taken to mean. But rather than run through all the possible options and evaluate the argument with each possibility in place, let me approach this in a different way.

Recall that something I pointed out when I first laid out argument "S"—namely, that the form of “S” is similar to what we find in the argument from evil. But there is a crucial difference as well. To see that difference, we need to turn to the argument from evil.

The argument from evil has been formulated in very many ways, but let me offer a formulation that makes the parallel to the above argument clear. We’ll call this argument “E”:

E1. Assume for the sake of argument that the world was made by a God who is perfectly good and almighty.
E2. God, being perfectly good, would want the world He made to be free from evil, and so would guarantee this result if He had the power to do so.
E3. God, being almighty, has the power to do so—specifically, He can make the world in such a way that there is no natural evil (disease, starvation, natural disaster) and can influence people in such a way as to guarantee that they never do evil.
E4. So, given our assumption, E1, the world must be free from evil.
E5. But, there is evil in the world.
E6. So, E1 must be false—the world was not made by a God who is perfectly good and almighty.

This argument differs from “S” in that it is formulated as a reductio ad absurdum argument—that is, it aims to show that an initial assumption leads to a false conclusion, and so must itself be rejected as false. What is revealed here is that the very same line of argument can cut in two different directions. Consider a modification of “S” along the following lines (we’ll call it argument “SR,” for “S reductio”):

SR1. Assume for the sake of argument that the Bible is the “sacred text” of a God who is perfectly good and almighty.
SR2. God, being perfectly good, would want His sacred text to be free from errors, and so would guarantee this result if He had the power to do so.
SR3. God, being almighty, has the power to do so—specifically, He can inspire the authors of the Bible in such a way as to guarantee that they write without error.
SR4. So, given our assumption, SR1, the Bible must be free from error.
SR5. But, the Bible is not free from error.
SR6. So, SR1 must be false—the Bible is not the sacred text of a God who is perfectly good and almighty.

Now there are many who argue precisely along these lines, by pointing out apparent contradictions in the Bible, or by identifying claims that sound as if they were intended by their authors to be factual assertion but which are at odds with the overwhelming weight of scientific evidence, or by highlighting moral injunctions that have every appearance of being horrifically at odds with our deepest intuitions about morality.

Since these ordinary forms of evidence contradict what is in the Bible, it is concluded that the Bible is not inerrant—and if the first part of the argument is embraced as sound, it is further concluded that the Bible is not God’s sacred text in any meaningful sense.

Now I find arguments along these lines important and worth serious reflection, but there is a difficulty with all of them. For every “error” that is identified by the measuring stick of logic or science or moral intuition, the biblical inerrantist can assert that it is logic or science or moral intuition which are in error. And this creates a kind of standoff between those who start with these ordinary forms of evidence and conclude that the Bible is not to be trusted, and those who start with a very high view of the Bible and conclude that these ordinary forms of evidence are not to be trusted.

Still, something important has been demonstrated if we come to see that the doctrine of biblical inerrancy forces its adherents to reject the evidentiary significance we would otherwise attach to logic and science and moral intuition. We are led to the conclusion that allegiance to the doctrine of biblical inerrancy is not an innocuous thing. If the doctrine is wrong, the consequences of being wrong on this doctrinal issue are a rather systematic alienation from ordinary ways of knowing, and hence a greater likelihood of being wrong about many more things.

But let me set this issue aside for the time being, since it has so often led to a kind of ideological impasse. What I want to focus on is the first part of argument SR, the part which moves from the assumption that the Bible is “God’s sacred text” in some meaningful and important sense, to the conclusion that the Bible must be inerrant.

In philosophical discussions concerning the problem of evil, it is the parallel portion of argument “E” that most theists challenge. That is, they don’t deny that there is evil in the world. Rather, they argue that there are good reasons why a perfectly good and almighty God would allow the world that He created to be marred by evil. An account of such reasons is called a “theodicy.” Likewise, someone might argue that there are good reasons why a perfectly good and almighty God would allow His sacred text to be marred by error. Call it “a theodicy of biblical errors.”

Of course, the most common theodicies appeal to free will. Since my focus in this post isn’t on the problem of evil, I can’t do full justice to the problem and the various proposed solutions, but the rough gist of a free will theodicy is this: human freedom is so important that God is morally bound to allow it unimpeded expression even when it results in such horrors as the Holocaust.

Let’s consider what would follow if we took this idea seriously in the domain of the argument from evil, and then applied it to argument SR. If genuine human freedom is so deeply important to God that He would permit moral horrors of enormous proportion rather than interfere with the expression of such freedom, would there be any way that God could guarantee inerrancy in a holy book written by human authors?

If the human authors of God’s sacred texts are afforded by God the freedom to ignore divine inspiration, then God could not at the same time guarantee that they never ignored that inspiration in favor of their own cultural prejudices. Likewise, if the human beings who selected among the various writings to assemble the canon of the Bible were afforded the freedom to ignore divine inspiration (which was, say, telling them that the Book of Revelation wasn't divinely inspired at all), then God could not at the same time guarantee that they never ignored that inspiration in favor of their own fallible judgments. And so, if preserving freedom is so important that God is willing to allow millions to die in gas chambers out of respect for it, it might well be plausible to conclude that He must also regrettably allow His chosen authors to mangle and misrepresent His revelations.

Now I don’t spell out this particular “theodicy of biblical errors” because I believe that God was trying to create an inerrant text but was foiled by willful human authors whose freedom was so important to God that He had to allow them to misrepresent Him. I sketch out this theodicy of biblical errors simply to highlight the kinds of issues that need to be explored before anyone can say with confidence that God would have created an inerrant text.

My own view, as I’ve sketched it out in this blog and in my book, is that there are good reasons to conclude that God would pursue revelation in an entirely different way than through a text, and that the Bible is therefore better understood as a human testament to divine revelation rather than as the revelation itself. And I do not think that we should expect God to intrude on the freedom of human authors to prevent their testament from containing errors—not because human freedom is sacrosanct (although I do think human freedom is important), but because God’s plans are better served without the existence of a text that is inerrant in every detail.

I guess underlying all of this is an essentially Lutheran theology of grace, which holds that we cannot save ourselves—either by doing the right things or by getting all of our beliefs right. Only once we admit this will we let go of the effort to save ourselves by our own works and so let grace flood in. An inerrant text would inspire too many to think that they can get it right, if only they follow the rule book and believe everything it says. And so such a text might prove an impediment to the flow of grace.

48 comments:

  1. I would also like to see you answer the questions Dr McGrath wouldn't, when you get a chance. It would go a long way toward substantiating your position.

    ReplyDelete
  2. In a previous post you say:
    And let us not pretend that any of these questions of ultimate significance can be answered by simple proof texting, without philosophical struggle and reflection. The Bible doesn't spoon feed us answers to life's mysteries, even if it may provide resources for wrestling with those mysteries.

    What about those who are intellectually incapable of philosophical struggle and reflection (assume an IQ below 110 which would be 75% of the population)? Are they to be condemned to punishment before they are allowed to enjoy salvation?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Are you going to respond to my other arguments?

    ReplyDelete
  4. btw My original post on Exploring our Matrix was as follows:
    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.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Perhaps a good way to proceed is simply to argue over the inerrant view of Scripture. The different philosophical viewpoints begin from there. (leaving aside the predispositions which can lead to inerrant or non-inerrant views)

    Of course, an inerrantist can simply insert a "supernatural" explanation for anything they like. There's no natural or archeological evidence for a world-wide flood? God is supernatural, so he made the flood and then cleaned up all the evidence. OR the story is a human folk tale.

    At some point, we must ask ourselves the most likely scenario. If that's not enough, then we can point to inconsistencies within the story. Did Noah bring aboard 2 of each animal or 7 or each clean animal and 2 of each unclean? (which assumes the the Law "before" it was given to Moses)

    did God create vegetation and animals first? (Gen. 1) or man first? (Gen. 2)

    etc.

    Don't get me wrong, I enjoy the philosophical reasoning as well. My experience with inerrantists though, is that they will apply the RESULTING views of their inerrant viewpoint to any philosophical reasoning about the possibilities (or impossibilities) of inerrancy.

    All good people, just different starting points - and some more rational than others. Eric is right that an inerrant viewpoint can have frightening implications as it teaches distrust of our own observation and processes of attaining knowledge that have developed since the Bible was written.


    A side note - the 2 Tim verse means one thing. The writer of 2 Tim. views the Old Testament as "God-breathed." Can we go further as to the writer's meaning?

    Thanks for the debate, gentlemen!

    ReplyDelete
  6. "Eric is right that an inerrant viewpoint can have frightening implications as it teaches distrust of our own observation and processes of attaining knowledge that have developed since the Bible was written."

    I should add that the irony here is that inerrantists argue from their "observation and processes of attaining knowledge" in "proving" their position of inerrancy. However this process is dropped in favor of supernatural intervention whenever needed, because it is a completely unfalsifiable viewpoint. Where does the burden of proof lie?

    ReplyDelete
  7. You make a lot of sense Eric.

    Am I the only one who thinks that the messiness of the Bible is good? Craig seems to see faults and contradictions as literally evil - but what if they're good, or contribute to the goodness of the Bible? And by goodness I mean it reflecting the character of God, as revealed in Christianity. Because we can't forget that when it all comes down to it, we're not dealing with a transcendent God only, but a God revealed in human form too. Why would the incarnational dialectic not be present in the Bible too? It makes a lot of sense to me, at least.

    Good point Steven about inerrency being unfalsifiable.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Steven said:
    The writer of 2 Tim. views the Old Testament as "God-breathed."No, he viewed "Scripture" as God-breathed. Sure, to him, the OT was the only Scripture, but there is little indication either way whether he knew or didn't know that he himself was writing Scr.
    That's not the same thing.


    it is a completely unfalsifiable viewpointDo you realise that the principle of falsification is itself unfalsifiable?
    All I mean is that this principle is not the be-all end-all that many people make it out to be.


    Arni said:
    Am I the only one who thinks that the messiness of the Bible is good?So, God is confused and can't speak clearly, and you're OK with that? What if He was confused/unintelligible when it came to the resurrection of Christ and the remedy for your sin?



    Peace,
    Rhology

    ReplyDelete
  9. Steven,

    I understand your desire when you say "unfalsifiable". It's just that using the tests you suggested are external critiques, and as you say, the biblical worldview can account for all of these supposed problems. It may not be what you'd like to hear. It may be "God did it that way", but that remains a solid, reasonable, and logically possible resolution to the question. It's not an "easy way out" - it's what the Bible MEANS. In other words, if you're looking for a chink in the armor, look elsewhere.

    Far better, if you're trying to provide arguments against inerrancy, to show how the Bible is internally inconsistent.
    I would suggest that you try to prove naturalism, but let me save you the trouble - you have no chance of that, it's such a bad philosophy.

    Hope that helps. I'm not trying to be a jerk; I really am trying to elucidate my (and Craig's) position.

    Peace,
    Rhology

    ReplyDelete
  10. At the risk of opening an entirely unfruitful tangent, could you please clarify what you mean by 'naturalism,' Rhology? Do you mean the study of natural history, materialism, or perhaps the Darwinian theory of evolution by natural selection?

    ReplyDelete
  11. It's most closely related to materialism, yes, cheek.

    ReplyDelete
  12. There's no natural or archeological evidence for a world-wide flood?

    Theres plenty of archeological evidence found in the carbon-14 dating of bones to support the idea of a flood.

    Of course, an inerrantist can simply insert a "supernatural" explanation for anything they like.

    God is a supernatural being. To insist that the Bible contains errors is to take away the super.

    Dr Reitan says: And let us not pretend that any of these questions of ultimate significance can be answered by simple proof texting, without philosophical struggle and reflection.

    I say: Apparent contradictions and seeming errors are often resolved with careful study of the context and knowledge of the history and culture of the time of the writing. And since man is errant, one should consult several sources (especially commmentaries) before coming to a conclusion. Dr. Reitan says struggle. I say do your homework.

    ReplyDelete
  13. I should add that the irony here is that inerrantists argue from their "observation and processes of attaining knowledge" in "proving" their position of inerrancy.

    The type of argument I used is called an A Priori argument. It specifically does not rely on observation.

    Craig seems to see faults and contradictions as literally evil - but what if they're good, or contribute to the goodness of the Bible?

    I see faults and contradictions as apparent.
    How can something contribute to the goodness of the Bible if its not true?

    ReplyDelete
  14. In that case I'll grant that even as a materialist I don't believe proving materialism to be possible based on current knowledge, (When I say 'prove' I mean "establish with certainty." If you're using a different definition, please let me know.) but certainty is the highest of epistemic standards and is largely restricted to abstract knowledge such a mathematics and logic. In brief let me state my basic justification for claiming effective materialism with a high degree of epistemic confidence. (Keep in mind that a complete account of materialist philosophy would fill many volumes and take a lifetime (or judging from history, many lifetimes) to complete.

    First, when I say 'effective materialism,' I mean that the only facts that are relevant to our existence are physical facts. You'll notice I haven't made the stronger claim that there are no non-physical facts. My understanding of materialism in fact suggests that such a statement would be impossible to verify. The reason for this is the same basic reason I accept materialism with high epistemic confidence. Thus far, the only causes we have ever observed, and (I believe, though you are sure to object) in fact the only causes that seem to be possible are physical causes (Oxygen atom1 combines with oxygen atom2 to form Oxygen molecule3). I have never seen a convincing account of how either a non-physical object (even the concept 'non-physical object' is a bit hard to define) could affect a physical object (in either a physical or non-physical way) or a physical object could effect a non-physical object. There are plenty of smart people who believe such interactions are possible (the philosopher David Chalmers is a notable example), but none of the accounts that they give seem convincing to me.

    So if hypothetical non-physical facts can have no impact on our physical reality, then I conclude with good confidence that such facts are irrelevant. They may in fact exist, but they do not matter to our existence in any meaningful way.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Rho, you say: "So, God is confused and can't speak clearly, and you're OK with that? What if He was confused/unintelligible when it came to the resurrection of Christ and the remedy for your sin?"

    That's quite a leap, going from the Bible as messy or confusing to saying that God is confused. Not God is confusing, but God is confused. It doesn't really shock me though, because inerrantists have a tendency to conflate the Bible and God - if not theologically and philosophically, then most definitely practically (but theologically as well - think of how many Evangelical institutions (churches, colleges, etc.) mention the Bible before the Trinity in their creeds). That's bibliolatry and you should, as the Bible says, rid yourself of it. It's blasphemous and dangerous for your faith.

    I think this boils down to the issue Eric raised in his post: What is God's mode of communication? Inerrantists (and others) believe that God primarily communicates propositionally through the Bible, while Eric posits that a loving God would not do that, but would primarily communicate through persons, especially the person of Jesus - an idea, I might add, that fits well with orthodox theology.

    What then of the Bible? Following Eric's idea of personal communication/revelation is the notion of the Bible as witness to that event (presumably - Eric, correct me if I misrepresent you or take your ideas to places you don't want them to go). So God's communicative action is not located in the Bible primarily, but in the person of Christ, which is attested in the Bible. The Bible can only be considered Scripture in a secondary way, it's authority constituted by God's personal self-revelation in Jesus. Around this center circle other modes of communication (interpersonal, emotive, reflective, etc.), all of which, including the center, I would say are constituted by the Holy Spirit. Following this, it's not a problem that the Bible is confusing - and this fact (because it is a fact) does not in any way suggest that God himself is confusing or, as you for some strange reason suggest, confused.

    ReplyDelete
  16. And Craig, "There's no natural or archeological evidence for a world-wide flood?" No, there is not. None at all. But that's another discussion. Maybe Eric could write a blog about his thoughts on creationism. I'm sure it would be an interesting read!

    ReplyDelete
  17. You'll notice I haven't made the stronger claim that there are no non-physical facts.So... you are a materialist but there exist non-material things. Not sure I follow you. Why call yourself a materialist, then?
    Materialism dies w/o a whimper at the knife of the conceptual and abstract. Does love exist? As material? Where does it grow? Of what elements is it composed?
    No, of course not.



    Arni,

    Your accusation of bibliolatry - what if the biblical injunctions against idolatry are part of the errant part of the text? Could you please answer that question? It's fundamental to our discussion.

    ReplyDelete
  18. In response to a passage from a previous post, in which I argue that "the Bible doesn't spoon feed us answers to life's mysteries, even if it may provide resources for wrestling with those mysteries," Craig expresses the following concern:

    "What about those who are intellectually incapable of philosophical struggle and reflection (assume an IQ below 110 which would be 75% of the population)? Are they to be condemned to punishment before they are allowed to enjoy salvation?"

