The Evangelical Universalist Forum

Do you believe the Bible is infallible? If so, why?

Theology
#171

I am wondering if perhaps all of us are using the term evidence differently. I have a difficult time considering a document that claims itself to be true as evidence, but I can understand that it technically might be evidence. I just don’t see that type of evidence as believable. I guess, to me, I need a lot of evidence before becoming convinced of something.

The other part I might add is that this is such a deep and complicated question when it comes to weighing evidence. Due to the complexities of our life experiences, we will no doubt come to different conclusions. I can only judge with the evidence presented to me ans weight it against my life experiences and knowledge of life. Being that all of us have different life experiences and knowledge, then it is no surprise some forms of evidence are considered less credible than others and seems to be unique to each individual, though I am sure some archetypes exist.

It is no doubt that me, being in a very analytical field that I don’t work off of assumptions and gut instinct. My decisions are based on hard evidence. People in a more artistic type field would probably use intuition. What is fascination to me, that is intuition can be better than a hard calculation! For someone like me, who is very analytical, it feels like gambling, yet the results speak for themselves. In this way, computer AI may never surpass humans, because there appears to be some higher level function we have (intuition) that isn’t quite explainable, except that our brain is able to somehow compare a whole set of data from life experiences and apply it in an abstract way to somehow come up with a good predictor. This is humbling to someone like me, because I’d like to think my way is the right way, but I admit, the analytical mind has its limits.

1 Like
#172

Thanks. Yes, that’s exactly where I hoped you could clarify your meaning!

“Can a book be mistaken about sheep mating in front of a striped pole, but at the same time give us dependable information about a real resurrection and the judgment to come? Of course.”

I agree with your example that the Bible’s account of sheep dynamics that we can check may be mistaken, whereas its view of the future that we can’t check could still be correct.

Do I rightly take your example to mean that you think that Biblical propositions which you see as lesser are what can be mistaken, but truths that you see as important or central are what must be infallible?

I’m sympathetic. (Of course our asserting that only what can’t be disproven is sure will seem disingenuous to the unconvinced.) But my own difficulty is that this definition comes close to the classical distinction of separating the “kernel” (ideas deemed the important essence and thus true) and the “husk” (less central propositions that can be fallacious). And folk vigorously differ on which is which.

I personally can say that I believe what I myself perceive as the central essence of the Bible’s ideas is true. But I may well believe that what someone else perceives as a crucial (and so infallible) truth in it is just mistaken primitive trappings. For separating these two categories of what is infallible and what is mistaken will seem quite subjective to many, and thus remove the certainty of their knowledge even if they read it while embracing this definition of ‘infallibility.’

#173

The many will never be satisfied, but I see no good reason to compromise my position just to satisfy those that are doubters. I do see a reason to justify a position (but not on the forum) if that is needed. We don’t help anybody by throwing the baby (scripture) out with the bathwater (things like inerrancy infallibility etc.)
Truth is not a ‘consensus’ thing.; the ‘many’ do not determine what is true. Yeah I know that can be sniped at. Fine. I’m sleepy and the novocaine from the dentist is wearing off. :slight_smile:
I truly believe that. Many will disagree. :slight_smile: Of course.

#174

TH, good question. To me, the Bible was written by humans like all the other books ever written. To say that the writers of the Bible were the only people who were ever inspired by God or the only people who ever saw the truths of life, makes no sense.

Dave, I have to say that I don’t really agree with these statements. When it comes to the wisdom of God, if the human race was in its childhood then their words cannot be trusted because they would not have known enough about Him to give a dependable, trustworthy, or sound testimony.
Besides, humans are a mixture at any given time. Some are mature and some aren’t. Some have wisdom and some don’t. Even today, I see many humans who aren’t fully mature when it comes to the things of God.

#175

This is also the premise, of homeopathy, Ayurveda, Tibetan Medicine and Traditional Chinese Medicine. If given the right medicine, it will aid the body, mind and spirit - in healing itself. So your argument that science hasn’t found, the root cause or explanation…would also apply, to these ancient healing modalities.

It’s interesting that Native Americans - following their traditional ways - don’t talk about miracles. So if I say something supernatural occurred (AKA a miracle)…for them, it’s natural…it’s been going on for centuries…and it’s part of their spiritual and medicine ways.

For me, I’m pragmatic…if something from modern medicine, ancient healing modalities, spiritual healing or pray …can help me to get better…I’m all for it…I’ll leave the explanations to the “experts”.

Sure. You can neither prove nor disprove it. And perhaps science…someday in the future…might discover why certain mammals (like lizards), can reproduce severed limbs - via their DNA. And how to inject the same process, within human beings. So for the Roman Catholic church case. Much depends on the historical records they kept. And if it did occur…perhaps the “miracle” just altered the human DNA temporarily, so that it functioned like certain varieties of lizards. Much like you see, in the Spiderman movie villain - the Lizard.

Here’s a discussion on Quora about it:

Why don’t the technique used by lizards to grow back its tail be utilized to grow amputated
body parts in humans?

Let me quote a bit, from one answer:

Now a study out of Arizona State University suggests that using lizards as a genetic model to unlock our body’s own regenerative potential — sans supervillainy — might be possible.

There’s a tradition in Tibetan Medicine…where if a Tibetan Lama is available, they will bless the medicine. I also feel this happens, in Native American ceremonies…whatever medicine inside a person, gets blessed. Perhaps if RC and EO priests and bishops, blessed the medicines parishioners are taking…they would be more effective.

The Roman Ritual presents the prayer below to ask God’s blessing on medicine. Many doctors testify that the prayer said over it eliminates collateral effects and makes it a more effective remedy

#176

@DaveB2.0 a while back you said that you thought the Bible was “infallible” in the sense of “dependable, trustworthy, reliable, sure, certain, safe, sound, tried and tested.” First let me say that this is a departure from the normal definition of “infallible” and that introduces an additional source of confusion in this debate, so maybe you could come up with a different term for it?

Second, I’ve been trying to put my finger on why I don’t agree with it, and what I’m “going for” here. I think this might be a good way of explaining it: I could say that the “Farmer’s Almanac” is dependable, trustworthy, reliable, etc. etc. Any old, bestselling human book filled with human wisdom could potentially meet that description. Nothing against such books, but I want to know if the Bible is anything more than that.

Specifically - and here’s where the distinction matters - can I disagree with it? If the Bible contains God’s truth conveyed through human hands, then if I find something I disagree with, I have to humbly submit to its words, and let its truth shape my thoughts. I can’t just disagree, because it is the equivalent of a man arguing with God. God’s authority wins out.

But if it’s just “dependable, trustworthy,” etc. etc. then I could potentially say, “hmmm…no… I don’t think that’s quite right” and disagree.

So, in my mind, the question is this: is the Bible God-breathed, infallible, authoritative such that I must submit to its words in all matters of faith, doctrine, practice? Or is it merely an old, time-tested and generally good book of human words that may contain a lot of truth, but that I could disagree with if I feel I have reason to?

1 Like
#177

I can’t argue with that :slight_smile:

#178

Ah well, people have been attacking the bible for a very long time, there is nothing new under the sun, (as I read somewhere :slight_smile: - and since it took me a long time and years of study and experimentation to come to my current beliefs, it will take others just as long or longer.
When I was going through my ‘agnostic phase’ - which was all it turned out to be - I felt almost invincible - I rolled out the words ‘proof’ and ‘truth’ and tried to stymie people on both sides of any argument - easy to do when you have no beliefs of your own.
You’ll find your way out, TH, and I hope to hear about it. Not to vindicate me or my beliefs - because I don’t need that - but because from where I stand, in the biblical tradition, the view is:
“Under the open sky, in broad daylight, looking far and wide”. The view is much much bigger ‘over here’. The proof is in the eating, as a famous man said here a couple of days ago.
Good luck!

#179

tomatohorse,

It’s obvious that I personally think that one can (and should) argue with things in the Bible, and that even Bible writers challenge what other Bible writers have written.

But let me add that this does not mean that this traditional view among Christians doesn’t see the Bible as possessing a uniqueness. For starters, I’d suggest that it is because it contains men’s most first hand witness to the story of events that Christians find significant, most especially to the message of Jesus, which has resonated with the center of their faith. Thus wrestling with Scripture and its’ meaning will forever be central for the Christian tradition.

#180

TH, I think this is a pretty accurate description of the Bible. To me, it’s a book filled with the wisdom of God. Many books besides the Bible fall into this category.

Bob, I totally agree. Anything less than this would be blind faith.

#181

Here’s a nice little exhange between mavphil and his friend Malcolm Pollack, germane to this issue.

Malcolm asks: >>What’s your opinion? Are the examples I gave (God, ideal forms, etc.) rationally resolvable? How would you answer your own question?<<

As for God, his existence can neither be proven nor disproven. The issue is not rationally resolvable. It is reasonable to be a theist and reasonable to be an atheist. There are ‘good’ arguments on both sides. This is why I have said many times that on this issue and others one has simply to decide what one will believe and how one will live. The decision will of course be informed by one’s careful study of both sides of the question. Pragmatic and prudential considerations can come in here.

There are a number of further questions that could be asked. For example, when I say that there are ‘good’ arguments on both sides, do I mean that for each pro-argument there is an equally good but opposite contra-argument? I needn’t say this. I could just say: there are good args on both sides.

