Cross Examiner

I have more questions. Your patience is appreciated.
Given 'surface anomalies' as prima facie evidence for P, why do you imply that it is more rational for one to believe P than for one to be agnostic with regards to P? Why is it not the case that the existence of 'harmonizations' counterbalances the evidential weight of 'surface anomalies' such that neither the inerrantist nor the errantist assumes burden of proof? What is it about the nature of 'surface anomalies', and/or other factors, that warrants one believing that what is seemingly a flaw is, in fact, a flaw until proven otherwise?
Why? Where does your criterion for determining the burden come from? What is the precedent for using said criterion? Why do you not address neutrality as an option?

Regards,
BGic

Clutch

Because evidence that P is not reason not to believe that P. Am I missing some element of the discussion that makes these obvious things less than obvious? In general, "Hey, so far it looks like P is true" is not reason to conclude, "Oh, well, I guess there's no more reason to think that P is true than that it's false".


Offering a "harmonization" is exactly what an inerrantist does to meet the burden of proof. Why a harmonization, if not for the prima facie appearance of disharmony? Now, whether any one such attempt really succeeds has to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis -- by standards that do not constitute the fallacy of special pleading.


Because that's what "evidence" means. You seem to be asking, Why should prima facie evidence be treated as evidence? I'm losing the sense that there is much of an answer to give to such a question.


Well, dog my cats. Haven't I explained this already? In terms of shared general standards for the evaluation of evidence, and special case attempts to have those standards set aside? Really -- why don't you read what I've written, and ask specific questions about any parts you don't understand or accept?


Ho-kay!

I did. In detail. Quite precisely. More than once.

As you see, you'd paraded the same "Crickets chirping" routine then, too, even though you'd received replies.

So I take it back; don't bother asking me any more questions. I'm done with you for now -- before I say something more overtly insulting than just asking questions, ignoring the replies, and then foolishly claiming that nobody has replied.

Cross Examiner

How is this supposed to justify a move from neutrality with regards to the verity/falsity of P to a default belief in the verity of P?
And one might also say that offering examples of 'surface anomalies' is what an errantist does to meet the burden of proof. Why should 'surface anomalies' constitute the sort of prima facie evidence that obligates an inerrantist to meet the burden of proving inerrancy while the existence of 'harmonizations' does not constitute a counterbalance that relieves the inerrantist of the burden of proof?
I am asking how prima facie evidence of this sort requires that an inerrantist assume the burden of proving inerrancy. Surely there is a reason that doesn't reduce to 'that's just the way it is, obviously ...'

Regards,
BGic

Clutch

Look, I've answered this for you repeatedly, and then linked you to the answers. I don't mind spoon-feeding you, but I draw the line at working your jaws as well.



So you are indeed asking, Why is prima facie evidence evidence? Why does evidence of errancy count as evidence of errancy, in the absence of countervailing reasoning?

This is not only obvious, but has been comprehensively explained in spite of its obviousness: demonstration in terms of general evidential practice.

Ted was found standing over the body holding the smoking gun; but that evidence is in principle defeasible, so I guess we better not think it's likelier than not that he's the murderer...

Sound good to you? Yes? You'd be the defense lawyer in there saying, "Hey, what a frame-up! The police won't answer my questions about how all this prima facie evidence is suggestive of guilt, in the absence of countervailing reasoning!"?

Well, maybe the State of Texas would hire you as a court-appointed attorney in death-penalty cases.

This has been laid out several times by several posters in this thread. I directed you to my posts on the question above. Chew and swallow.

Cross Examiner

No. Why do you believe this sort of prima facie evidence (i.e. surface anomalies) is sufficient to warrant the inerrantist assuming the burden of proof, particularly in light of the existence of 'countervailing reasoning' (i.e. harmonization)? How does the conjunction of defeasible appearance of flaws and existing explanations thereof amount to a presumption of errancy? I ask you where you get your criterion for determining this sort of thing, if there is a precedent for your chosen criterion, and why the issue of neutrality is not even broached and all we hear are those noisy little crickets.
Ipse dixit.
Ted is presumed innocent. Prosecution still has burden. I'd pick a different analogy were I you. By the way, with all the ad hominem stuff, you are definitely off my '04 Christmas card list. Keep it up and I'll have to put you outside the 'circle of trust'. And once you're out, you're out for good.

Regards,
BGic

Vorkosigan

Baidarka, errancy IS the neutral position. It is the lens through which all human-produced texts are viewed by scholars. Any other position automatically places the burden of proof on its proponents. If you wish to pick a specific text and say that it is supernaturally inerrant, whether it be the Bible or the memoirs of US Grant or the guide for the 1974 Chevy Suburban, it is up to you to prove that position. There is no "neutral" ground between errancy and inerrancy, at least for scholars. Errancy is the default position of all scholarly research and discourse, for all historical documents. All other positions are apologetic in nature.

