From: kilroy@gboro.glassboro.edu (Dr Nancy's Sweetie)
Subject: Re: Bible Defense
Organization: Glassboro State College (Going, Going, . . . )
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1992 17:06:44 GMT


Tom Brewer writes:

> Also important to the Christian, is that the Bible claims to be inspired. At
> this point the unbeliever may say, "You are begging the question."  [...]
>
> Do not the courts of our land hear the testimonies of witnesses who swear to
> tell the truth? There have been false witnesses in the past and will
> continue to be in the future, but the courts also continue to hear witnesses
> claim to tell the truth; and the courts admit these claims as true evidence
> simply because the witness says they are true. Is the defense attorney
> begging the question when he begins from the starting point that his client
> is innocent?

Firstly, the Bible is not a sentient being, and takes no actions of any kind
(that is, the Bible does not make claims).  The Bible was written by sentient
beings, who made various claims about inspiration and truth.  This may seem
as if I am nitpicking, but the sloppy use of language that attributes actions
to inanimate objects leads to all kinds of errors.


Mr Brewer's second comment, about defendants being permitted to testify on
their own behalf, exhibits a fallacy known as `faulty analogy'.  The analogy
in question (that of testimony in a courtroom trial) is inappropriate for
several reasons:

 a) The Bible is not on trial and does not stand accused of anything.  There
    is no courtroom, no jury, no penalty, and no mentioned crime.  Even if
    there WERE, the Bible is only evidence -- it is not a witness, for it
    cannot respond interactively to questions.


 b) In a courtroom, a defendant speaks on his own behalf, but what he says
    is not assumed to be entirely true:  the jury considers that the
    testimony may be incorrect.  But Inerrancy defenders using the Bible do
    not say "Maybe 2 Timothy 3:16 is incorrect", they simply quote verses and
    interpret them.  To be consistent, an argument that proceeds as a trial
    must address errors in testimony -- but I have never seen one that does.


 c) In a courtroom, rarely does anyone speak of finding Absolute Truth; the
    jurors are told to consider whether the defendant has been proven guilty
    `beyond a reasonable doubt'.  Inerrantists claim that the Bible is Utterly
    Completely True; I think they need to do more than show that this belief
    stands up to `a reasonable doubt'.  People are convicted of crimes in
    court, only to be found innocent later -- courts make frequent errors.

    The proceedings of a courtroom are used because *some* decision must be
    reached (you cannot imprison someone indefinitely, nor can you allow a
    murderer to wander the streets), and a trial is the method our society
    has chosen.  But that method cannot reliably lead us to Absolute Truth,
    and (IMHO) cannot adequately support Inerrancy.


 d) Inerrancy defenders speak as if they intend logical arguments, not just
    courtroom rhetoric.  People may be convinced by Bible-based Inerrancy
    arguments, but that means nothing.  Someone who attempts to make a logical
    argument for Inerrancy is subject to the rules of logic, not the rules of
    a courtroom.  Circular reasoning is a fallacy -- an argument circular in
    form is fallacious.  Whether it convinces anybody is irrelevant: its form
    is defective, and the argument has no logical weight.

    If someone wants to argue for Inerrancy and is not interested in what kind
    of rhetoric works, then arguing fallaciously is consistent with his goals.
    But someone who claims to make a logical argument cannot knowingly use
    fallacious forms to make his case (at least, not without sacrificing his
    honesty).  Claiming to make a logical argument -- and then switching to
    another mode of discourse to allow a logical fallacy -- is foolish if the
    claimant does not realise the switch, and blatantly dishonest if he does.

 --

To keep followups from wandering around the epistemological map, I will state
my position on Inerrancy: I have not seen evidence or arguments to justify it.
I do not claim that it is false -- only that I do not believe it.  I do not
claim that there are no good arguments -- only that I have not seen any.

The kind of arguments I am interested in, are logical ones -- properly formed
syllogisms which proceed from premises to conclusions.  Sadly, I have never
seen a logically valid defense of Inerrancy; I have encountered innumerable
fallacious arguments, but never anything solid.

I fully support letting others make their arguments, and I believe that anyone
who is interested in Inerrancy discussions should listen to everybody with an
opinion.  I also believe that people should read with a critical eye to
fallacies.  For people interested in logical flaws and how to spot them, here
are some useful books:

_Logic and Contemporary Rhetoric_, H Kahane, ISBN 0-534-00449-0

_Beginning Logic_, EJ Lemmon, ISBN 0-915144-50-6

_Logic for Philosophers_, RL Purtill, LOC 70-127341


kilroy@gboro.glassboro.edu      Darren F. Provine      ...njin!gboro!kilroy
"Contrariwise," continued Tweedledee, "if it was so, it might be, and if it
 were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't.  That's logic!"
                               -- Lewis Carroll, _Through the Looking Glass_
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU