sotto voce

No. But it has to be, if the point following is to be anything other than a banal technicality.

There is of course apparent contradiction in respect of Judas' demise, but it is dealt with in standard commentaries, if not by common sense— along with all the other chestnuts of this sort.

PhilosopherJay

Hi ShockOfAtheism,

The definition of contradiction in your debate contains a logical problem:
One has to ask if ordinary propositions can be logically incompatible. Take these two propositions.

Prop 1. The number 2 comes before the number 3.
Prop 2. The number 3 comes before the number 2.

If I am counting up from 1 to 10 the first proposition is true. If I am counting down from 10 to 1, the second proposition is true. The two propositions are certainly not incompatible. I may first count up and then count down, so both propositions may be true.

Let us take these two seemingly contradictory ordinary propositions:

Prop 1. It is Friday.
Prop 2. It is not Friday.

If I wrote the first proposition on Friday, then it is true.
If I wrote the second proposition on Saturday, then it is true.

These two statements are contradictions, but not logical contradictions.

We may go back to Aristotle's "principle of Non-contradiction" to see a rule that does apply to logical statements. Here are two versions of the rule:

The first suggests non-contradiction is a property of things. My magic wand cannot be entirely made out of wood and entirely made out of of bronze at the same time. The second suggests it is a psychological property. I cannot believe Voltaire is presently dead and presently alive.

In any case to show a logical contradiction, we must be dealing with a singular contradictory property at a singular moment.

In ordinary language, and the Bible is written in quite ordinary language, logical contradictions rarely appears. For example the statement "All bird feathers are heavy would logically contradict the statement all bird feathers are light. However, the statement "I saw a bird with heavy feathers" would not logically contradict the phrase "I saw a bird with light feathers." One could very well happen in the morning and the other in the evening.

We can say that because the bible is not a logical book with logical propositions it does not contain logical contradictions.

However logical propositions are only a very small subset of contradictions.

I tell my wife, Tuesday Weld, I was at the movies alone from 9 to 11 PM on Friday Night. Later, my wife's best friend, Dona Drake, tells her that she saw me in a bar with Carolyn Jones from 9 to 11 PM. These are contradictory propositions, but they are not logically contradictory. I can resolve them by saying that the movie was shown in a bar and Carolyn Jones was sitting next to me, but I hardly noticed her presence and felt alone the whole time. Despite no logical contradictions being found, I would still expect my wife to slap me for lying and misleading her.

While the Bible does not contain any or contains very few logical contradictions because it is a story book and not a book on logic (or a logical book for that matter), as a book of stories there are numerous, probably thousands, of clear ordinary language contradictions.

Sincerely,

Jay Raskin

sotto voce

Why is the Bible not a logical book?

Diogenes the Cynic

Do you want to know what the logical problems are or why they are there.

mountainman

The Bible appeals not to the audience's sense of logic or ethics, but appeals to the audience's sense of emotions for Christ's sake. It is a pathetic book; not a logical or ethical book.

Aristotle's Three Modes of Persuasion in Rhetoric


Ethos - Appeal to the audience's sense of honesty and/or authority

Pathos - Appeal to the audience's sense of emotions

Logos - Appeal to the audience's sense of logic

Eusebius's "The Martyrs of Palestine" is another example of a truly pathetic story.



DEAN of THEOLOGY Colledge to NEW STUDENT: Student, sit in the library and read about "Our Martyrs"

NEW THEOLOGY STUDENT to self: reading in library: OMG! OMG! OMG! OMG! OMG! OMG!


Its pathetic.

sotto voce

If it's pathetic, in the pejorative sense, why is there a sub-forum devoted to it in Freethought and Rationalism Discussion Board? This is the problem: the discussion of the like of a past-time Barbara Taylor Bradford novel (with every respect to the lady) in a forum that devotes itself to matters of a very different kind.

PhilosopherJay

Hi sotto voce,

I would say a logical book follows explicit composition rules in a clear order. For example, most text books are written logically. They begin by discussing the author(s)'s credentials and how the author(s) came to write the book, then the order of the subject matter in the book. Usually the first chapter gives a general overview of the subject showing different approaches and explaining which approach will be followed and why. You will then get a division of the subject matter and the reason for it. Each chapter will then be devoted to a division of the subject matter. It will give rules and supporting examples or models to explain or show how each division/part of the subject matter works.

The Bible (whether Jewish, Catholic, Protestant, Eastern Orthodox or other) is a conglomeration of a multitude of texts put together over one or two thousand years with very different viewpoints, styles and purposes. It contains songs, folk tales, fantasies, legends, myths, political and theological arguments, laws, opinions, advice, histories, predictions and epistles.

Rather than a logically conceived and executed text, It is a massive mess. In many ways it can be compared to the archaeological site at Oxyrynchus in Egypt, where thousands of text was haphazardly thrown together with other discarded garbage. We may find the text fascinating and incredibly valuable, but they are found in little logical order. Although, it is certain that texts thrown away later was found on top and texts thrown away earlier towards the bottom. Nobody actually arranged the text in any way to make a specific point or reveal a specific topic. However, it is an invaluable source to understanding how the people of those times lived and what they thought about and how they understood their world.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

sotto voce

Then it is surely remarkable that 'the Bible does not contain any or contains very few logical contradictions'.

PhilosopherJay

Hi sotto voce;

Actually most books and stories contain few if any really logical contradictions.

For example, "Goldilocks and the Three Bears" does not contain any logical contradictions. Only if the story narration said something along the lines of "Goldilocks ate the baby bear's porridge and Goldilocks did not eat the baby bear's porridge" would we have a logical contradiction.

While not containing any logical contradictions, much of the story contains a great deal of contradictions of what we know about bear behavior. For example, bears usually do not live in houses, sit down to dinner, make and eat porridge, or go for walks waiting for their porridge to cool. We may say that the story repeatedly presents facts that contradict the great mass of observations on animal and bear behavior and therefore is certainly not historical, but is imaginary.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

sotto voce

There's a truly excellent reason for that. Authors actually arrange the text in a way to make a specific point, or to reveal a specific topic. If they don't, publishers don't give them a second look. Indeed, even very carefully arranged books may be rejected by publishers.

But we are asked to believe that 'a conglomeration of a multitude of texts put together over one or two thousand years with very different viewpoints, styles and purposes,' texts that 'nobody actually arranged in any way to make a specific point or reveal a specific topic', contains no logical contradictions, or very few of them. That must surely be some sort of 'miracle'.

And equally remarkable that this publication of a 'conglomeration' is a perennial best-seller. And also remarkable that it is used as a source of wisdom for millions of perfectly sane people, if the only use of the book is 'understanding how the people of those times lived'.