Harmonization does not provide a sufficient countervailing argument for three reasons. First, no harmonization has succeeded in convincing mainstream scholarship. None of the contradictions can be harmonized successfully, despite very creative attempts. Second, harmonization is a response to prima facie evidence that itself is an interpretation -- not prima facie evidence. Harmonization typically depends on the introduction into the text of ideas or events that are not present in the text itself. Third, since it is a response, it in fact concedes Clutch's position, namely; the apologist has the burden of proof if she wants to maintain that the Bible contains no errors.

Your arguments have not succeeded in convincing any mainstream scholar, and the inerrancy position is held only by extremely conservative religious scholars.

Vorkosigan

Clutch

See, I've written it out for you and then linked to the posts. If you have some disagreement or misunderstanding, you could explain it in terms of those explanations; of course I might be wrong. But claiming repeatedly that the issue has not even been broached, repeating an easily proven and oft-proved falsehood about your interlocutors' careful -- if fruitless -- attempts to educate you, seems a tactic guaranteed to remove any impetus to respond to you. Why bother, after all, when any response will not only be ignored, but will be positively claimed not to exist?

Quite apart from the demolition of your position, your astonishingly bad faith on this thread will stick to you for some time to come, I expect you'll find.



[edited to add:] Since I've already ruefully not walked away from this disaster when I wanted to, let's actually see how "broached" the issue has been. From page 3 of this thread, for instance:

Another post, same page:


Please do keep posting your foolishness about crickets chirping, then. In so doing, you say things about yourself that decorum and board policy would prevent me from saying about you.

Clutch

Well, yeah -- I made this point pretty clearly myself:


The point was ignored in favour of (i) repeating the question and (ii) claiming that no answer has been given. There's a word for that sort of thing, isn't there?

Wiploc

I suspect that some confusion on this thread results from the "surface anomolies" language. To me, in context, this obviously equivalent to "apparent errors," or in the case of an apple, to "worm holes and obvious rot."

If we grant that reading (and I suspect some of us won't), then the agnostic-default view could be parodied as, "Why do I have to believe anything ever?" The answer would seem to be, "You don't. But the apple still looks rotten."

The agnostic-default side could be reading "surface anomolies" as "suspect areas," or "uncertain areas." Agnosticism is an altogether fitting and proper response to uncertainty.

If you guys interpret or replace the phrase "surface anomolies," so you know you are talking about the same thing, then you may finally be able to achieve closure.

In some places, the bible says god can't be seen. In others, it says he can. That _looks like_ a huge and undeniable error. If we use the apple analogy, that _looks like_ the apple has been dropped into gravel and smashed out of round. Since that kind of glaring contradiction is only one of the many types of the bible's "surface anomolies," you can guess which interpretation of "surface anomolies" I would suggest.

crc

blt to go

Clutch, I DID get out. Then I made the horrific mistake of reading this new line from BGic. Then I started thinking. That was my downfall. I can resist responding only so long.

BGic – Three Points: Neutrality is a poor starting point, it is inherently dangerous to maintain neutrality, and repetition of harmonization = recognition of contradiction.

1) Neutrality is a poor starting point. The focus of the debate, and this calamity of a peanut gallery has been inerrancy vs. errancy. I understand (from way-back) that you indicated a third starting point should be considered, that of “neutrality.� You continue this reasoning.

However, this appears to be a regression of the argument, not a progression. I would agree with the premise that at the very first blush, neutrality is the base. But at some point we have to read the darn thing! It is at that point we would take a stance as to error or non-error.

For example, you and I may be completely neutral as to Tolstoy’s War and Peace. I have not read it (and I assume you have not either. If you have, pick another book. There are plenty I have not read.) Neither of us, having not read it, know if it has errors or non-errors. But any debate, by one or both of us, is meaningless until we have read it!

Was it presumptuous to assume that both Vinnie and RobertLW (and yourself, for that matter) have actually read the thing? And having read it, moved off of the neutral ground toward at least a leaning of error or non-error of some or all of the work? (RobertLW admits a downright bias.)

While Vinnie, RobertLW, you, I and others may have been neutral at one point, once read, it no longer remains ENTIRELY neutral.

When discussion of errors is raised, I would propose that we practically approach it (IRL) (at the most simplistic level) as follows:

1. Read Sentence One.
2. Read Sentence Two.
3. Sentence Two contradicts, corroborates, or is unconnected (Neutral) to Sentence One.
4. Read Sentence Three
5. Sentence Three contradicts, corroborates, or is unconnected to Sentence One.
6. Sentence Three contradicts, corroborates, or is unconnected to Sentence Two.
7. Read Sentence Four.
8. And So on.

In a work of fiction or non-fiction, eventually there is the inevitability of contradiction or corroboration. The best example I can think of a truly “neutral� book is the telephone directory. Each “sentence� is unconnected to the previous sentence(s).

Therefore, neutrality, as a starting point is about as helpful as complaining that in comparing recipes, no one raises the issue that we need a mixing bowl. Both recipes start with a mixing bowl, but the real issue is what goes in the recipe.

Point Two: You cannot maintain neutrality.
If I understand your argument correctly, (and again in a simplest form) you state:

1) Begin with Neutrality.
2) In reading two statements, contradiction appears.
3) Provide a possible harmonization of the contradiction.
4) This returns us to neutrality.

Applying the old chestnut, it would appear as follows:

1) There may or may not be a contradiction in the description of the death of Judas between Matthew and Luke.
2) In reading Mt. 27:5 we learn that Judas hanged himself, but in Acts 1:18 we learn that Judas fell headlong in the middle of a field, he burst open, and all of his guts fell out. (Although not explicitly stated, he is referred to in the past tense, so he is certainly dead or this killed him.) This would appear to be a contraction in “how did Judas die?�
3) This is harmonized by stating he hung himself, and eventually the rope broke, resulting in his falling, receiving severe post-mortem trauma and subsequent display of guts.
4) Therefore we return safely to the neutral position that there may or may not be a contradiction in the description of the death of Judas.

But, my friend, the pendulum swings both ways. To be intellectually honest, we must ALSO state that neutrality requires (if it is to be our measuring rod):

1) Begin with neutrality
2) In reading two statements corroboration appears.
3) Provide a possible discrepancy of the corroboration
4) This returns us to neutrality.

Let’s apply this:

1) There may or may not be corroboration of darkness in the land during Christ’s crucifixion.
2) In reading Mt. 27:45, “Now from the sixth hour until the ninth hour there was darkness over all the land� and Mark 15:33 “Now when the sixth hour had come, there was darkness over the whole land until the ninth hour,� and Luke 23:44, “Now it was about the sixth hour, and there was darkness over all the earth until the ninth hour.� There appears to be corroboration of this darkness.
3) There is discrepancy as to when the darkness started, “from the sixth hour,� “when the sixth hour had come,� and “about the sixth hour.� There is discrepancy as to where the darkness was, “all the land,� “the whole land� and “all the earth.�
4) Therefore, we must return (safely, again) to the neutral position that there may or may not be corroboration of darkness in the land during Christ’s crucifixion.

[A few points to anticipate future concerns. I understand the overall concept was “darkness� but isn’t the over concept of Judas, his death? So no nitpicking. Also, I deliberately used a thrice-recorded incident of brevity to demonstrate corroboration. So no nitpicking.]

Now, you may state, “boy, you are REALLY stretching to show discrepancies here,� but is not the same stretch being made to make harmonizations elsewhere?

BGic, I see this “neutral� position as being inherently dangerous to both inerrancy and inspiration. You can’t have it both ways, in that we apply neutrality to errors, but not apply neutrality to non-errors. Must cut both ways. And do you really want to reduce the Word of God to, “There may or may not be contradictions, and there may or may not be corroboration, all we know is that which is verbatim repeated?� In other words, all statements are either unconnected, OR may or may not be contradictions OR may or may not be corroboration.

I would particularly note that Esther, which makes no active reference to God, removes corroboration for God, applying this neutrality argument to the entire cannon! Does the Bible possibly or possibly not corroborate God?

As an aside, I find it odd that we would apply this LESSER standard of “may or may not� to a Perfect Entity’s Word, than we would in every day life to any textbook, article, paper, thesis, etc.

Finally (you say) point three. Reiteration of Clutch and Vorkosigan. Only because I was having the exact same thoughts as I reviewed this thread.


By even attempting to harmonize, you demonstrate the acknowledgment of a need for harmonization. This demonstrates your acknowledgment (in practice, if not in principle) that such a need is necessary to maintain inerrancy.

Again, let me go back to the darkness at the crucifixion. If I stated this was a demonstration of “error� you would laugh at me. (politely, in your sleeve, but still a laugh.) You understand it has been triple-attested, and the facts of the hours, location, etc. are SO in line that any claim of discrepancy is really stretching. I have never seen an argument attempting to “harmonize� these three claims. (At least not internally. I understand the problem of citations outside the Bible, but let’s keep this one to internal inerrancy.)

This demonstrates two points:

One – Those who hold for errors do not use this portion, as there appears to be no errors.
Two – Those who hold for non-errors do not refer to this portion, as it is recognized there is no need.

So those who hold for errors are NOT claiming that internally, every single sentence contradicts every other sentence. Simply that there are a NUMBER of specific, apparent contradictions that must be addressed.

Your car begins to leak oil. You take it to the mechanic. You ask them to repair said oil leak. You do NOT ask them, “verify the steering works. Verify the radio works. Demonstrate the brakes are in good order.� And so on. No—you have a specific problem, and you address that specific problem without attempting to prove the viability of the other components.

Oh, and do you go the mechanic and say: “There is oil dripping below my car. In order to maintain my neutrality, I must state this means there may or may not be something mechanically incorrect. If you can demonstrate even a possible reason for oil dripping from my car (such as an overflow when you poured oil in) then I will be taking my car out of here, as I now know there is only something that may or may not be mechanically incorrect.� ?

Why did I re-join this foray?