    I think this concern may cut to the heart of what is really at issue in connection with the doctrine of biblical inerrancy--the need for certainty that stems from the assumption that our very salvation depends on GETTING IT RIGHT--both our actions and our beliefs.

    If (a) salvation depends in part on getting our beliefs right, and if (b) getting our beliefs right is in large measure a function of our native intellectual capacities and access to education, then we are led to the untenable conclusion that intellectual elites are more likely to be saved than the rest of us.

    The inerrantist solves this problem by rejecting (b)--that is, by denying that getting our beliefs right depends on intelligence and education. All it depends on, they say, is access to the content of the Bible. The Bible is inerrant, so you don't need to be smart to get your beliefs right. All you need to do is put your trust in what the Bible says.

    But this solution to the problem is fraught with new problems. First, it solves the problem by replacing (as the best means to true beliefs) intellect and education with trust in what the Bible says. But not everyone has access to what the Bible says. So if salvation depends on getting our beliefs right, then a bunch of people are left out through no fault of their own just as surely as they would be were our salvation dependent on being scholars.

    Secondly, this solution to the problem has to face head-on the fact that diverse texts and institutions and individuals claim to be the terrestrial prophetic voice of God. In which one do you place your trust? The Bible? The Koran? The Guru Granth Sahib? The Vedas?

    If our salvation depends on getting out beliefs right, and if getting out beliefs right depends on placing our trust in the book in which God reveals Himself, then it seems as if our salvation depends on correctly guessing which of these prophetic works is the TRUE revelation of God and which isn't.

    The fact is that most just go with the option that they were raised to believe in--so Muslims trust the Koran and Christians trust the Bible, etc. Does salvation depend, then, on an accident of birth? Or on reading through all of them and being able to get past your own upbringing and cultural biases to correctly discern that there is something more intrinsically true about one of these texts? If the latter, does our salvation depend on our powers of discernment? And if so, how does that differ from our salvation depending on intellect and education?

    In short, this problem does not look as if it can be readily solved by rejecting (b) in the way that biblical inerrantists do.

    What about question (a) instead? What about denying that our salvation depends on getting our beliefs right? What about saying, for example, that our salvation comes not from what we do or believe, but from what God does or has done? What about, instead of saying that we are saved by correctly BELIEVING that God became incarnate in Jesus and redeemed us through dying on the cross and rising again, saying that we are saved instead by the fact that Jesus redeemed us, whether we believe it or not?

    Of course, if you go with this option, it is hard to resist a doctrine of universal salvation. But that, in my judgment, is one of the great virtues of this option. A doctrine of limited salvation has, in my view, deeply pernicious effects. If we assess transcendent beliefs in pragmatic terms (which I think is the most sound approach), by looking at the effects that they have on human behavior and inclinations and relationships, I think we can quickly see that a doctrine of limited salvation has negative pragmatic effects, as I argue (among other places) in my September blog post entitled "Pragmatic Implications of Belief in Hell."

    Anyway, that's all for today. I must get back to other projects.

    ReplyDelete
  19. I didn't mean to claim that non-physical objects exist, just that their hypothetical existence would be inscrutable for the same reasons they would be irrelevant. I can't tell you whether they exist or not because they would be inscrutable, but they would be inscrutable because they would not be able to affect any of the physical things that make up my existence. Therefore, it doesn't much matter that I can't verify their existence/absence.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Cheek--

    On this issue you may want to check out Stewart Goetz's newest book, FREEDOM, TELEOLOGY, AND EVIL. He offers a new account of libertarian freedom which he thinks best fits with out immediate experience of ourselves as agents. And his theory basically asserts that REASONS FOR ACTION explain our choices, but that reasons are neither physical things nor causes. And yet they are something with which we are intimately familiar and which have a clear and potent impact on our lives and the world (but not a causal impact in the ordinary sense). The deeper issue then becomes what kind of broader metaphysic makes the most sense of the explanatory power that reasons play in the physical world.

    Now I really do have to get back to work.

    ReplyDelete
  21. You say you think this concern may cut to the heart of what is really at issue in connection with the doctrine of biblical inerrancy, yet you completely ignored my question. How could a loving God allow people to suffer because they are intellectually incapable of of answering the question He poses?

    ReplyDelete
  22. Just speaking from a Calvinist and moderately-Calvinist perspective, let me offer this corrective.

    All it depends on, they say, is access to the content of the Bible.Not at all. We're talking about salvation here - it depends on hearing the Gospel (Romans 10:17) and an act of the Holy Spirit in the heart of the hearer (John 6:40-45). Nothing so exhaustive as a Bible is required at all in that minimal scenario.


    it solves the problem by replacing (as the best means to true beliefs) intellect and education with trust in what the Bible says. But not everyone has access to what the Bible says.This simply takes a step backward for you, Dr Reitan. This is precisely Craig's objection. Did you forget it already?


    In which one do you place your trust?Actually, only the Bible and Qur'an claim to be the word of God; the others do not, especially since they know of no "God" but rather of "lots of gods". It's not even close to the same thing.
    And we know it's not the Qur'an by looking at it a bit. The Qur'an makes 2 claims we look at:
    1) The Bible is the Word of Allah, on which foundation the Qur'an finishes the building.
    2) Jesus did NOT die on the cross.

    So if the Bible is true, the Qur'an is false. And if the Bible is false, the Qur'an is false.
    See? That wasn't so hard. But a commitment to liberalism removes any motivation to think thru these things critically. You're asking the wrong questions, so obviously you get the wrong answers.


    if you go with this option, it is hard to resist a doctrine of universal salvation. But that, in my judgment, is one of the great virtues of this option.That is a real shame.
    1) Jesus clearly says that few will enter the narrow gate. Many will take the path to destruction. It's sad how easily you brush aside Jesus' statements.
    2) You think the doctrine of limited salvation has pernicious effects? Let me recommend a few of these articles for anyone who's interested.
    Far better to actually listen to what God says, and follow it.



    cheek,

    So you can't even answer the question of whether love exists.
    How about this? Does the concept "materialism is true" exist? If it's inscrutable, am I rational in rejecting materialism in toto? If it does exist, how is materialism true?
    Seriously, let me commend Jesus Christ to you. You are a sinner; think about your sin, because everyone has committed sin. Jesus Christ died a horrible death in order to take the punishment you deserve upon Himself, and offers eternal life to you because He rose from the dead. Repent of your sin, trust in Christ, let Him be Lord. Leave aside empty and ridiculous philosophies like what you're professing here.


    Peace,
    Rhology

    ReplyDelete
  23. You say: But not everyone has access to what the Bible says. So if salvation depends on getting our beliefs right, then a bunch of people are left out through no fault of their own just as surely as they would be were our salvation dependent on being scholars.

    Paul (whom you claim is a Universelist) says: Romans 1:20 For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

    ReplyDelete
  24. 1. In all this we should also consider where the burden of proof lies.

    If I put forth that a pink unicorn created the earth, then the burden of proof lies with me.

    2. Rhology: "Do you realise that the principle of falsification is itself unfalsifiable?
    All I mean is that this principle is not the be-all end-all that many people make it out to be."

    That is fine. But then we must acknowledge that your view of God is not based on reason or observation.

    "Proving" a supernatural God, who is not bound by physical law, with logic is problematic, as logic is contingent on physical law (naturalism). Using naturalism to prove supernaturalism usually becomes taking “gaps” in current naturalistic understanding and plugging in the deity from the Old Testament without explanation.

    Consider the circular argument below:

    a. The supernatural God hypothesis is derived from Scripture.
    b. The Bible is only plausible as literal history if there is a supernatural God.

    There is no evidence that I know of to indicate that the writer of 2 Timothy considered his own writing to be Scripture.

    4. As far as “internal” inconsistencies - that’s what I tried to point out with the creation stories and the flood stories in my previous post.

    5. Rhology: “I'm not trying to be a jerk”

    No worries! It’s all about searching out quality thinking. BTW, I do not want to tear down God or Scripture. But I do want to tear down in inerrant viewpoint, as I believe it is destructive to the long-term viability of scripture’s value.

