Dean Velasco quoted a letter from James M Stowell, president of
Moody Bible Institute:



There has been a lot of discussion, but so far nobody seems to have hit on
exactly what the criticism of "arrogance" is aimed at.

The arrogance being attacked is that we "think we are the only ones who know
what the absolutes are".  In short, many evangelicals claim that they are
infallible on the matter of religious texts.

In particular, the problem is one of epistemology.  As a shorthand, you can
think of epistemology as "how do you know?"  That question, it turns out, is
a very troubling one.

The problem with `absolute certainty' is that, at the bottom, at least some of
the thinking goes on inside your own head.  Unless you can be certain that
everything which happens in your head is infallible, the reasoning you did to
discover a source of truth is in question.

And that means you do NOT have absolute justification for your source of
authority -- which means you do NOT have absolute certainty.


Let's take the specific example of Biblical Inerrancy, and a fictional
Inerrantist named Zeke.  (The following arguments applies to the idea of
Papal Infallibility, too.)

Zeke has, we presume, spent some time studying the Bible, and history, and
several other topics.  He has concluded, based on all these studies (and
possibly some religious experiences) that the Bible is a source of Absolute
Truth.

He may be correct; but even if he is, he cannot be certain that he is correct.
His conclusion depends on how well he studied history -- he may have made
mistakes, and the references he used may have contained mistakes.  His
conclusion depends on how well he studied the Bible -- he may have made
mistakes.  His conclusion depends on his own reasoning -- and he may have made
mistakes.  (Noticing a common thread yet?  8-)

Everything about his study of the world that he did -- everything that
happened in his own head -- is limited by his own thinking.  No matter what
he does to try and cover his mistakes, he can never be certain of his own
infallibility.  As long as ANY PART of the belief is based on his own
reasoning, that belief cannot be considered "absolutely certain".

Zeke believes that he has found a source of absolute truth -- but that belief
is only as good as the quality of the search he made for it.  Unless he can
say that his own reasoning is flawless, his conclusions are in doubt.

Any belief that you hold about absolute sources of truth depends in part on
your own thinking -- there is no way out of the loop.  Only an infallible
thinker can have absolute certainty in all his beliefs.


This is easy to demonstrate.  Let's go back to our shorthand method of doing
epistemology: "how do you know?"  Imagine a hypothetical discussion:

 A: The Bible is a source of absolute truth.

 B: How do you know?

 A: I studied history and the Bible and religious writings and church
    teachings and came to this conclusion.

 B: How do you know you studied history correctly?

 A: Well, I double-checked everything.

 B: How do you know you double-checked correctly?

 A: Well, I compared my answers with some smart people and we agreed.

 B: Just because some smart guy believes something that doesn't mean it is
    true.  How do you know THEY studied it correctly?

 A: ...

And, as you see, B will eventually get A to the point where he has to say "I
can't prove that there are no mistakes" -- and as long as you may have made a
mistake, then you cannot be ABSOLUTELY certain.

There is no way out of the loop.


This is where the "arrogance of Christians" arises: many people believe
that their own personal research can give them absolute certainty about the
doctrines of Christianity -- they are implicitly claiming that they are
infallible, and that there is no possibility of mistake.

Claiming that you CANNOT have made a mistake, and that your thinking has led
you to a flawless conclusion, is pretty arrogant.

 *

People who want to see this argument explained in great detail should try to
find _The Infallibility of the Church_, by George Salmon.  He is attacking
the idea that the Pope can be knowably infallible (and he does so very well),
but the general argument applies equally well to the idea that the Bible is
knowably Inerrant.
