On video: Richard Dawkins with Bill O’Reilly.
There is much that could be said about this, but I will stick with one thing, based on discussion at about the 2 minute mark:
When atheists insist that atheism does not drive behavior, and then then campaign on behalf of atheism, ridicule religion and religious believers in the name of atheism, seek to change laws in favor of their atheistic positions, recommend the extermination of religion, and practice falsehoods like Dawkins’s in support of atheism, they prove that their atheism drives their behavior and that their premise is false, disingenuous, and (as far as I can tell) useless for anything but giving atheism rhetorical cover from being implicated in atheists’ atrocities.
October 7th, 2011 | 12:35 pm | #1
The remarks of atheist philosopher Thomas Nagel are quite candid in this regard:
October 7th, 2011 | 12:48 pm | #2
I like a little honesty in an atheist.
October 7th, 2011 | 12:54 pm | #3
Yes, at least Nagel is honest in a way that Dawkins is not.
October 7th, 2011 | 5:42 pm | #4
The current “latest video” at Fox is about the Afghanistan war.
(Might want to find the permalink to whichever video was the “latest”?)
October 7th, 2011 | 8:56 pm | #5
Fixed.
October 8th, 2011 | 7:41 am | #6
Thomas Nagal is a man who deserves tremendous respect. And, not only has he candidly stated that wants atheism to be true, as Steve Drake pointed out, but the premise of THE LAST WORD, is that reason is, well, the last word. That is, any sort of intellectual (and moral as well; Nagal is a deontologist concerning morality) relativism, often in vogue among the intelligensia, is not tenable. That there is objective truth.
He deserves to be read and studied by religious people.
Richard Dawkins, on the other hand, although a highly distinguished and accomplished biologist, should, well, let’s just say that he should stick to biology.
Nagal, along with John Searle, a fellow atheist and believer in objective truth, consider themselves an extention of the Enlightenment: they reject the postmodernist nonsense that all truth is relative, and should be considered the intellectual and moral allies of thinking Christians.
October 8th, 2011 | 9:12 am | #7
Bret,
Is it Nagal or Nagel?
October 8th, 2011 | 9:37 am | #8
Hi Steve, it’s good to talk with you again. I’m glad you brought that up, I spelled his name wrong, you and tom had it right, it’s Nagel.
October 8th, 2011 | 11:02 am | #9
Hi Bret,
Good to talk to you again as well my friend. Unfortunately for both Nagel, Searle, and Dawkins, the Bible lumps them all together as ‘fools’. I thinking specifically of King David’s words in Psalm 14:1: ” The fool has said in his heart, ‘There is no God’”. The apostle Paul, picking up I’m sure on David’s words writes: “Professing to be wise, they became fools (Rom. 1:22).
If behavior is linked to morality, how one thinks about morality, and whichever moral code one wants to adopt, then the problem for atheists like Nagel, Searle, and Dawkins is that they are in moral rebellion. The missing ingredient is not evidence but obedience. The evidence for God is there; they simply refuse to accept it. Thus the Biblical proclamation of ‘fool’.
October 8th, 2011 | 6:46 pm | #10
Hi Steve, I hope you’re doing great my friend. You’re certainly right that the bible says these things concerning atheists. I must confess that I’ve always found it beyond incredible that anyone could conclude that the universe arose by itself, with no intelligent cause, or that it always existed. I know that we disagree regarding evolution, and I respect your view on it, but I consider the notion that evolution arose by itself, to be absurd. I think that God caused the evolutionary process.
Many have pointed out, and I find myself in agreement, that one needs more faith to be an atheist, than to be a religious believer!
So, it does make sense to see atheism as “foolish”, because it gives too much leeway to faith, and not enough to reason. Balance is the key. (one excellent little book, called WHAT IS FAITH? by Anthony Kenny, a professor of philosophy, and former Catholic priest, and currently an agnostic, is one of the best books on belief, and he provides an excellent defense for religious belief, and for what should be believed, in general).
October 9th, 2011 | 8:33 am | #11
Hi Bret,
In Biblical terminology, the contrast is between wisdom and foolishness, not faith and reason. We are either wise or fools depending on our position regarding God. Faith and reason are God-given tools to help us see the validity and truthfulness of God’s existence. All of us, including Nagel, Searle, Dawkins and A. Kenny, are held ‘without excuse’ (Rom. 1:20).
October 9th, 2011 | 8:46 pm | #12
Hi Steve, I certainly agree with you that the wise view is that God exists. And I admire your courage, in standing behind Scripture.
However, I don’t agree with you that every area of Scripture can be interpreted in a certain way. I don’t believe that everything that Paul wrote, for example, is completely correct. He was a human being, with faults, like the rest of us, and made plenty of mistakes (such as holding the coats of those who stoned Stephen!). So, I advocate a very skeptical reading of his letters. He also, for example, stated that, women should “submit” to their husbands, which I disagree with.
I don’t believe that we can, on an a priori basis, assume that all atheists are believing in “bad faith.” I am friends with some atheists who I believe are atheists because of their honest assessment of the evidence. I disagree, but I don’t doubt their honesty.
Of course, people also believe different things, not on the basis of evidence, but on the basis of comfort, and wishes, whether this is atheism, Christianity, or whatever. But only God can judge what’s in someone’s heart.
I may be wrong, but, I tend to view these scriptures more as general concepts, rather than applying to every person. That is, it’s certainly unwise or foolish, to deny God, in concept. But, we don’t know what evidence a particular person has seen, what his life experience has taught him, to “persuade” him of atheism, or theism, therefore, we cannot judge a particular person.
October 9th, 2011 | 8:52 pm | #13
Hi Steve, also, I want to say that I respect you, and I know that you’re taking the position you do, because you believe that it’s what a proper interpretation of Scripture demands. I can say that I respect you for that.
October 9th, 2011 | 9:58 pm | #14
Bret,
There are at least two different kinds of questions at play in a discussion like this. One, is it right to judge atheists? I would say no to that, for it is not our place (although God will judge them, and righteously, if they remain unrepentant). Two, is it right to judge atheism? You and I both believe that atheism is wrong. That’s a judgment. Don’t downplay it, don’t take it as less than it is. Atheism is foolishness.
I am not sure why you put “bad faith” in quotes. You were not quoting anyone here when you did that.
I consider your pick-and-choose attitude toward Scripture to be unwise as well. Paul’s pre-conversion mistakes have no bearing on his post-conversion place in God’s plan of revelation. (Your advice that “we cannot judge a particular person” is ironic considering the judgment you place upon Paul!)
Your reading of Paul’s instruction to women is unwisely and incorrectly colored by a lack of historical perspective on Christianity and women’s rights and dignity. And you have no place of sure knowledge from which to judge the Scriptures as you do.
October 9th, 2011 | 10:19 pm | #15
Bret, I want to add that there’s something confusing about statements like this one, which you made most recently toward Steve, but have also directed to me:
What this seems to indicate is that your respect for Steve is tied to his belief that he is interpreting Scripture as it demands. Why would that be a cause for respect? Seriously, now, I’m asking you. Of course I do like it if you respect me as a fellow human being. I’m sure Steve surely appreciates that as well. But if you think he’s wrong in his interpretation of Scripture, what is there in that for you to consider worthy of respect? Is it respectable to be wrong? It ought not be. If you think he’s wrong, then respect him for something else, but don’t respect that!
But then again, maybe what you’re holding in respect is Steve’s (and mine, previously) sincerity in holding to his (our) beliefs, or his (our) good intentions. Is that what you’re trying to communicate? I’m just trying to figure this out; I know I might be wrong. If that’s your intent, though, it’s also off-track. The Littleton shooters were sincere. Jim Jones was sincere. For all I know Osama bin Laden was sincere. Sincerity by itself is no virtue. Sincerity is a derivative virtue: only in the pursuit of real virtue is it a virtue. Sincerity in the pursuit of error is not—I repeat not—worthy of respect. It ought to be opposed vigorously, not reinforced.
So what are you trying to communicate? I’ll guess again, once again knowing I might be wrong. Are you trying to communicate tolerance toward opposing ideas? You should be aware that few committed evangelicals hold that attitude in high regard, for we know that where ideas oppose one another, either one or both of them must be false, and that it is better to believe what is true than what is false. I’m in favor of tolerance toward other persons, but that implies recognition that there is something between us that really calls for tolerance, i.e., genuine differences; and that where opinions differ, one or both of us is wrong. My attitude toward my own opinions in that case ought to be a certain level of humility, but not too great; for I cannot at the same time believe what I believe and also believe that opposing ideas are good and worthy of praise.
Humility of course extends to not believing that which I have no good reason to believe; but you obviously hold Steve and me to be wrong in our views of Scripture. Do you believe your own beliefs or not? If you do, then please quit respecting what you consider to be my errors. Or better yet, correct your own errors in that view; for that’s how I view your position on that point: it’s wrong and you would do well to change your position.
Finally, if I’m wrong in all my conjectures so far about what you’re intending to communicate, I might be wrong in this last one, too or I might be right this time (I might be right in one or possibly several of the above, too; I don’t know about that). It might be that you just want to avoid seeming as if you’re interested in doing battle. I for one think ideas are worth doing battle over, however. I don’t mean physical battle, of course. I mean head-to-head pitched argument: and may only the best ideas remain standing at the end, for good ideas serve us well, while bad ones produce real-life death and destruction.
Whether I got any of my conjectures right or wrong, I call on you to man up: to recognize the importance both of agreement and disagreement, to take your own ideas seriously enough to call a disagreement what it is; and ultimately to allow better wisdom (from Scriptures, not from me!) to correct your own ideas, just as I hope my own ideas are also guided and corrected by God’s revelation.
October 9th, 2011 | 10:25 pm | #16
One more thing, Bret:
If you respond to that by saying you respect me for saying it I will appreciate that for what it is. But I will also be interested to know whether you think it makes sense. If you think it does, then I will call upon you to adjust accordingly, for it would only make sense for you to do what you agree makes sense to do.
But that’s only if you agree. You might think I’m all wrong. If you disagree, then I warmly invite you, indeed I challenge you to suggest that I take a metaphorical flying leap off the nearest bridge, and not worry about whether that’s a disrespectful thing to say. If I wrote a pile of nonsense, then by all means call it a pile of nonsense.
You have said you respect me (actually this time you addressed it to Steve, but I am recalling earlier interchanges). That’s great, thank you; I respect you, too, which is why I’m putting this challenge before you. I don’t know about Steve, but I would regard it more respectful if you would let our ideas duke it out to the (metaphorical) death, with the knowledge that if one of us is right on points where we disagree, then the other one is wrong; and to be right is good and to be wrong is bad.
October 10th, 2011 | 12:30 am | #17
Tom, thank you for your comments. I think that Scripture interpretation is very difficult. I believe that Scripture is inspired, but not infallible. Therefore, I don’t believe that I can conclude that atheists are “foolish” or that they’re “without excuse.”
It’s perhaps easier to take scripture at face value, interpret it literally, and forget the nuance.
But, based on my (limited) understanding of all of the factors that go into a sophisticated Biblical exegesis, literal interpretation is not rational, nor is the related, yet distinct notion of Biblical infallibility.
The Bible is a rich compilation of history, allegory, poetry, and instruction. But, it’s not to be taken as completely flawless. It was written by men, with free will. To believe that everything in the Bible is directly from God, means that God determined that they wrote whatever is in the Bible, irespective of their free will. Needless to say, this is highly problematic.
I believe that many aspects of the Bible are good history, and therefore should be believed. But one cannot accept all of it. Of course, you and others can then argue that I have no basis for accepting some areas, and not others. (hence your claim that I “pick and choose”). Therefore, the only rational response is to either accept ALL of it, or NONE of it. But, I would submit, that neither option is correct.
Take the New Testament. I consider it good history, and on this basis, consider the belief in Christ’s resurrection to be reasonable. But I don’t think that we can view ALL of it as completely infallible. Similarly, I consider Thucydides account of the Peloponnesian war, good history. But I’m certainly not going to conclude that every aspect of what he wrote to be completely correct. If certain aspecyts of it defey what is established scientifically, or if it defies common sense, i’m not going to believe it, or at least view it sceptically.
Similarly, The New Tesament is good history, but if it, (or the Bible as a whole) makes claims that defy science, or common sense, I’m at least sceptical.
It defies common sense, in my view, to accept that ALL atheists are “without excuse” or “foolish”, especially when I personally know those who do not possess these qualities.
Those who accept every word of the Bible are in the enviable position of having complete certainty. My position is more ambiguous.
October 10th, 2011 | 12:46 am | #18
Tom, I’ll add that, I tralk about respecting others views, because to paraphrase Paul, we look through a glass darkly. If someone is well intentioned, and, to the best of his/her ability, presents a reasonable case for something (as distinct from true) I will respect it. I may disagree, and I will, on this basis, consider it my obligation to try and refute it, but I will respect it.
You mention Bin Laden and others. I don’t repect them, because they don’t have a reasonable moral case for their views. There’s no theory, intelligently based, that could argue that thousands of innocent people can be deliberately killed. So sincerity is not enough, one must also have good arguments. As long as one can present good arguments in general(or good moral arguments) I’m going to respect it.
Interestingly, what hitler, Bin laden, Jim jones, Ted Bundy, the list could go on, have done, cannot be defended on ANY reasonable grounds, moral or otherwise.
October 10th, 2011 | 12:53 am | #19
So, i don’t just respect ANY notion that’s different from mine. It must pass certain intellectual and, especially, moral criteria, to be respected. Those who accept the Bible as infallible, for example, can point to good reasons, both logical and moral, for their views.
Those who believe in killing three thousand innocents, or a serial killer, such as Bundy, or Hitler, cannot defend their evil deeds on any reasonable moral basis. Therefore, these evil men deserve our complete contempt.
October 10th, 2011 | 1:57 am | #20
I used the phrase “bad faith”, in the following sense. If atheists are without excuse, and therefore must really know that God exists, then they’re acting in “bad faith”, or intentionally being dishonest. I know that no one on this blog used the phrase “bad faith”. I used it merely to indicate that atheists must be being intentionally dishonest, if one is to conclude that they are “without excuse”.
October 10th, 2011 | 8:59 am | #21
Hi Bret,
Can one be self-deluded and not intentionally dishonest? Or, can one be intellectually honest and self-delusional at the same time? No where does Scripture claim that one is being intentionally dishonest for not concluding that God exists, but I think there is inference for being self-delusional, for suppression of the truth in unrighteousness from a psychological standpoint. From within man’s own constitution the existence of God is clearly seen (Rom. 1:19-20), and from what is ‘out there’, outside of man’s mind, and from this God holds him ‘without excuse’. But you have clearly stated you don’t hold the apostle Paul in high regard, so I’m not sure what my quoting of Paul will have any sway with you. I quoted David (Ps. 14:1). Does David have any powers of persuasion with you? As a follow on with this line of thinking, ‘what Biblical authors do actually have sway with you, and why’?
October 10th, 2011 | 12:54 pm | #22
Bret,
Just to add to what Tom has already (most ably) said, Chesterton had a lot to say about rationality and self confidence. Might I recommend that you take a look at his extraordinarily pellucid argument in the second chapter (entitled “The Maniac”) of Orthodoxy. One can find it free online in various forms at Project Guttenburg (www.guttenburg.org). Here’s a little bit of it to whet the appetite:
“Thoroughly worldly people never understand even the world; they rely altogether on a few cynical maxims which are not true. Once I remember walking with a prosperous publisher, who made a remark which I had often heard before; it is, indeed, almost a motto of the modern world. Yet I had heard it once too often, and I saw suddenly that there was nothing in it. The publisher said of somebody, “That man will get on; he believes in himself.” And I remember that as I lifted my head to listen, my eye caught an omnibus on which was written “Hanwell.” [Hanwell was a famous (infamous) 'madhouse' in London] I said to him, “Shall I tell you where the men are who believe most in themselves? For I can tell you. I know of men who believe in themselves more colossally than Napoleon or Caesar. I know where flames the fixed star of certainty and success. I can guide you to the thrones of the Super-men. The men who really believe in themselves are all in lunatic asylums.”
The entire chapter (indeed the whole of Orthodoxy) is well worth the read.
Good to hear from you again Bret.
October 10th, 2011 | 10:44 pm | #23
Hi Steve, thanks for your comments. As I’ve mentioned, I find it very hard to believe that the universe “caused itself”. I have always considered the inference that God exists to be the best inference that one can derive from the evidence. It’s indeed ironic that some nonreligious people consider belief in God to be “irrational”. The belief in an all knowing, all powerful creator, makes the most sense of the existence, and the order of our universe. The postulation of “multiple universes”, that some nontheistic and atheistic thinkers have brought forth, are laughably ad hoc.
But, I do know very intelligent, moral people who I consider friends, seem honest (of course we cannot see into anyone’s heart). I have no reason to believe that they’re not honestly assessing the evidence. I believe that they’re wrong on God’s existence, but I don’t, obviously, have access to their minds, and it makes sense that they’re honestly coming to the conclusion that they do, based on their honest assessment of the evidence, unless I detect credible evidence that they’re not being honest (which I frankly don’t expect to happen, but it’s possible).
I do consider Paul to be a great man. But just that, a man: with all of the faults that any other human could have. I simply cannot conclude that everything that he wrote, in his letters, is absolutely true. Only God’s pronouncements can be absolutely true. I believe that Paul was inspired, but god did not take away his free will, and cause him to write absolute infallible truths. so, while we can learn from his insights, in mu opinion, we should have a healthy scepticism, concerning what he said. He’s a great leader, but I would consider him the spiritual equivalent of say, Billy Graham, another great man, or Johnathon Edwards, who are inspired, but not infallible.
I’m afraid that I cannot accept David’s pronouncements either. I think that David may have been referring to those atheists that he encountered, and not ALL atheists. Many atheists, if not most, are very moral people, and have done great things for others. They’re certainly wrong, regarding God’s existence, but I just think that, based on my experience with them, and studying many of them, they’re very moral, honest people. I hope that they can be persuaded to accept God’s existence, because, like you, Steve, and everyone, they’re made in God’sd image, and of infinite worth.
October 10th, 2011 | 10:47 pm | #24
Hi david c., thanks for your excellent suggestion. I’ve always liked Chesterton, but haven’t had time to read a lot of him. I haven’t read his Orthodoxy yet, and I think I will.
It’s good to hear from you, too! Thanks!
