gurugeorge

No, what you're left with there is just a claim of divine inspiration, which is not at all the same thing as inerrantism.

Whether God exists or not, common sense tells us that anything human beings have had a hand in is bound to have errors (inconsistencies, wrong facts, factoids, etc.); some degree of error is likely, we would expect errors. That's the default position for anything that has humans involved in it. Lo and behold, unsurprisingly, when you look at the Bible, at the actual text we have, it has lots of errors.

This is compatible with divine inspiration, with God's having a hand in the Bible's making. It just isn't compatible with the Bible being inerrant.

Sven

Why?
I've seen to many errors in books (typos, grammar or "real" errors) - fiction and non-fiction - that the default position clearly is "errant". Just look at the opening of any science book: The author(s) almost always clearly state(s) that errors have been corrected compared to the last edition, that loads of people pointed errors out to them, that all remaining errors are entirely his/her/their own fault etc.
I don't understand how one can think that any human work is by default inerrant.

Sven

Unfortunately it isn't an argument. You neglect (as Vinnie pointed out), for instance, honest mistakes. And "poetic licence" - this is not the same as lying.

blt to go

Imagine me hitting myself in the head and saying, "D'oh."

I WAS reading too much into it. Thanks for the clarification, Toto.
Correct, because that is the next logical conclusion. If one is going to "argue" against the default position of a proposition, then one is going to (oft-times) gain the burden of proof.

However, in this scenerio, I do not see the gain in either position.

Sven, I see you failed to quote my next two sentences, which further explained my position on "inerrancy." I would submit, however, that in practice, even you would initially default to internal inerrancy. For example, if you are looking for the start of a chapter, do you look at the table of contents, or do you assume it is wrong, and not bother. Do you question every single sentence and compare it to the rest? Typically No.

If, you are stating, that errancy is an eventuality, I would agree, but it is not how I, personally, typically approach any document, assuming that it will be internally correct--just not surprised when it is not.

No, BGiC, your default position of "may or may not contain errors" is unhelpful. And is a dangerous tactic.

First, it is unhelpful in that it does not further the cause of whether the document has errors. It is similar to arguing whether a document neither of us have read "may or may not" contain errors. Once read, we can no longer straddle the fence, but will fall on one side or the other.

Second, it is a dangerous tactic, because it gives the benefit of the doubt to the opposing side. If you say it "may or may not contain errors" and I say it contains errors, by failing to argue against the premise, the only position left is that it contains errors.

Here is an analogy. There is an automobile accident on the highway. You (observing the accident) state, "the car may or may not have been moving at the time." I (another observer) state, "the car was moving at the time." The trier of fact is left with no alternative but to conclude the car was moving at the time.

Therefore, to enter the debate and frame the argument, "may or may not contain errors," I would respond that you have conceded you do not know, and would state it does, moving forward. It would appear you have conceded a point.

The whole thing is a dangerous tactic. Odd that the christian apologist would argue the uniqueness of the Bible, stating it is inerrant (written by so many, over so many continents, over so long a period of time) and then state the default position of ANY document is inerrancy!

In other words, since the Bible is special, we would have to take the position that BY DEFAULT all other documents are assumed to be errant (UNspecial) until proven otherwise, but because we like the Bible, it gets special billing at inerrant, until proven otherwise.

Can't have it both ways. Can't have "special pleading" and then complain when others try to place the burden on us.

Cross Examiner

RobertLW, what do you mean by 'assumed burden'? Also, I read your analogy but I still do not understand why you believe that the default position with regards to the inerrancy issue ought to be neutrality. That is, while I agree that it should be neutrality, for reasons argued above, I do not know how you came to that same conclusion. Can you please clarify?
Are you arguing that one ought to reason deductively (i.e. 'logically') and inductively (i.e. 'reason') in order to arrive at truth? If so, I do not see how two camps with diametrically opposed epistemologies can substantially agree on what is inductively reasonable with regards to this issue.
I was looking at a jar of baby food the other day. When I thought about all the factors that went into producing the jar, I came away thinking that human causation was nearly total yet the product is perceptibly perfect. That is, I saw no flaw in it at all. But you seem to be saying that I am not justified in thinking this of the jar. Should I presume that the jar is flawed because human causation factors greatly into the jar's production? If so, why? Thanks.

