Wiploc

I get the feeling that you are playing dumb in the attempt to lure me into saying a particular thing so that you can leap on it and tell me I am wrong. I might oblige if I knew what you wanted me to say, but I don't.



If we give them a plain reading, then, yes, they disagree, and therefore they cannot both be true. If we spin them, harmonize them, engage in recuperative interpretation, then they do not disagree, and they may both be true.

But a harmonized bible carries no information. If it is true that Judas hanged himself equals fell down and burst, and that god both can and cannot be seen, and that god is both omnipotent and unable to defeat iron chariots, then there is no reason to believe that any other statement in the bible has meaning. If god is unable to be seen but actually can be seen, then why can't it be that when the bible says god is good he is actually bad? If the bible says not to murder, why can't that mean that we should murder? If "surface anomolies" require us to reverse the obvious meanings of scripture in order to harmonize it, why shouldn't we also reverse other obvious meanings?

And if we're going to regard a book shot thru with obvious self-contradictions as inerrant, then why don't we regard all books as inerrant?

If you were a truthful and accrurate god with a message for mankind, would you transmit that message in a book that seems to be shot thru with self-contradictions? No, you wouldn't. That wouldn't make sense. A book shot thru with contradictions is obviously not the work of a truthful and accurate god.



You can believe in any kind of god you want to. But you seem to be promoting the belief in a god who's word can be relied on. If such a god seemed to be telling people that Judas died by falling down and bursting, then, if that god were real, Judas would not really have died by hanging himself.

crc

Sven

You obviously totally missed the point of my post. I ask again (phrased somewhat differently): Why has one to "engage in comparative analysis"? Why is the bible not written in a way so that it is obviously inerrant? The way the bible is written, it is simply a stumbling block for anyone not educated in "comparative analysis"; someone reading it without this knowledge will not find it inerrant and it is thus more unlikely that he/she will find faith through reading the bible. Please adress this problem.

You indeed missed my point. See above. BTW, this was only an example. By reading the first two chapter of the Bible, an unbiased reader (without knowledge in "comparative analysis") will also find contradictions. I know, you think these can be explained, but this is not the point.


Are you indeed unable to understand the problem? Did you never learn how to argue, how to debate?
OK, very slowly: *A* *p r e s u m p t i o n* *i s* *n o* *a r g u m e n t*
An argument is something which follows from presumptions, and these presumptions have to be justififed first. You've not done this so far, so don't wonder if no one takes you serious.

I don't know why this is important here. And why your presumptions are incorrect was pointed out several times before. For a start: the "verity" of the biblical writers can not simply be assumed. No serious historian who reads a text automatically assumes it is correct - he knows that most writers wrote (and still write) with bias/an agenda.

If you really need an answer to 1 and 2: My "ultimate authority" in this case is (a) common sense (b) the way historians treat other texts. If you want to dispute (b), you dispute the entire discipline of history. If you want to dispute (a), then every argument is obviously futile.

And from the verity of the writers, inerrancy does in no way follow. Did you never hear of honest mistakes? Of stylistic devices like exaggeration?
etc. etc.

Clutch

Shared presuppositions.

All I need to motivate my case are views about reasonable doubt, the default reliability of prima facie evidence, the fallibility of persons, and so forth. These are not themselves presuppositions; they are rationally justified. But their justification occurs in light of presuppositions about (eg) inductive reasoning.

Now, you (being sane) manifestly accept those same presuppositions and the views that follows from them across the board -- dealing with other religions, or modern psychic claims, or factual interpretations of historical texts -- except when this particularly cherished belief of yours is on the line. But then any attempt on your part to try for a Scotch Verdict through appeal to distinct incommensurable presuppositions just falls flat. The effect will instead be the fallacy of special pleading.

It's not that we have interestingly different presuppositions. It's that you want to ignore our shared presuppositions for a narrow class of privileged claims. It's garden-variety motivated inference: the uneven application of standards of reasoning, to protect certain beliefs that would not otherwise survive the evaluation.

RobertLW

Wiploc, Thanks for your reply.....



You can be sure that I am not playing dumb. I am not trying to lure you to say anything specific, I am trying to determine your specific objection. You are claiming that the example of Judas is a clear example of an error, how can I possibly refute that claim if you will not even divulge your specific objection?



What you are ignoring is the context in which the passage in Acts was written. These two passages are only a contradiction if the passage in Acts is ripped from it's context. The passage in Acts is only misleading if you rip the passage from it's context. If the author of Acts was speaking directly to you, then I might agree that it could be misleading. But, he wasn't, was he? No, he was speaking to an audience in Jerusalem. An audience who knew what Judas did and how he died. With that pretext of knowledge, the author had no need to be specific, did he? The author could then say what happened to Judas without specific detail, the audience already had that information. He could talk about what happened to Judas in graphic means and without detail to show cause and effect because the audience already had the details. Unless someone can show how spontaneous evisceration is reasonable, the description is obviously post mortem.

When I asked Vinnie during our debate why it is acceptable to disregard context, he said that context does not matter, saying "The narrative perspective is totally irrelevant here". Consider the following:

You have a good friend, we will call him Dave. You have not seen Dave in 3 months and one day the Police come and arrest you for his murder. During questioning, you find out that the reason you were arrested is because a well meaning man heard you say, "I beat Dave bad, I totally killed him". You explain to the Police that, "I was sitting with a group of friends in the restaurant. Our group and gone and played tennis that morning and we were talking about it. They knew that Dave and I had played a game and they knew I was talking about our tennis game when I said that." You tell me, is context important or should the DA go ahead and prosecute?



Sven,



Kind of missed the boat on this one didn't you? There are millions upon millions of people uneducated in comparative analysis who have read the Bible and found faith through reading the Inerrant Word of God. I understood your point, you completely missed the point of my response. It was you who used your girlfriend, who has small bias as opposed to no bias, to compare two separate specific written texts written by two different authors at different times, without any knowledge in comparative analysis or the contexts in which they were written in order to show that anyone with no bias will find the Bible full of contradictions. All you did was stack the deck in your favor in order for your girlfriend to come to your conclusion so that you could come here and have an example. It may be "only an example", but my point; it is a very poor example. Garbage in, garbage out my friend.




I really can't believe that you do not know why it is important for you to know, understand and be able to articulate your ultimate authority, especially if you are going to claim mine is false. I cannot believe that you are going to try to convince me that your ultimate standard of truth (ultimate authority) is common sense and the way historians treat other texts. I also cannot believe that you will further try to convince me that you can interchange your ultimate authorities without it being arbitrary.

If you want to take the time to establish your ultimate authority (your ultimate standard of truth), we can intelligently discuss the issue. I have no desire to have a completely arbitrary discussion with you. If you wish to tear apart my ultimate standard of truth, you should first know your own.



Clutch, Thanks for your reply



You are correct, but what your statement ignores is that inductive reasoning needs justification. Even Kant agreed that science itself (inductive reasoning) requires justification and only belief in God gives that justification. And so Kant argued that even though we cannot prove God we must live and think as if he exists. (In order to justify science, inductive reasoning)



True, but I have justification for them. Everyone has particularly cherished belief, including you, that we hold to in the face of evidence to the contrary, hence it being our ultimate authority. The question becomes can we justify our ultimate authority, our ultimate standard of truth.




No, I do not ignore them, I want to get beyond them because our shared presuppositions are interpreted in light of our "privileged beliefs", our ultimate authorities. This is precisely what I am trying to get to. However, no one wants to answer my questions. It is becoming clear that no one can answer because they have no idea what I am talking about.



Untrue, I am keeping with my ultimate authority which does not change. No one here has been capable of offering an alternative ultimate standard of truth by which to evaluate. I have offered my ultimate authority, yet you wish to tear it down arbitrarily without offering one of your own. This is a philosophical forum, if you will only stay on the surface and not get to the ultimate, this forum becomes a farce and takes on the appearance of a playground for baby atheists.

Thanks,

Robert

Sven

So if one reads the whole chapter in Acts, Judas suddenly hangs himself instead bursting open? This complaint about context is simply ridiculous.

