Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Vinnie · 05-06-2004, 10:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RobertLW

I have to admit that I made a mistake in evaluating Vinnie's Burden of Proof argument. In addition to admitting my error, I think I should correct myself. It is the honest thing to do. When I was thinking about Vinnies argument originally I was not taking the default position into account. I have had some time to think about it and I have come to a different conclusion. I wrote in my last post;

"If Vinnie's burden of proof argument was contained in an essay, it would be a pretty good argument and I would not necessarily disagree with it."

I believe this to be a false conclusion. My new conclusion is that Vinnie's argument on the default position of burden of proof is completely false whether or not it is contained in an essay.

The default position for burden of proof is neutral. It is neutral because the burden of proof is an assumed burden.

Just wanted to make that correction. Thanks.

And your counter argument substantiating yet another assertion would be?

Speaking of the honest thing to do....ah...nevermind.

Vininie

Wiploc · 05-07-2004, 08:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Billy Graham is cool

I've been aloof and elsewhere but I'd appreciate it if someone would reiterate why agnosticism is not a potential default position with regards to Biblical inerrancy. To suggest that there are only two possible default positions (i.e. errant, inerrant) smacks of undue bifurcation. Thanks in advance.

Regards,
BGic

Since the bible appears to be shot thru with errors, errancy would seem to be the natural default position. The default position: it looks wrong, and I believe it is wrong.Those readers who determine to actively interpret the scriptures until they (the readers) don't see any error, will succeed in doing so. Their position is this: It looks wrong, but under no circumstances will I admit that there is error.

You ask whether there is a middle ground. Might someone look at the bible, see that it appears to be overwhelmingly flawed, yet wonder whether the texts might be aggressively re-interpreted until it becomes unclear that it is flawed? Clearly this is possible, but it is hard to imagine the motivation. It doesn't seem like a default position.

Such a person would still have to twist meanings around until original intent was obliterated. What would be the point of projecting inerrant meanings into the text, and then failing to conclude that your own projected meanings are accurate? Or what would be the point of interpreting the text until it means things you don't know the truth of, and then concluding that you don't know whether the bible is true?

I just don't know that the bible can be said to have any inherent meaning once harmonization has been undertaken. If it doesn't have meaning, how could it be said that it is unclear whether the meaning is accurate?

So it seems to me that errancy is the default position; inerrancy is the position of motivated believers in inerrancy; and agnosticism can be natural only to those who have heard the inerrantists' claims without subsequently giving the matter much thought.

crc

blt to go · 05-07-2004, 10:38 AM

Genuinely need direction here. I feel like I am missing some important argument here, that I am not getting.

What is the difference for the default position, errancy or inerrancy?

Typically, I would state (in reviewing ANY document, regardless of time, number of authors, etc.) that it would be, at the least, internally inerrant. Thus, the "default" position would be inerrancy. However, once there is one single "error," no matter how slight, this would mean the document is not inerrant, and hence no longer the "default" position.

Let me try it this way. I assume my history textbook is inerrant. But if the table of contents states that chapter 4 starts on page 62, when it starts on page 64, this would mean it is errant. Granted, perhaps not deserving of being tossed out completely, but Not to the complete standards of inerrancy.
Now, if chapter 1 says Washington was the first president, and chapter 2 says Lincoln was the first president (of the U.S. for those of other countries) that would CERTAINLY be errancy. There may be an explanation, there may be rationalization, but within that book, internally, it is errant.

Now let me try it this way. Vinnie - if you agree that the default position is inerrancy, all you have to do is point out ONE internal inconsistency. Wrong number of horses. Who gave the command for the census. Judas' death. Christ picking the wrong high priest, etc. Now it is errant. May be explainable, may be rationalized, but still errant !

So why, Vinnie, would you care what the "default" position is, if it is so easily demonstrated as false.

RobertLW (for lack of a better person to address this to) Why, on God's green earth, would you WANT the default position to be inerrancy? For me to hold it to this high of a standard, when I KNOW it will be demonstrated as false quickly (see above comments to Vinnie) would seem to be dangerous.

Let me try this a final way. I imagine a witness on the stand stating, "This letter contains absolutely NO errors whatsoever. It is 100% inerrant."
Attorney: But isn't it true that paragraph one refers to invoice 1234?
Witness: Yes
Attorney: But paragraph four refers to invoice 1243, correct?
Witness: .....yes.
Attorney: Isn't that an error?
Witness: Well, yes, but I just transposed the last two numbers.
Attorney: But it IS an error?
Witness: Not much of one.
Attorney: Is your testimony still that it contains "NO errors whatsoever?"
Witness: Well, maybe just one.

Do You see my point? Hope so.
So why the fuss.
(Thanks in advance.)

Vinnie · 05-07-2004, 11:07 AM

ugggh! Sorry for the annoyment but I already addressed all this!

From my FIRST OPENING POST in the debate:

Quote:

Also we note that historians from the same general time period as the New Testament works were composed in also made errors. Josephus is one example. As E.P. Sanders and Margaret Davies point out (Studying the Synoptic Gospels p. 37):

"Josephus, for example who was a very self-conscious historian, and who was also fairly accurate, claimed, in retelling biblical history, that he added nothing and omitted nothing (Antiq. 1.17; cf. Antiq. 4.196; 20.260-261). In fact he omitted a great deal and added numerous items. He attributed to Moses, for example, the commandment to gather each week to study the law (Against Apion 2.175). This represents first-century practice but cannot be found in the Bible; and Josephus, if pressed, would have granted that to be true. He knew the Bible extremely well, and further he knew that many of his readers were equally well versed in it. Then why ascribe to Moses new commandments? We cannot precisely recapture his mental processes, but perhaps they went like this: It is an established tradition in our religion that we gather in synagogues on the Sabbath to study the Scripture; this has been true as far back as anyone can remember; Moses himself must have intended it; I shall use a shortcut and say that he commanded it.

Ancient historians regularly supplemented their narratives with freely created material of various kinds. They paid especial attention to the creation of suitable speeches for their heroes. Staying with Josephus, we may comment especially on the great speech which he attributes to the rebel leader Eleazar just before he and other defenders of Matsada committed suicide rather than be captured (War 7.323-336, 341-389). Eleazar's speech holds up the ideals of Josephus himself (though Josephus did not live up to them); and this, the concluding event of the last battle of the great revolt, is marked by suitable oration, though Josephus could not have known what Eleazar had actually said.

We should not exult too much over ancient historians. Below the very top level of academic biography modern authors frequently attribute statements to their subjects when, in the nature of the case, there could be no possible line of transmission. Most modern readers accept this, since the story is presented smoothly and authoritatively, without noting the absence of evidence. Ancient author's wrote in this way--only more so."

Also

Quote:

Finally, to justify our “default position�? of errancy we note that a prima facie reading of the Bible gives us no indication it should be seen as other than a human work. Many passages set off moral alarm bells and the large number of surface anomalies (internal and external) should point an exegete towards this human component as well. It looks like a human work and that is how it should be treated--unless Robert can demonstrate otherwise.

Even internal consistency in individual works is not expected. Here is a further quote from historian E.P. Sanders:

Quote:

First, ancient writers often contain glaring self-contradictions in their writings. It appears that the evangelists did not smooth over their works and make them all completely consistent with. As Sanders and Davies observe, "The assumption may surprise the reader, whose intuition may be that an author of strong views would recast all the material to agree with them. There are two points to be observed: (1) Imposing a completely consistent view on diverse sources is in fact quite hard. Modern academic work will provide a lot of examples. Those of us who read doctoral theses spend spend a fair part of our time checking for consistency from one part to another, but perfect consistency is nevertheless often not obtained. The problem of consistency of of course less acute in a short work than in a long one, and the gospels are short. Despite this, not one of them is perfectly consistent [John possibly the closest]. This leads us to our second point. (2) Ancient writers not infrequently incorporated their sources whole, or only slightly edited, with the result that the final work contains glaring inconsistencies and even contradictions. The ancients seem to have been less troubled by inconsistency that moderns are, and what strikes us as a blatant internal disagreement may have been viewed in some other light by the original author and readers."

FINALLY, and MOST IMPORTANTLY, the Bible is NOT A SINGLE WORK.

Canonical dimension must be argued, not assumed.

Errancy is more than the default position. Inerrancy is all but IMPOSSIBLE given the nature of the works.

Vinnie

P.S. I highly doubt most hsitory texts--even modern ones-- are "inerrant". As Sander's wrote: "We should not exult too much over ancient historians. Below the very top level of academic biography modern authors frequently attribute statements to their subjects when, in the nature of the case, there could be no possible line of transmission."

blt to go · 05-07-2004, 11:28 AM

Thanks for the reply.

I Did understand the positions of each side and had read your post (as well as the debate) Reading it again always helps.

While I was trying to frame that I was looking more for the reasoning behind the argumentation, it clicked.

A default inerrent would state that the errant had the burden of proof which would result in a demonstration of error, resulting in an attempt for harmonization by the inerrant.

A default errant would state the inerrant would have the burden of proof which would result in an attempt for harminonization of errors by the inerrant.

Unfortunately for the errant, man can rationalize just about anything resulting in what would appear to be harmonization for the inerrant. (they are preaching to the choir.)

Unfortunately for the inerrant, they cannot explain why they accept harmonization when it comes to the Bible, but would NEVER accept such harmonization in real life.

I think.....

Toto · 05-07-2004, 11:40 AM

It is part of the tactics of Christian apologists to try to force the burden of proof on their opponents, and then raise the burden so high that it cannot be met. It's just a tactic.

Cross Examiner · 05-07-2004, 01:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vinnie

The nature of the works themselves. Read my first post.

Yes, I see that you argue that the nature of the works themselves militates against classifying them as inerrant a posteriori but I do not see how given their nature classifying them as errant a posteriori is justified. I do not see that you address incertitude (e.g. agnosticism) as a potential starting point. I do not see that you support the implicature that the issue of default classification is strictly bivalent. Additionally, I read your first post but see no succinctly formulated criterion for the default classification of works. If you do not offer a criterion, please do so as soon as you are able. If you do offer a criterion, somewhere, then please reformulate and present it here. In the case that you do offer a criterion, is there a precedent for your particular formulation and, if so, can you cite (and link us to) that precedent? Thanks in advance.

Quote:

If the Bible was inerrant would it not be evidence it was special? That is what Mcowell argues. I use the inverse. Simply because we don't expoect 50 human authors over thousands of years in diverse settings to have completely harmonious thoughts and views on a host of issues.

Do you presume at the outset that '50 human authors' are the all-sufficient cause (e.g. as opposed to being the instrumental cause) of these works? If so, then you beg the very question. I'll use a couple of categorical syllogisms (i.e. A1, A2) to make my point:

A1.
P1. A compendium of works caused by a multiplicity of human authors from diverse social, linguistic, economic, cultural, historical etc. contexts is likely fallible
P2. The Bible is a compendium of works caused by a multiplicity of human authors from diverse social, linguistic, economic, cultural, historical etc. contexts
C3. The Bible is likely fallible.

A2.
P1. If a compendium of works is likely fallible then it is reasonably classified as errant
P2. The Bible is a compendium of works that is likely fallible
C3. The Bible is reasonably classified as errant

Do you see the problem? One must presuppose in A1:P2 the errantist position that the Bible is purely the effect of human causation, which is precisely the issue of debate. Caveat lector ...

Quote:

It is quite simple really.

Respectfully, I beg to differ.

Regards,
BGic

gurugeorge · 05-07-2004, 02:56 PM

Surely, even if the human beings were merely the "instrumental" cause of the actual text we have, that's enough to put a spanner in the works and make a nonsense of inerrancy in the actual text we have?

Cross Examiner · 05-07-2004, 04:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gurugeorge

Surely, even if the human beings were merely the "instrumental" cause of the actual text we have, that's enough to put a spanner in the works and make a nonsense of inerrancy in the actual text we have?

Really? How so? Can you make an argument to that effect?

But you bring up an interesting point. Let's modify the term 'caused' in the manner that you imply:

A1.
P1. A compendium of works partially caused by a multiplicity of human authors from diverse social, linguistic, economic, cultural, historical etc. contexts is likely fallible
P2. The Bible is a compendium of works partially caused by a multiplicity of human authors from diverse social, linguistic, economic, cultural, historical etc. contexts
C3. The Bible is likely fallible.

A2.
P1. If a compendium of works is likely fallible then it is reasonably classified as errant
P2. The Bible is a compendium of works that is likely fallible
C3. The Bible is reasonably classified as errant

I see three problems with the above. First, the original terms and relationships in A1:P1 and A1:P2 are explicit and unambiguous. When we change the seminal phrase "caused by a multiplicity of human authors" to "partially caused by a multiplicity of human authors", without elucidating the term 'partially', we introduce ambiguity into the phrase such that we significantly weaken the meaning of our foundational premise and thus we weaken both arguments. Second, it does not follow from the fact that there is a human factor to some work x that some work x is fallible, especially when there is also a divine factor to some work x, as would be the case in this particular instance. Third, we presume a greater degree of non-human causation (e.g. divine) such that we beg the question from the inerrantist angle this time around. Thus, we can take neither errantist nor inerrantist presumption and arrive at the conclusion that the Bible is reasonably classified as errant. I am surprised that agnosticism/incertitude/no default position has been apparently overlooked.

Anyway, if the inerrantist position is correct the Bible is still the effect of a Perfect Being communicating through a diverse assortment of imperfect beings to an even greater diversity of imperfect beings which accounts well enough for the 'surface anomalies' therein.

Regards,
BGic

RobertLW · 05-07-2004, 06:29 PM

You guys went from the default position on the burden of proof to the default position of inerrancy in nothing flat.

The default position on the burden of proof is neutral because it is an assumed burden. If I went to a book store and picked out any book, I have nothing to prove. I havn't even read it yet. If I read the book and formulate any opinion on it, I still have nothing to prove and nobody to prove it to. If a friend of mine reads the book as well and while discussing the book he said "that was a really good book" and I replied " I thought it was crappy" I still have nothing to prove, I was stating my opinion. However, if I said "The book was crappy and I will prove it to you" I have just assumed that burden. On the other hand, if my friend said "prove that the book was crappy" I still have the option of saying "I don't have to prove jack to you pal" and turn down that burden.

BGiC brings up some good points on the default position of inerrancy. However, on a very general level, I am inclined to agree with Vinnie on this point. I agree with Vinnie because man was also given reason and there are times when logic and reason disagree. While one thing may be logical, it may also be unreasonable. That is why we must use both to determine truth. It is wholly reasonable to conclude that a human being is not capable of producing a completely inerrant work (unless by accident).

However, there are many types of errors and if we narrow the errors down, we can be more specific and unambiguous with what we mean with the term "inerrant". For the purposes of our debate, we had used the Chicago Statement as the definition of the errors. By using this statement as the definition of the errors, I was arguing that God's message recorded in the Bible by human authors that he inspired is both true and consistent throughout the Bible and does not contradict itself.

I argued up front that I intended to argue presuming the verity of the Biblical authors. It is this presumption that is the real argument. One would have to get to the epistemological basis for knowledge in order to validate their presumptions.

My thoughts anyway.......

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

05-07-2004, 10:38 AM	#53
blt to go Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: michigan Posts: 513	Genuinely need direction here. I feel like I am missing some important argument here, that I am not getting. What is the difference for the default position, errancy or inerrancy? Typically, I would state (in reviewing ANY document, regardless of time, number of authors, etc.) that it would be, at the least, internally inerrant. Thus, the "default" position would be inerrancy. However, once there is one single "error," no matter how slight, this would mean the document is not inerrant, and hence no longer the "default" position. Let me try it this way. I assume my history textbook is inerrant. But if the table of contents states that chapter 4 starts on page 62, when it starts on page 64, this would mean it is errant. Granted, perhaps not deserving of being tossed out completely, but Not to the complete standards of inerrancy. Now, if chapter 1 says Washington was the first president, and chapter 2 says Lincoln was the first president (of the U.S. for those of other countries) that would CERTAINLY be errancy. There may be an explanation, there may be rationalization, but within that book, internally, it is errant. Now let me try it this way. Vinnie - if you agree that the default position is inerrancy, all you have to do is point out ONE internal inconsistency. Wrong number of horses. Who gave the command for the census. Judas' death. Christ picking the wrong high priest, etc. Now it is errant. May be explainable, may be rationalized, but still errant ! So why, Vinnie, would you care what the "default" position is, if it is so easily demonstrated as false. RobertLW (for lack of a better person to address this to) Why, on God's green earth, would you WANT the default position to be inerrancy? For me to hold it to this high of a standard, when I KNOW it will be demonstrated as false quickly (see above comments to Vinnie) would seem to be dangerous. Let me try this a final way. I imagine a witness on the stand stating, "This letter contains absolutely NO errors whatsoever. It is 100% inerrant." Attorney: But isn't it true that paragraph one refers to invoice 1234? Witness: Yes Attorney: But paragraph four refers to invoice 1243, correct? Witness: .....yes. Attorney: Isn't that an error? Witness: Well, yes, but I just transposed the last two numbers. Attorney: But it IS an error? Witness: Not much of one. Attorney: Is your testimony still that it contains "NO errors whatsoever?" Witness: Well, maybe just one. Do You see my point? Hope so. So why the fuss. (Thanks in advance.)

05-07-2004, 11:28 AM	#55
blt to go Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: michigan Posts: 513	Thanks for the reply. I Did understand the positions of each side and had read your post (as well as the debate) Reading it again always helps. While I was trying to frame that I was looking more for the reasoning behind the argumentation, it clicked. A default inerrent would state that the errant had the burden of proof which would result in a demonstration of error, resulting in an attempt for harmonization by the inerrant. A default errant would state the inerrant would have the burden of proof which would result in an attempt for harminonization of errors by the inerrant. Unfortunately for the errant, man can rationalize just about anything resulting in what would appear to be harmonization for the inerrant. (they are preaching to the choir.) Unfortunately for the inerrant, they cannot explain why they accept harmonization when it comes to the Bible, but would NEVER accept such harmonization in real life. I think.....

05-07-2004, 11:40 AM	#56
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	It is part of the tactics of Christian apologists to try to force the burden of proof on their opponents, and then raise the burden so high that it cannot be met. It's just a tactic.

05-07-2004, 02:56 PM	#58
gurugeorge Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: London, UK Posts: 3,210	Surely, even if the human beings were merely the "instrumental" cause of the actual text we have, that's enough to put a spanner in the works and make a nonsense of inerrancy in the actual text we have?

05-07-2004, 06:29 PM	#60
RobertLW Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Kansas Posts: 220	You guys went from the default position on the burden of proof to the default position of inerrancy in nothing flat. The default position on the burden of proof is neutral because it is an assumed burden. If I went to a book store and picked out any book, I have nothing to prove. I havn't even read it yet. If I read the book and formulate any opinion on it, I still have nothing to prove and nobody to prove it to. If a friend of mine reads the book as well and while discussing the book he said "that was a really good book" and I replied " I thought it was crappy" I still have nothing to prove, I was stating my opinion. However, if I said "The book was crappy and I will prove it to you" I have just assumed that burden. On the other hand, if my friend said "prove that the book was crappy" I still have the option of saying "I don't have to prove jack to you pal" and turn down that burden. BGiC brings up some good points on the default position of inerrancy. However, on a very general level, I am inclined to agree with Vinnie on this point. I agree with Vinnie because man was also given reason and there are times when logic and reason disagree. While one thing may be logical, it may also be unreasonable. That is why we must use both to determine truth. It is wholly reasonable to conclude that a human being is not capable of producing a completely inerrant work (unless by accident). However, there are many types of errors and if we narrow the errors down, we can be more specific and unambiguous with what we mean with the term "inerrant". For the purposes of our debate, we had used the Chicago Statement as the definition of the errors. By using this statement as the definition of the errors, I was arguing that God's message recorded in the Bible by human authors that he inspired is both true and consistent throughout the Bible and does not contradict itself. I argued up front that I intended to argue presuming the verity of the Biblical authors. It is this presumption that is the real argument. One would have to get to the epistemological basis for knowledge in order to validate their presumptions. My thoughts anyway.......

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.