Cross Examiner

Fair enough.
So, you argue here that because some work is the product of men we can expect it to be errant and because we expect errancy, the default position with regards to any human work (e.g. the Bible) is errancy? Is this your argument? Please correct/modify as needed.

Regards,
BGic

blt to go

BGic, sorry about that. I will back off and take a chill pill, as my daughter would say.

In response to your post, yes, if one person is "neutral" and another is "negative" this will default into a "negative" position.

While many use the phrase "burden of proof" herein, few use "standard of proof." It would appear to me that the "standard" is perponderance of the evidence, i.e. "more likely than not." Or, using percentages, that evidence that is 51% or greater to be asserted as true. Or, using scales, the side that "tips" the balance.

So, using my (weak) car analogy, if one person says, "may or may not be moving" this does not tip the scale at all. It does not further the percentage, it does not make it more likely than not. If person two says, "the car was moving" my scale now tips in the balance of a moving car. If our proofs end there, there is NO CHOICE but to say that the car is moving. i.e. 100% proof.

Using your example, if person three says, "no, the car was NOT moving" our scale moves back to a perfectly balanced position. 50% say moving. 50% say not. (The statement as to argument by numbers or majority is incorrect. Regardless of the numbers on the scale, in my little example you would have to take into account the person's ability to see, bias, position, etc., a whole number of factors I won't go into.)

But in this third scenario, the person who says it "may or may not" becomes irrelevant!! Why? because it is no more helpful to the situation than a person who states they never saw the accident at all. Hence, a position of "may or may not," as far as I see, is unhelpful in a debate.

As to your other points, perhaps I am too much of a literalist. Vinnie recommended RobertLW use the Chicago Statement of Inerrancy. Hence I thought the "standards" were set. (A mistake of RobertLW, perhaps, IMHO.)

The Statement CLEARLY says:

The statement itself admits there are inconsitencies "where for the present no convincing solution is at hand." (Bears repeating)

If This is the standard, is not errancy the "default" position?

Cross Examiner

You are right. The Chicago Statement is the agreed-upon standard. It also admits to what can be called 'surface anomalies'. If the presence of surface anomalies (and whatever other factors are on offer) sufficiently warrants a default position of errancy then we ought to take errancy as default. So, does the presence of surface anomalies warrant a default position of errancy?

Regards,
BGic

Clutch

I apologize for my terseness and imprecision; I was referring to the post just beforehand. I think that at least some of those questions were given answers (how good I ain't saying!) in that post. But maybe in the one you just quoted from too, so maybe same diff.

Anyhow, right now I'm concentrating on your claim about Vinnie's argument allowing for no third value. This is a point about the structure of the argument, though. Maybe I'll get into the truth of the premises later, but for now the point is just this: You can allow a third, agnostic, value all day long, on Vinnie's argument as I understand it. Because his argument does not attempt to argue from "not inerrant" to "errant", the move that a third value would disallow. Rather it moves from "default errant" to "default not inerrant", and this move is valid.

In short, with a third value, p<-->~~p fails because the right-to-left direction fails. The left-to-right direction is fine.

It's a separate question, and I assure you one I'm not prejudging, whether the argument is sound. But, as I see him arguing, the availability of agnosticism is not an issue for the argument's validity. (Maybe you can make the issue pop up in questioning the truth of the premises; I haven't thought it through yet.)

But I will say -- again; hint, hint -- that I don't believe that the principle linking prima facie errancy and default conclusions is remotely controversial.

As for the principle you offer for my assessment: I would say it is an over-generalization. There are cases and there are cases, in "the works of men". But roughly and readily I'd say that human error is often disappointing but never entirely surprising. We know enough of the capacity of humans to err that the standard of evidence to the effect that an error has been made is never terribly high.

Sven

Sorry, this was not intentionally. If I ignored something, I apologize.

That's not the point. "Inerrant" means no errors. And I indeed would never open a book assuming that it contains no errors.
Perhaps this is a little bit different in science and history books - in the former, you anyway have to try to reconstruct the derivation of the formulas and in this way automatically find the errors. In history books, this is obviously not possible.

"Internally correct" is of course not the same as "inerrant". Do you really approach any document with the assumption that it contains no typos, no faults of grammar, no small slips of logic? That you are not surprised when you find an error is a hint that you knew in advance that it is very likely that the book contains errors - thus not inerrant.

Of course I also assume that a book if correct overall - but this is also not the same as "inerrant".

Clutch

Why do you assume this? It can't be a general principle -- at most it applies to books like introductory texts independently known to have been written by experts and to have passed peer/pedagogical review. For virtually any other kind of book, it seems more reasonable just to be prepared to consider and weigh whatever claims it makes. I've certainly read enough books that are overall incorrect.

In any case, shouldn't we be talking about the responses appropriate to the discover of prima facie errors, rather than the appropriate attitudes before opening the book?

Vinnie

Clutch, thanks for continuing the debate here. You are right in that there is NOTHING controversial or extraordinary about my arguments. My silence of late here stems from this:

"Really, it's not a novel or surprising argument; I'm sure Vinnie is always surprised to have to argue for such a point!"

My argument was not novel. It is little more than common sense and I am surprised to see dissenters still writing responses.

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.

I used this argument and one more that are kind of two sides of the same coin:

First we can raise Mark's poor greek, grammatical errors (and some others) and all the prima facie surface anomalies. These leave us in the category of human authorship as they look like other books written by error-prone humans. It lands us in the default position of errancy until good grounds are presented to not hold this position.

My argument was reinforced by a second prong. Put 50 authors from diverse walks of life, with different education, different exegetical skill, with possibly evovling worldviews, and have them write a set of books that touch upon hundreds and hundreds of controversial issues like those now canonized in the Bible and in no feasible way will their writings come up to be inerrant and in perfect agreement on all details. Unless it can be shown God inspired them.

So many diverse authors from so long on so many controversial religious issues CANNOT write inerrantly without divine aid. THis is exactly what Mcdowell argued. 1) The Bible has no errors and given then nature of the work it must have been inspired by God because otherwise its impossible. Of course Mcdowell just assumed inerrancy.

I also even showed a quote from reknown scholar E.P. Sanders which suggest ancient writers have a common practice of incorporating their sources whole and even contradict themselves.

One example stemming from Matthean redaction may be where he apologized
for the baptism: John speaks of a stronger one to come who he prepeares the way for and when Jesus comes to baptize "John tried to deter him, saying, "I need to be baptized by you, and do you come to me?" (Mt 3:14)

Later on, John is in prison asking if Jesus is the Christ. What we may have here is two separate pieces of tradition. The evolution and apologetics of the baptismal narrative create a narrative incongruity with John's later question from jail.

Of course the apologist writes that "John wasn't sure, he had doubts, Jesus wasn't like he expected." But the rest of us know Jesus was initially a follower of John and John baptized him and from that context the question makes more sense. Reinforcing the incongruity is John's attitude in the Gospel of John that is ssomewhat simialar in attitude to where Matthew takes Mark. John pronounces Jesus as the lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world.

Vinnie

worldling

I'd just like to say that I thought the Bible = baby food analogy was very apt.

Vinnie

The Bible as a mall of independent stores was better

Vinnie

blt to go

Sven - I think we are on the same page (pun intended), but perhaps take two different routes to reach the same conclusion.

No, I am not surprised if I find an error in a book. To some extent, I would state that the more length, and the more complex a subject, the much more likley probability there will be an error.

I would have to say yes. Why WOULDN'T it?