If I am told that the cumulative case for theism is stronger than the cumulative case for atheism, or vice versa, then I will ask difficult questions about cumulative case arguments which gives us a meta-issue to dispute.

I tend to hold that most substantive phil. theses are not rationally resolvable by us.

Can you give me a nice clear example of a substantive phil. thesis that has been rationally resolved to the satisfaction of all competent practitoners?

Posted by: BV | Sunday, June 25, 2017 at 05:15 AM

Bill,

Can you give me a nice clear example of a substantive phil. thesis that has been rationally resolved to the satisfaction of all competent practitoners?

Nope, I can’t. (But you knew that!)

So, as I said above, my feeling is that at this point you can either pick a side and be Steadfast, or you can declare an agnostic position – depending on your faith in your axioms. But to declare that one or the other of those choices is in fact the right one would itself, I think, be a thesis that cannot be rationally resolved (though I can’t prove that!). Agnosticism is certainly justifiable, but it’s awfully lukewarm, whereas Steadfastness in such situations is an act of faith in absence of evidence, which some people seem to find intellectually offensive. So we’re back to relying on our intuitions and axioms here as well. What more can be done?

Posted by: Malcolm Pollack | Sunday, June 25, 2017 at 10:44 AM

>>whereas Steadfastness in such situations is an act of faith in absence of evidence,<<

I don’t think that is quite right. It is not that the atheist, say, does not have evidence for his thesis. Press him, and he is likely to point to the fact of evil as evidence against the ex. of a god having the standard properties. That’s pretty good evidence, wouldn’t you say? The problem is not lack of evidence, but lack of compelling arguments based on the evidence. It is not difficult to poke holes in the arguments from evil.

In fact, I can argue cogently, though not compellingly, for the existence of God FROM evil!

Some of us want to KNOW the answers to the big questions about God, the soul, and so on. But we have high intellectual standards. When we examine the arguments for and against we come to see that they are not compelling. In fact I don’t even need the disagreement of competent others to convince me of this: my intellectual honesty suffices.

Suppose I am right and the Big Questions are unanswerable by us. What explains this? Is finite reason inherently dialectical in Kant’s sense? Or perhaps the problem is not finite reason itself but contingently fallen finite reason. Some would say that sin has noetic consequences. The infirmity of reason in us is due to Original Sin.

But then one has to rely on Revelation to know about the prelapsarian state and the lapsus from it to our present effed-up state. But how do we know that a putative revelation is a genuine Revelation?

We are clearly enmired in very deep crapola. Since our reason is infirm (at least when it ventures beyond the bounds of sense) we need Revelation. But how, except by using our infirm reason, can we distinguish as we need to do, between true and false revelations?

Some positivists will say that the Big Questions are senseless. But that too is a non-starter.

Posted by: BV | Sunday, June 25, 2017 at 12:39 PM

Bill,

We are clearly enmired in very deep crapola.

Now there’s a proposition for which I think the evidence is overwhelming.

#182

I disagree with one premis; that God cannot be disproven or proven.

God can, in fact, be proven if he actually exists and decides to reveal himself. But he can never be disproven, because absense of evidence is not evidence. Because of this, it is my belief that the burden of proof rests on the side that has the potential for evidence.

1 Like
#183

Suppose I say that this is not true, or not reliable:
For God so loved the world that He gave his only begotten son, so that anyone who believes in him should not perish, but have eternal life.

If I do say “not true, not reliable” I would ‘own’ the following entailments:
-God does not exist or ‘we cannot know that he does’
-thus God cannot love the world, or give us His son to save the world.
-thus there is no eternal life as the scripture says, or perishing.
And, if that is your position, fine. But you can easily see the largeness, freedom, the possibility of real flourishing possible under the position that those things are true. Right?

“But just because it is the greatest story ever told, doesn’t make it true!! Fairy tales do the same thing, so they are equally true.”
Ok, live with that. One way or the other, ‘Life’ makes us CHOOSE. And that choice is not based on ‘reason alone’ although it may be ‘reasonable’.

#184

None of those “entailments” follow necessarily from saying that John 3:16 is not true or reliable. I think you are significantly overstating your case there. For instance, maybe God exists but he didn’t send his Son (or maybe doesn’t even have a son). Or maybe there is eternal life, but it’s achieved in a different way. Or maybe God doesn’t exist at all. Or maybe he does, and everyone gets eternal life by default. All these, and more, are possible.

The burden of proof is always on the person making a claim. The default position is neutral - neither saying something is true or false, but rather withholding judgment. When you deviate from that you take the burden of proof.