October 11th, 2011 | 9:49 am | #25
Hi Bret,
I’m going to go out on a limb here, my friend, and per Tom’s exhortation in #15, call a spade a spade, and say that your views in #23 above fall well outside the pale of Christian orthodoxy. You are sincere, I have no doubt about that, but in my view, sincerely wrong on how the orthodox Church has viewed both the Old and New Testaments, of which David and Paul are major contributors. At this point, I’m not sure what form or variant of Christianity you believe, but it is not the historic orthodox Christianity of either the Catholic or Protestant variety.
I’m actually not sure where to go from here Bret. Should I consider you as one unsaved, and try to evangelize you? I’m not sure whether you’ve made a personal commitment to follow Christ or not, to put Him and His Word as King in your heart (your mind, intellect, emotions).
I’ll leave it to other commentators on this blog for direction.
October 11th, 2011 | 11:27 am | #26
“I’m actually not sure where to go from here Bret. Should I consider you as one unsaved, and try to evangelize you? I’m not sure whether you’ve made a personal commitment to follow Christ or not, to put Him and His Word as King in your heart (your mind, intellect, emotions).”
Disagree, as I do, with Bret’s view of scripture, nonetheless this comment here is definitely off. I don’t think I see anything about the inerrancy/infallibility of Scripture in the Nicene Creed, which is the purest statement of intent in regards to the Christian faith. But even more than that, I’m not sure trying to ostracize Bret as a heathen is the right spirit of good Christian discourse.
October 11th, 2011 | 12:54 pm | #27
I would definitely agree with you, Nikolai, if Steve had done that. What he did instead was ask a question in view of Bret’s rejection of major portions of Scripture. On the other hand…
Steve, since it seems you are looking for direction from others on this blog, I would say that it matters little how you regard Bret, whether you consider him unsaved or not. I don’t know how narrowly or broadly you construe the term “evangelize,” but I take it to mean sharing the good news in all of its richness and breadth of meaning. If we really think it’s good news, then it’s appropriate to share it with as much persuasive power as we can muster, within godly limits of love and integrity. In that sense I hope you will see fit to evangelize me.
October 11th, 2011 | 5:07 pm | #28
Hi Nikolai,
Bret and I have had an eblog relationship for well over a year now, dialoging with one another on a range of topics. I consider him my friend, even though we haven’t met. I meant no ill will towards Bret, only to point out over a long course of dialog with him that, in my opinion, his views fall well outside of Christian orthodoxy. My questions to him are sincere in that I wish for him the best, and am truly concerned for the brand of ‘Christianity’ he wants to support and defend. If my words seemed to indicate ostracization, let me assure you, that was not my intent, and I’ll let Bret reply when he gets the chance this evening if he took it that way. But again, ideas have consequences; wrong ideas about historic Christianity do nothing but harm to the faith and must be opposed vigorously, whether with friends (like Bret) or foes.
October 13th, 2011 | 3:04 am | #29
Hi Steve, Nikolai, & Tom:
Thanks for all of your comments. I consider all of you to be friends, and decent, well meaning people. I enjoy talking with you all, and have learned from each of you.
I consider the New Testament to be historically reliable. I consider the four Gospels (Mark, Luke, Mathew, and John) to give a reasonable, and historical account of Jesus. The main claim of the Gospels, that Jesus died and was resurrected, I believe. The resurrection, I have no problem with. Unless one accepts, which I don’t the great scottish philosopher David Hume’s critique of miracles, the resurrection shouldn’t be a problem.
What I consider problematic, is the belief that EVERY detail of the gospels, are completely accurate recordings of Jesus, and those who he interacted with. Historical accounts just don’t work that way, because history is written by fallible humans. Even though I believe that the authors of the Gospels, had the best of intentions, (and this goes for the New Testament as a whole), they had to rely on their memories, and the memories of others, and written accounts, whose authors had to rely on their memories. And, while human memories are reliable, in general, every detail of our memories, are fallible, especially after many years. However, something like a resurrection, is not likely to fade from anyone’s memory, who observes it.
Also, and this is a big one, if the writers of the New Testament, are infallible, then that must mean that God took away their free will, when they were writing their parts of the New Testament, which seems problematic for me.
And, in the Gospel of John, the author states something interesting, to paraphrase him, since I don’t have thwe quote in front of me, right now, that there were more things that Jesus did, that could fill all the books in the world, that were not written. which seems to imply to me, that the Gospels were written from particular witness’s perspectives. Why would God not have the writers put all of these other things down as well? Unless, he was allowing these faithful followers of Jesus, to record their own perspectives.
October 13th, 2011 | 3:10 am | #30
The paraphrasing, above, is from the following quote, from John, 21:25: “Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written.”
October 13th, 2011 | 9:06 am | #31
Hi Bret,
I don’t discount that that is the way you understand and feel about the New Testament, but my point is that this opinion has never been the understanding of orthodox Christianity upheld through the ages by the Catholic, Orthodox, or Protestant Church. They have always held Scripture to be inerrant and infallible in it’s original forms as written. Yes, God used men to write the Scriptures we have today, but the Church has held that these men were writing under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost. That makes a big difference, doesn’t it? God didn’t negate their free will in doing so, but because He chose these men to be His mouthpieces, what they wrote is considered as coming from God Himself.
Consider how the Jews hold the Torah. The Christian Church has done the same for both the Old and New Testaments. Hebrews 4:12 says that ‘the word of God is living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing as far as the division of soul and spirit, of joints and marrow, and able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart’.
The Christian Church has always placed a high and weighty emphasis on both the Old and New Testament. Notice in the verse above that the writer of Hebrews says the word of God is able to judge the thoughts and intentions of your heart. If we think about that a minute, that’s pretty powerful, isn’t it?
October 13th, 2011 | 9:10 am | #32
Hi Bret,
2 Peter 1:21:
‘For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.’
October 13th, 2011 | 10:13 am | #33
Bret,
Your trouble with the doctrine of inspiration seems to have to do with what you perceive to be a violation of the author’s free will. But why must it be understood as such? There are many things I do in my life because (motivated by love) I WANT to do them. If Paul longs with all his being to love and serve the Lord and the it is revealed to him that one of the ways he may do so is by writing letters to churches, and then out of love and under the tutelage of the Spirit he does so… where is the violation of his will?
You seem to believe that inspiration requires something like Balaam’s ass (Number’s 22:21ff) or some variant of dictation theory or automatic writing. That is not what orthodox Christians hold. We believe rather, that the original writers wrote under the inspiration of the Spirit without violating their wills or personalities….
October 13th, 2011 | 11:31 am | #34
Bret,
I want you to know I appreciate the clarity of your recent response. It’s good to know that you believe in the crucifixion and resurrection, and that you have grounds to stand on for that belief. Thank you for that.
I’m trying to wrap my mind around your argument for biblical infallibility, considering that you believe in God (your position would be much easier to understand if it were coming from an atheist, but it isn’t). You take several separate lines in your argument. The first one analyzes this way:
1. Humans don’t write infallible history.
2. The NT was written by humans.
3. Therefore the NT could not be infallible.
The argument is only valid, however, if 1 is in this form:
1b. Humans cannot write infallible history under any circumstances.
Evangelicals (and other believers in Scriptural reliability) would generally say that 1 is generally true but that 1b is not. The problem with 1b is that it forgets God, which is a very strange thing for a theist to do. What if God can superintend conditions such that humans can write true history? Surely you believe the God of truth, the author of all communication, is able to make that happen! Except that you go on to question whether he can do it without contradicting himself:
4. In order for God to ensure that there were no errors in the NT he would have had to override and control humans’ actions to the extent that they have no free will concerning what they write.
5. God would not override and control humans’ actions in that way.
6. Therefore God could not (without denying himself) ensure that there were no errors in the NT.
This conclusion 6 seems prima facie unlikely to me: it seems to place a very strange logical limit on God’s abilities. How is it that the God who created us, the one described (in his Second Person) as the Logos, the Word, could have ended up so tongue-tied? Of course if premises 4 and 5 were true, I would have to accept the conclusion 6 whether I liked it or not. But david c has given reasons to doubt that 4 is true. You might also look here and here. If nothing else, sources like these indicate that the question you raise is not a new one. It’s been around for a long time, and many, many thinkers have found satisfactory answers to it. That fact alone doesn’t get us all the way to where you surely want to be, which is at the point where you yourself consider these answers satisfactory. But before you settle into the view that there is no satisfactory answer, I encourage you to go to these pages, and also to the excellent list included at the bottom of this article.
In the meantime, I have two cautions for you. The first one is that you must realize that in this context, you hold the burden of proof for your position. You have made a definite assertion regarding what God cannot do, and you have based your conclusion on that assertion’s being true. Many, many good thinkers throughout history have taken a position contrary to yours. You are in effect saying that they could not possibly be right. The burden is on you to support that claim. At this point your position is unsupported and unargued for, so you would be unwise to put any weight upon it unless you have more support to offer.
My second caution has to do with committing yourself to a position that includes 6. It is very unlikely on the face of it that God would suffer that inability. It ought to lead you to doubt the reasoning that led up to it; and (crucially!) it might also cause you to re-consider whether you are really viewing God as God.
Finally you suggest this:
7. John admitted that there were many things Jesus did that were not written down.
8. Therefore what was written down was “written from particular witnesses’ perspectives.”
9. Therefore we conclude that God allowed the accounts to reflect different witnesses’ perspectives.
13. (Implied) Therefore the accounts cannot be taken as reliable history.
This is no argument for your position either, I’m afraid. First, if you read through the linked documents you will find a considerable amount of frank and thoughtful discussion on God’s working through and working with humans’ perspectives. Statements 8 and 9 are perfectly consistent with standard theories of inspiration.
Second, there is a considerable distance between 9 and 13 (I skipped three numbers on purpose). The conclusion in 13 is supportable just if one accepts 11 and 12 as necessarily true:
11. The fact that the accounts reflect different perspectives means necessarily that they are distorted records.
12. These distortions materially affect the reliability of the records.
But 11 and 12 also need a prior claim to support them:
10. God is unable to supervise the partial recording of history such that the message he wants communicated actually succeeds in being communicated.
And we have already seen that this is a problematic position to take.
Therefore your third argument is as problematic as the first two.
It seems to me that so far at least, you have no strong claim on your position.
October 14th, 2011 | 4:15 am | #35
Hi Steve, david c., & Tom: It’s good to talk with all of you, again. Since you all seem to be essentially addressing the same concerns, I’ll talk to you all at once. I consider all of you friends, and I’m grateful for the things you have all taught me.
With respect to authors of the New Testament, I don’t necessarily have a problem with them being “inspired”, to write what they wrote, if one means by “inspired” that God gives them some insight, or help. But I certainly don’t berlieve that God controlled every word written, to ensure that no error is commited. If Paul, for example, whose to write “x”, when God wanted him to write “Y”, I don’t believe that God caused Paul to write “Y”. To do so, would be an infringement on Paul’s free will. But, clearly, since Paul is human, he will make mistakes, and, will likely choose to write something mistaken. Which would mean that God would have to intervene, and cause Paul to write what was correct. Certainly God can do this, if he wishes, and one could claim that, under ordinary, nonscripture writing circumstances, Paul is free to do as he wishes, but God removes Paul’s free will, specifically, and only, for New Testament writing.
But one must acknowledge that the New Testament writers have had their free will taken away, during this writing process.
So, I don’t deny that God could do this, if he wanted. But we couldn’t argue that Paul has free will, all of the time, AND that the New Testament is without errors. That would involve a contradiction. That would be like God making squares, circles, and yet still squares, I agree with Aquinas, that God cannot make something illogical, logical, not because God is “restricted” in his power, but because it just makes no sense.
I simply don’t see the need to believe that the Bible is completely free of errors. I believe that the Bible is a guide, but not an infallible one. As many Catholic thinkers have asked, does the Bible say that it’s infallible?
I just thought of the following analogy: consider that life, including humans, have bodies that are the product of evolution. The evolutionary process, has made our bodies less than perfect, we have bad backs, because we walk upright, our necks have anatomical structures unprotected by bones, we’re suseptible to all sorts of diseases. Now, God made the evolutionary process. But he allowed it to go its own way, with all its flaws.
Similarly, the Bible was, what God intended for humans to know many things about what’s right, wrong, certain aspects of history, and moreover, that Christ died for us. But he allowed humans to go their own way, as it were, in writing it. This is an analogy that just emerged in my mind, while writing this, so I’m not sure if I will stand by it, after reflection, but, just as God knew the evolutionary process would create flawed bodies, but the bodies are sufficient, the Bible is able to convey the important message of Christ, without every part of it, being flawless.