Regards,
BGic

Cross Examiner

blt to go, my argument for neutrality is not a tactic. It is a reflection of the way I think. Now, the way I think about all this might be way off, but it is not merely positioning. I truly do not see how some degree of human causation as a factor of the production of x requires us by the demands of rationality to think x is flawed. And I have yet to see an argument that might convince me otherwise.
I don't understand why the default position need further the cause of whether x is flawed or not. If we both know a great deal about x but have not substantiated a criterion for determining whether x is flawed or not then how can anything but neutrality be our starting point? What level of knowledge of x must we meet in order to move from 'straddling the fence' to a positive or negative position on the fallibility of x?
I am not an attorney so I will likely reveal a good deal of ignorance on these issues but if one person is neutral on x and another is negative on x how does that make the default stance (for all) negative?
But then we only need another witness to say the 'car was not moving at the time' and we are back to neutrality. If the analogy hinges on numbers who vote for/against x then it seems to be weak.
.
And then another can state it does not have errors and we're back to neutrality. How is this not an argument from numbers?
I argue that without a criterion for determining if a document is errant or not there can be no default position of errancy or inerrancy. I argue that if one must make a presumption of errancy or inerrancy in order to substantiate the claim that x should be considered errant or inerrant by default then one does so fallaciously (i.e. begs the question). I do not argue that any document is inerrant.
Why can't we formulate a method for trying the Bible, try the Bible as if it weren't special and then decide whether it is or is not per the agreed-upon standard?

Regards,
BGic

Toto

Interesting analogy. A jar of baby food is a recent innovation in human nutrition. Up until fairly recently, baby humans lived on breast milk for a much longer period in their lives. Infant formula, which was touted as "scientific" when it was first introduced, has never been able to match the virtual perfection of most breast milk, which has been honed through millions of years of natural selection (but can still be a problem in some cases, due to modern pollution levels and food allergies.)

Being much older than I think you are, I recall a period when baby food contained MSG - not for the babies, but to convince the parents who tasted the baby food that they wanted to feed it to their infants. I forget if it was public pressure or the FDA which forced the removal of this bad ingredient.

What you see as perfection in a jar of baby food depends on a number of factors: quality control on the part of the baby food manufacturer; government regulation; the possibilities of product liability lawsuits if there is any flaw in the baby food. None of these apply to the production of sacred texts.

A better analogy than baby food is writing computer code. There will always be bugs in sufficiently long computer code, as long as it is written by humans. There will always be typos in written texts.

Clutch

bgic, I don't know about crickets chirping. I thought I explained this on page one of this thread.

The argument against inerrancy is the argument for errancy. That's the order the reasoning goes in. This actually does not require a bivalence of default possibilities! All it requires is that "errant" entails "not inerrant", which is perfectly consistent with an agnostic third value. (It's the other direction, from "not inerrant" to "errant", that would fail if one gave up bivalence.)

The argument, as I understand it, is that the scriptures are prima facie errant, and that this engenders the default assumption that they are errant. (On the uncontroversial principle that it's rational to believe pro tem what the evidence suggests, though the evidence is in principle defeasible.)

So in the absence of a good argument showing that the p.f. evidence is somehow delusive, we remain with the default conclusion that the text is errant. And, again, even on a non-bivalent system, this warrants the (default) conclusion that the text is not inerrant.

Vinnie can correct me if this departs from his reasoning in some important way, but that's what I took away from it. (Really, it's not a novel or surprising argument; I'm sure Vinnie is always surprised to have to argue for such a point!)

Cross Examiner

What constitutes prima facie errancy and how do you know? Is it that the existence of 'surface anomalies' constitutes prima facie errancy? If so, why should this be the criterion? What makes for a default position on the errancy of some human work x? Why should it be that prima facie errancy, if given, translates to a default position of errancy? Does the existence of surface anomalies in x give us warrant to believe that x is flawed until demonstrated otherwise? If so, why do you believe this? I'm just curious where folks are getting their epistemological basis from.
With regards to the proposition 'the Bible is inerrant', how do we know when the prima facie evidence for errancy moves us from a default position of neutrality to negativity? Do the existence of surface anomalies justify this move? If so, why? Thanks.

Regards,
BGic

Clutch

I'm happy to answer the questions I haven't already answered. Would you mind rereading my post, and yours, and focussing more precisely on questions I didn't answer, and/or your disagreement with the answers I gave? Thanks.