Is Bible inerrant

[FanOfFridays]

Quote from Hansel H:
2) It is interesting that modern believers feel a need to legitimize their beliefs by way of science, given that science has no way of addressing the issues involved. This is evidence of the disproportionate status science has achieved in our value system due to its enormous success in providing us with ways to deal with the physical world. I say disproportionate because material success is overrated as a means to satisfaction and the scientific method is overrated as a means to truth.

I guess it depends on which kind of truth you're talking about. As you pointed out, it is the only way to the truth about the load that can be placed upon a mechanical component before failure. Let's read on...

Quote from Hansel H:
3) Yes, the "It is so because you can't prove it isn't so." argument is worthless, but "It may be so because it can't be be proved that it isn't so." merits consideration, especially if it's intelligently placed in context.

Strongly disagree. I do not believe that 'It may be so because it can't be proved that it isn't so' merits any consideration whatsoever, precisely because it opens the door to crackpot theories based on nothing but faith or personal preference. Scientists who pursue avenues of inquiry based not on available data but on a sense of what might be possible still do so based on a holistic view of the problem area. I do not discount the role of intuition in the pursuit of truth. There is a huge difference between saying

'It may be so because it can't be proved that it isn't so' and

'It may be so even though we can't prove that it is so at this time'.

That "because" is huge. The "cause" of it being so? Ummm, no. Now way in the world.

The first statement admits any possibility that any human can imagine. This is a worthless way to pursue the truth.

Quote from Hansel H:
5) When we're outside the realm of pure science the results of experiments can often be easily rigged.

Sorry, I missed the point of this completely.

Quote from Hansel H:
6) True, faith comes in there sooner or later, but I believe it's not impossible to reason your way into religion. It depends on what premises you start with, and how well you can maintain the integrity of the logic built on those premises.

Aha. Well, in the case of religion, there is no starting premise that is not based upon faith. Let us examine the starting premise that the world is too complex to have 'evolved' from nothing, and that there must have been an intelligent designer of the original life. Does this not involve massive assumptions? I defy you to provide one example of a starting premise that is not faith-based, which leads logically to the existence of a Creator God.

Quote from Hansel H:
I don't think that an argument for God need necessarily be scientifically supportable to be plausible.

Scientific support is the only measure of plausibility we have. A lot of people get confused when considering the fact that science is constantly proving itself wrong. For example, take causality. Which of us (of a certain age) doubted strict causality when we were growing up. When I found out that the physicists had shown that causality no longer explains events in the natural world, it literally blew my mind - I wandered around in a daze for a long time, trying to get my head around it. But the point is this -it is only our science that is flawed, not the scientific method. I continually point out that things which seemed indistinguishable from magic are constantly being show to be perfectly explainable scientifically, like telepathy (see the MIT study I quoted earlier). Science will eventually catch up and answer many of the questions which do not seem amenable to scientific inquiry. Then there will be a fresh set of questions which it cannot answer.

Quote from Hansel H:
Science is excellent as a way to hack through an endless jungle of challenges from the physical world, but as a means to an overview of the means and meaning of being it's probably useless.

Here we come to the crux of the issue. It is only the religious that describe science in these terms (usually, maybe not you, although I get the strong feeling that you are not an atheist, nor perhaps even agnostic in your heart of hearts). The 'meaning of being' is exactly what is provided by religion. Some people need it, others do not. An individual must have a need for this in order to go down the road we are talking about. I personally have no need for it. Life is a beautiful mystery and I wish I understood it better, but the question 'what is the meaning of being' has no resonance for me whatsoever. What meaning are we looking for? You won't know if there's a heaven or hell until you die, and if you live a decent life, respecting others and doing your best to be a positive influence on your kids and trying to do the right thing wherever possible, you shouldn't have any problem.

Quote from Hansel H:
9) I think what we need now, though, is an updating of philosophy so that we have some sort of ability to place ourselves and our science in context before the relentless development of science and technology overwhelms every dimension of our human existence.

I don't see science (manifested as technological development) as the problem. The problem is human greed and shortsightedness. Science itself has nothing to do with it. Science is a logical extension of the faculty of curiosity. It has its roots in the tool using behaviour of our earliest ancestors.

Science is just a process, not a philosophy. It is based on a philosophy, though - the philosophy of Rationalism.

 

[DerekD]

Quote from traderNik:

The examples in real life (not in theory) of people convincing themselves of things are too numerous to mention. I don't know about convincing themselves of things that they 'know are not true', although this also happens, there is no doubt in my mind. We are not talking about 2 + 2 = 5, we are talking situations far less black and white than that. My comment was in response to someone who said 'we can't choose to believe things'. People choose to believe things every day.

This idea is abhorrent to those of faith because it suggests that their belief in God, which they feel isn't a choice, might in fact be a choice. Of course, belief in God may not be a choice, in the sense that early programming might make it a fait accompli. However, there are clearly people who choose, on a sub-conscious level, to believe in God. The alternatives are simply too terrible to ponder.

This is an interesting response because most materialists and rationalists take a view opposite of yours when it comes to belief and how one comes about believing things. Where as most people of faith are bent on the idea of choosing to believe.

Here's an interesting write up on the subject:
http://atheism.about.com/od/philosophyepistemology/a/BeliefChoice.htm

This is a faith-based belief, as there is no evidence for it.

I wouldn't say that. History is your evidence that humans appear to be hardwired or at least prone to believe in gods and other unprovable things. Many studies point to it as a function of evolutionary adaptation.

Here's a summary write up on the subject:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/04/magazine/04evolution.t.html?<br />

 

[yip1997]

Quote from kjkent1:

God is purportedly a perfect being. Humans get their generally accepted definition of perfection purportedly from God's own words. Therefore, for example, it is a perfect expression of God's divine will that all women, who have ever been born and/or who will ever be born, should suffer excruciating pain in childbirth, despute their apparent innocence for Eve's acts.

Similarly, both the old and new testament permit slavery.

Christians and Jews may be able to live with this sort of perfection. I can't, because I find it abominable. So, either I should become a sadistic, misogynist slaver like the Lord (and spend the rest of my life in prison or a mental institution), or I should reject the Bible as in error.

I choose the latter.

You are right. Sometimes I think God is not "perfect" according to my inperfect opinion. I like your arguments so far, and really appreciate your input here.

 

[rcanfiel]

Quote from ProfLogic:

"Wasn't my student. "

Funny, the pointed to YOUR website, and knew you very well. How in the world would YOU know it wasn't your student? You probably have misled more people than you can possibly remember

"And your real name is . . . . ? "

Why, you planning a career as a stalker? You want sex or something? Why the sudden fascination in people's identities?

Tell you what, tell my what "university" you claim to teach at, as you often claim, and I will verify this and then think about your request.

 

[Hansel H]

Quote from traderNik:

Strongly disagree. I do not believe that 'It may be so because it can't be proved that it isn't so' merits any consideration whatsoever, precisely because it opens the door to crackpot theories based on nothing but faith or personal preference. Scientists who pursue avenues of inquiry based not on available data but on a sense of what might be possible still do so based on a holistic view of the problem area. I do not discount the role of intuition in the pursuit of truth. There is a huge difference between saying

'It may be so because it can't be proved that it isn't so' and

'It may be so even though we can't prove that it is so at this time'.

That "because" is huge. The "cause" of it being so? Ummm, no. Now way in the world.

The first statement admits any possibility that any human can imagine. This is a worthless way to pursue the truth.

Good point. Some might accuse you of semantic nit-picking but not I; if we're sloppy with the application of language our thinking is compromised. Generally excellent response. I'll get back to the balance of it when I have time (soon). Good thinking. I'll have to step up a notch (or two).

 

[Hansel H]

Quote from traderNik:

There is a huge difference between saying

'It may be so because it can't be proved that it isn't so' and

'It may be so even though we can't prove that it is so at this time'.

That "because" is huge. The "cause" of it being so? Ummm, no. Now way in the world.

The first statement admits any possibility that any human can imagine. This is a worthless way to pursue the truth.

Pending proof that X is impossible, X must be considered possible.

X is possible because it can't be proven impossible.

It may be so because it can't be proved that it isn't so.

Whether or not this line of reasoning opens the door to wild speculation is irrelevant. Even if we accept virtually anything as possible the onus is on the party claiming X to prove X or at least prove X probable.

 

[DerekD]

Quote from Hansel H:

Pending proof that X is impossible, X must be considered possible.

X is possible because it can't be proven impossible.

It may be so because it can't be proved that it isn't so.

Whether or not this line of reasoning opens the door to wild speculation is irrelevant. Even if we accept virtually anything as possible the onus is on the party claiming X to prove X or at least prove X probable.

How is this different than proving a negative? Something which is a logical fallacy.

 

[Cache Landing]

Quote from Hansel H:

Pending proof that X is impossible, X must be considered possible.

X is possible because it can't be proven impossible.

It may be so because it can't be proved that it isn't so.

Whether or not this line of reasoning opens the door to wild speculation is irrelevant. Even if we accept virtually anything as possible the onus is on the party claiming X to prove X or at least prove X probable.

True, but since there are individuals claiming both sides of X, on which does the burden of proof lie?

Also, what type of evidence would prove the non-existence of God to be probable?

If the definition of God includes the idea that He uses the laws of nature to accomplish various actions, are there any scientific discoveries that would lead one to believe that God's existence is improbable?

Seems to me that anyone including the above in the definition of God has just made any attempt to sufficiently disprove God a futile endeavor.

My point is that evidence against the existence of God, only works to disprove a certain definition of what God is. Once a certain definition is shown to be improbable, then believers need only exclude the incorrect aspects of their definition. Once this is done, the new definition once again becomes sufficiently possible.

 

[yip1997]

Quote from Hansel H:

Pending proof that X is impossible, X must be considered possible.

X is possible because it can't be proven impossible.

It may be so because it can't be proved that it isn't so.

Whether or not this line of reasoning opens the door to wild speculation is irrelevant. Even if we accept virtually anything as possible the onus is on the party claiming X to prove X or at least prove X probable.

HH:

You are indeed an agnostic. This type of logic or argument serves no significance to evidence.

Without true scientfic method of proving or disproving it, we need to have some "indirect" methods of increasing or decreasing the significance of the hypothesis.

I used to enjoy this type of conversation when I was young, but found that it served me no good to solve my real problem in my real life.

I have to admit I sometimes enjoy to argue like the way that you did here, but I am trying to solve a problem here.

 

[DerekD]

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.