October 14th, 2011 | 4:29 am | #36
Also, as we all know, there’s the essential distinction between the Bible being literally true, and flawless. I take it, based on my interpretation of what all of you have wrote, that you believe the Bible to be flawless, but not necessarily to be interpreted literally.
I simply don’t see why it’s necessary to interprete the Bible as being infallible. Why is this necessary? Is it because the Bible says so? It doesn’t, (of course, even if it did, it would be circular to argue that this is proof of the Bible’s infalliblity). Is it that, otherwise we would have no rational basis for deciding what to reject, and what to accept? I’m sympathetic to this objection, but I think that, we have to try and rationally assess each part, to attempt to decipher which is correct, and which isn’t. Otherwise we’re without a basis, other than pure faith, for deciding that it’s all true. After serious rational and empirical analysis, it’s suprising how much of the Bible is correct. But it cannot be assumed to be so, an an a priori basis.
October 14th, 2011 | 5:07 am | #37
“So, I don’t deny that God could do this, if he wanted. But we couldn’t argue that Paul has free will, all of the time, AND that the New Testament is without errors. That would involve a contradiction. That would be like God making squares, circles, and yet still squares, I agree with Aquinas, that God cannot make something illogical, logical, not because God is “restricted” in his power, but because it just makes no sense.”
These are not even remotely analogous. It could have been the case that Paul’s will and God’s will were aligned. You haven’t addressed that. This argument still isn’t responding to david c.’s point at comment number 33.
October 14th, 2011 | 5:21 am | #38
Hi Steve, david c., and Tom: Thanks for your intelligent comments. I would like to expand a little on what I just said. If we accept all of the Bible as infallible, what’s our basis for doing so? There doesn’t seem to be anything other than pure faith. How is this decision any more (or less) rationally based than the atheist who decides that all of the Bible is false?
Isn’t the only way to proceed, to attempt to decide what parts of the Bible are fallible, or infallible, on the basis of rational and empirical analysis?
To not assume that it’s either infallible or fallible, prior to seriously investigating it?
I’m certainly open to the possibility to the bible being infallible, but one cannot, I believe, assume prior to a serious study of it, accepting on pure faith that it is. Why the Bible, as opposed to any other holy book?
I may be wrong, in my interpretation here, but it seems that, at least many, who accept the Bible as infallible, do so at least in part, on the assumption that, since God wants us to know about the essentials, such as Christ’s resurrection, all that’s contained in the writings that include Christ’s resurrection must be true. But how do we know this? Would God necessarily do this? No.
How do we proceed to know that anything in the bible is true? We look at particular parts, compare them with what is established historically, and empirically, and form a judgment. But we cannot assume all of it is true, I believe, unless we, to the best of our ability, assess each part, to see whether it conforms to reasonable interpretations of history, science, and logic. We may, of course, still be wrong. But isn’t it less fallible than assuming on faith that all of it is true? After all, how are we sure that the belief that all of it is true, especially if we don’t have the history, science, or logic to support it?
I’m not saying that history, science, and logic have been irrefutably shown to “disprove scriptures complete infallibility. I’m open to the opposite. But, if one doesn’t at least have these things, or one of them,(science, logic, or history), what basis does one have to really believe in scriture being completely infallible?
I’m certainly not claiming that I have the answers here, and I could be very wrong, but unless the reasons are there, to support the Bible’s infallibility (aside from tradition supporting it) I think that we have to look at the Bible like any other historical document, and be open to its claims, to requiring good evidence to support its infallibility. Otherwise, there’s no real answer to someone of another religious tradition, who claims his holy book is infallible, and says he bases it on faith; one could merely say I base mine on faith too, and both are at an epistemological standstill. Wouldn’t a better approach be, that there’s good historical, logical and even empirical reasons, to supprot Christ’s resurrection, as represented in the New Testament?
Perhaps you all have good reasons, besides pure faith, to accept the Bible as infallible. But I have not seen any good reasons to believe this, but perhaps I just haven’t been exposed to any. I certainly admire all of the intelligence, and civility, that each of you bring to this discussion.
October 14th, 2011 | 5:30 am | #39
Hi Nikolai: It’s great to talk with you, again. Thank you for your intwelligent comments. You make a good point. Paul and God’s will could be alligned. But is this accidental? Is it because God knew beforehand that Paul would write what he wrote. But the problem, as I see it, since humans are essentially flawed, it’s hard to see how Paul could have wrote, infallibly, on his own. If not, then how do we square this with him having free will, and yet God causing him to write infallibly? If Paul could not write infallibly, due to being a “mere human” no matter how much he tried, thenGod must have taken care of this, meaning he altered Paul’s free will, to write infallibly, or God really wrote it, and just “used” Paul for this purpose?
But even if God and Paul were merely “aligned” how can a mere human, such as Paul, ever write infallibly, since humans are incapable of doing so?
October 14th, 2011 | 5:53 am | #40
upon reflecting on david c.’s comments, I think he makes a good point. He uses the example of Paul’s love for God, and the truth, making him open to God’s instruction to write his letters. So, Paul wants to write the truth, and then God causes him to do so, when Paul isn’t. Paul, through his own free will, chooses to write the truth, but cannot, all the time, due to being human, so God helps him.
October 14th, 2011 | 5:58 am | #41
david c: I paraphrased your comments, I hope they reflected accurately your point. I’m done talking for a while, I’ve taken up too much space, here, thanks for your time, everyone!
October 14th, 2011 | 10:11 am | #42
Bret,
I wonder if part of the issue here is not a misunderstanding of what is meant in a theological context by “infallible”.
You seem to take a very fact driven, scientific rationale based, somewhat wooden, view of what the term means.
When I say that I believe the Scripture is our “only infallible guide for faith and practice” I mean that the Bible is true and without error in ~what it intends to teach~.
Let me give you a couple of examples of what that means. When Jesus said “the mustard seed is the smallest of all seeds” he was not factually correct. There are orchid seeds (for example) that are much smaller. But if he had said to his hearers “the orchid seed is the smallest of all seeds” he would have lost his hearers (and the thread of his argument) completely — orchids were no part of every day experience in first century Palestine.