#185

Those entailments are exactly right.
You DO realize that you are asking things that have ALWAYS been asked, right? This sort of “I can doubt everything and you can’t stop me” - no, noone can stop you - doubting is very simplistic, but as long as a person makes doubt the center of their thinking universe, it can’t be dislodged.
The burden of proof is NOT always on the person making a claim, unless he claims to have proof. Just saying “I doubt” is NOT enough to justify someone else having to do somersaults for you. Just sayin’.
Do YOU have anything to contribute other than doubt? How can YOUR claim be justified?
Come on, ADD something to the conversation, maybe something better than the Bible, for instance.

#186

True. Take the

For example.

It emphasized the philosophy of

And that is part, of the tradition of Zen. And also part of the

As found in the TV show Kung Fu.

Now some here, might say I’m being “non-committal”. And not presenting “valid agreements”. Or just pointing to arguments, by others - like Got Questions. All of which is true. But I could also argue…that I’m just following, the way of Tao.

And I find no contradiction…between following theology, as the EO (and perhaps the RC) emphasize…and the philosophy of Taoism.

Here’s a great EO article

And the Taoist philosophy

#187

Here’s a bit concerning Carl Sagan’s “Extraordinary Claims Need Extraordinary Evidence”

quote
One subject I intend to bring up in our next session is Carl Sagan’s famous contention that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. In other words, anyone who wants to suggest something that doesn’t fit into the naturalistic box needs to come up with evidence far beyond what would be required for any other type of claim. This is a favorite saying of some of the atheist apologists, as it allows one to avoid defending his own beliefs and instead sit back and claim that no amount of evidence offered in favor of God’s existence is sufficiently extraordinary. This frees them up to instead focus on the task of provoking [volitional doubt](http://matthewcochran.net/blog/?p=563) in the believer.

This “Sagan Standard” can trip up Christians because it is one of those statements which seems like common sense at first glance. After all, few people would need much time to come up with an extraordinary claim that they would not believe unless extraordinary evidence were offered. Nevertheless, the closer one looks, the less sense it makes. It has at least three critical failings when applied to the existence of God.

First, the statement as a whole simply isn’t true in a broad sense. Not all extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidences—only some do. The reason for this is that many extraordinary claims are compositions of entirely ordinary claims. Take, for example, the Resurrection of Christ. A man coming back from the dead is certainly extraordinary. Nevertheless, a claim to a resurrection is really made up of two simpler claims: first, that a man was dead at a certain point in time, and second, that the same man was bodily alive again at a certain (later) point in time. These are about as mundane of claims as one could possibly come across; they only become extraordinary when paired together. And yet, establishing a resurrection requires nothing more. It is therefore entirely possible for extraordinary claims to rest on ordinary evidence.

The second critical failure is that claiming the existence of God is not in any way extraordinary for most people. Despite the pretense of modern intellectuals, atheism most certainly is not the default for humanity. The vast majority of people have believed, do believe, and will continue to believe in some kind of divinity. While extraordinary in the mind of the atheist, such belief is quite ordinary for everyone else. As it turns out, there is a strong subjective element to the concept of “extraordinary” that Sagan and most atheists pass over. What metric shall we use to measure it? Atheists seldom volunteer one. This ambiguity is of great utility to the atheist who needs to rhetorically pass judgment that God’s existence is extraordinary and that the evidence thereof is not. As long as nobody asks and the metric is imposed by unspoken assumption, an atheist’s job is much easier.

Finally, there have been points in time at which God has demonstrated his existence in extraordinary ways. As an historical event, the Resurrection of Jesus Christ (as we already noted) is by most accounts quite extraordinary. Likewise, Jesus’ own explanation for this event is quite well-known to involve God. Extraordinary or not, however, it is something that actually happened—a well-attested fact of history. Neither does the Resurrection stand alone. Though it is the best attested of God’s miracles, it is hardly the only one. Even if extraordinary claims required extraordinary evidence and the existence of God were an extraordinary claim, extraordinary evidence is still readily available unless one dismisses it a priori .

Go for it, dudes. :slight_smile:

#188

You appear to disdain tomatohorse’s response that disbelieving God exists is not a “necessary entailment” of thinking Jn 3:16 isn’t true, and retort that your entailment is “exactly right.”

But aren’t there many theists who affirm God exists but do not believe Jesus is God’s only Son, etc?
I’m lost on why you make the claim that thinking John 3:16 is not true entails “God does not exist.”

#189

Did I make the claim that a human limb grew back? I have no memory of such a claim. If you can find the post, I would be most grateful.

I do remember a man who had had an arm cut off. That man was not a Christian, and when Christians urged him to trust his life to Jesus, he always said, “If God makes my arm grow back, then I will believe.”

#190

That is an interesting view…