    ReplyDelete
  25. we must acknowledge that your view of God is not based on reason or observation. Agreed. God is the Christian's fundamental presupposition, not a conclusion arrived at by some other means.
    The evidence of this is that any other worldview that does not take the God of the Bible as its fundamental presupp reduces to absurdity upon examination.

    And fortunately, your circular argument proposal does not describe my position.
    Please see my harmonisation of the creation accts.As for the flood thing, he brought 2 and 7, the second mention is an elucidation of the first instruction.

    It's really not that hard, if you don't insist on going to the Bible in order to find errors. Rather, let it speak for itself. Give it the same courtesy you want others to give your own writings.

    So, the Bible is more valuable long-term if it is full of errors, eh? What makes you say that?

    And I'm glad you don't consider me to be being a jerk. Many others in surrounding combox threads have not been so kind as you.

    Peace,
    Rhology

    ReplyDelete
  26. To Pstyle

    thanks for your kind and generous remarks. I look forward to engaging you in the future.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Thanks for the recommendation, Dr. Reitan. I'm familiar with some of Goetz's work, and I'll enjoy investigating his latest. And by the way, thanks for allowing me to follow this tangent here. I realize it is straying from the topic, and if you feel it gets too far afield, please let me know.

    Slow down, Rhology. I'm writing in between work projects here, and it takes me awhile to compose my arguments into something I think is coherent. I should have posted a note that I'd get to your second question later.

    So, concepts: (As a warning, I will necessarily touch on some philosophy of language here, which is not where my primary interest/study has been. I am sure to do some damage to the most current concepts, and I apologize in advance.) My account of the word 'love' is that it is an artifact of human civilization, a written and spoken tool used by humans to describe various phenomena of human experience. So does the concept 'love' exist? That's a tough question, and I'll give a qualified answer: Yes, but not as a universal. Instead, many different thoughts exist in the minds of many different people all of which are called "love." As for the things that are described by 'love,' they are many. Some of them are emotional responses by individuals to other individuals (emotions are a function of the body, and therefore physical) while others are the physical actions of people (I can be said to love my wife by cooking her dinner after she has had a rough day at work). This is a rough sketch of how I would say that love and similar concepts exist.

    My answer to your second question about the proposition 'Materialism is true,' is similar. The proposition itself exists in the minds of many people as a thought and on this blog as a written sentence. The referent also exists (on my account, though I realize you disagree) in the reality of the world. There are physical objects that interact with other physical objects but do not, and are in fact unable to interact with non-physical objects.

    Now for your witness: I appreciate the spirit of your exhortation in that you wish me to be saved by God from eternal damnation (although maybe you can give an account of why you should wish that given the Calvinist maxim that God would be glorified either by my salvation or my damnation). I'm not being ironic. It sound's like you were sincere. However, I'm not hearing it for the first time. I won't give you my entire life story here as it doesn't seem the appropriate medium, but a few basic details will perhaps help you better understand my background and reasons for believing as I do. I am 26. I grew up in the Baptist church, the son of brilliant, loving, and faithful (as in faith the virtue) Christian parents. For most of my life I believed most of the theology that you believe, but I eventually came to a point where I no longer found it convincing, not because of any trauma related to the church, just because of my own reasoning and study. I still value the church for many of its works and would even say that I have hope in the Kingdom of Heaven as the political model described by Jesus in Matthew 5-7, but I do not find many of the metaphysical claims of Christianity to be convincing. I know that you think I am wrong in my beliefs, and I share your view in part, otherwise I would not feel the need to engage in dialogue with people who disagree with me. (A favorite quote of mine is, "If you're dumb, surround yourself with smart people. If you're smart, surround yourself with smart people who disagree with you."--Aaron Sorkin) I say all of that just as a way of requesting that you assume my opinions are come by as carefully and honestly as yours, though many of them are surely deficient.

    ReplyDelete
  28. cheek,

    We're not discussing universals, but rather concepts.
    How does the referent of the proposition "Materialism is true" exist materially? Where is it found? Of what elements is it composed? Does it grow somewhere? Like in Malaysia?

    Yes, your damnation or salvation glorifies God, either way, yet He offers salvation to you. Why will you die? Choose life. What led you away was not reasoning but sinful, rebellious "autonomous" reasoning. It reduces to absurdity, as we're seeing, but you refuse to give it up b/c you prefer to serve yourself rather than Jesus. It's sad to watch, but you still have time.

    Peace,
    Rhology

    ReplyDelete
  29. Arnie,

    I found a refernce:

    Professor Robert Whitelaw was a leading creationist expert on carbon dating. The method itself was invented in the 1950s by W.F. Libby, a committed evolutionist. Dr. Whitelaw began studying carbon dating results in the 1960s and reviewed over 30,000 carbon-dating results. Dr. Whitelaw pointed out that Libby knew, from his own research, that carbon-14 dating proved that the Earth was only a few thousand years old. But Libby rejected this result as being contrary to his religion. When carbon-dating information is adjusted to fit Libby's own data, carbon-14 dating demonstrates that there was a world-wide cataclysm which destroyed all life at just about the time given in the Bible for the great Flood. Carbon-14 also shows that all living things appeared at about the same time.

    When God's Word tells us about day and dates, we can trust His Word to be accurate. The Bible is not only a higher authority than any of man's schemes, it has always proven to be unerringly accurate, even when it speaks about history and science.

    ReplyDelete
  30. I think the proposition exists in the thoughts of individual people. I should have made this clear. Propositions, like the language that constructs them, are simply the product of physical minds as they attempt to describe their physical experience. So if there were no minds, there would be no propositions. The referents of propositions are the things that we observe in the physical world. So, if I am correct, then the proposition “Materialism is true,” is true in the sense that it is an accurate description of the world. While the proposition isn’t grown on Malaysian plantations, it does exist there as long as there are people there who think it. (On a sort of funny sidenote, I was grown in Malaysia when my parents were missionaries there:)

    Sorry for the reference to Calvinism. It was somewhat flippant and irrelevant. I’ll drop that line. I do apologize for making you sad. It is certainly not my intent, nor is it my intent to rebel in the way you suggest.

    ReplyDelete
  31. "Dissecting and Assessing a Pair of Arguments for Biblical Inerrancy"#1. I don't have the time to dissect and assess your dissection and assessment for Craig's arguments for Biblical Inerrancy. I did do a quick-read through them and found them unconvincing; my only lament being that I don't have the time to refute your arguments.

    #2. May I assume that you're aware that there are a variety of arguments for inerrancy? Your characterization of the deductive approach would not be agreed to by inerrantists preferring the deductive logic approach, but my point is that there are inductive approaches to establishing biblical inerrancy as well.

    #3. Craig has referred me to this thread.

    Eric, I invite you to dissect and analyze this argument by Steve Hays of Triablogue:

    "A contradiction involves a discrepancy between two or more passages. You can’t allege a contradiction unless the text is reliable. If the text is unreliable, then you’re in no position to say that these passages are ultimately discrepant. For all you know, the discrepancy might well be a scribal gloss.

    So a necessary precondition for imputing contradictions to scripture is the essential integrity of the text. If the transmission of the text is unreliable, then any contradiction you allege is vitiated by an unreliable witness to the original text.

    Therefore, the liberal has to choose between two mutually exclusive lines of attack. If he attacks the integrity of the text, then he forfeits the right to attack the inerrancy of the text–but if he attacks the inerrancy of the text, then he forfeits the right to attack the integrity of the text. One line of attack cancels out the other, and vice versa. You can pay on the way in, or you can pay on the way out, but either way, you have to pay up.

    Incidentally, a parallel conundrum is generated by critics who claim the meaning of Scripture is hopelessly uncertain since Christians disagree over the correct interpretation of Scripture. If you press this issue, then you disqualify yourself from imputing error to Scripture–for the imputation of error is only as good as your interpretation. So the unbeliever is in a quandary. He likes to attack the Bible from every conceivable angle, but in the process he is forming a circular firing squad. He makes himself the target of his own incoherent stratagems."

    ReplyDelete
  32. Craig, how about articulating your own arguments? I found the website you copy-pasted your comment from. And that's just bad. Especially when what it says is blatantly untrue.

    http://www.creationmoments.net/articles/article.php?a=214&c=62

    ReplyDelete
  33. So the unbeliever is in a quandary. He likes to attack the Bible from every conceivable angle, but in the process he is forming a circular firing squad. He makes himself the target of his own incoherent stratagems.This statement is startlingly uncharitable. While there are many unbelievers (even this word is unfairly pejorative since they don't believe nothing, they simply don't believe the same things you do) who do like to attack the Bible, they make a very small percentage of the people who do not believe in the inerrant authority of scripture. Personally, though I think there are problems with the Bible, I have no driving desire to tear it down. Quite the opposite, I find many parts of the Bible to be useful, brilliant, and/or beautiful. I just don't agree with everything you say about it. It is usually better, in my opinion, not to assume you know the motives of the people with whom you disagree.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Motives are not a factor in measuring the validity of arguments.

    One problem with Truth United's post is that he/she misunderstands where the burden of proof lies . Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. One who does not "buy" the claim (on inerrancy) does not have the burden of proof on their side.

    ReplyDelete
  35. I can't say "I saw a flying pink unicorn." and then say to you "prove that I didn't!" the burden of proof lies with me (in that instance!).

    wish I had more time to pursue this thread, but I better leave this one. Best wishes, Steven

    www.stevenstarkmusic.com

    ReplyDelete
  36. Arni.

    You said there was no evidence, I gave you evidence. The fact that I copied it from a website does not invalidate it. If you dont believe it thats fine. If you dont like the fact that I havent published peer-reviewed articles on the topic, I dont care. If you dont like the evidence, then refute it.

    ReplyDelete
  37. To Steven Stark,

    f there are errors, prove it. But dont expect me (personally) to respond to every inane allegation you make. I have made a cogent, concise and compelling a priori argument for inerrancy. To refute it you must do more than throw out a random accusation of errancy.

    ReplyDelete
  38. cheek,

    Seriously, are you reading these comments before you hit "Publish"?
    I think the proposition exists in the thoughts of individual people. Thoughts are not made of matter. Of material. So... how does that rescue your worldview?


    Propositions, like the language that constructs them, are simply the product of physical minds as they attempt to describe their physical experienceLet's say I agree. Materialism is the position that ALL THINGS ARE MATERIAL. Not just PRODUCTS of material.
    The referent is one thing, but it's not the same thing as the concept. Concepts are not made of material. Give materialism up, cheek.


    Sorry for the reference to CalvinismDon't worry about it. It actually was a true statement, so I don't see why you should apologise for it.

    Peace,
    Rhology

    ReplyDelete
  39. I’m going to make one more clarification, and then I’m probably done unless we hit on some substantively different material here. (I’m also a bit exasperated by your dismissive tone, but I’m willing to chalk it up to the limitations of this particular medium of debate.)

    On the materialist view, thoughts in fact are material. They are composed of the chemical states of the brain and larger nervous system. There are plenty of people who disagree with this, and we do not yet have the ability to prove it scientifically, but since we do not have the ability prove that thoughts are non-physical phenomena either, then I’ll lean towards the a priori argument I posed earlier regarding causation and assume there are things about the brain that we don’t know (shocking, I know).

    Your point about concepts is why I made the reference to universals earlier. When I say that I think that the proposition exists in a cumulative sense as opposed to a universal sense, I am basically saying that many people have thoughts separately that describe the same (or similar) facts about the material world. I do not believe that propositions or any concepts exist in themselves.

    In summary, I believe that concepts as such exist only in as much as individual material minds think them, and those thoughts may be judged true or false based on whether or not they accurately describe the material world.

    I hope that clears up my position. If not, I doubt anyone will count it an irrevocable loss. I’ll let you have the last chance to speak. Thanks for the thoughts and for not wanting me to go to Hell.

    Dr. Reitan, thanks for letting me crash your party for awhile. I’ll check out the Goetz book post-haste. (I am fortunate to have a librarian sleeping in the bed next me.)

    ReplyDelete
  40. A pair of quick observations, in relation to the argument from my last post and some comments made here in response to it (especially by Rhology and Craig).

    First, keep in mind that I was sketching out what I suspected was the thinking behind Craig's worry that, if the Bible doesn't give us certainty about the transcendent but only helps us to wrestle with the mysteries of the transcendent, then the salvation of those who aren't scholars is in jeopardy. Once I sketched out that argument, I explained why I don't think it's going to work.

    The main responses were these: first, that we are saved by receiving the gospel with the aid of the Holy Spirit; second, that the whole of nature attests to the divine in such a way that everyone, whether or not they have access to the Bible, can know enough to be moved into a right relationship with God (this is my elaboration of Craig's appeal to Paul in Romans 1:20). Both of these responses are interesting and instructive.

    If we are saved by hearing the gospel and being moved by the Holy Spirit, then we hardly need an inerrant Bible. What we need is the work of the Holy Spirit to make us receptive to the gospel message when we encounter it. And we need to encounter the gospel message. So, someone who believes this isn't likely to argue for biblical inerrancy in the terms I sketched out. If they think the Bible is inerrant, it won't be because they think it NEEDS to be inerrant in order for non-scholars to have access to saving beliefs. And so Craig's worry won't come up.

    The second response (which Craig offers) appeals to Romans 1:20: "For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse." The claim here is that we can know God sufficiently through "natural revelation," that is, through what is evident in the majesty of creation.

    If natural revelation is sufficient to produce the beliefs necessary for salvation--not just in the minds of scholars but for anyone exposed to the majesty of the created world, then once again we don't need an inerrant Bible in order to be saved. And once again, Craig's original worry does not arise.

    My purpose was to explicate an argument for biblical inerrancy that I thought might be at work, and to explain why I think that argument fails. Both Craig and Rhology responded by in effect denying the premises of the argument that I was critiquing. Fine. Good. You think the argument is a bad one, too. So I trust that neither of you will ever defend the doctrine of biblical inerrancy in these terms.

    One last comment, regarding Rhology's very quick solution to the problem of religious diversity and competing holy books. Do you REALLY, HONESTLY think these problems can be dispensed with THAT handily? I mean, your argument begins with the premise that the true Holy Book would explicitly assert of itself that it is the revelation of God, and thereby dismiss all holy books but two. But I wonder if a case might be made that one of the two that you think remains--the Bible--is also taken out of the running.

    After all, when the author of second Timothy declares that all Scripture is God-breathed, he isn't referring explicitly to the Bible as we know it. He was referring only to the Old Testament. And so we have one writing calling ANOTHER set of writings "God-breathed" (however we are to interpret that). Given that the Bible is a collection of writings composed over a very long time span, it is in general difficult to say that IT refers to ITSELF as revelatory.

    You can try to get out of this problem by insisting that the second Timothy author's claim applies to everything that is in FACT Scripture, whether the author of Timothy took it to be such or not. But then the referent of the passage becomes "anything that is in fact scripture, whatever that happens to be." And I presume you can see the various problems with trying to make your case given THAT interpretation of the passage.

    As far as the second part of your case, in which you dismiss the Koran, I'll content myself with inviting you to try out that argument on a Muslim scholar and listen carefully to his response. If you do so, please share that response with the readers of this blog.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Dr Reitan,

    Pardon me if I do not respond all at once. I concede that Im not as prolific as you are.

    Let me start of with this:

    You say: If we are saved by hearing the gospel and being moved by the Holy Spirit, then we hardly need an inerrant Bible.
    Are you suggesting that once one accepts Christ then Poof they disappear? Did you not read the second part of 2 Timothy 3:16 (and 17). All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.
    How can a book that is riddled with errors be useful? Notice that the verse refers to the man of God and not the scholarly man.
    Now imagine a man in a village on the far side of the planet who has been sequestered from Western Civilization all his life but is aware of God through the magnificence of nature. Then a missionary presents him with a Gospel in his own tribal language. Imagine his joy. I have a close friend who is with the Wycliffe Bible Translators. He has dedicated his life to seeing this occur. (Incidentally, he is one of the brightest guys I know, and definitely belongs in the scholar category.)

    BTW Im glad you found Romans 1:20 interesting and instructive. See what happens when you approach scripture aassuming its the inerrant word of God?

    Oh,btw, you still havent answered my question

    ReplyDelete
  42. Dr Reitan.

    As to 2 Timothy 3:16, not so fast. If all scripture is God breathed, then surely all that is God breathed is scripture. And further, all that is God breathed is useful for....
    So then you dont get to exclude the NT as sacred text.

    ReplyDelete
  43. If all scripture is God breathed, then surely all that is God breathed is scripture.Could this line of thinking be used to justify quite a few texts as "scripture," even those that are considered "non-canonical"? How does one delineate a text as being "God-breathed" or not?

    I have to agree with Eric, the author of 2 Timothy was referring to the Hebrew scriptures specifically. If this thought is applied to the New Testament, it is a purely theological determination, not a "biblical" one merely based upon the statement made in 2 Timothy.

    ReplyDelete
  44. Wow, that's a lot of comments. If I was to argue with the inerrantists and the atheists, I would start with the whole idea of "error" that underlies all of the arguing between the groups. It seems to me that it's based on a particular, post-enlightenment, culturally-bound notion of truth and error which rests upon the assumptions of the modern, scientific enterprise. Best to start there and tell both parties they are barking up the wrong tree!

    ReplyDelete
  45. cheek,

    Thoughts are material? One could argue, I suppose that the *thoughts* are chemical reactions in the brain, but what about the concepts about which the thoughts are?
    I don't have the same brain as you. There are 6+ billion brains out there. Each has diff thoughts. So are there 6+ billion loves? 6+ billion materialisms? 6+ billion truths? Or are there 6+ billion brains thinking thoughts ABOUT immaterial concepts such as love, materialism, truth? Clearly the latter.
    What of the laws of logic such as the law of non-contradiction? Is that diff in 6+ billion brains? Can things not-contradict in 6+ billion different ways? I'm hoping you'll see the how vain this philosophy is, I admit.


    I do not believe that propositions or any concepts exist in themselves.Unless I'm wrong, that statement seems to exist in itself. Anyway, nice talking to you, cheek.


    Dr Reitan,
    You dismissed my post critiquing your position as having failed to interact with your points, even though I pasted your points and then typed comments directly after. I don't know if I should expect a better result this time, but I will press on so as to make any further dismissal that much more obvious an avoidance tactic on your part.

    You said:
    If we are saved by hearing the gospel and being moved by the Holy Spirit, then we hardly need an inerrant Bible.A few problems.
    1) The Gospel is itself contained in and taught by the Bible.
    2) If the Bible is errant, one would have a good reason to suspect that the Gospel is part of the errant text. How do you know?
    3) If the Bible is errant, indeed one would have a good reason to doubt EVERY part of the Bible, including Romans 1, the parts that describe Jesus' death and resurrection, and the parts that describe being moved by the Holy Spirit.
    So, unless we just want to gratuitously call "errant" what is inconvenient to our position and "reliable" that which is convenient to us, what are we left with? I'd need you to tell me at this point.



    The claim here is that we can know God sufficiently through "natural revelation," that is, through what is evident in the majesty of creation.I'm sorry to say that you have greatly mistaken the point of Romans 1-2. Paul is building a case up to Romans 3, namely that no man has any excuse before God. The knowledge of God that every person has (and suppresses in wickedness) is NOT to lead to salvation. It leads to condemnation - "...being understood from what has been made, so that man is without excuse."
    Similarly, Romans 2:14-15 informs us that all people also know that they are guilty before God's law b/c God has written that law on their hearts. And again, this is for their condemnation, NOT for their saving. The saving part doesn't start until late in Romans 3.
    Further, you are again appealing to the Bible to explain why an inerrant Bible is unnecessary. Maybe these parts you are citing are errant. How can you know?
    The old maxim applies: "The Bible is inspired in spots. And you have to be inspired to spot the spots."



    If natural revelation is sufficient to produce the beliefs necessary for salvation--not just in the minds of scholars but for anyone exposed to the majesty of the created worldBut it is not, so the point fails. Craig's original worry remains unrefuted by your position.



    Do you REALLY, HONESTLY think these problems can be dispensed with THAT handily?I'm sure that you, a professor of philosophy, realise that proof is not the same as persuasion.
    You just finished citing Romans 1, which explains that men suppress the truth in unrighteousness, and then express incredulity that people, even large amounts of people, might live in self-deception, or under the control of the Devil. Did you just forget Romans 1 or something?
    And yes, absent any counterargument, I did just that - I *DID* dispense with it just that handily.



    But I wonder if a case might be made that one of the two that you think remains--the Bible--is also taken out of the running.Hopefully, then, you won't cite it as any kind of authority, if you really think this.
    But you do, so am I not forced to conclude that you don't believe this, yourself? How do you answer your own argument?



    when the author of second Timothy declares that all Scripture is God-breathed, he isn't referring explicitly to the Bible as we know it. He was referring only to the Old TestamentHe says "All Scripture"; he did not say "the writings affirming the old covenant", which he very well could have said. It could go either way, unless you have some further argument to that effect.
    2 Peter 3:16 has Peter referring to Paul's letters among "the rest of the Scriptures"; Jesus invested His apostles with the authority of the shaluach, which carries no less than the authority of the sender himself. The apostles demonstrated miracles as signs of their authority. Etc.



    But then the referent of the passage becomes "anything that is in fact scripture, whatever that happens to be." And that would indeed be my contention. The purpose of the psg is not to give the Canon; the point is to point to Scr as that which sufficiently equips the man of God for every good work in the midst of the difficult times described before and after.



    I'll content myself with inviting you to try out that argument on a Muslim scholar and listen carefully to his response. And how many Reformed-Muslim debates have you listened to? I have listened to quite a few, myself; the Muslims rarely fare well. I would ask you not to punt to "a Muslim scholar" - *YOU* are taking issue with my argument. *YOU* tell me why it's wrong, please.


    Todd H,
    Interesting comment.
    It seems to me that your comment is EITHER based on a particular, post-enlightenment, culturally-bound notion of truth and error which rests upon the assumptions of the modern, scientific enterprise, OR it is not.
    Further, I understand from your comment that you are a snake-handling, tongues-speaking, dancing-in-the-church-aisles inerrantist.
    Now, is my evaluation true, or in error? Or could it be some nebulous, impossible-to-define third way?

    Peace,
    Rhology

    ReplyDelete
  46. Rhology said:

    You dismissed my post critiquing your position as having failed to interact with your points, even though I pasted your points and then typed comments directly after

    Reitan replies:

    Posting comments directly after points I make does not constitute critical engagement with the substance of my arguments, especially if the comments uncharitably misconstrue those arguments or beg the question or confuse dogmatic counter-assertions with refutations. When I looked at your post, I imagined how much time it would take to explain where I took you to have misconstrued what I was saying, and imagined what benefit would be served by the expenditure of that time—and then I considered what else I have on my plate, and being rather put off by all the name-calling in that post I decided that my time would be better served in other ways.

    I probably should reach the same conclusion now, but I’ve decided otherwise for reasons that aren’t precisely charitable. And yet I will strive to address your concerns with as much care and charity as time permits.

    Rhology said:

    (Quoting Reitan: If we are saved by hearing the gospel and being moved by the Holy Spirit, then we hardly need an inerrant Bible.)

    A few problems.
    1) The Gospel is itself contained in and taught by the Bible.
    2) If the Bible is errant, one would have a good reason to suspect that the Gospel is part of the errant text. How do you know?
    3) If the Bible is errant, indeed one would have a good reason to doubt EVERY part of the Bible, including Romans 1, the parts that describe Jesus' death and resurrection, and the parts that describe being moved by the Holy Spirit.
    So, unless we just want to gratuitously call "errant" what is inconvenient to our position and "reliable" that which is convenient to us, what are we left with? I'd need you to tell me at this point.


    Reitan replies:

    For a full response to these points, see my next post (which will probably be completed next week), in which I take up the question of how and why we might extend trust to that which is susceptible to error, why we have no choice but to do so, and why positing biblical inerrancy doesn’t solve any of the problems that its adherents seem to think it solves, instead only moving those problems up one level.

    For now, I will content myself (and my readers will have to content themselves) with the following point: My faith in the gospel is not derivative from my faith in the Bible. That is, I do not believe the gospel message because it is contained in the Bible and because I think being contained in the Bible is sufficient to guarantee truth. Rather, my reasons for trusting the gospel message are, in my judgment, much stronger than any reasons I have available to me for believing in the inerrancy of the Bible. My reverence for the Bible (and yes, you can revere the Bible even if you do not treat it as inerrant) is based on the fact that it contains this gospel message, not the other way around.

    I trust the gospel message for reasons independent of the merely formal fact that it happens to be found in the Bible. My reasons are essentially pragmatic ones having to do with the behavioral implications of living as if the gospel message were true (for more on this you can read my book). The very same pragmatic approach actually lies behind my resistance to the doctrine of biblical inerrancy. I see the behavioral fruits of such trust to be mixed at best.

    Rhology wrote:

    (Quoting Reitan: The claim here is that we can know God sufficiently through "natural revelation," that is, through what is evident in the majesty of creation.) I'm sorry to say that you have greatly mistaken the point of Romans 1-2. Paul is building a case up to Romans 3, namely that no man has any excuse before God… (etc.)

    Reitan Replies:

    My aim here was not to engage in a detailed exegesis of Romans 1:20 in its broader scriptural context, but to assess the use to which it was being put in a particular argument laid out by one of my interlocutors. I thus attached to that passage the rough meaning that it would have to have in order to serve the use that it was meant to serve in my interlocutor’s argument.

    I’m more than happy to consider various interpretations of what Paul is saying here. But recall that I was questioning the merits of an argument for biblical inerrancy holding that we need to get our beliefs right to be saved, and so our salvation depends on having an inerrant source of true beliefs. Craig responded by citing Romans 1:20. I took it that Craig was interpreting this passage to mean the following: to the extent that our salvation depends on getting our beliefs right, the beliefs that are necessary (but not sufficient) for salvation are accessible through an examination of the created world. I then pointed out that IF this is so, it follows that an inerrant text is not necessary for our salvation. And so Craig’s point, if acceptable, is not a response to my critique of the original argument but rather a different critique of the same argument.

    What Paul really meant in Romans 1 and 2 is interesting in its own right, but it has little bearing on whether Craig’s argument amounts to an objection to my line of reasoning.

    Rhology wrote:

    Further, you are again appealing to the Bible to explain why an inerrant Bible is unnecessary. Maybe these parts you are citing are errant. How can you know?
    The old maxim applies: "The Bible is inspired in spots. And you have to be inspired to spot the spots."

    Reitan replies:

    Craig was appealing to the Bible, drawing from it a premise for an argument that he thought amounted to an objection to my argument. I tried to reconstruct his argument based on Romans 1:20 to demonstrate that it was not an objection to my argument, but was instead a different objection to the same argument that my argument was objecting to.

    As to your point about how anyone who doubts the inerrancy of the Bible can make any use of it whatsoever, I refer you to my forthcoming post on this subject.


    Rhology writes:

    (Quoting Reitan: If natural revelation is sufficient to produce the beliefs necessary for salvation--not just in the minds of scholars but for anyone exposed to the majesty of the created world…{then once again we don't need an inerrant Bible in order to be saved.}) But it is not, so the point fails. Craig's original worry remains unrefuted by your position.

    Reitan replies:

    Again, you seem to be losing the thread of the argumentative dialectic (which is understandable given the number of arguments and counterarguments and oobjections to objections that have been going on here). So let me try to map out it out.

    I was reconstructing Craig’s response to an earlier argument, and concluded that it relied on the premise (drawn from Romans 1:20) that natural revelation is sufficient to produce the beliefs necessary for salvation. Craig raised this idea in order to respond to the following point of mine: if we make belief in the teachings of the Bible in some broad way a necessary condition for salvation, then we aren’t substantially better off than if we made salvation depend on knowledge only available to learned scholars. Craig said, in effect, “According to Paul, whatever beliefs are necessary (but not sufficient) for salvation are accessible through a study of the creation.” My response to Craig was, “Okay then. If we believe what Paul says here (or Paul as you seem to interpret him), then we don’t need an inerrant Bible in order to be saved. And if so, your original worry isn’t a reason to insist that the Bible must be inerrant.

    Put simply, I was not endorsing the view that natural revelation is sufficient to produce the beliefs necessary for salvation. As I say later, I don’t think salvation depends on getting our beliefs right but on what God does on our behalf. My point was that IF you think that there are beliefs necessary for salvation, AND that these beliefs can be acquired through natural revelation, THEN you don’t need an inerrant Bible in order to have the beliefs that you think are necessary for salvation.

    Rhology wrote:

    (Quoting Reitan: Do you REALLY, HONESTLY think these problems can be dispensed with THAT handily?) I'm sure that you, a professor of philosophy, realise that proof is not the same as persuasion.

    You are absolutely right. Proof is not the same as persuasion. Your point, presumably, is that the existence of people unpersuaded by your argument doesn’t demonstrate that your argument isn’t a proof. I agree.

    But my reasons for thinking that your argument isn’t a proof are different than that. My point is that the problem of religious pluralism is a very complex one with numerous arguments and counter-arguments and objections and replies to objections, and that before we can PROVE that one religion is true and the others false (or one supposed holy text the REAL revelation of God and others just pretenders) we need to address this complex array of issues with some care. But rather than give you a lesson in ALL of these complexities in the light of which your argument fails to constitute a proof (something I might be able to do in a semester-long course on the subject but could hardly do justice to in a reply to a comment on a blog post), I focus instead on one problem with your argument—and then, being tired and needing to get home to supper, I directed you to pursue an activity that might help uncover some of the other problems.

    But, again, you seemed to lose the dialectical thread, and so missed my point. I think your subsequent comments make clear, so let’s move on.

    Rhology said:

    (Quoting Reitan: But I wonder if a case might be made that one of the two that you think remains--the Bible--is also taken out of the running.) Hopefully, then, you won't cite it as any kind of authority, if you really think this.
    But you do, so am I not forced to conclude that you don't believe this, yourself? How do you answer your own argument?

    Reitan replies:

    Here, I was starting to make the case that one of the premises upon which YOU depend for your dismissal of all other holy books may also, arguably, dismiss your preferred holy book. I was NOT saying that the Bible should be dismissed as any kind of authority. My view has always been that the Bible is an important guide and source of insight into the divine, but not an inerrant one.

    The premise on which you rely seems to be this (correct me if I've got it seriously wrong): “In order for a supposed Holy Book to actually be the revelation of God, it is necessary (but not sufficient) that it claim of itself that it is the revelation of God.” You then note that only the Bible and the Koran meet this criterion (I'm suspicious of this but will let it pass), and so all other holy books can be dismissed as lacking one of the necessary conditions for being the revelation of God.

    Now I actually think this premise on which you rely for the first move of your argument here is probably false (someone could very well be inspired by God and not preface their comments with “By the way, what I’m saying here is the product of divine inspiration”). But instead of challenging this premise, I suggest that this premise which you use to pare down the field of revelatory books to two may actually exclude the Bible as well.

    Formally, my argument might be put as follows:

    1. The most obvious candidate for a passage in which the Bible declares itself to be divine revelation is 2 Timothy 3:16, “All Scripture is God-breathed…”
    2. Either 2 Timothy 3:16 refers to the Old Testament, or 2 Timothy 3:16 refers to “anything that is in fact Scripture, whatever that happens to be.”
    3. If 2 Timothy 3:16 refers to the Old Testament, then the Bible is not referring to itself as divine revelation. Rather, what we have is a letter, which happens to be part of the Christian Bible, that is referring to another collection of writings that happen to be part of the Bible Bible.
    4. If 2 Timothy 3:16 is referring to “anything that is in fact Scripture, whatever that happens to be,” then 2 Timothy 3:16 is not making a claim about the Bible as we know it but about anything that happens to be Scripture. And so before we can know what the passage is referring to (and specifically whether it should be taken to refer to all and only the set of writings collected in the Christian Bible), we need an independent basis for deciding what is Scripture and what isn’t. And if that is the case, we cannot without begging the question assume that this passage refers specifically to the cannon of the Christian Bible and on the basis of that assumption invoke the passage as part of an argument for the conclusion that the Christian Bible (and the Christian Bible alone) is Scripture.
    5. So, there is no non-question-begging way to invoke 2 Timothy 3:16 as a basis to conclude that the Bible declares itself to be divine revelation.

    Rhology writes:

    (Quoting Reitan: I'll content myself with inviting you to try out that argument on a Muslim scholar and listen carefully to his response.) And how many Reformed-Muslim debates have you listened to? I have listened to quite a few, myself; the Muslims rarely fare well. I would ask you not to punt to "a Muslim scholar" - *YOU* are taking issue with my argument. *YOU* tell me why it's wrong, please.

    Reitan replies:

    I took issue with the first part of your argument. The second part of your argument is one about which I am highly skeptical, but I lack the expertise in Islam to assess it adequately. Hence, I refer you to someone who has that expertise. What I will say is that if the first part of your argument fails, your entire argument fails whether or not the second part fairly represents Islam. And so a detailed refutation of that second part is unnecessary for my purposes here, unless you can show that my criticism of the first part doesn't work.

    Let me also say that I know nothing about your level of expertise in Islam, and so have no way of assessing how qualified you are to make pronouncements about Islam. If I am to assess the merits of this part of your argument, I would therefore need to consult those whose qualifications I know and trust. I may do so, but when it is the end of the semester and final papers are coming in, I don't exactly have time to pursue such issues.

    Finally, I will say that when you DEMAND that I address every point you raise, given that there are many voices posting on this site and my time is limited, I find myself feeling rather put off. I appreciate, by contrast, the graciousness with which (for example) cheek has comported himself in this exchange. That’s the only thing I’ll say about that.

    Since my next post will address some of the unanswered questions raised in the discussion thread here, I will probably not reply to more comments on this thread. I invite you to bite your tongues (typing fingers?) until next week (I won't have access to a computer until after the weekend in any event).

    ReplyDelete
  47. Craig:

    You said there was no evidence, I gave you evidence. The fact that I copied it from a website does not invalidate it.What you copied was simply an unsupported conclusion, neither evidence nor argument.

    If you dont like the evidence, then refute it.Even finding what exactly it was that Whitelaw claims took some searching, since almost all the hits on him are copies of the same text that you posted. However, here is the refutation you seek:

    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood-c14.html

    In short, Whitelaw's (or more precisely Hovind's - since I can't find a source for what Whitelaw's argument is) claims are based on the assumption that C14 production rates are constant - an assumption we know to be false, since C14 production depends on the Earth's magnetic field strength, which is known to be variable.

    For a Christian's perspective on, and explanation of, radiometric dating in general, see:

    http://www.asa3.org/ASA/RESOURCES/WIENS.html

    The evidence against a global flood comes from many sources, involves many branches of science and is completely, ahem, overwhelming.

    ReplyDelete
  48. Hello Dr Reitan,

    Posting comments directly after points I make does not constitute critical engagement with the substance Certainly doesn't, you're right. But the CONTENT of said comments does constitute refutations thereof. Oh well, let the reader judge.


    uncharitablyI hate to keep saying this, but until you actually deal with the problem, I'll keep beating the drum. Hopefully your promised post will actually answer the question.
    If the Bible is errant, maybe the commands to be charitable toward others are errant. Right? How do you know?
    (Further, it would appear you define "uncharitably" as "disagreeing with me". Hardly a scholarly thing to say.)


    My faith in the gospel is not derivative from my faith in the Bible.That's hardly the question I've been raising. How do you know the content of the Gospel if the Bible is errant?


    My reasons are essentially pragmatic ones having to do with the behavioral implications of living as if the gospel message were trueAnd of course, the Gospel could be errant, the biblical descriptions of living it out could be errant...


    The very same pragmatic approach actually lies behind my resistance to the doctrine of biblical inerrancy. I see the behavioral fruits of such trust to be mixed at best.So I guess if liberals and errantists don't live perfect lives, I could reasonably conclude that their ideas are wrong?
    This is just a foolish thing to say, sir. I'm surprised to see a professor of philosophy engage in the genetic fallacy with a straight face like you just did.


    I took it that Craig was interpreting this passage to mean the following: to the extent that our salvation depends on getting our beliefs right, the beliefs that are necessary (but not sufficient) for salvation are accessible through an examination of the created world.Do you refer to this comment?
    It says:
    You say: But not everyone has access to what the Bible says. So if salvation depends on getting our beliefs right, then a bunch of people are left out through no fault of their own just as surely as they would be were our salvation dependent on being scholars.

    Paul (whom you claim is a Universelist) says: Romans 1:20 For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
    Craig didn't refer to the possibility of salvation at all in this comment, so apparently your argument here is based on a misunderstanding of what he said (and also of what Romans 1 says). You had said "through no fault of their own", and Craig responded with Romans 1 - it certainly IS thru humans' fault that they suppress the truth. I explained all this in my previous comment.


    As to your point about how anyone who doubts the inerrancy of the Bible can make any use of it whatsoeverPlease be careful to engage a non-strawman position. Never have I said "unless you're inerrantist, you can't make any use of the Bible." that would be stupid - people screw with texts all the time and twist them to their own ends and conveniences. The skepticism I am expressing is whether the errantist can CONSISTENTLY interact with the Bible and that it could serve as any type of authority for the errantist. Instead, ISTM you pick and choose based on what YOU prefer would be in there.

    My point was that IF you think that there are beliefs necessary for salvation, AND that these beliefs can be acquired through natural revelation, THEN you don’t need an inerrant Bible in order to have the beliefs that you think are necessary for salvation.And that wasn't Craig's point, nor is it mine. Natural revelation is for CONDEMNATION, as I explained before.


    My point is that the problem of religious pluralism is a very complex one with numerous arguments and counter-arguments and objections and replies to objectionsNot all of which are any good, as I'm sure you'd agree. Perhaps I've stumbled onto some effective arguments in the course of my life and found them to be unrefuted by the other side. You certainly seem to think the case is strong against inerrancy.


    rather than give you a lesson in ALL of these complexities in the light of which your argument fails to constitute a proofI'm sorry, but this seems to be just so much hot air. It is a simple argument on my part. The obvious presuppositions of it are that internal consistency is important and that Allah is a reasonable god, on Islam. But if you just want to turn up your nose without responding, be my guest.


    I know nothing about your level of expertise in Islam, and so have no way of assessing how qualified you are to make pronouncements about Islam.It's not that hard, really. You could consider it a valuable opportunity to learn about another worldview.


    I was NOT saying that the Bible should be dismissed as any kind of authority. OK.
    Of course, in your promised upcoming post, I think we'll all see that it is FUNCTIONALLY no authority at all. Rather, given that you pick and choose from it what you want to believe, YOU are the authority.


    “In order for a supposed Holy Book to actually be the revelation of God, it is necessary (but not sufficient) that it claim of itself that it is the revelation of God.”Yes.


    someone could very well be inspired by God and not preface their comments with “By the way, what I’m saying here is the product of divine inspiration”And how would anyone know, then, that it's inspired by God?
    We've not been dealing here only with WHETHER X is inspired, but how one would know.


    1. The most obvious candidate for a passage in which the Bible declares itself to be divine revelation is 2 Timothy 3:16, “All Scripture is God-breathed…”It might be the most obvious, but it is hardly the only one.
    All the "Thus saith the Lord"s, the prophetic utterances, the apostolic teachings, the claims of authority over everyone, etc.
    Further, my now-famous questions must be taken into acct.


    3. If 2 Timothy 3:16 refers to the Old Testament, then the Bible is not referring to itself as divine revelation. Rather, what we have is a letter, which happens to be part of the Christian Bible, that is referring to another collection of writings that happen to be part of the Bible Bible.Sigh. You do realise that the OT is part of the Bible, don't you?


    4. If 2 Timothy 3:16 is referring to “anything that is in fact Scripture, whatever that happens to be,” then 2 Timothy 3:16 is not making a claim about the Bible as we know it but about anything that happens to be Scripture.Haha, "that happens to be Scripture"? I guess you could put it that way.
    It says "all Scripture", not "the old covenant" or other things I suggested. Again, I've gone over all this. Speaking of not interacting with the substance of one's arguments!


    we need an independent basis for deciding what is Scripture and what isn’t.God is sufficient, I should think.
    Look, even if I granted that my position doesn't have an answer to this (which I don't grant), the contrary still leaves us out in the cold. The Bible is the best candidate for divine revelation, by far, and the consequences for rejecting that are epistemologically highly problematic; that's making an argument with both hands figuratively tied behind my position's back.


    there is no non-question-begging way to invoke 2 Timothy 3:16 as a basis to conclude that the Bible declares itself to be divine revelation.Questions of epistemology like this often reduce to question-begging assertions; in this case we are claiming that God does not require any "independent" confirmation.
    Hebrews 6: 13For when God made the promise to Abraham, since He could swear by no one greater, He swore by Himself, 14saying, "I WILL SURELY BLESS YOU AND I WILL SURELY MULTIPLY YOU."


    Anyway, I'll be looking for that other post. I can only hope for more substance in that than we've seen here so far.

    ReplyDelete