Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Cross Examiner · 07-06-2004, 02:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jbernier

However you have yet to demonstrate that our views on baby torture our intuitive [1]. Is not the term "torture" itself a historically conditioned idea, one rooted in a particular history which has defined what are and are not acceptable ways to treat other human beings [2]. However, we all know that these views are not universal - are people thus ignoring their intuition (which conveniently happens to line up with Western notions of civility and torture) [3]?

No, it is not if we establish that there is a particular species of intuition that deals with knowledge of the divine. One can only suggest that there is a qualitative difference between Muslim and Christian intuitonal bases if one argues that (a) there is a qualitative difference between Muslim and Christian people at least insofar it applies to their ability to intuit the divine or (b) that there is a qualitative difference between the divine which is intuited by Muslim or Christian people [4].

The first position would seem to call into question the notion that all people - regardless of religion - are gifted with the same basic intellectual and sensual properties and is somewhat circular in that it argues that only when one becomes Christian can one intuit that God which one claims to believe in prior to entering into the Christian in which one can intuit said God (in other words the cart is hitched squarely before horse).

The second position, of course, is predicated upon the assumption that your intuition is correct and their's is not. If that is your assumption, very well; I probably cannot disprove such an assumption but neither can you disprove it. However, just be clear about it - and also recognize that your opinion about the merits of your intuition does not evidence make [5].

3. As I explained to Vorkosigan here, this is not an argument for the validity of intuition as an epistemological basis. Given the prior confusion citing intuition (as a basis, mind you) seemed to cause, it is simply intended as an explanation of what I mean by intuition and how I understand it to work. Since what I mean by intuition is apparently not what these others mean by it, their prior criticism is therefore towards an effigy.

If so many people are confused about your view of intuition perhaps the confusion has generated by a lack of clarity on the part of the sender of the message, not an inability to understand on the part of the receivers [6].

Wait a minute. That statement is problematic. Is it not a legitimate research question to ask whether or not the idea of the resurrection is derived from Greek thought in the first place [7]? After all, we know that right from day one there was a significant Greek and Hellenistic element within Christian thought [8]. Are you suggesting that these research questions themselves are irresponsible [9]? I would suggest, in opposition, that not being open to such questions would be the height of irresponsibility as dogma would be substituting for scholarship [10].

Just because scholars come to conclusions you do not like does not mean that they are being irresponsible [11].

1. I use baby-torture as an example. It is an explanatory vehicle. Do you contend that we do not know innately that baby-torture is wrong?
2. What would it matter if the term 'torture' was 'historically-conditioned'?
3. Yes, in my view baby-torturers ignore their innate notion that they ought not do such things.
4. I cannot make sense of this paragraph.
5. I would likely respond here if I understood the preceding paragraph(s).
6. Perhaps.
7. Yes.
8. Significant?
9. No.
10. Granted.
11. True.

Regards,
BGic

Cross Examiner · 07-06-2004, 03:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blt to go

Once again, BGic, we play this game.

You use a word. Say, for example, "intuition." I attempt to apply this word, as is commonly used in every day language [1]. When I do so, it becomes unworkable in your attempt to defend inerrancy [2].

You then inform me that my use of the word (as well as millions of others) is completely in error [3], I am "missing the point" and then you fail to distinguish why my use (as well as millions of others) is wrong [4].

I will try and let it out as clearly and succintly as possible. I will freely assume I am "missing the point" yet again. I rest quietly with the majority of the world, christian or otherwise [5].

I don't use "logic." [6] I don't use "epistemological warrant." I simply take what you say and apply it to the words of the bible [7].

I oringinally dismissed "intuition" (and note you have failed to respond to the other three (3) points raised) as being wrong too often [8]. I understood it was only one of your reasons, but since you have failed to respond to the other three (3) it is the only one I can deal with [9].

The specific example you have used to describe your definition of "intuition" is that humans know that baby-torture is wrong. As I stated I would agree [10].

I would also state that humans know that cutting your only child into little bits simply because an authority requested it is ALSO wrong. (i.e. Abraham and Isaac) [11]

Yet apprently YOUR god, in YOUR inerrant bible felt it was not only appropriate but commendable to go 100% against one's own intuition [12].

Now, you dismiss this by simply questioning whether I felt this story had to do with child sacrifice? No, I think this is a perfectly horrid story in which god, to test Abraham, ORDERED him to commit the equivalent of child torture. Something you apparently, BY YOUR INTUITION feel is wrong [13].

But I obviously have "intuition" all wrong. Just like god.....[14]

1. That is the problem. I went to great lengths to demonstrate that I was not using the word 'intuition' in the colloquial sense. I even stated this up front -- in the first paragraph no less.
2. I am not defending inerrancy. I am explaining what I mean by intuition as an epistemological basis for believing in the verity of Biblical inerrancy.
3. Your error is not that you use the colloquial sense of 'intuition', it is that you apparently mistake me for doing the same thing. You'll likely observe over time that theological and philosophical discussions involve distinguishing different senses of otherwise standard terms.
4. To use your own words, you apparently construe 'intuition' as a 'gut feeling' derived from your experiences as an all-American Baptist kid. Conversely, I construe a subtle ontological and functional distinction of this colloquial understanding of intuition. Like Calvin, I call it sensus divinatus (or, like Lewis, I call it 'numinous awareness) and I understand it to be like a set of Kantian synthetic a priori ideas that allow one to recognize the divine origin of objects and other ideas etc.
5. I don't know what you are talking about here.
6. If this refers to what I think it does, I meant only that one must distinguish induction from deduction. And I do not mean a slight against you just in case that is unclear.
7. You will hopefully forgive me for considering the issue of Biblical inerrancy a rather complex matter then.
8. What three points?
9. Ah. You mean the other epistemological factors, besides the intuitional basis? Are you saying again that you want to have an in-depth talk about those?
10. OK.
11. OK.
12. I understand that story to be illustrative of the strength of Abraham's faith, not as morally prescriptive per se. Are you saying that the lesson here is that God wants men to violate their moral intuition? In any case, note that you are talking about moral intuition, not the sensus divinatus or the synthetic a priori, which is what I have been talking about. Frankly, my friend, this Abraham and Isaac talk is a herring of the red variety.
13. So God commanded Abraham to do what Abraham knew was wrong. Apparently, he knew that God would revoke such a thing and God did do just that. What's the big deal?
14. Your moral intuition is functioning just fine in this regard.

Regards,
BGic

Cross Examiner · 07-06-2004, 03:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jbernier

Most anthropologists would argue that humans are by definition cultural and social. Part of the cultural and social life of humans is what we typically refer to as "religious" behaviour, practices and beliefs. However, most would, I think be likely to say that the category "religion", as something distinct from politics, economics, etc., is a particularly Western concept and thus is not applicable cross-culturally (same deal with the category "spiritual" as opposed to "material"). For instance, I am currently reading a volume which contains a series of different positions on whether or not the term "supernatural" is anthropologically justifiable given that many worldviews do not distinguish between "natural" and other than natural. Let us consider Hallowell's description of a conversation he had with an Ojibwe friend about whether or not a particular rock was alive: The friend said "Not all rocks are alive but that one might be." The meaning - for that Ojibwe some rocks are living beings. Now this is located within the Ojibwe person's understanding of what is "natural" - that it is "natural" for some rocks to be alive. He would not locate the "aliveness" of the rock outside of the "natural" world. Can we call this "supernatural" simply because we do not think that rocks are alive? [1]

"Religion" is a category that we have come to attach to particular forms of social behaviour; nothing more [2].

Granted: I misread something you read [3].

1. I don't know.
2. Your opinion on the matter is noted. I still do not know what your answer to this question is though:

Quote:

Originally Posted by BGic

Just so I understand you here; you are saying that anthropologists do not consider man a religious animal, correct?

not that I'm sure it is relevant anyway.
3. No problem.

Regards,
BGic

Cross Examiner · 07-06-2004, 04:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jbernier

If each is a sort of intuition then a critique of one is a critique of the other as each is a critique of the species called "intuition." [1] Thus my critiques of the baby-torture example must be taken seriously if you hope to defend your position [2].

To repeat his argument (again):
1) You start with the position that we all believe that baby-torture is wrong[3].
2) You claim that we have no experiential reason for this belief [4].
3) You thus argue that this view of baby-torture is intuitive [5].
4) You then suggest that such intuition is sufficient reason to believe that baby-torture is wrong [6].
5) blt to go notes that he believes that the willingness to commit child sacrifice because a higher authority told one to do so is wrong [7].
6) He notes that, if there is no experiential reason for the belief that baby-torture is wrong, there can be no experiential reason for believing that the willingness to commit child sacrifice because a higher authority told one to do so is wrong [8].