Why on earth whould everyone (of the audience) know how Judas died? Jerusalem was a great city - do you know how each criminal died in your city the last few years? This is also simply ridiculous. So the rest of your "argument" fails.

So what? Then there are millions upon millions of people who have no great reading comprehension skills. Given what recent tests of school children here in Germany and in lots of countries around the world showed, this comes as no suprise.
But as Asimov already said: The best argument against Christianity is the bible. So there are indeed some (many) people who lose / not gain faith be reading it.

Yes. So what?

You still miss my point. Why is it necessary to know the context here? Why did the writer of Acts not simply include a small comment for the reader to make this not look like a contradiction? Perhaps your interpretation above is correct and this comment was not necessary in the speech - but every responsible writer who wants to take care that this does not look like an error would at least have added a footnote for readers like my girl-friend to whom passages like these look like errors.

It isn't a poor example as explained above. Not everyone listening to the speech would necessarily have heard of Judas death. And an omnipotent God could have done a lot better to make his book at least look inerrant. You continue to ignore the supposed omnipotence of your deity.

Huh? Why should I?
Why is giving arguments against your position not enough?

I hope you noticed I said "in this case". And I see no reason to convince you - if you don't want to believe my words, so be it.

What do you mean by "interchange [my] ultimate authorities"?

This is a nice new way of evading an argument. Congratulations for your creativity!

Clutch

Thanks, I've actually read Kant. It's hard to see any principled -- ie, not special pleading -- reason why induction should "need justification", while in the case of God we are permitted merely to "live and think as if he exists". My statement did not ignore the issue; I simply drew the line of instrumental acceptance around things we both accept -- the reliability of induction -- rather than arbitrarily extending it to include a god and then deciding to invoke an instrumental acceptance rather than a (non-circular) justification.


This is badly muddled. While it's certainly true that everyone engages in motivated inference from time to time, this is entirely orthogonal to the (not obviously coherent) notion of an "ultimate standard of truth". Parents who continue to believe in the greater long-term efficacy of punishment over reward, despite seeing the statistical evidence to the contrary, are not thereby revealing their "ultimate authority", whatever that could mean. Nor are hockey players who won't shave during the playoffs.



It may well be that nobody knows what you're talking about, up to and possibly including you. But to say that nobody wants to answer your questions, at this point in the discussion, is a revealingly silly comment.


I plead nolo contendre to the charge of not wishing to espouse a naive epistemology of "ultimate authorities". I prefer to start with less exotic questions about what we -- you, me, everyone not pacing around with one hand tucked inside their jacket front and planning the Prussian campaign -- take to be reasonable standards of evaluation of evidence. What I'm emphasizing is a crucial datum: that we by and large agree, or can dialectically chivvy our way around to agreeing, on such matters. So then the question is, What motivates a refusal to extend those standards to a special few cases? And that's simply the question, Why is such a refusal some other than special pleading?

I'm sorry if you find this to be infantile reasoning. In its defense, all I can offer is that it appears to be sound.

blt to go

RobertLW: A point, a couple of responses, and a few questions for you.

First, presumptions ARE a starting point and subject to change. I originally was going to let this go, and assume you meant some other word other than “presumptions,� but as pointed out by others, you continue to make the claim that your “presumptions are your arguments.�

RobertLW, even you believe that presumptions will change. I note that in your first rebuttal to Vinnie in the actual debate, you use the language, “innocent until proven guilty.� Actually, the entire phrase is that “An accused, in a criminal trial, is PRESUMED innocent until proven guilty.� Do I need to go further? Note that if a “presumption is an argument,� then all the defendant is arguing is repeatedly stating, “the accused is innocent, the accused is innocent…� No advancement of proof, no furthering of evidence, no providing argument. More to the point, if, the accused is presumed innocent, and such a presumption “cannot be changed midstream…� than there would never be need of trials. That presumption will set them free.

(I understand it is bad form to quote what a user says in one thread against them in another thread, but this IS still the peanut gallery on the debate, so I fell somewhat at liberty to use your statements in the debate within this thread.)

Do you wish to retract the statement that presumptions cannot be changed, or do you assume that the entire American Judicial System is significantly flawed, as it continually changes this presumption and finds presumed innocent persons to be the exact opposite of innocent, i.e.--guilty? Or perhaps you mean a different concept than presumption, and if so, please explain.

Second, you have asked three questions. I do not think these questions help you position. Although I am not an atheist, if I was, I would respond as follows:

1. What is your ultimate authority? – Human knowledge, with the caveat that it is limited (in that we know more than we did ten years ago, less than we will in ten years, and most likely will never have complete knowledge), is flawed (in that human perceptions will affect observations), is all-encompassing (in that it includes logic, reason, philosophy, biology, chemistry, and all the other little –ology family, but not to the exclusion of other knowledge), and no one person can be fully knowledgeable (in that in some areas we must rely upon the expertise of others.)

2. Why is it your ultimate authority? Because it is the best I have to work with, and in life, it is how I practically function. I do not know medicine, but if I am sick, I go to a doctor and rely upon what s/he has been taught. I do not know finances, I go to a stockbroker and rely upon that person. I do know law, and others (who do not) come to me to rely upon what I have been taught.

3. Using your ultimate authority, why are my presumptions incorrect? Because logic and reason would dictate that the Bible is errant. Note, the Chicago Statement (as I quoted above) notes these difficulties, and that the ONLY way to resolve them is to “rely upon God� (i.e. have faith) that they are not errors. In other words, the Statement knows there are errors, and responds, with no logical or rationale rebuttal. I would also include the entire debate as to why your “presumptions� are incorrect.

(Please Note, I am NOT stating this would be the response for ALL atheists, just what one person would respond.)

Why do these questions not help you? Don’t answer out loud, but practically, RobertLW, how do you live your life? When you are sick, do you pray and move on? Or do you go to a doctor? Did you ever put money in a bank? Why? Shouldn’t you rely upon your “ultimate authority� to care for your financial needs? Do you take your car to the mechanic?

You see, many Christians (myself included) PRACTICALLY live our life as if God does not exist. We rely upon others expertise, others knowledge, and our own logic and reason. Once in a great while, we come across a religious experience, question, or debate and for some reason we compartmentalize, disassociate and even completely remove reason, logic, etc.

Oh, I understand the concept of faith very well, and its tenacious hold within religion, but what I can’t seem to figure out why I do NOT use faith everywhere else, and ONLY use faith when it comes to religion? What makes religion so special? (This is the point Clutch was making above in referring to special pleading, only I am applying it to “special living,� if you will.)

The second reason that these questions do not help you, is that you are attempting to use logic, reason, and rationale to explain your authority. The exact same “ultimate authority� you decry is the same, practical authority you use in your debate.

Frankly, if God is your ultimate authority, then I would assume your responses to every position posited to you would be, “Because God says so. Because God says so.� I understand this does not make much of a debate, but it makes no sense to me that you would laugh (figuratively) at logic and reason being the ultimate authority, and then go on to state, “let me show you logically, and reasonably why your ultimate authority is wrong.�

After reading your statements herein (and discussing this with BGic) I am left with the inescapable conclusion, that the ONLY choice I have to believe in the inspiration of the Bible is blind, oblivious faith. (Of Course, this does not provide any light on the discussion of inerrancy.)

So, let’s discussion inerrancy. You have stated repeatedly, “I assume the verity of the Biblical authors,� without explaining the why. You seem upset that the opposing side in your debate would NOT assume the verity of the Biblical authors.

Then we shall talk about three other books—The Book of Mormon (Human author--Joseph Smith), Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures (Human author--Mary Baker Eddy) and the Qur’an (Human author—Mohammed).

All three books claim, internally, to be inspired—just like the Bible. Two of the three (Mormon and Qur’an) claim that the authors met God face to face on a mountain to obtain the words. (Similar to Moses). All claim the words themselves were written by human authors but “inspired� by God.

All three books have
(Note I made one change in bold)

To the uninitiated, all four books (including the Bible) make the same claims.

Now to the pointed questions:
1. Do you assume the verity of Mr. Smith, Ms. Eddy and Mr. Mohammed?
2. If yes, what do you do about the vast incongruities between these four, inspired Word(s) of God?
3. If no, by what criteria do you NOT assume the verity of Smith, Eddy and Mohammed, Inc.?

(Be very careful, Question 3 is a trick question! If you use “God,� note that all claim to be of God by the same criteria, internally. If you use logic, reason or rationale, you will need to address your own “ultimate authority.� If you use “faith,� then the debate stops here, as this position is unassailable from a practical standpoint. Plus you would have to address the “wrongness� of the others faith.)

4. Using the exact same criteria in question 3, apply to the Bible and explain why you arrive at a different answer.
5. Shouldn’t the millions of people who assume the verity of the respective Smith, Eddy and Mohammed, Inc. be just as upset at you for NOT assuming that verity?

This is the point of “special pleading.� Why, in every other situation, including other books claimed to be inspired by God, do you apply one standard, but in the case of the Bible a different standard is applied?

Finally, I would state that as a Theist, I hate to join in the “gang� against another theist. Sven, Clutch and wiploc are a handful enough. I am looking for some rationale, logical reasoning for your position, that perhaps I would adopt as my own.

But for now, in order to be intellectually honest with myself, the only way to logically conclude the Bible is inspired, is to Abandon Logic, and blindly, obliviously have faith that it is inspired. (And yes, if your Irony meter went off, it was tuned correctly. If not, time for a 10,000 word check-up.)

Sven

Great post, blt to go!
:notworthy :notworthy :notworthy

One point:
You are of course right: It's difficult enough for Robert to answer three of us. Thus, I'll try to refrain from any further participation here (Robert anyway doesn't want to answer me any more if I interpreted his last answer right) and leave the field for folks like you, who can anyway argue better.

Wiploc

I don't know what you want. I don't know that letting you put me thru more repetitions would clarify anything. I don't see that I was unclear in previous iterations.




Here you are making a presumption that I don't make. I don't know that the people who read Acts already know that some other part of the bible is really the true story and that Acts is just supposed to be read as colorful elaboration of what is described elsewhere.




You make sense, but only if we adopt your presumptions. Clearly we don't adopt your presumptions, in which case, if the bible was going to be clear rather than misleading, there should be a third part of the bible that says that the people who read the Acts version are already familiar with the other version. Anybody like me, anybody who doesn't know that the other version is the true story and the Acts version is just foofaraw, is going to read the two stories as in conflict. If god doesn't undertake to prevent people from reading the bible without prior knowledge of which parts are true and which parts are just camouflage, then he is has set up the bible to be misleading rather than informative. And, if he is omniscient, he has done so with deliberate foreknowledge.



If you take this position, you cannot allow that stories from cancer wards are true, you cannot allow that the story is a colorful exageration of a hernia, you cannot allow that he fell on a pointy place, you canot allow that this is intended as a description of an attack by men with edged weapons (something easily as plausible as your interpretation), you cannot allow that the falling headlong and the bursting took place on different days, and---most importantly---you cannot allow that there is a god who can do miracles. This is not a position you can defend in good faith.




If I was omniscient, if I knew the impression I was making on the well-meaning man, and I didn't clarify my words, would it be my fault that I was arrested? You tell me.




I am offended.

crc

RobertLW

blt to go,

Thank you, Thank you, Thank you......FINALLY, someone willing to get to the ultimate and make a reasoned argument, you were the only one to understand what I wanted to get to and the only one willing to get there. Now we can get to inerrancy.....
I would love to discuss this with you blt, however, I cannot make a full post this evening, I have too much to do. You bring up very good points and questions that I would love to answer. Since you are the only one that will get to the ultimate, I will respond to only you from here on out and I believe that we can have a very good and informative discussion. Since I cannot make my full answer this evening, I will post tomorrow. Again, thanks for your reply....... Everyone else, thanks for your replies and trying to discuss this with me. However, please take note, the only person that was willing to get to the ultimate was a Theist......

Thanks,

Robert