But I think that we can agree that scientific accuracy is not what Jesus is after in the parable of the mustard seed. He is using common imagery to promote spiritual truth/reality. So while the simile is not 100% scientifically accurate is is nevertheless 100% spiritually true.
Let me give you a modern example of something similar. I said to my wife yesterday “what a lovely sunrise”. Scientifically incorrect, of course. But does it not convey another kind of truth? Is it not my attempt to communicate, in a way that resonates with us both, the reality of a beautiful dawn? Only a cramped and narrow definition, driven by a naturalistic/materialist view of the world would call my statement false.
God condescends to communicate with us in many different ways/forms. It is the height of folly to apply a single narrow standard of “truth” to every one of those forms. The truth value of Biblical poetry, for example, has to be interpreted differently than does the truth value of Biblical history.
When the Psalmist writes (in Psalm 133):
“How good and pleasant it is
when God’s people live together in unity!
It is like precious oil poured on the head,
running down on the beard,
running down on Aaron’s beard,
down on the collar of his robe. ”
I see a beautiful, deep, and abiding truth likened to an experience that I have never had (my head being anointed with oil). Were I take this literally it seems to my mind and times rather unpleasant. Having my head doused with scented olive oil seems, well, kinda gross. But that would be a really poor (and rather ignorant) way of reading this psalm, would it not? The truth conveyed by the image is not bound by the image’s particular applicability to me, is it?
On the other hand, when Luke tells me that Quirinius was governor (in Gk “hegemon” — a somewhat broader word) of Syria at the time of the birth of Jesus, he intends to be informing his readers of an historical fact. If, in fact, Quirinius was not the hegemon of Syria at the time of Jesus’ birth we would have an error that would concern me and which would be a challenge the doctrine of infallibility…
Sorry to go on like this, but it seems to me an important point that you perhaps have not considered in understanding what “infallible” means…
October 14th, 2011 | 10:59 am | #43
Bret said:
This is really no mere academic exercise we’re engaged in here. By faith, Bret, you accept the death and resurrection of Christ as satisfaction for your sin problem. God in the flesh, come down as man, to provide reconciliation for us and to restore a right relationship with God. You have no reason to believe this to be the case apart from the Scriptures. Sure, historically you can prove that Jesus lived, died, and resurrected, but what reason do you have that there was any purpose there for you? That it solved your problem? You accept this on faith based on what you’ve read in the Scriptures or on what you trust is someone else’s testimony, right?
Do you see what I’m getting at here? You’ve used faith to believe that Christ’s death for you satisfied a problem you have, yet won’t use faith to believe that the Scriptures are God’s inerrant and infallible communication to us.
If you’ve used faith once; to believe that Christ’s death and resurrection had a specific purpose for you, and you can only believe and trust this from the accounts written in Scripture, are you not being double-minded when you won’t trust the other portions of Scripture?
October 14th, 2011 | 11:28 am | #44
(Steve Drake added his comment while I was writing mine. I strongly affirm what he wrote, and I hope you’ll pay it close attention. And now to what I was writing.)
Thanks again for your comments, Bret. David c has answered your questions concerning free will, and I think you’ve said that you have no further problem with that aspect of the question. Do I understand you correctly on that?
If so, then the next most important question is this one.
Yes, it is quite clear that the Bible takes the Bible to be infallible. I’ll come back in a moment to the circularity question, for that is not always quite what it seems to be. There are almost 500 instances where it says, “Thus says the Lord.” There are at least 250 times when it refers to “the Word of the Lord.” Psalm 119 repeatedly emphasizes the perfection of God’s word. Jesus said that not one word of the OT would pass away (Matt 5:18). Peter referred to Paul’s writings as among the Scriptures (2 Peter 3:16). 2 Timothy 3:16 says all Scripture is inspired by God. Beyond all of these definite ascriptions, there is also a pervasive sense all through Scripture that it has the authority that comes only from truth.
Jesus’ regard for the Scriptures is especially crucial. He referred often to the OT both as a guide for teaching (sometimes misunderstood, but never—and this is significant—because the source was in error but because its interpreters were). He saw his life as fulfillment of the OT. He emphasized truth throughout his ministry. He spoke of “truly, truly, I say to you” at least 25 times. He promised his followers that the Spirit of Truth would guide them into all truth (John 16:13).
Now if you accept that Jesus rose from the dead, then it follows that he has authority to speak of things whereof most of us have no knowledge. He claimed to be God, he claimed an intimate relationship with truth (John 14:6), and for that reason I take it that he spoke truth and he supported the speaking of truth. It is largely because of his own witness to the truth of Scripture that I take it actually to be truth.
Is this circular? I think not. First, we humans are required to examine truth in a closed system (per Gödel). Coherence is a strong test of truth (I do not mean to say that coherence is the definition of truth, as some coherence theorists argue). The Bible hangs together. It coheres. It agrees with itself and with what I know in general about reality (which amounts to a form of existential corroboration). Second, we have external historical corroboration for large swathes of biblical information, so it’s not just internal and existential evidence that supports the Scripture.
So it is not the case that we “assume” that it’s infallible prior to investigation. We conclude that it is infallible as a result of investigation.
I want to camp on that point for a moment. You take it that Scriptural infallibility is an assumption that we bring to the Scriptures. I want to ask you to intentionally, decisively, and finally remove that thought from your belief set. You may not agree with the outcome of our investigations, but you have no evidence to support the idea that it is an assumption, and plenty of evidence now against that belief. If you want more I could recommend web pages and entire books for you. In fact you could look at the links I gave you in my last comment. It’s not an assumption, okay? Thanks.
But I need to come back to this before I finish here:
From the standpoint of one who has concluded that the Bible is trustworthy, a better approach is to look at our interpretation of Scripture, compare our interpretations with other knowledge, and form conclusions—for although Scripture is infallible, our interpretations are not. But in the process we take the Scriptural accounts as reliable data.
Your approach is not from that position, of course (though you’re welcome to come around to it at any time!).
Now for the next couple of paragraphs I run the risk of changing the subject. I hope that doesn’t happen, though I don’t know how realistic that hope is. What I want to do here is not to re-direct this thread to a discussion of homosexuality but to show that you yourself do not follow the approach you claim that you do. You may think you do, but I want to suggest that the truth is otherwise.
Following your approach, you have decided that the Bible is wrong to condemn homosexual practice. I put it to you that you came to that conclusion through some process other than by “what is established historically, and empirically.” That “homosexual practice is just fine” is not something you can find in history. Maybe you can find it in the last ten years of public opinion, but back yourself up to about, say, 1990, and ask yourself, “Is there historical evidence in favor of homosexuality’s being morally commendable?” The answer would be no better than “Not much–and I have to look hard to find even that.” Yet there were activists then who started then to tell us it was good to have gay sex. They did not get that from history.
Is there empirical evidence in favor of homosexuality’s being good? No. I think that’s pretty plain. Not only is it impossible to derive moral oughts from empirical information, there is also a ton of evidence that homosexual practice harms people.
So if you apply your standard, “We look at particular parts, compare them with what is established historically, and empirically, and form a judgment,” to the issue of homosexuality, you have nothing there that is historically or empirically established. (I could say the same for “rational” analysis of homosexuality, but I’m really trying not to spend that much time on this illustration.)
What do I conclude from this? That your opinion on homosexuality is wrong? No, not at this time. That’s the other discussion I’m trying to touch on as lightly as possible. What I conclude from this is that if you’re judging the Bible on historical and empirical grounds, you run the risk of doing something quite different: judging the Bible on grounds of what 21st century Americans have come to take as their own assumptions.
That word comes back to haunt us here, doesn’t it?
October 15th, 2011 | 9:26 am | #45
Hi Steve, Nikolai, david c., Tom,
I’m grateful for your comments. Each of you has given me much to consider. david c., your point is a good one. Certainly there’s much that’s contained in the Bible, that can be reasonably interpreted metaphorically. What concerns me, however, is the potential for some, (not you, david c., or anyone else commenting here) to, perhaps use this as a convienent ad hoc way of “correcting” potential problems. For example, if one refers to Jonah being swallowed by the whale, it could be that the author of this intends to convey a literal account, or a metaphorical account. I’m certainly inclined toward the latter, but is this sensible? If someone interpretes it metaphorically, due to this being the best interpretation available, in light of what we know historically, about how the Hebrew, (or Greek, for the New Testament) uses words, and how they can be translated into modern english, without loosing much of the original language, then great. But if it’s being done due to ther interpreter being fearful that the author really did mean it literally, and since this is untenable for modern thinking, he interprets it metaphorically, this would be inappropriate. Aside from this, I think you’re right, david c., that the Bible is full of metaphors, and much of the language, at least how it’s translated into modern english, is very beautiful.
Speaking of translations, though, it’s difficult to know if any translation, into a modern language, from the original hebrew, and Greek, for the old and new testaments, respectively, is accurate. The old saying “lost in translation” is applicable. Do the words mean the same, in translation? Not necessarily. And, frankly, unless someone is well versed in Hebrew and Greek (which I’m not), one has no basis for assuming that the Bible that one is reading, is infallible (of course, this is distinct from whether the Bible is infallible, per se, but whether we can trust, not only that the translators honestly translated the bible, but also didn’t make any mistakes. Of course, one could argue that God would never let this happen, but I would prefer that we have some empirical data that either God did not let this happen, or that the translations I’m reading were faithfully translated by the translator or translators. And, since we have the “lost in translation” problem, do we answer this as also being rectified by God, making sure that whatever words are translated mean the same thing? I’m not saying God cannot, or did not do these things, but I prefer empirical evidence that he did do them.
Steve, certainly faith is important. You make a good point, if I’m going to accept the Resurrection, on faith, then why not the whole Bible? Clearly though, if scientific evidence emerged that, beyond reasonable dispute, showed that the resurrection was contrary to established facts, I would have to reject the resurrection, if I wished to remain rational. But, of course, science does no such thing. If I remember correctly, it was from reading Peter Kreeft, and Ronald Tacelli’s excellent HANDBOOK OF CHRISTIAN APOLOGETICS, where they discuss the fact that, if the resurrection did not occur, and the Gospels were written when many would be alive to know if this was a lie or not, it wouldn’t make any sense for the authors to make this up. Also, Paul points to 500 witnesses to Christ’s resurrection, and, as Kreeft and Tacelli pointed out, this wouln’t make any sense to make up 500 people seeing this, if it didn’t really happen. So, there are reasons, beyond faith, to accept the resurrection. But, you provide something for me to think about, Steve.
Tom, thanks for your intelligent insights. But I think that, the notion that the Bible as a whole (as distinct from many parts of it, which I have no problem with), being entirely without error, requires a profound amount of evidence for it, which I haven’t seen. I’m not saying it doesn’t exist, I’m just saying that I haven’t seen it, that’s all. You state that you belive in its infalliblity on the basis of reason and evidence, and not pure faith. I believe that you do, and that you do so completely honestly. But there’s a distinction between you, or anyone else, believing it on more than just faith, and me believing it. I would need to see the evidence for myself. (I might give “doubting Thomas” a run for his money;-)) Others, as knowledgeable as you, don’t believe that the evidence and arguments supports Biblical infallibility.
October 15th, 2011 | 10:51 am | #46
Hi Bret,
The problem is actually much deeper for you than what you state above. There’s a logical fallacy in your argument that I’m sure your atheist friends can see, even though they may have said nothing to you. If I can see it, then I’m sure your atheist friends can see it. It is this:
You’ve accepted by faith that the death and resurrection of Christ had a specific purpose for you on account of the written Scriptures. There is no way for you to know that the plan of God for Christ to come and die for you had any meaning or purpose for you individually except on the basis of the gospel writers who recorded their accounts in written form. On this basis, you have tacitly assumed and trusted and believed on faith that their words are infallible and inerrant and speak authoritatively as it pertains to you, and the reason Christ had to come and die for you to solve your problem.
You are being arbitrary then, when on the one hand you believe the gospel writers are speaking infallibly and inerrantly when it comes to why Christ died for you, yet won’t believe the other portions of Scripture are written with the same intent and purpose.
It shows a weakness and inconsistency in your argument for trusting Christ’s purpose for you from the gospel writers written accounts, yet dicounting the rest of it.
Your atheist friends can logically challenge you on this inconsistency and arbitrariness, and show up the logical fallacy in your argument, rightly asking you, ‘Why believe in Christ as personal Savior, specifically having a purpose and intent for you to solve a problem you have, from portions of the Christian Scriptures, yet not believe any of the rest of it’?
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact