jbernier

Agreed.

For me, the question about inerrancy keeps coming back to Jerry Maguire: "Show me the money!" The real test is whether or not inerrancy stands up when tested against the Biblical text itself. The question, for me, is this: If you were handed the Biblical text and told to read it cover to cover would you come to the conclusion that it is free from factual inaccuracies, internal contradictions, etc.? I very much doubt it. And if one would be unlikely to arrive at that conclusion with only the text to go on it makes me wonder if this conclusion is something derived from the text or foisted upon it. One can argue presuppositions to the proverbial cows come home and maybe even a bit after that but at the end of the day does the real world reflect the claims that you make about it?

Basically, if I say "The Bible has property X" (as inerrancy does) then I had better be able to see "X" in the Biblical texts. If not then all the sophistry in the world amounts to a hill of beans.

Cross Examiner

As I mentioned earlier here (cf. point 14), there are many approaches a defender of Biblical inerrancy can take. One of these is presuppositionalism. I believe this the best approach for the inerrantist when there is little to no shared epistemological ground between himself and other participants -- as in this instance. TAG, for example, obviates what amounts to no more than so much opinion-trading.

Regards,
BGic

jbernier

And as I mentioned earlier all must be tested against the real world data: The Biblical texts themselves. If there is any evidence that texts are not inerrant than one must recognize that these approaches make incorrect statements about that real world data. That is the make or break point: Presuppositionalism, etc., is really nothing more than fancy ways to make predictions (i.e. hypotheses) about the nature of the text; at the end of the day one still needs to test one's predictions.

Cross Examiner

1. Incorrect. You do not know that you actually see a tree. You presuppose that you actually see a tree. You presuppose that your sense experience provides you real knowledge of reality. You presuppose that your senses (and reasoning thereof) lead you to the truth about the world and so you effectively advocate naive empiricism which, like logical positivism, is quite easily deconstructed and reduced to absurdity. But before I proceed on that point, you don't really want to hunker down on that stationary target, do you? You do remember that naturalistic epistemology is self-refuting, among other problems, don't you?
2. From within the world, you can never know whether your experience of the world leads you to justified true belief or not. As the Matrix movies popularly illustrate, you need outside corroboration (e.g. God, Morpheus etc.) in order to validate or invalidate your inside experience lest you never achieve knowledge, only various types of conjecture. All that 'comes from' your sense experience of what you think is a tree is just light interpreted by your mind and assigned meaning by your mind. You may, for all you really know, be misled or mistaken. Indeed, if, as maintained by the Word of God, the world is overthrown and man is fallen then the last place you want to place your trust for determining what is true and good is your eyes and the world upon which they look. In your heart, you must reject the Word of God a priori in order to conclude that you will be your own guide and the world your reference point.
3. Without a Ground for the uniformity of nature (and the physical laws derived thereof), you can never truly know if what was observed is what will be observed (cf. Hume's problem of induction), thereby destabilizing any 'knowledge' of the natural world. If you simply presuppose that nature is inexplicably uniform then you do so arbitrarily. Groundlessness, arbitrariness, subjectivity, conjecture, 'here I stand' etc. -- all of it quite dismissible as so much opinion. No, knowledge is not possible without He who grounds knowing. I ask you, jbernier, what, according to your presumably naturalistic-materialistic worldview, accounts for the absolute, immaterial and authoritative laws of logic?
4. Not quite. God is the only possible absolute, immaterial, authoritative precondition for the existence of absolute, immaterial, authoritative knowledge like '2 + 2 = 4' and 'genocide is evil'.
5. No, we do not have knowledge of God apart from knowledge. What a bizarre question! Similarly, we do not have knowledge of swimming apart from knowledge and we do not have knowledge ___ apart from knowledge. All these questions are tautological. I am surprised you think this the magic bullet for defeating TAG.
6. I see. So, is the 'knowledge' of God just the product of our own minds or is the knowledge of God grounded in the actual entity 'God', you ask? Simple. If it were the former then this 'knowledge' of God would not be knowledge at all (i.e. it would be wish-fulfillment, for example, but certainly not knowledge) and so if one of these two options is true then it is the latter, necessarily.

If in criticizing our position you say that you are not expressing mere opinion but the truth itself, and if your own worldview either denies the existence of truth or affirms it as existent yet ungrounded (as you seem to opt for) then you borrow capital from our worldview (i.e. orthodox Christianity) in order to make your criticism. Beautiful. Apart from the Ground of knowledge we could know nothing. All propositions would reduce to subjectivity. But all propositions are not subjective opinion. Some are objectively true (e.g. 2 + 2 = 4). Ergo, there is a Ground of knowledge that imputes all the qualities of truthfulness to certain propositions (e.g. objectivity, immateriality, authority etc.). Epistemological autonomy from God ultimately reduces to epistemological incompetence. Since you still seem to misunderstand the presuppositionalist position I recommend you read this for starters.

Regards,
BGic

blt to go

Hey, BGic - thanks for the link.

I was disappointed that Jones did not deal with Parsons statement about "knowledge" not eliminating any other gods. In fact Jones states (in response to Martin, actually) That's it. (To be fair, Jones acknolwedges the Judean god is close, but no cigar.)

This is exactly my problem stated earlier.

Cross Examiner

Let me see if I understand you. You agree that knowledge exists and must be grounded but do not agree that only the God of the Bible could possibly ground knowledge, correct?

Regards,
BGic

jbernier

Exactly! Now if this critique of my observations about seeing a tree hold then you must take the question "How can you know whether or not God exists outside of our thinking about God?" seriously as it is predicated upon the exact same argument.

You presume too much; my worldview is hardly naturalistic or materialist.

But it is what your knowledge demands - that we can know that God is the source for knowledge requires that we can think of God apart from knowledge. Yes, it is a bizarre question, but only because it is a query about a bizarre argument.

Uhmmm...this is a somewhat strange statement. I have no problem borrowing "capital" from orthodox Christianity as I am a (neo-)orthodox Christian. My argument is that Biblical inerrancy is neither a necessary aspect of orthodox Christian thought and that it is, in fact, a form of heterodox idolatry which replaces Christ with the scripture as the centre of Christian devotion and faith. Note that I have argued against your conception of Christian belief; that is not at all the same as arguing against Christian belief (unless you want to assume that you are the definitive word on Christian belief).

jbernier

What I think is that this puts the cart before the horse. The real question is not "Must the Bible be inerrant on philosophical grounds?" but "Does the Bible have a quality that one could describe as inerrant?" Any argument about the nature of the text must begin with the text (wow, what a crazy idea). The more I think about it I think that all these discussions about presuppositions, etc., are just red herrings and smokescreens to avoid dealing with the Biblical text itself. And why not? Why not deal with whether or not the text substantiates the claims you make about it? I keep saying that this is crucial and you keep returning to presuppositions, etc. Between the two of us it seems that I am much more ready to root my argument in what the Biblical text actually is; that makes me wonder whether or not your dogma of inerrancy really has any room for the Biblical text at all.

RobertLW

I have noticed that you will not address my arguments directly, but rather prefer to attack the periphery. This is not what I am here for. You have asked me questions and I have been trying to answer your questions directly and honestly, and I do believe I have done that. However, the questions that I have posed to you go unanswered and your replies to my posts are non responsive. You have called yourself a theist; yet have not divulged your true beliefs in this thread. You only seem to want to attack Christian thought and belief without exposing yourself to the same type of critique. I am looking for honest discussion and exchange of thoughts and ideas.

Now I am simply confused. In the peanut gallery thread you said:





But above you stated you are an atheist to the Christian God. Are you operating under the same arbitrary definition of “Christian� as jbernier? This would make sense, it would allow you to be fluid and vague with your “belief� and keep your own “belief� sheltered from the very critique you heap on Christianity. Or was your claim of Christianity simply baiting? In either case, I will be predisposed to disbelieve ANY of your claims pertaining to what you do or do not believe.

Please allow me to answer your two questions this way; tell me what god you “believe� in, and I will tell you why he/she is false and does not justify true knowledge.

Robert

RobertLW

As far as I can tell, someone was telling me that they were personally insulted and I was personally apologizing for insulting them. I do not see where a critique of my apology is either warranted or appropriate. I am however, willing to take it like a man. So, to answer your critique; I will not abandon the truth, as I understand it, for political correctness. I am here to have an open and honest discussion and I apologized for any offense. One should recognize that I have been open to critique and willing to discuss my views and beliefs on a personal level. If you wish to view my critiquing a particular worldview as “judging millions�, so be it. It should be made clear, however, that it is certainly not my intent to “judge millions� but attack a worldview. If attacking a worldview is indeed "judging millions" then of course you are guilty of the same by attacking mine. During my evaluation I will express my findings, I do believe that is what this forum is for, and if people are offended by my findings all I can do is apologize for the offense. I will not apologize for the honesty in my evaluation or offering of my findings of that worldview; I can only explain the reason for my directness. Again, I do believe that is what this forum is for. I fully expect a certain tension and this type of discussion between two diametrically opposing positions is bound to have a certain degree of hostility. One cannot reasonably enter this kind of discussion expecting otherwise. If certain people are not willing to open their beliefs to critique, maybe they should remove themselves from this type of arena altogether. If your desire is for me abandon total honesty so that I can water down my opinion in favor of political correctness, please let me know.





jbernier, I have a copy and paste function and I am not afraid to use it. Earlier you said (I will paraphrase, I don’t feel like looking for it but I will if I have to) “Ultimate authorities are only circular if one wants to prove it.� Even if I granted that I am making an assertion, it is an assertion you explicitly agreed to. However, you go on to say (paraphrasing again) “an unproven ultimate authority is arbitrary�. As you have already admitted to being arbitrary, I can see why you would agree but remain unconvinced. I did say that I changed my statement, in light of your argument, to “all valid/justified worldviews are circular�. Here is where I see we agree, let me know if I got it wrong.

1. All justified worldviews are circular
2. All unjustified worldviews are circular and arbitrary





I am not comparing the types of ultimate authorities; I am comparing the ultimate authorities that are used. You may not want to make this distinction at this point, but it is an important one nonetheless. This was what I was saying earlier, how can a dataset authenticate itself? The important point is, only a being capable of existing within it’s own self is capable of self-authenticating.





Refer to above. I deny self-authentication to that which does not have the ability to self-authenticate.





False. I cannot self-authenticate by saying “I AM� just as no other human being can. We cannot say, “I AM� because we are always changing. We are never constant; we are always changing and we do not have the power of being in and of ourselves. We cannot be considered as constant, never changing beings or omni-anything. Again, I am not stacking the deck by pointing out that a methodology cannot self-authenticate. Since scientific methodology, reason, empirical data (etc) cannot self-authenticate, they are unjustified if used as an ultimate authority. My point is that people do claim to use them as ultimate authorities. I am simply pointing out that if used as ultimate authorities, they are reduced to absurdity. You may call this stacking the deck; I call it stating the obvious.





My point in quoting both of those passages is to show God as self-authenticating. He swore by Himself, there was nothing higher or greater for Him to have appealed to in support of His claims. He alone can swear by Himself. It is because He has the power of “being� in and of Himself (“I AM�) and is self-authenticating, knowledge is possible. We (LFP Christians) have firm ground to stand on when we (LFP Christians) use reason and induction and logic because God created this world in such a fashion that we can know that universals are in fact universal and we can trust them. An atheist on the other hand (which you are not but you still stand on the same shaky ground) cannot ground his belief in those universals and so must say “here I stand�. Once again, if you have no justification for your knowledge you cannot be said to actually possess knowledge. You might believe something, it might actually be true, but like the man who looked at his broken watch at precisely 3:30 and it happened to say 3:30 (being stuck there) you have no justification for your knowledge. You admittedly have no such basis to stand on so you use logic only to suit your whims (you are self admittedly arbitrary). That’s how those verses speak to epistemology.





They speak to God’s nature. God is eternal. God does not create knowledge, it is a part of his eternal nature therefore His knowledge is itself eternal. God created man in his image and by doing so He gave man reason. What this means to us is that we all have the ability to obtain true knowledge, but it cannot be said that we have true knowledge if our reason does not lead us to a knowledge that is reflective of God’s. His Word is the only way to true knowledge. Meaning, if one denies the text, one denies true knowledge. You can know how to read and reason and it can be said you have knowledge but if your reason leads you to deny God’s word it cannot be said that you have true knowledge.





This is something that we agree on and we have both argued, that it is no ultimate authority. How does my argument fall apart?





The blindness is because you trust in an epistemological basis that you are unsure of and have stated is arbitrary. You cannot explain it so you say “here I stand�. Now I am fully aware that you still have not stated what your epistemological basis is. Even though I have asked, you have skirted around the question by speaking generally about ultimate authority and offered nothing of what you believe your epistemological basis for knowledge to be. Because one recognizes the limits of his/her epistemological basis does not mean that their trust is blind. It is because he/she recognizes the limits and yet still believes that basis is what makes it blind. If you tell me your epistemological basis is reason and then use reason to say “here I stand� you have just attempted to use reason to justify/explain/rationalize reason. Whether you like it or not is irrelevant. Whether or not you attempt to explain it away using your reason is irrelevant. Whether or not you recognize it’s circularity and then try to back peddle away from it is irrelevant. The mere fact you use reason to explain reason, regardless of the reason you provide, makes it circular and the more you argue with me using reason the more you prove my point for me. When you reach the ultimate level, everything is circular.





Matt 12:30. If you want, we can have a discussion on the uselessness of neutrality.





I agree. You have admitted that you are uncertain about your first principle; I have admitted I am not. Whenever you become fully clear, let me know.





Me too, I just hate those brain busters.





If I may, you are uncertain because you are admittedly arbitrary. Sure you can say "This is what seems most likely or most reasonable from where I stand." but I will point out that you are uncertain about where exactly it is you stand, by your own admission. It is arbitrary (the very definition of the word is random) precisely because you cannot justify your inductive reasoning.





Then let us be clear, it is a reformed Christian vs. non-reformed Christian and atheist sort of “thingee�. What conclusions have you come to concerning your non-reformed Christian epistemology? As an answer to that question all I have seen from you are vague non descript arguments/statements you admit are arbitrary. You seem to want me to accept your arguments as truth after you admitted they are arbitrary. You seem unwilling to discuss your epistemology directly or with any degree of detail. The only way you can prove my argument unsound is to offer an alternative by which we can compare, which you seem to be unwilling to do. You cannot simply say my argument is wrong, while you are admittedly arbitrary, and expect me to accept your argument as either justified or authoritative. It would be absurd for me to accept your arbitrary opinion as either justified or authoritative and I will not do so.





This is exactly why I wished to distance myself from your arbitrary form of Christianity. So then we can refer to me as LFP or reformed Christian. I don’t care which.





What are the “right� questions?





Non-sense. We both know we are discussing texts and if you wish to distinguish between a canonized Bible and the existence of the texts as if the texts did not exist until canonization go right ahead. We both know the texts of the Bible existed when they were written. We both know the claims of the authors existed when they were made. It only makes sense to identify what claims were made within the texts, which texts are consistent with each other, which texts carry the proper authority and then put them all together as a standardized set of texts. It is only reasonable to do so to prevent arbitrary additions and deletions from the Word of God. It only makes sense to want to preserve the Word of God. I am not going to divorce a canonized Bible from the individual texts. Because you simply deny the canon (rules) as they can be found within scripture does not mean that all Christians (esp. reformed Christians (LFP)) should disregard scripture in favor of caprice.





Which is the point I made. It is not an open question for me, I accept the canonization of the reformed faith and the churches of the reformed faith all agree. It is only an open question for those not in the reformed faith.





If I did “just assert it� you explicitly agreed with that assertion. I would prefer if you would not say “there we stand�, only you would say that.





“here I stand�, “it’s just that way�, what is the real difference?





The honest truth is I do know my epistemology is justified. You can say what you want to say for yourself.





Well, you snipped the important point out of my quote so I will restate it, one can only recognize that their ultimate authority is either self-authenticating or is not self-authenticating. I suppose at this point my beef would be that you are editing my arguments so you can answer them.





This line is not “fuzzy� for me. I will argue that the line is fuzzy for you because you will not bother to justify your ultimate authority and it is too easy for you to be arbitrary and consider yourself to be the ultimate authority so that you can pick and choose what you will and will not accept. Do you see what I am saying? I do not pick and choose which texts to include in the canon, as a reformed Christian (LFP) I must follow God’s word in determining what God’s word is. I cannot deny God’s word and consider myself more authoritative than God so that I can pick and choose what I will or will not follow. I am sure about what constitutes the canon, therefore do not infer a “we� that would include me.





You seem to be confused (to borrow from bgic). The English protestants took the apocrypha out of the BOOK, not the canonized BIBLE. The apocrypha was known to not be canonical in the first century. They however have always been seen as “good writings� and were finally taken out of the BOOK to make that clear. They had their own special place (as an addendum) in between the testaments out of the logical order because of that fact.





Missing your point.





Oh, I see. It must have been a vast right wing conspiracy. This is a totally misleading statement. The Jews uniformly denied canonical status to the Apocryphal books and as such were not found in the Hebrew Bible. The manuscripts of the LXX (Septuagint) included them as an addendum to the canonical OT. The Protestant Church did not REMOVE the Apocrypha from the canon, it was never included within the canon and was never considered canonical. The Catholic Church did not include the Apocrypha until 1548 (council of Trent) and they only included the Apocrypha of the OT. The reformers repudiated the Apocrypha as unworthy and contradictory to the doctrines of the uncontroverted canon even if Luther did admit that they were "profitable and good to read." The Apocrypha was set apart from the canonical books of the OT in the Coverdale and Geneva Bibles and in 1827 the British and Foreign Bible Society decided to exclude the Apocrypha from its Bibles. The American branch concurred soon afterwards. Would you care to discuss the actual reasons the Protestant Church does not include them in their Bibles (as a set apart set of texts from the canonical books) or do you prefer to stick to vague and ambiguous conspiracy theories?

Robert