... <snip>

1. The force of your criticism against an analog of the sensus divinatus is dependent upon the ontological proximity of said analog to the sensus divinatus, which is yet to be established.
2. Perhaps.
3. Close enough for now.
4. No. I say that if the knowledge that baby-torture is morally wrong is also a synthetic a priori (i.e. innate, intuitive) truth in the human mind then it does not originate in experience of the world (i.e. a posteriori), necessarily.
5. See 4.
6. What are you talking about?
7. OK.
8. I can't make sense of this but it looks like a non sequitur from what I can make of it.

...

Look, I can't follow this at all. Can we do this cleanly? I'll even kick it off with a formal categorical that you can alter for your own purposes if you like:
P1. If moral intuition is accurate then it is trustworthy.
P2. Moral intuition is accurate.
C3. Moral intuition is trustworthy.

I am much obliged.

Regards,
BGic

Rational BAC · 07-06-2004, 05:07 PM

Sorry---I have not read this whole thread. Rather limited on time right now.

But----------Is the Bible innerrant? Of course it is in error. It is in error in so many ways that the most simple idiot could not help but notice the errancy.

But --- Of what importance is it whether the Bible is errant on not errant?

What we got here in the Bible is a bunch of errant humans trying the best they can to define or describe a God. A God that is millions of times more powerful than us, millions of times more intelligent than us. Millions of times more sensitive than us. Millions of times more knowledgeable than us.

That is all there is to it. That is all there ever was to it. That is all it ever will be to it.

Live with it.

We have an imperfect picture of a probably not so perfect God. (at least a not so perfect God that we perceive with our limited intelligence and our very limited view of perfection).

Perhaps He is perfect in ways that we can not imagine with our tiny little minds.

Or maybe not. Of no importance anyway. God is God whatever He is.

RobertLW · 07-06-2004, 06:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jbernier

Uhmmm...that might possibly, maybe, perhaps, conceivably, be a halfway decent critique if I had said something even vaguely, remotely, kinda resembling the straw man argument you just assigned to me. As it stands it is so much bluster.

Please refer to your following writings:

Quote:

Originally Posted by jbernier

"For instance, as a Biblical scholar I will say up front that St. Paul is less than thrilled with people who engage in sexual relations with people of their own biological sex; however, as a person who has seen the detrimental effects of homophobia and Christian anti-homosexual rhetoric upon people's lives first hand I feel the need to disagree with St Paul on this one. Indeed, I look at the ideas that seem to be the centre of his thought (primarily the idea that in Christ Jesus and by extension the Christian community all social categories are effectively dissolved) and note that he appears to have been unable to follow through the logic of his own ethical pronouncements about the radical equality that should exist within the Christian community. I see it as my job to "finish the job", so to speak, and say "Yeah, Paul could not get beyond his own prejudices on this one. But I can.".

Quote:

Originally Posted by jbernier

"However, I think it fair to say at minimum that he was a Galilean peasant (or perhaps artisan) who lived from approximately 4 BCE to 30 CE; that he was involved in Essenic/Enochic varieties of early Judaism; that he probably also moved in Pharsaic circles; that he had a significant leadership role in some sort of lay movement; that the political and religious authorities in Jerusalem saw him as some sort of criminal and/or threat to the stability of the region and thus had him put to death."

Quote:

Originally Posted by jbernier

"Now, the fact that this people believed in the physical resurrection of Jesus does not mean it happened. It also must be noted that a lot of writings from the first few centuries of Christianity were agnostic on the issue and some actually spoke directly against the notion of a physical resurrection. The early Christian witness is not undivided on this issue. It is only later, when "orthodoxy" becomes orthodox that these voices are largely silenced. Thus I think it possible to have a Christianity that is not dogmatically committed to the notion of a physical resurrection of Christ - after all, if an entity with such properties has existed in the past it can potentially exist in the present or future."

I am not seeing the strawman. I simply drew a conclusion from your words, however ambiguous they may be.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jbernier

"Ah, yes, the old "You obviously can't be a Christian because you do not agree with my definition of Christianity" routine. That got old and tired about the time of the old heresy hunts and witch burnings.

Point taken, so let us use a neutral definition from Websters instead of mine:

\Chris"tian\, n. [L. christianus, Gr. ?; cf. AS. cristen. See Christ.] 1. One who believes, or professes or is assumed to believe, in Jesus Christ, and the truth as taught by Him; especially, one whose inward and outward life is conformed to the doctrines of Christ.

I am not seeing where your stated theological position fits into this definition. My point was you are using a different definition from the traditional one.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jbernier

Sure. If you no longer want to be considered "Christian" no skin off my nose. Your choice; has precisely nothing to do with me.

Wouldn't it be proper for me to endeavor to distance myself from you since I hold to the doctrines and theology of Christianity and you abondon them?

Quote:

Originally Posted by jbernier

Yep.

"Yep" I don't take it seriously or "yep" I do?

Quote:

Originally Posted by jbernier

Na-uh. No such clear instructions in the scriptures. Does not exist. It only, possibly, says that if you accept that the canonization process selected the right books and that a couple off-hand comments in Paul refer to the whole canon. Problem: The canon was only selected in the centuries after the scriptures were written. Thus your belief in the self-authentication of scripture relies upon the authority of the church fathers and thus their authority is logically prior to that of the canon. In that case the canon is not exclusively self-authenticating; it is, at least in part, authenticated by the church fathers. Remember, the "Bible" does not exist as defined, authoritative, set of readings until the 4th century at the very earliest. Your argument suffers from severe historical anachronism.

1Thess 2:13, 2Tim 3:16, 2Pet 1:19-21, 1John 5:9.

Maybe I am just missing your point. Is your position that canonization is not acceptable because of the chronology? Are you saying that for canonization to be acceptable the Bible should have been canonized in the centuries before the scriptures were written? When would have been a good time, for you I mean, for the Bible to have been canonized?

I guess I am not seeing the problem with the Church wanting to collect and evaluate religious writings in order to put them together in one place if they passed the rules set forth (the canon). Seems perfectly reasonable to me. The church fathers did not create the canon, they discovered the canon within Scripture. They applied the rules of the canon found in Scripture (in the NT and OT) that were set forth by the Word of God. What we can say, since the canon was put together by men, is we have a fallible collection of infallible books. Meaning only that we could have missed one, but the books we have are infallible and passed the canon as set forth in Scripture. Your opinion seems to be ambiguous toward your objection. Do you not agree with the church fathers pertaining to the canon they discovered within Scripture or is it more the timing you object to? Furthermore, the text does authenticate itself exclusively and dictates to us what the canon is. I believe that Scripture is the authority over the church, (not the church is authority over Scripture) it is self-authenticating, (as it attests) and is the infallible and inerrant Word of God. Why should I not allow the Word of God tell me what the Word of God is?

Quote:

Originally Posted by jbernier

Note that you have to demonstrate the impossibility of the alternatives. Moreover, process of elimination does not a philosophical justification make in terms of worldviews as there is a theoretically infinite potential worldviews (certainly too many to make process of elimination a viable option).

I am not seeing how a collection of beliefs about life and the universe held by an individual or a group can be theoretically infinite and at the same time all theoretically infinite theories be reasonable and/or possible. However, if this is the case, I suppose I can demonstrate the impossiblity of the alternatives one by one as I encounter them. So, what is your epistemological basis for knowledge?

Quote:

Originally Posted by jbernier

btw, remember that this is an atheist forum - run by atheists, for atheists. They are gracious enough to allow people of all perspectives to come here. However, I do not go to an atheist forum expecting people to agree with my Christian and theistic beliefs - or even to take them that seriously. Indeed, my experience is that most people here are most accomodating of divergent viewpoints than I initially anticipated).

I have not experienced that kind of accommodation with my viewpoint, which I fully expected and have no problem with. Which brings me to a question; How does the acceptance and accommodation of the atheist community to your Christian and theistic beliefs reconcile with the Biblical antithesis?

Quote:

Originally Posted by blt to go

This reminds me of something Vinnie raised with you earlier and (I think (?)) was not addressed.

Where, in each book, does it say it is the "Word of God." The BEST you have is 1 Timothy's "all scripture." You do understand that in Paul's time, this would have included the Apocrypha? Do you believe the Apocrypha is the inspired, inerrant word of god?.

I can show you where each book passes the canonical test. The claim of inspiration is not the only canonical rule.

Your statement is somewhat misleading. They may have included the Apocrypha, the claim that the Septuagint of apostolic times included the Apocrypha is not set in stone. If memory serves, the Apocrypha did not show up in the Jewish canon until the Septuagint translation from Hebrew to Greek (LXX) and there is no evidence that the Jews ever accepted a wider canon than the twenty-two books of the Hebrew OT. Also, if I remember correctly, the earliest Septuagint manuscripts we have in their entirety are from the first century and even though they include the Apocryphal books, which were included as an addendum to the canonical OT, none include the same list of books.

No, I do not believe they are the inspired, inerrant word of God. As far as I remember, none claim to be and one book, Maccabees I believe, specifically denies being prophetic. They do not pass the canonical test.

I did address Vinnie's specific question, which was, "Why should I accept canonization?" My response to him was that if he does not accept inspiration then he should not accept canonization. Incidentally, we were specifically addressing inspiration which is why I responded that way.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JLK

Some of us have done this, Robert. The TAG is being "debated" (in a pathetic sense) elsewhere. The TAG is just special pleading cubed.

How is the TAG special pleading cubed? I use transcendental arguments in all my arguments. I am not trying to argue the soundness of the TAG, I believe it to be sound and have never encountered a convincing argument otherwise.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JLK

Understood. I do not think you have really examined clearly the real alternative. Not the 19th centry ones. I've been tempted to start a EoG thread entitled "The Incoherent, Incontinent, Incomprehensiblity of the Contrary."

With me being a fallible human being, I may not have encountered ALL alternatives. What I mean is all alternatives I have encountered I believe not to be possible. What are the "19th century" alternatives?

RobertLW · 07-06-2004, 06:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blt to go

RobertLW - I can empathize with your "frustration" with jbernier. I feel a portion of the same. I do not comprehend (completely) how he can so rationally, competently and with clear elucidation explain his take on the bible, yet still hold to christianity.

BUT, BUT, but.....

He HAS explained his position to the point that I understand it, and could, with fair ease, explain it to someone else. While I do not agree with it (nor do I agree with Vinnie, Clutch, Sven, etc.) he has explained it to the point I understand what he is saying. Same with Vinnie, Clutch, Sven, etc....

It is not to say that I do not understand his position, but rather I believe his position to be deceptive.

Quote:

Originally Posted by blt to go

I STILL don't understand your position. Perhaps you have explained it once. Perhaps you have explained it 60 times. I do not understand it. (And I would feel that it was due to my inability to read, if it were not for the fact that apparently others (Sven) do not get it either.)

You have claimed to be initially an errantist. You claimed to have argued on behalf of errancy. You claimed to have read through the bible as an errantist (I'll bet dollars to donuts you did not read the Apocrypha, as Presbyterians do not hold it to be part of the canon.) Yet SOMETHING changed you to become an inerrantist. WHAT?

(Unfortunately, I must use the word "claimed" as it would appear from your posts that you do not understand the position of errancy, nor the arguments, nor the reasons thereof.)

It would appear it was simply your conversion to christianity that "changed" your view. No logic, no reason, no research, simply pure blind, unwilling-to-change faith.

If so, fine, say it and be done with it. You have freely admitted (to your credit) that you have complete circular reasoning.

AGAIN, I say, What put you in the circle in the first place? If you have said it numerous times, I would ask you to say it once again. Not "I have said it as simply as I can," or "I assume the verity of the Biblical Authors," as simple answer to Why?

The circle is not a problem for me, as I have discussed. What put me there is the impossibility of the alternatives. I will provide you with one example and as I am pressed for time I will keep it simple. At one point in my life I realized that morality is real. It is non-material yet we can define it and act on it. Parents teach morality to us. Almost everyone can agree that it does exist, yet we cannot touch, see, taste, smell or hear it. So how could I explain it? This is the problem I had with it as an atheist, what makes it real? I came to understand there to be only one true answer that explains what makes morality real, God gave it to us. The alternatives were, I believed, improbable if not impossible. That is what I mean by the impossibility of the alternatives. This reasoning is what led me to my "circle". Make sense?

As an after-thought, we had a discussion on presuppostions (defeasable and non-defeasable) and I had some thoughts on your answer, if you care to entertain my thoughts.

Robert

RobertLW · 07-06-2004, 07:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jbernier

Indeed.

Now, Robert, just out of curiousity, have you given some sort of evidence for your claim that every worldview is circular?

Yes, couple of times. In a response to Vinnie in this thread specifically.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jbernier

Just wondering because I can imagine many worldviews that would not be.

Please note that I also said that if anyone knew of an ultimate authority that is not circular, I would entertain it. You would first have to tell me what worldview is not circular for me to entertain it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jbernier

It seems to me that circularity is something to watch for to see where we might be making unwarranted assumptions - looking for circularities is a check on our reasoning.

Maybe, but we would have to use reason to decide what is or what is not an unwarranted assumption. How is using reason to check on our reason not circular?

Robert

jbernier · 07-06-2004, 07:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Billy Graham is cool

1. I use baby-torture as an example. It is an explanatory vehicle. Do you contend that we do not know innately that baby-torture is wrong?

I do not have to as you stated that we know it is wrong exclusively through intuition (i.e. you said that we cannot give a reasoned explanation for that view, which I have done). All I need to show is that it is not through intuition exclusively that we come to this conclusion.

Quote:

2. What would it matter if the term 'torture' was 'historically-conditioned'?

'Cause, in terms of your argument that which is historically conditioned would be a posteriori not a priori and thus not a valid example of your argument.

Quote:

4. I cannot make sense of this paragraph.

What is qualitatively different about the Muslim and Mormon modes of intuitive thinking about the divine from yours? You state that they are not necessarily the same sort of intuition so what is the difference and how can we test that posited difference?[/QUOTE]

jbernier · 07-06-2004, 07:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RobertLW

Please note that I also said that if anyone knew of an ultimate authority that is not circular, I would entertain it. You would first have to tell me what worldview is not circular for me to entertain it.

Actually, that is not at all the case. You have made the positive argument that all worldviews are by nature circular; thus the burden of proof is upon you to demonstrate that this is the case.

That having been said, circularity only exists if you insist upon the need to prove your first principles - something which I agree cannot be done without circularity. However, a position which says "I start from the first principle that X is the ultimate authority" would not be circular - even if the first principle itself is undemonstrable and arbitrarily chosen. Arbitariness does not necessitate circularity - trying to prove that the arbitrary is not arbitrary, however, is logically absurd. Thus ontological materialism can start from the position that says that only that which can be studied by empirical methodology can be said to be real. It is quite possible that this statement can never be demonstrated correct or incorrect however that does not make it circular. Indeed, the statement is not circular in any way. As long as the ontological materialist assumption is not used to demonstrate the validity of the ontological materialist assumption there is no circularity - arbitrariness, perhaps, but not circularity.

Quote:

Maybe, but we would have to use reason to decide what is or what is not an unwarranted assumption. How is using reason to check on our reason not circular?

One, I think, needs to distinguish between syntax and practice. Syntax governs the way that things are arranged in relation to each other whereas practice is the activity of actually arranging particular things. In other words the arrangement of this sentence is governed by English syntax; however that syntax did not determine what I would actually write in practice.

Now, let us take a sentence: Write I good do really. Is it circular to look at that sentence and say "Does it follow the laws of English syntax?" Not at all! If is a simple check to see if what I have done in practice conforms to English syntax. Where it would be circular is if I were to check the sentence against the rules of English grammar, rearrange that sentence to conform to that syntax, then use the action of checking and rearranging to demonstrate that English syntax is the correct way of writing a sentence. It is only circular, in the context of ultimate authorities (or, better, first principles) if the ultimate authority is assumed prior to an attempted proof that the ultimate authority is the ultimate authority. As this would not be the operation in which we would be engaging if checking our reasoning vis-a-vis ultimate authorities for circularities then we cannot say that this was would be inherently circular.

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

07-06-2004, 05:07 PM	#135
Rational BAC Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Tampa Bay area Posts: 3,471	Sorry---I have not read this whole thread. Rather limited on time right now. But----------Is the Bible innerrant? Of course it is in error. It is in error in so many ways that the most simple idiot could not help but notice the errancy. But --- Of what importance is it whether the Bible is errant on not errant? What we got here in the Bible is a bunch of errant humans trying the best they can to define or describe a God. A God that is millions of times more powerful than us, millions of times more intelligent than us. Millions of times more sensitive than us. Millions of times more knowledgeable than us. That is all there is to it. That is all there ever was to it. That is all it ever will be to it. Live with it. We have an imperfect picture of a probably not so perfect God. (at least a not so perfect God that we perceive with our limited intelligence and our very limited view of perfection). Perhaps He is perfect in ways that we can not imagine with our tiny little minds. Or maybe not. Of no importance anyway. God is God whatever He is.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.