Comment on A big reason why so many people are leaving the church by Sean Pitman.

@Professor Kent:

Phil Brantley,

You wrote:

“You challenged me to provide evidence arising out of Scripture that provides a rational basis for faith in the truthfulness of Scripture. Your position has been that there is no such evidence and that the Bible’s truthfulness can only be verified by external data. I gave you a list of 16 lines of evidence, all of which arise out of Scripture itself. You quarrel only with No. 2–The internal consistency of doctrine and teaching over the course of hundreds of years, as reflected in the writings of numerous authors. You suggest that the Bible is no more internally consistent than the Book of Mormon, the Qur’an, or any well-written fairy tale. Given that you have no quarrel with the other fifteen evidentiary items I list, you should concede the point: It is not “blind faith” for one to believe that the Bible is the Word of God based solely on evidence arising out of Scripture itself.

My challenge was for you to present a rational argument for the Bible as the Word of God without any appeal to external empirical evidence. You did in fact appeal to external empirical evidences in your reference to biblical prophecy as your first, sixth, and eleventh points. Beyond this, none of your other points could stand by themselves as a rational basis for the Divine origin of the Bible over any other text making the same claim because all of your other points could be presented in a completely made up novel… as is the case for the Book of Mormon.

Let’s go through your main points:

1. Prophecy (points 1, 6, and 11)

You claim that you’re not really referring to the empirical fulfillment of prophecy in real history, but only to the fulfillment of prophecy within the text itself. You have to know that a completely made up story can include internally consistent prophecies and their fulfillment within the novel – having nothing to do with actual reality.

2. Internal consistency (point 2)

Novels can be and usually are internally consistent without having any basis in actual reality.

3. A sanctuary system connecting Old and New Testaments (points 3 and 10)

Could easily have been part of a cleaver novel – a completely made up story not based in reality.

4. The courage and zeal of the disciples after the crucifixion (point 4)

Again, this sort of thing is a very common element in novels.

5. The candor and self-effacement of the characters in the Bible (point 5)

Novels often paint their heroes as flawed and human in order to make the reader more sympathetic to the characters in the novel. This need have nothing to do with reality.

6. The confirmation of the statements of others by various characters within the Bible (point 7).

Again, this could easily be done as part of a novel with one character confirming the “truth” of the statements of other characters in the novel – all having nothing to do with reality. That is why this argument is “circular”. A text cannot confirm itself. Such an argument is the very definition of a circular argument: “Why is the Bible true?” “Because one author in the Bible supports other authors.” “But how do you know that this internal testimony is valid?” “Because the Bible is the Word of God.” “But how do you know that the Bible is the Word of God.” Because one author in the Bible supports other authors.”… etc. on and on in a never ending circle.

7. Scriptures easily differentiated from the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha (point 8).

And novels, or series of novels from the same author or group of authors, can be easily differentiated from each other as well. This is not in itself evidence of the Divine. Humans can produce this effect quite easily.

8. The absence of material mistakes and contradictions of facts (point 12).

While I agree that the mistakes and contradictions in the Bible are not “material”, there is no need for this feature of the Bible to indicate a Divine origin. Human-produced novels often lack significant material mistakes or contradictions of internally-described facts.

9. The extraordinarily high quality and depth of the material (point 13);

And humans can write very high quality novels with great depth as well – without any basis in real historical events and without the need to invoke Divine inspiration.

10. The self-testimony of Scripture (point 14).

Novels and lots of other religious texts, like the Book of Mormon and the Qur’an, also testify about themselves without any basis in reality or convincing evidence of a Divine origin. Again, an appeal to self-testimony alone is an appeal to circular reasoning. As a lawyer, you should know this.

11. All major questions of life addressed by Scripture (point 15).

A human production could also do this. How about a collection of How-to books? – or a long novel dealing with various human needs and experiences having nothing to do with actual historical events?

12. The ethics of Scripture (point 16).

I actually agree with this point since the ethics of Scripture are consistent with that still small voice that speaks directly to each one of our hearts. In other words, the ethics of Scripture resonate within us, confirming their truth as they compare with what we internally have been given to know as truth regarding our ethical responsibility toward our fellow man. While these same ethics can be and have been modeled in novels as well, their Divine origin is always clear wherever such ethics are reflected because such ethics are so far above the evilness that is so often expressed in this world.

In short, the ethics of the Bible do in fact have an external basis of reference in order for us to derive their truth and their Divine or extra-worldly origin.

So, again, your evidences for the Divine origin of the Bible are either based on external realities or are simply not valid as a basis for determining the Divine origin of the Book or its reliability as a basis for a solid hope in our own individual futures – empirically real futures.

Yet, you write:

“Unless you are prepared to prove every fact and claim in Scripture by reference solely to external data–a Sisyphean endeavor if there ever was one–then you are constrained to concede the point.”

As you should know, the credibility of a witness is not based on the court’s ability to prove every factual statement of the witness against known empirical reality. If this were the case, the witness would not be needed by the court since the court would already know everything the witness knows. Rather, the credibility of the witness is based on those elements of the witness’ testimony and background that can be evaluated against empirical reality. This demonstration of credibility forms the basis upon which the court can rationally trust those elements of the witness’ testimony that cannot be directly confirmed or “proven”.

The same is true for the Bible. The metaphysical claims of the Bible or those claims that cannot be directly tested or evaluated, can be trusted based on the reliability of the Bible regarding those empirical claims of the Bible that can actually be tested and evaluated.

It is for this reason that the Book of Mormon fails to be credible. How can the Book of Mormon be trusted in those claims that cannot be directly evaluated when its claims regarding elements that can be tested and evaluated are demonstrably false? For example, the Book of Mormon claims that the American Indians are descendants of the lost tribes of Israel – that they are in fact of Jewish background. DNA evidence shows that the American Indians are actually of Asian descent; that they are not related to Abraham at all. This contradiction between claimed reality and actual reality undermines the credibility of the text and its internal claims to be of Divine origin.

If the same were true of the Bible, the Bible’s credibility as the Word of God would be rationally undermined in the same manner…

You go on to write:

“Will a modern, rational, candid, and intelligent mind necessarily be persuaded that the Bible is the Word of God? If that person lacks faith, the answer is no. Your effort to eliminate faith as a requisite for belief is puzzling, given the strong importance attached to faith by the biblical writers.”

No one can avoid making leaps of faith – not even secular atheistic scientists. We humans are subjective creatures, subject to what the world around us is telling us about itself through the element of our senses and reasoning powers. We cannot be more than what we are and therefore we cannot determine truth directly outside of the inherent limitations and weaknesses of our subjective state. We have limited knowledge and reasoning powers. That means that we are subject and even prone to error. Nothing we believe about the world in which we live, to include our beliefs about the Bible, is absolutely knowable without the potential for error.

Therefore, your assertions that you know the truth “by definition” suggests that you do not realize your own subjective nature or potential for error. Your form of faith is a rather arrogant faith that is true “by definition” – suggesting, therefore, that all other faiths are “false by definition” – – no questions asked.

Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com

Sean Pitman Also Commented

Recent Comments by Sean Pitman